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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/23/2026 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/23/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 01/23/2026 has been entered. Claims 1 and 19 have been amended, Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
Claims 1, 7-10, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burshtain et al. (US 20170294643 A1), hereinafter “Burshtain” in view of Zhang et al. Functionalization-assistant ball milling towards Si/graphene anodes in high performance Li-ion batteries Carbon 181 (2021) 300-309 2021), hereinafter “Zhang” and Feng et al. (Conformal formation of Carbon-TiOX matrix encapsulating silicon for high performance lithium-ion battery anode, Journal of Power Sources, Volume 399, 30 September 2018, Pages 98-104), hereinafter “Feng”. Burshtain, Zhang and Feng et al. are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely composite electrodes with active materials.
In regard to Claim 1, Burshtain et al. discloses a non-fibrous composite anode active material by disclosing the composite active material is in the form of particles, which by definition is a non-fibrous composite anode active material (Burshtain, [0005, 0042]). The anode active material comprising: a core; and a shell on and conformed to a surface of the core wherein the core comprises a silicon-containing structure, a silicon-containing compound, or a combination thereof (Burshtain, [0042, 0252]). Burshtain et al. also discloses that the shell comprises at least one first metal oxide represented by Formula MaOb(0<a:3, 0<b<4) where M is at least one metal selected from among Groups 2 to 13, 15, and 16 of the Periodic Table of the Elements by disclosing Al2O3, TiO2, ZrO2 and MnO (Burshtain, [0101, 0105]) and a first carbonaceous material (Burshtain, [0096, 0101]).
While Burshtain et al. discloses a shell which may comprise a combination of a first carbon and a transition metal oxide which are ball milled to form the shell layer (Burshtain, [0166]]), the shell may comprise graphene as the first carbon (Burshtain, [0096]), the active material may include anchoring parts configured to bind to or be associated with anode active material (Burshtain, [0218]) and that materials may be chemically bonded to the active material (Burshtain, [0223]), it fails to explicitly disclose wherein the first carbonaceous material is chemically bonded to the silicon-containing structure and/or the silicon-containing compound.
Zhang et al. discloses a beneficial ball milling for graphene and silicon which results in a matrix of carbonaceous material wherein the first carbonaceous material is chemically bonded to the silicon-containing structure and/or the silicon-containing compound and this combination has the benefit of superior electrochemical performance with better dispersion and strong connection (Zhang, Abstract). The skilled artisan of Burshtain already considers ball milling of carbon and metal oxide with silicon and the use of graphene as the carbon and therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide a beneficial ball milling method as taught in Zhang et al. as the ball milling method in Burshtain et al. as doing so would give the skilled artisan the reasonable expectation of achieving the benefits taught in Zhang et al. and as doing so would amount to nothing more than the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way.
Lastly, While Burshtain et al. also discloses that the metal oxide in the shell comprises TiO2, which may be annealed (Burshtain. [0172]), it fails to explicitly disclose wherein the oxide has the form MaOb, wherein b is not an integer.
Feng et al. discloses a silicon active material with a shell comprising a first carbon matrix and a first metal oxide wherein the first metal oxide is an oxygen deficient TiOx where M is Ti and which has a range of x between 0 and 2 wherein b may reasonably not be an integer as the process of annealing results in a reduced form of TiO2 (Feng, Abstract, pg 99) and this variation in a silicon core with carbon/metal oxide shell has the advantage of enhancing the electronic conductivity and improving the mechanical robustness of the shell and provides better elasticity and stress-release capability that can maintain the structural integrity over lithiation/delithiation of silicon (Feng, Abstract, pg 99).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide a TiO2 and carbon shell as disclosed in Burshtain (Burshtain, [0101]), using the method disclosed in Feng et al. that produces a beneficial TiOx and carbon shell as doing so would give the skilled artisan the reasonable expectation of achieving the benefits taught in Feng et al. and as doing so would amount to nothing more than applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
In regard to Claims 7-8, Burshtain in view of Zhang and Feng et al. discloses the non-fibrous composite anode active material of claim 1. Burshtain et al. also discloses wherein the at least one first metal oxide comprises a first metal, wherein the first metal comprises Al2O3, TiO2, ZrO2 and MnO2 (Burshtain, [0101, 0105]).
In regard to Claims 9-10, Burshtain in view of Zhang and Feng et al. discloses the non-fibrous composite anode active material of claim 1. Burshtain et al. discloses the metal oxide can be a combination of more than one metal oxide (Burshtain, [0101, 0105]), but is silent to the shell further comprises a second metal oxide represented by MaOc (0<a:3, 0<c:4, and when a is 1, 2, or 3, c is an integer).
Feng et al. discloses wherein the shell further comprises a second metal oxide represented by MaOc (0<a:3, 0<c:4, and when a is 1, 2, or 3, c is an integer), wherein the second metal oxide comprises a same metal as the at least one first metal oxide as Feng discloses a shell comprising a TiO2 second metal oxide and after processing and heating, a TiOx first metal oxide is provided, which is a reduction product of the second metal oxide (Feng, pg 99). It is noted that according to the current application, "the first metal oxide may be, for example, a reduction product of the second metal oxide and the first metal oxide is obtained by reducing a part or all of the second metal oxide. Accordingly, the first metal oxide has a lower oxygen amount and a lower metal oxidation number than the second metal oxide" (Original Specification, Paragraph [0068]).
Further, Feng therefore discloses c/a, which is a ratio of c to a of the second metal oxide, has a greater value than b/a, which is a ratio of b to a of the at least one first metal oxide (Feng, pg 100). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide a TiO2 and carbon shell as disclosed in Burshtain (Burshtain, [0101]), using the method disclosed in Feng et al. that produces a beneficial TiOx and carbon shell as doing so would give the skilled artisan the reasonable expectation of achieving the benefits taught in Feng et al. and as doing so would amount to nothing more than applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
In regard to Claim 18, Burshtain in view of Zhang and Feng et al. discloses an anode comprising the non-fibrous composite anode active material according to claim 1 where the composite anode active material is coated on an anode and placed in a coin cell battery for testing (Burshtain, [0264]).
In regard to Claim 20, Burshtain in view of Zhang and Feng disclose the anode of claim 18. Burshtain et al. discloses a lithium ion battery with anode, cathode and electrolyte between the anode and cathode (Burshtain, [0044]).
Claims 2-3, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burshtain et al. (US 20170294643 A1), hereinafter “Burshtain” in view of Zhang et al. Functionalization-assistant ball milling towards Si/graphene anodes in high performance Li-ion batteries Carbon 181 (2021) 300-309 2021), hereinafter “Zhang” and Feng et al. (Conformal formation of Carbon-TiOX matrix encapsulating silicon for high performance lithium-ion battery anode, Journal of Power Sources, Volume 399, 30 September 2018, Pages 98-104), hereinafter “Feng” as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Moon et al. (US 20180145316 A1), hereinafter “Moon”. Burshtain, Zhang, Feng and Moon et al. are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely composite electrodes with active materials.
In regard to Claims 2-3, Burshtain in view of Zhang and Feng et al. discloses the non-fibrous composite anode active material of claim 1. Burshtain et al. also discloses the silicon-containing structure comprises a silicon composite structure (Burshtain, [0252]), but fails to explicitly disclose the silicon-containing structure comprises a porous silicon secondary particle and a first carbon flake on the porous silicon secondary particle, and the silicon-containing compound comprises SiOx (0<x<2).
Moon et al. discloses a porous silicon secondary particle and a first carbon flake on the porous silicon secondary particle wherein the porous silicon secondary particle is an aggregate of a plurality of silicon composite primary particles and each of the silicon composite primary particles comprises silicon, silicon suboxide (SiOx, 0<x<2) on the silicon, and a second carbon flake on the silicon suboxide (Moon, Abstract, Paragraph [0009]) with the benefit taught of the silicon easily contacting the carbon flakes when volume expansion of the porous silicon composite occurs (Moon, Paragraph [0071]).
Moon et al. discloses a silicon-containing structure comprising a silicon composite structure, and the silicon-containing compound comprises SiOx (0<x<2) (Moon, Abstract) with the added benefit of a porous surface to grow graphene via CVD (Moon, Paragraphs [0010, 0111]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide the silicon-containing compound comprising SiOx (0<x<2) and further comprising a porous silicon secondary particle and a first carbon flake on the porous silicon secondary particle taught in Moon as the silicon composite structure disclosed in Burshtain et al. as doing so would give the skilled artisan the reasonable expectation of achieving the benefits taught in Moon and as doing so would amount to nothing more than the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way.
In regard to Claim 5, Burshtain in view of Zhang and Feng and further in view of Moon et al. discloses the non-fibrous composite anode active material of claim 3. Burshtain et al. discloses amorphous carbon, graphene and/or graphite (Burshtain, [0096]) but fails to explicitly disclose carbon flakes.
Moon et al. discloses the first carbon flake and the second carbon flake are each independently graphene, graphite, carbon fiber, graphitic carbon, graphene oxide, or a mixture thereof (Moon, Abstract, Paragraph [0078]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide the first carbon flake and the second carbon flake with the compositions taught in Moon as doing so would be nothing more than a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
Claims 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burshtain et al. (US 20170294643 A1), hereinafter “Burshtain” in view of Zhang et al. Functionalization-assistant ball milling towards Si/graphene anodes in high performance Li-ion batteries Carbon 181 (2021) 300-309 2021), hereinafter “Zhang” and Feng et al. (Conformal formation of Carbon-TiOX matrix encapsulating silicon for high performance lithium-ion battery anode, Journal of Power Sources, Volume 399, 30 September 2018, Pages 98-104), hereinafter “Feng” as applied to Claim 1 above, in view of Moon et al. (US 20180145316 A1), hereinafter “Moon” as applied to Claims 2-3 above and further in view of Moon 2 et al. (US 20190233294 A1), hereinafter “Moon 2”. Burshtain, Zhang and Feng, Moon and Moon 2 et al. are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely composite electrodes with active materials.
In regard to Claim 4, Burshtain in view of Zhang and Feng and further in view of Moon et al. discloses the non-fibrous composite anode active material of claim 2. Burshtain et al. fails to explicitly disclose a porosity of the silicon composite structure is 60% or less or the silicon composite structure is non-porous, and the silicon composite structure has a non-spherical shape.
However, Moon 2 et al. discloses a range of the porosity of the silicon composite structure is 0 < porosity < 60 (Moon 2, Paragraph [0072]) and the silicon composite structure has a non-spherical shape (Moon 2, Paragraph [0088]) which overlaps the claimed range. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obvious. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2144.05.
In regard to Claim 6, Burshtain in view of Zhang and Feng and further in view of Moon et al. discloses the non-fibrous composite anode active material of claim 2. Burshtain et al. discloses the silicon-containing structure further comprises a carbonaceous coating layer on the silicon composite structure, the carbonaceous coating layer comprising a first amorphous carbon (Burshtain, [0096]), but fails to explicitly disclose the silicon-containing structure further comprises a second amorphous carbon located in the silicon composite structure.
While Moon et al. discloses a silicon-containing structure that further comprises a carbonaceous coating layer on the silicon composite structure, the carbonaceous coating layer comprising a first amorphous carbon (Moon, Paragraph [0015]), it fails to explicitly disclose the silicon-containing structure further comprises a second amorphous carbon located in the silicon composite structure.
Moon 2 et al. discloses a silicon-containing structure that further comprises a carbonaceous coating layer on the silicon composite structure, the carbonaceous coating layer comprising a first amorphous carbon and the silicon-containing structure further comprises a second amorphous carbon located in the silicon composite structure wherein the silicon composite structure comprises a porous silicon secondary particle, and the second amorphous carbon is in pores of the porous silicon secondary particle and the first amorphous carbon and the second amorphous carbon each independently comprise pitch carbon, soft carbon, hard carbon, mesophase pitch carbide, calcined coke, carbon fiber, or a mixture thereof. (Moon 2, Paragraphs [0009-0014, 0028], Claim 11).
Moon 2 et al. also teaches the benefit of this configuration in that side reactions between the silicon composite and a liquid electrolyte maybe suppressed during charging and discharging of the lithium battery, and volumetric changes of the silicon may be effectively buffered (Moon 2, Paragraph [0080]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide a second amorphous carbon in pores of the porous silicon secondary particle as doing so would provide the skilled artisan the reasonable ability to achieve the benefits taught in Moon 2 and doing so would be nothing more than the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burshtain et al. (US 20170294643 A1), hereinafter “Burshtain” in view of Zhang et al. Functionalization-assistant ball milling towards Si/graphene anodes in high performance Li-ion batteries Carbon 181 (2021) 300-309 2021), hereinafter “Zhang” and Feng et al. (Conformal formation of Carbon-TiOX matrix encapsulating silicon for high performance lithium-ion battery anode, Journal of Power Sources, Volume 399, 30 September 2018, Pages 98-104), hereinafter “Feng” as applied to Claim 1 and 9 above in view of Chao et al. (WO 2021023974 A1 – Machine Translation), hereinafter “Chao”. Burshtain, Zhang, Feng, and Chao et al. are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely composite electrodes with active materials.
In regard to Claim 11, Burshtain in view of Zhang and Feng et al. discloses the non-fibrous composite anode active material of claim 9. Burshtain et al. also discloses the nano sized particles of the silicon in the core (Burshtain, [0098]), but fails to explicitly disclose the particle diameter of at least one selected from among the first metal oxide and the second metal oxide is about 1 nm to about 100 nm.
Chao et al. discloses a negative electrode material for a lithium ion battery, the material comprising: particles comprising a core, with the core containing silicon, the particles having one or more coating layers disposed around the core, at least one of the coating layers comprising a porous semi-conducting metal oxide where the first coating layer is a carbon and discloses a specific example where the metal oxide TiO2 is selected (Chao, Abstract, Paragraph [8]). Further, Chao et al. discloses the D90 particle size of the metal oxide (TiO2) layer is within the range of 50 to 200 nm which overlaps the claimed range (Chao, Paragraph [20]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obvious. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burshtain et al. (US 20170294643 A1), hereinafter “Burshtain” in view of Zhang et al. Functionalization-assistant ball milling towards Si/graphene anodes in high performance Li-ion batteries Carbon 181 (2021) 300-309 2021), hereinafter “Zhang” and Feng et al. (Conformal formation of Carbon-TiOX matrix encapsulating silicon for high performance lithium-ion battery anode, Journal of Power Sources, Volume 399, 30 September 2018, Pages 98-104), hereinafter “Feng” as applied to Claim 1 and 9 above, further in view of Cho et al. (US 20140234714 A1), hereinafter “Cho”. Burshtain, Zhang, Feng and Cho et al. are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely composite electrodes with active materials.
In regard to Claim 12, Burshtain in view of Zhang and Feng et al. discloses the non-fibrous composite anode active material of claim 9. Burshtain et al. also discloses a shell comprising a metal oxide embedded in a matrix of a carbonaceous material wherein the shell may be 1-50nm thick (Burshtain, [0101, 0170-0172), but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the shell comprises the first carbonaceous material protruding from a surface of at least one selected from among the first metal oxide and the second metal oxide.
Cho et al. discloses a beneficial negative active material includes a composite core, and a coating layer formed on at least part of the composite core. The composite core includes a carbonaceous base and a metal/metalloid nanostructure disposed on the carbonaceous base. The coating layer includes a metal oxide coating layer and an amorphous carbonaceous coating layer and that the metal oxide coating layer may be disposed on the composite core, and the amorphous carbonaceous coating layer may be disposed on the metal oxide coating layer which discloses the shell comprises the first carbonaceous material protruding from a surface of at least one selected from among the first metal oxide and the second metal oxide (Cho, Paragraph [0030]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide the shell comprising the first carbonaceous material protruding from a surface of at least one metal oxide as doing so would give the skilled artisan the reasonable expectation of achieving the beneficial composite taught in Cho and as doing so would amount to nothing more than an obvious variant for the skilled artisan to try by choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success.
In regard to Claim 13, Burshtain in view of Zhang and Feng et al. discloses the non-fibrous composite anode active material of claim 9. While Burshtain discloses a shell comprising a composite comprising the first metal oxide and the first carbonaceous material it fails to explicitly disclose an amount of the composite including the first metal oxide and the first carbonaceous material is about 0.1 wt% to about 5 wt% of the total weight of the composite anode active material.
Cho et al discloses a shell comprising a composite comprising the first metal oxide and the first carbonaceous material and an amount of the composite including the first metal oxide and the first carbonaceous material is about 0.1 wt% to about 5 wt% of the total weight of the composite anode active material. Cho discloses an amount of the metal oxide coating layer in the negative active material may be from about 0.1 wt % to about 5 wt % and an amount of the amorphous carbonaceous coating layer may be from about 0.1 wt % to about 30 wt % each based on a total weight of the negative active material. When combined into the composite, that specifies a range of 0.2 wt% to 35 wt% based on the total weight of the composite anode active material, which overlaps the claimed range (Cho, Abstract, Paragraphs [0037, 0042]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obvious. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burshtain et al. (US 20170294643 A1), hereinafter “Burshtain” in view of Zhang et al. Functionalization-assistant ball milling towards Si/graphene anodes in high performance Li-ion batteries Carbon 181 (2021) 300-309 2021), hereinafter “Zhang” and Feng et al. (Conformal formation of Carbon-TiOX matrix encapsulating silicon for high performance lithium-ion battery anode, Journal of Power Sources, Volume 399, 30 September 2018, Pages 98-104), hereinafter “Feng” as applied to Claim 1 and 13 above in view of Cho et al. (US 20140234714 A1), hereinafter “Cho” as applied to Claim 13 above, and further in view of Yoon et al. (US 20170117535 A1), hereinafter “Yoon”. Burshtain, Zhang, Feng, Cho and Yoon et al. are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely composite electrodes with active materials.
In regard to Claim 14, Burshtain in view of Zhang and Feng and further in view of Cho et al. discloses the non-fibrous composite anode active material of claim 13. However, they fail to explicitly disclose wherein the first carbonaceous material comprises a branched structure and the first metal oxide is distributed in the branched structure, and the branched structure comprises a plurality of first carbonaceous material particles in contact with each other.
Yoon et al. discloses a composite anode active material that includes: a core comprising silicon; and a carbonaceous shell, wherein the carbonaceous shell includes a carbonaceous material and a metal oxide (Yoon, Abstract) and the carbonaceous material may be selected from crystalline carbon or an amorphous carbon (Yoon, Paragraph [0026]). A crystalline carbon material includes Graphene and according to the original specification graphene is chosen as the first carbonaceous material for its branched structure (Original Specification, Paragraph [0076]).
Further, Yoon discloses the metal oxide may be dispersed in the first carbonaceous material, i.e. the first metal oxide is distributed in the branched structure, and the branched structure comprises a plurality of first carbonaceous material particles in contact with each other (Yoon, Paragraph [0011]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide a graphene first carbonaceous material taught in Yoon as doing so would be nothing more than a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burshtain et al. (US 20170294643 A1), hereinafter “Burshtain” in view of Zhang et al. Functionalization-assistant ball milling towards Si/graphene anodes in high performance Li-ion batteries Carbon 181 (2021) 300-309 2021), hereinafter “Zhang” and Feng et al. (Conformal formation of Carbon-TiOX matrix encapsulating silicon for high performance lithium-ion battery anode, Journal of Power Sources, Volume 399, 30 September 2018, Pages 98-104), hereinafter “Feng” as applied to Claim 1 and 13 above in view of Cho et al. (US 20140234714 A1), hereinafter “Cho” as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Yoon et al. (US 20170117535 A1) Yoon and Misaki et al (Fabrication of TiO2-graphene photocatalyst by direct chemical vapor deposition and its anti-fouling property, Materials Chemistry and Physics, Volume 198, 1 September 2017, Pages 42-48) Misaki.
In regard to Claim 15, Burshtain in view of Zhang and Feng and further in view of Cho et al. discloses the non-fibrous composite anode active material of claim 13. Burshtain et al. also discloses the size of the structure with a thickness of 2-200 nm (Burshtain, [0150]), falling within the claimed range of the size of the structure with the first carbonaceous material and the metal oxide of 50nm-300nm. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obvious. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2144.05.
However, Burshtain fails to explicitly disclose the structure of the first carbonaceous material or a composite with a planar structure. Yoon et al. discloses wherein the first carbonaceous material comprises a substantially spherical structure and the first metal oxide is distributed in the substantially spherical structure (Yoon, Paragraphs [0011, 0061]). Yoon also discloses the carbonaceous material may be selected from crystalline carbon or an amorphous carbon and that the crystalline carbon may have a spherical shape (Yoon, Paragraph [0026, 0061]). A crystalline carbon material includes Graphene and according to the original specification, graphene is chosen as the first carbonaceous material for its spherical structure (Original Specification, Paragraph [0077]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide a spherical graphene first carbonaceous material as doing so would be nothing more than a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
While Yoon discloses the use of a crystalline carbon such as graphene (Yoon, Paragraph [0026, 0061]) which based on its known structure, would form a planar surface, Yoon also discloses the metal oxide being distributed in said carbon layer (Yoon, Paragraph [0011]). It also fails to explicitly disclose the composite is a planar structure and the first carbonaceous material extends from the first metal oxide by a distance of 10 nm or less, and comprises at least 1 to 20 first carbonaceous material layers, and a total thickness of the first carbonaceous material is about 0.6 nm to about 12 nm.
Masaki et al. discloses a composite with a planar structure comprising graphene and TiO2 metal oxide formed in the same manner as the original specification (CVD), where the first carbonaceous material extends from the first metal oxide by a distance of 10 nm or less by forming at least one layer that is approximately 1nm thick on the surface of the metal oxide which falls within the claimed ranges of the first carbonaceous material extends from the first metal oxide by a distance of 10 nm or less, 1 to 20 first carbonaceous material layers, and a total thickness of the first carbonaceous material is about 0.6 nm to about 12 nm . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obvious. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burshtain et al. (US 20170294643 A1), hereinafter “Burshtain” in view of Zhang et al. Functionalization-assistant ball milling towards Si/graphene anodes in high performance Li-ion batteries Carbon 181 (2021) 300-309 2021), hereinafter “Zhang” and Feng et al. (Conformal formation of Carbon-TiOX matrix encapsulating silicon for high performance lithium-ion battery anode, Journal of Power Sources, Volume 399, 30 September 2018, Pages 98-104), hereinafter “Feng” as applied to Claim 1 above in view of Yoon et al. (US 20170117535 A1), hereinafter “Yoon” and further in view of Shan et al. (Promoting Si-graphite composite anodes with SWCNT additives for half and NCM811 full lithium ion batteries and assessment criteria from an industrial perspective, Frontiers in energy, volume 13, pages 626-635 (2019)), hereinafter “Shan”. Burshtain, Zhang, Feng, Yoon and Shan et al. are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely composite electrodes with active materials.
In regard to Claim 16, Burshtain in view of Zhang and Feng et al. discloses the non-fibrous composite anode active material of claim 1, but fail to explicitly disclose wherein the shell further comprises a second carbonaceous material.
Yoon et al. discloses providing a second carbonaceous material comprising carbon nanotubes (CNTs) or carbon nanofibers (Yoon, Paragraph [0105]) in addition to the first carbonaceous material and metal oxide shell. However, Yoon fails to explicitly disclose a length of the second carbonaceous material is 1000 pm or less, and a diameter of the second carbonaceous material is 50 nm or less, and an amount of the second carbonaceous material is about 0.001 wt% to about 1 wt% of the total weight of the composite anode active material. Using the additional carbonaceous material of CNT's taught in Yoon would allow the skilled artisan discretion in choosing a diameter, length and loading that is consistent with what’s known in the art for the same materials.
Shan et al. discloses a silicon core coated with graphite where an additional loading of CNT's was added at 0.2wt% with diameters of 2-3nm and length of 4-5µm which fall within the claimed ranges and with the benefit of significantly improving delithiation capacity, first cycle coulombic efficiency (FCE), and capacity retention (Shan, Abstract, Page 629). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide a shell further comprising the second carbonaceous material of CNT's taught in Yoon with the parameters taught in Shan to allow the skilled artisan the ability to reasonably achieve the benefit taught in Shan as doing so would be nothing more than applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burshtain et al. (US 20170294643 A1), hereinafter “Burshtain” in view of Zhang et al. Functionalization-assistant ball milling towards Si/graphene anodes in high performance Li-ion batteries Carbon 181 (2021) 300-309 2021), hereinafter “Zhang” and Feng et al. (Conformal formation of Carbon-TiOX matrix encapsulating silicon for high performance lithium-ion battery anode, Journal of Power Sources, Volume 399, 30 September 2018, Pages 98-104), hereinafter “Feng” as applied to Claim 1 above in view of Ay et al. (US 20200006759 A1), hereinafter “Ay”. Burshtain, Zhang, Feng and Ay et al. are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely composite electrodes with active materials.
In regard to Claim 17, Burshtain in view of Zhang and Feng discloses the non-fibrous composite anode active material of claim 1. Burshtain fails to explicitly disclose wherein a specific surface area of the composite anode active material is about 1 m2/g to about 100 m2/g, or the (D10, D50, D90) average particle size of the anode active material.
Ay et al. discloses a silicon composite core and carbonaceous shell also comprising a magnesium oxide (Ay, Abstract, Paragraph [0041]) where the anode active material has a specific surface area of ≤ 50 m2/g (Ay, Paragraph [0084]) and particle size (D50) of ≤ 30 μm and ≥ 1 μm (Ay, Paragraph [0083]), which overlaps the claimed ranges of a specific surface area of the composite anode active material and the composite anode active material has an average particle size (D50) of about 1 μm to about 30 μm. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obvious. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burshtain et al. (US 20170294643 A1), hereinafter “Burshtain” in view of in view of Zhang et al. Functionalization-assistant ball milling towards Si/graphene anodes in high performance Li-ion batteries Carbon 181 (2021) 300-309 2021), hereinafter “Zhang” and Cho et al. (US 20140234714 A1), hereinafter “Cho”. Burshtain, Zhang and Cho et al. are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely composite electrodes with active materials.
In regard to Claim 19, Burshtain et al. discloses a non-fibrous composite anode active material by disclosing the composite active material is in the form of particles, which by definition is a non-fibrous composite anode active material (Burshtain, [0005, 0042]). The anode active material comprising: a core; and a shell on and conformed to a surface of the core wherein the core comprises a silicon-containing structure, a silicon-containing compound, or a combination thereof (Burshtain, [0042, 0252]). Burshtain et al. also discloses that the shell comprises at least one first metal oxide represented by Formula MaOb(0<a:3, 0<b<4) where M is at least one metal selected from among Groups 2 to 13, 15, and 16 of the Periodic Table of the Elements by disclosing Al2O3, TiO2, ZrO2 and MnO (Burshtain, [0101, 0105]) and a first carbonaceous material (Burshtain, [0096, 0101]).
While Burshtain et al. discloses a shell which may comprise a combination of a first carbon and a transition metal oxide which are ball milled to form the shell layer (Burshtain, [0166]]), the shell may comprise graphene as the first carbon (Burshtain, [0096]), the active material may include anchoring parts configured to bind to or be associated with anode active material (Burshtain, [0218]) and that materials may be chemically bonded to the active material (Burshtain, [0223]), it fails to explicitly disclose wherein the first carbonaceous material is chemically bonded to the silicon-containing structure and/or the silicon-containing compound.
Zhang et al. discloses a beneficial ball milling for graphene and silicon which results in a matrix of carbonaceous material wherein the first carbonaceous material is chemically bonded to the silicon-containing structure and/or the silicon-containing compound and this combination has the benefit of superior electrochemical performance with better dispersion and strong connection (Zhang, Abstract). The skilled artisan of Burshtain already considers ball milling of carbon and metal oxide with silicon and the use of graphene as the carbon and therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide a beneficial ball milling method as taught in Zhang et al. as the ball milling method in Burshtain et al. as doing so would give the skilled artisan the reasonable expectation of achieving the benefits taught in Zhang et al. and as doing so would amount to nothing more than the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way.
However, Burshtain fails to explicitly disclose an anode comprising: a dry composite anode active material; a dry conductive material; and a dry binder.
Cho et al. discloses a negative active material and a lithium battery are provided. The negative active material includes a composite core, and a coating layer formed on at least part of the composite core. The composite core includes a carbonaceous base and a metal/metalloid nanostructure disposed on the carbonaceous base. The coating layer includes a metal oxide coating layer and an amorphous carbonaceous coating layer and an anode comprising: a dry composite anode active material; a dry conductive material; and a dry binder (Cho, Abstract, Paragraphs [0061, 0115]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide an anode comprising: a dry composite anode active material disclosed in Burshtain and with a beneficial dry conductive material and a dry binder taught in Cho as doing so would amount to nothing more than a variation of a material for use in the same field based on design incentives or other market forces, as the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 has been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the secondary reference (Jeong et al.) combined with the primary reference Burshtain et al. (US 20170294643 A1), which was the combination specifically challenged in the arguments and instead relies on two secondary references not previously presented (Zhang and Feng et al.). Further, the example comprising a conductive polymer in Burshtain which was challenged in the argument was not relied upon.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH MAX OTERO whose telephone number is (571)272-2559. The examiner can normally be reached M-F Generally 7:30-430.
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, Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at (571) 270-3879. 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.
/K.M.O./Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/NICOLE M. BUIE-HATCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights