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 .
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it exceeds more than 150 words. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01 (b).
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01 (b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (US 2021/0328215).
Regarding Claim 1, Zhang et al. teaches a lithium secondary battery (Para. [0117]) including a cathode (pg. 5, col .1, line 7) (i.e. a positive electrode), an anode including anode material (Para. [0018]) (i.e. a negative electrode including a negative electrode active material), an electrolytic solution (Para. [0114]),wherein the anode material comprises lithiated silicon oxide material (Para. [0044]) (i.e. the negative electrode active material includes a lithium-silicon containing oxide that includes lithium and silicon as constituent elements) and includes a MySiOz layer including Mg2SiO4 (Par. [0047]) (i.e. and includes magnesium) coated on the lithiated silicon oxide material (i.e. present on a surface layer of the lithium-silicon-containing oxide), the lithium-silicon-containing oxides includes a phase of SiO-x (i.e. silicon phase), Li2SiO3 and Li2Si2O5 (i.e. and a phase including at least one kind of lithium silicate represented by Formula 1 of the instant claim 1) (Table 2), wherein a carbon layer coats a MySiOz layer (Para. [0049]) wherein the carbon layer may be 50 to 400 nm (Para. [0051]) and the thickness of the MySiOz layer Mg2SiO4 is about 0.3 to 2.5 micrometers (Para. [0048]) (i.e. a range in which the magnesium is present is within a range of greater than or equal to 50 nanometers and less than or equal to 2900 nanometers from surface of the lithium-silicon-containing oxide in a depth direction and the magnesium forms at least one kind of magnesium silicate represented by Formula 2 of the instant claim), wherein the M element is Mg (Para. [0045]) and may be about 2 to about 20 wt% (Para. [0053]) and the Li element may be about 2 to 20 wt% (Para. [0052]) (i.e. a ratio of a number of moles of the magnesium to a number of moles of the lithium is at the very least overlapping with the claimed range of greater than or equal to 0.1 mole percent and less than or equal to 20 mole percent; as a 2 wt% Mg : 20 wt% Li ratio would provide ratio of a number of moles of a magnesium to a number of moles of lithium of about 3 mole percent, assuming 2g Mg : 20g Li which provides the molar ratio of 0.08 mol Mg: 2.9 mol Li). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. 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(I).
Regarding Claim 2, Zhang et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Zhang et al. further teaches the lithium-silicon-containing oxides includes Li2SiO3 and Li2Si2O5 (Para. [0044]) (i.e. wherein the lithium silicate includes Li2SiO3 and Li2Si2O5).
Regarding Claim 3, Zhang et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Zhang et al. further teaches the MySiOz layer including Mg2SiO4 (Par. [0047]) (i.e. the magnesium silicate including Mg2SiO4).
Regarding Claim 4, Zhang et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Zhang et al. further teaches a carbon layer coats a MySiOz layer (Para. [0049]) wherein the carbon layer may be 50 to 400 nm (Para. [0051]) and the thickness of the MySiOz layer Mg2SiO4 is about 0.3 to 2.5 micrometers (Para. [0048]) (i.e. a range in which the magnesium is present is within a range of greater than or equal to 50 nanometers and less than or equal to 2900 nanometers from surface of the lithium-silicon-containing oxide in a depth direction).
Regarding Claim 5, Zhang et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above
Zhang et al. further teaches a lithium secondary battery (Para. [0117]) (i.e. wherein the secondary battery comprises a lithium-ion secondary battery).
Regarding Claim 6, Zhang et al. teaches a lithium secondary battery (Para. [0117]) comprising an anode (i.e. a negative electrode for a secondary battery) including anode material (Para. [0018]) (i.e. a negative electrode including a negative electrode active material), wherein the anode material comprises lithiated silicon oxide material (Para. [0044]) (i.e. the negative electrode active material includes a lithium-silicon containing oxide that includes lithium and silicon as constituent elements) and includes a MySiOz layer including Mg2SiO4 (Par. [0047]) (i.e. and includes magnesium) coated on the lithiated silicon oxide material (i.e. present on a surface layer of the lithium-silicon-containing oxide), the lithium-silicon-containing oxides includes a phase of SiO-x (i.e. silicon phase), Li2SiO3 and Li2Si2O5 (i.e. and a phase including at least one kind of lithium silicate represented by Formula 1 of the instant claim 1) (Table 2), wherein a carbon layer coats a MySiOz layer (Para. [0049]) wherein the carbon layer may be 50 to 400 nm (Para. [0051]) and the thickness of the MySiOz layer Mg2SiO4 is about 0.3 to 2.5 micrometers (Para. [0048]) (i.e. a range in which the magnesium is present is within a range of greater than or equal to 50 nanometers and less than or equal to 2900 nanometers from surface of the lithium-silicon-containing oxide in a depth direction and the magnesium forms at least one kind of magnesium silicate represented by Formula 2 of the instant claim), wherein the M element is Mg (Para. [0045]) and may be about 2 to about 20 wt% (Para. [0053]) and the Li element may be about 2 to 20 wt% (Para. [0052]) (i.e. a ratio of a number of moles of the magnesium to a number of moles of the lithium is at the very least overlapping with the claimed range of greater than or equal to 0.1 mole percent and less than or equal to 20 mole percent; as a 2 wt% Mg : 20 wt% Li ratio would provide ratio of a number of moles of a magnesium to a number of moles of lithium of about 3 mole percent, assuming 2g Mg : 20g Li which provides the molar ratio of 0.08 mol Mg: 2.9 mol Li). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. 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(I).
Regarding Claim 7, Zhang et al. teaches a lithium secondary battery (Para. [0117]) comprising an anode including anode material (Para. [0018]) (i.e. a negative electrode active material for a secondary battery), wherein the anode material comprises lithiated silicon oxide material (Para. [0044]) (i.e. the negative electrode active material includes a lithium-silicon containing oxide that includes lithium and silicon as constituent elements) and includes a MySiOz layer including Mg2SiO4 (Par. [0047]) (i.e. and includes magnesium) coated on the lithiated silicon oxide material (i.e. present on a surface layer of the lithium-silicon-containing oxide), the lithium-silicon-containing oxides includes a phase of SiO-x (i.e. silicon phase), Li2SiO3 and Li2Si2O5 (i.e. and a phase including at least one kind of lithium silicate represented by Formula 1 of the instant claim 1) (Table 2), wherein a carbon layer coats a MySiOz layer (Para. [0049]) wherein the carbon layer may be 50 to 400 nm (Para. [0051]) and the thickness of the MySiOz layer Mg2SiO4 is about 0.3 to 2.5 micrometers (Para. [0048]) (i.e. a range in which the magnesium is present is within a range of greater than or equal to 50 nanometers and less than or equal to 2900 nanometers from surface of the lithium-silicon-containing oxide in a depth direction and the magnesium forms at least one kind of magnesium silicate represented by Formula 2 of the instant claim), wherein the M element is Mg (Para. [0045]) and may be about 2 to about 20 wt% (Para. [0053]) and the Li element may be about 2 to 20 wt% (Para. [0052]) (i.e. a ratio of a number of moles of the magnesium to a number of moles of the lithium is at the very least overlapping with the claimed range of greater than or equal to 0.1 mole percent and less than or equal to 20 mole percent; as a 2 wt% Mg : 20 wt% Li ratio would provide ratio of a number of moles of a magnesium to a number of moles of lithium of about 3 mole percent, assuming 2g Mg : 20g Li which provides the molar ratio of 0.08 mol Mg: 2.9 mol Li). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. 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(I).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARMINDO CARVALHO JR. whose telephone number is (571)272-5292. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30a.m.-5p.m..
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, Ula Ruddock can be reached at 571 272-1481. 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.
/ARMINDO CARVALHO JR./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729