DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7, 10-12, 17 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu CN108400307A (using machine English translation provided; cited in IDS filed 29 September 2022) in view of Ding CN105185961A (using machine English translation provided).
Regarding claim 1, Xu discloses a negative electrode material (Xu, [0007], “an apple-shaped embedded silicon-carbon anode material”), comprising:
a silicon-based material (Xu, [0037], “core 1 is a carbon-coated silicon carbide material of about 5 micrometers”, Fig. 1, core 1),
graphite (Xu, [0037], “a graphite material of about 4 micrometers”, Fig. 1, part 2)
PNG
media_image1.png
201
475
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein a particle of the silicon-based material comprises at least one recessed portion (Xu, [0037, “The core 1 is filled inside the middle part 2 and has recesses at both ends of the middle part 2.”, Figs. 2-3, particle with recess, see annotated Figs. below),
each recessed portion of the at least one recessed portion is 50 nm to 20 µm in width (Xu, [0046], “The core 1 is a carbon-coated silicon carbide material of about 4.5 micrometers”, recessed portion, as shown in annotated Figs. 2-3 above, is about 25-90% of the diameter of the particle, which is about 4.5 µm, falling within the claimed range),
and 50 nm to 10 µm in depth (Xu, [0046], “The core 1 is a carbon-coated silicon carbide material of about 4.5 micrometers, the middle part 2 is a graphite material of about 4 micrometers…The core 1 is filled inside the middle part 2 and has recesses at both ends of the middle part 2.”, the recessed portion is about 0 to 4 µm in depth, as the graphite in the recesses portion is about 4 µm thick, as shown in the annotated Figs. 2-3 above),
a part of a particle of the graphite are located in the at least one recessed portion of the particle of the silicon-based material (Xu, [0047], “the middle part 2 is a graphite material…The core 1 is filled inside the middle part 2 and has recesses at both ends of the middle part 2”, [0049], “graphite…the particle size D50＝0.8μm”),
and the silicon-based material comprises at least one of silicon or silicon carbon (Xu, [0015-0017]). Xu however does not disclose comprising a conductive agent, particles of the conductive agent are located in the at least one recessed portion of the particle of the silicon-based material.
Ding teaches comprising a conductive agent (Ding, [0015], [0056], carbon material b and nano-carbon). Therefore it would be obvious to the skilled artisan to add the thin layer of conductive agent (Ding, [0065-0066]) of Ding to Xu, thereby coating the silicon-based material (Ding, [0055]), satisfying the limitation wherein particles of the conductive agent are located in the at least one recessed portion of the particle of the silicon-based material, and improving the cycle performance of the anode material at high capacity (Ding, [0069]).
Regarding claim 2, modified Xu additionally teaches wherein the particle of the silicon-based material comprises a plurality of recessed portions (Xu, [0046], “The core 1 is a carbon-coated silicon carbide material of about 4.5 micrometers, the middle part 2 is a graphite material of about 4 micrometers…The core 1 is filled inside the middle part 2 and has recesses at both ends of the middle part 2.”)
and a joint thickness between the plurality of recessed portions is 30 nm to 10 µm (Xu, [0046], “The core 1 is a carbon-coated silicon carbide material of about 4.5 micrometers, the middle part 2 is a graphite material of about 4 micrometers…The core 1 is filled inside the middle part 2 and has recesses at both ends of the middle part 2.”, the core diameter is about 4.5 µm, as shown in the annotated Figs. 2-3 above, and has recesses at both ends of the middle part, falling within the claimed range).
Regarding claim 3, modified Xu also teaches wherein the joint thickness between the plurality of recessed portions is 30 nm to 5 µm (Xu, [0046], “The core 1 is a carbon-coated silicon carbide material of about 4.5 micrometers, the middle part 2 is a graphite material of about 4 micrometers…The core 1 is filled inside the middle part 2 and has recesses at both ends of the middle part 2.”, the core diameter is about 4.5 µm, as shown in the annotated Figs. 2-3 above, and has recesses at both ends of the middle part, falling within the claimed range).
PNG
media_image2.png
367
780
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, modified Xu further teaches wherein the particle of the silicon-based material further comprises at least one round-cornered structure (Xu, [0010], “The middle part is cylindrical with rounded edges, the core is filled inside the middle part, and recesses are formed at both ends of the middle part”, Figs. 2-3, annotate below),
Regarding claim 7, modified Xu does not explicitly recite wherein c<3a, and b<3a, a is an average width of the at least one recessed portion, b is a median particle size D50 of the graphite, and c is an average minimum particle width of the graphite. Modified Xu teaches wherein the silicon-based material is about 4.5 µm and the width of the recessed portion is about 25-90% of the diameter of the silicon-based material (see annotated Figs. 2-3 in claim 1), wherein for graphite (b =)D50＝0.8 μm and for the recessed portion (a =) 25-90% of about 4.5 µm, 0.8 µm < 3 * 1.125 µm (25%) and 0.8 µm < 3 * 4.05 µm (90%) and it would be obvious to the skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention wherein c<3a, a is an average width of the at least one recessed portion, and c is an average minimum particle width of the graphite, as the average minimum particle width would be less than D50 of the same particle as one is the average size the other the minimum width (i.e., one dimension of the size), thereby effectively limiting the excessive volume expansion of silicon during lithium absorption (Xu, [0007]).
Regarding claim 10, modified Xu additionally teaches wherein the negative electrode material further comprises: a binder (Xu, [0012], “binder accounting for 1-3% of the graphite mass”),
a mass ratio of the silicon-based material, the carbon material, and the binder is 5-40:55-90:0.5-10 (Xu, [0012], “binder accounting for 1-3% of the graphite mass”, [0015], “The mass of the silicon powder is 5-10% of the mass of material II, and the mass of the binder I is 1-2% of the mass of material II.”, assuming, without loss of generality, 100 g of material, there would be 5-10 g of silicon-based material, 1-2 g of binder and 33.33-66.67 g of carbon material, falling within the claimed ratios). Xu as modified by Ding however does not teach the ratio of the conductive agent.
Ding teaches wherein the mass ratio of the conductive agent and binder is 1:1.5 (Ding, [0145]), falling within the claimed range of 0.5-10:0.5-10. Therefore it would be obvious to the skilled artisan to substitute the mass ratio of the conductive agent and binder of Ding in modified Xu, thereby having good initial efficiency, rate performance, and cycle performance (Ding, [0223]).
Regarding claim 11, modified Xu also teaches wherein a percentage of the mass of the silicon-based material in the total mass of the silicon-based material, the carbon material, the conductive agent, and the binder is 5% to 40% (Xu, [0012], “binder accounting for 1-3% of the graphite mass”, [0015], “The mass of the silicon powder is 5-10% of the mass of material II, and the mass of the binder I is 1-2% of the mass of material II.”, assuming, without loss of generality, 100 g of material, there would be 5-10 g of silicon-based material, 1-2 g of binder and 33.33-66.67 g of carbon material; Ding, [0070], conductive agent to binder in a weight ratio of 1:1.5, corresponding to 0.66-1.33 g of conductive agent, which gives about 7 to 12.5% for the percentage of the mass of the silicon-based material in the total mass, satisfying the claim limitation).
Regarding claim 12, modified Xu further teaches wherein a percentage of the mass of the binder in the total mass of the silicon-based material, the carbon material, the conductive agent, and the binder is 0.5% to 10% (Xu, [0012], “binder accounting for 1-3% of the graphite mass”, [0015], “The mass of the silicon powder is 5-10% of the mass of material II, and the mass of the binder I is 1-2% of the mass of material II.”, assuming, without loss of generality, 100 g of material, there would be 5-10 g of silicon-based material, 1-2 g of binder and 33.33-66.67 g of carbon material; Ding, [0070], conductive agent to binder in a weight ratio of 1:1.5, corresponding to 0.66-1.33 g of conductive agent, which gives about 1.3 to 2.5 % for the percentage of the mass of the binder in the total mass, satisfying the claim limitation).
Regarding claim 17, modified Xu does not teach wherein an electrolyte retention coefficient is in a range between 1.81 * 10-3 g/mAh and 2.01 * 10-3 g/mAh. It is the examiner’s position that the substantially similar product of modified Xu, satisfying all of the structural limitations as set forth in claim 1, would inherently possess the property of the claimed invention, as currently drafted, satisfying the claim limitation. See MPEP § 2112.
Regarding claim 21, modified Xu additionally also teaches wherein a percentage of the mass of the silicon-based material in the total mass of the silicon-based material, the carbon material, the conductive agent, and the binder is 10% to 40% (Xu, [0012], “binder accounting for 1-3% of the graphite mass”, [0015], “The mass of the silicon powder is 5-10% of the mass of material II, and the mass of the binder I is 1-2% of the mass of material II.”, assuming, without loss of generality, 100 g of material, there would be 5-10 g of silicon-based material, 1-2 g of binder and 33.33-66.67 g of carbon material; Ding, [0070], conductive agent to binder in a weight ratio of 1:1.5, corresponding to 0.66-1.33 g of conductive agent, which gives about 12.5% for the percentage of the mass of the silicon-based material in the total mass, satisfying the claim limitation).
Claim(s) 9 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu CN108400307A (using machine English translation provided; cited in IDS filed 29 September 2022) in view of Ding CN105185961A (using machine English translation provided) and further in view of Wu CN108448103A (using machine English translation provided).
Regarding claim 9, modified Xu does not explicitly teach wherein the conductive agent comprises conductive carbon black.
Wu teaches wherein the conductive agent comprises conductive carbon black (Wu, [0032]). Therefore it would be obvious to the skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the conductive carbon black of Wu to modified Xu thereby effectively increasing the conductivity of the material and improving the performance of the material (Wu, [0032]).
Regarding claim 19, modifies Xu does not teach wherein the conductive agent comprises carbon nanotubes.
Wu teaches wherein the conductive agent comprises carbon nanotubes (Wu, [0020]). Therefore it would be obvious to the skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the carbon nanotubes of Wu to modified Xu thereby effectively increasing the conductivity of the material and improving the performance of the material (Wu, [0032]).
Claim(s) 13-16 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park US20130252110A1 in view of Xu CN108400307A (using machine English translation provided; cited in IDS filed 29 September 2022) and Ding CN105185961A (using machine English translation provided).
Regarding claim 13, Park discloses an electrochemical apparatus (Park, [0064], “The lithium battery may be suitable for use as a power source…”) comprising: a positive electrode plate (Park, [0053], “positive electrode plate”), a negative electrode plate (Park, [0048], “negative electrode plate”), and a separator, disposed between the positive electrode plate and the negative electrode plate (Park, [0054], “The positive electrode and the negative electrode may be separated from each other by a separator.”), wherein the negative electrode plate comprises a negative electrode material (Park, [0048], “ the negative electrode plate may be manufactured by casting the negative active material”), comprising: a silicon-based material (Park, [0028], “the negative active material 10 includes a silicon-based particle 11”), graphite (Park, [0028], “the negative active material 10 includes a silicon-based particle 11 and a crystalline carbonaceous material including a graphite particle 12”)and a conductive agent (Park, [0045], “…an additional conductive material may be selectively used to increase the electrical conductivity of the negative active material”).
Park however does not disclose wherein a particle of the silicon-based material comprises at least one recessed portion, each recessed portion of the at least one recessed portion is 50 nm to 20 m in width, and 50 nm to 10 m in depth, particles of the conductive agent and a part of a particle of graphite are located in the at least one recessed portion of the particle of the silicon-based material, and the silicon-based material comprises at least one of silicon, silicon oxide, silicon carbon, or silicon oxycarbide (SiOC) ceramic material.
Xu teaches
PNG
media_image1.png
201
475
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein a particle of the silicon-based material comprises at least one recessed portion (Xu, [0037, “The core 1 is filled inside the middle part 2 and has recesses at both ends of the middle part 2.”, Figs. 2-3, particle with recess, see annotated Figs. below),
each recessed portion of the at least one recessed portion is 50 nm to 20 µm in width (Xu, [0046], “The core 1 is a carbon-coated silicon carbide material of about 4.5 micrometers”, recessed portion, as shown in annotated Figs. 2-3 above, is about 25-90% of the diameter of the particle, which is about 4.5 µm, falling within the claimed range),
and 50 nm to 10 µm in depth (Xu, [0046], “The core 1 is a carbon-coated silicon carbide material of about 4.5 micrometers, the middle part 2 is a graphite material of about 4 micrometers…The core 1 is filled inside the middle part 2 and has recesses at both ends of the middle part 2.”, the recessed portion is about 0 to 4 µm in depth, as the graphite in the recesses portion is about 4 µm thick, as shown in the annotated Figs. 2-3 above),
a part of a particle of the graphite are located in the at least one recessed portion of the particle of the silicon-based material (Xu, [0047], “the middle part 2 is a graphite material…The core 1 is filled inside the middle part 2 and has recesses at both ends of the middle part 2”, [0049], “graphite…the particle size D50＝0.8μm”),
and the silicon-based material comprises at least one of silicon or silicon carbon (Xu, [0015-0017]). Xu however does not disclose comprising a conductive agent, particles of the conductive agent are located in the at least one recessed portion of the particle of the silicon-based material. Therefore it would be obvious to the skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the particle of the silicon-based material of Xu to Park thereby having high initial coulombic efficiency and excellent cycle performance (Xu, [0080]).
Park as modified by Xu however does not teach comprising a conductive agent, particles of the conductive agent are located in the at least one recessed portion of the particle of the silicon-based material.
Ding teaches comprising a conductive agent (Ding, [0015], [0056], carbon material b and nano-carbon). Therefore it would be obvious to the skilled artisan to add the thin layer of conductive agent (Ding, [0065-0066]) of Ding to Park as modified by Xu, thereby coating the silicon-based material (Ding, [0055]), satisfying the limitation wherein particles of the conductive agent are located in the at least one recessed portion of the particle of the silicon-based material, and improving the cycle performance of the anode material at high capacity (Ding, [0069]).
Regarding claim 14, modified Park does not teach wherein a joint thickness between the plurality of recessed portions is 30 nm to 10 µm.
Xu teaches wherein a joint thickness between the plurality of recessed portions is 30 nm to 10 µm (Xu, [0046], “The core 1 is a carbon-coated silicon carbide material of about 4.5 micrometers, the middle part 2 is a graphite material of about 4 micrometers…The core 1 is filled inside the middle part 2 and has recesses at both ends of the middle part 2.”, the core diameter is about 4.5 µm, as shown in the annotated Figs. 2-3 above, and has recesses at both ends of the middle part, falling within the claimed range). Therefore it would be obvious to the skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify modifed Park with the teaching of Xu wherein a joint thickness between the plurality of recessed portions is 30 nm to 10 µm thereby having high initial coulombic efficiency and excellent cycle performance (Xu, [0080]).
Regarding claim 15, modified Park does not teach wherein a is an average width of the recessed portion, b is a median particle size D50 of the graphite, and c is an average minimum particle width of the graphite, wherein c<3a. and b<3a.
Xu teaches wherein the silicon-based material is about 4.5 µm and the width of the recessed portion is about 25-90% of the diameter of the silicon-based material (see annotated Figs. 2-3 in claim 1), wherein for graphite (b =)D50＝0.8 μm and for the recessed portion (a =) 25-90% of about 4.5 µm, 0.8 µm < 3 * 1.125 µm (25%) and 0.8 µm < 3 * 4.05 µm (90%) and it would be obvious to the skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention wherein c<3a, a is an average width of the at least one recessed portion, and c is an average minimum particle width of the graphite, as the average minimum particle width would be less than D50 of the same particle as one is the average size the other the minimum width (i.e., one dimension of the size). Therefore it would be obvious to the skilled artisan to add the silicon-based material with the dimensions of Xu to modified Park, thereby effectively limiting the excessive volume expansion of silicon during lithium absorption (Xu, [0007]).
Regarding claim 16, modified Park teaches an electronic apparatus (Park, [0064], “…electric vehicles…internal combustion engines, fuel cells, or super-capacitors to be used in hybrid vehicles”), comprising an electrochemical apparatus (Park, [0064], “The lithium battery may be suitable for use as a power source for electric vehicles…The lithium battery may be coupled to existing internal combustion engines, fuel cells, or super-capacitors to be used in hybrid vehicles”) according to claim 13 (see claim 13 above).
Regarding claim 18, modified Park does not teach wherein an electrolyte retention coefficient is in a range between 1.81 * 10-3 g/mAh and 2.01 * 10-3 g/mAh. It is the examiner’s position that the substantially similar product of modified Park, satisfying all of the structural limitations as set forth in claim 13, would inherently possess the property of the claimed invention, as currently drafted, satisfying the claim limitation. See MPEP § 2112.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu CN108400307A (using machine English translation provided; cited in IDS filed 29 September 2022) in view of Ding CN105185961A (using machine English translation provided) and further in view of Collins US20200212383A1.
Regarding claim 20, modified Xu does not teach wherein the conductive agent comprises reduced graphene oxide.
Collins teaches wherein the conductive agent comprises reduced graphene oxide (Collins, [0105]). Therefore it would be obvious to the skilled artisan to add the reduced graphene oxide of Collins to modified Xu thereby enhancing performance properties (Collins, [0107]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see p. 7, filed 28 April 2026, with respect to the 112(b) rejection of claims 4-6 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 112(b) rejection of claims 4-6 has been withdrawn as it has been overcome by applicant’s amendment.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 13 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JARED HANSEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4590. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tiffany Legette can be reached at 571-270-7078. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JARED HANSEN/Examiner, Art Unit 1723 /TIFFANY LEGETTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights