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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I encompassing claims 1-17 in the reply filed on Dec. 10, 2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 18-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Per applicant's election of Group I noted above, applicant's further allegation with traverse of “Applicants traverse this election of species requirement, as the examination of the above-identified species together does not appear to impose a serious burden upon the Examiner is not found persuasive because, regardless of search method, inventions of different limitations will require different search strategies, and the times to consider the relevancy of collective references would increase proportionally as well. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Interpretation
The relative term “about” recited in the claims is interpreted according to paragraph [0040] of the instant specification.
The term “Rz” recited in claims 9 and 17 is being interpreted according to paragraph [0047] of the instant specification, which is defined as the difference between the tallest “peak” and the deepest “valley”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
1) Claim 1-17 recite the term “hierarchical” in the limitation “hierarchical silicon columns”. However, it is unclear what the term means in the context of the claim language. The instant specification does not clarify the meaning. “Hierarchical” means arranged in a graded, ranked order where elements are placed in successive levels of importance, status, or power, like a pyramid with a leader at the top and workers at the bottom (e.g., google the term “hierarchical”). Thus, it is unclear how this term is applied to the claim language: for example, if there is difference between individual silicon columns and if so, what the difference is.
As a result, claims 1-17 are rejected as being indefinite.
2) In claims 8 and 11, the terms “near” and “adjacent” are relative terms which render the claims indefinite. The terms “near” and “adjacent” are not defined by the claims, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The related limitations have been rendered indefinite due to the use of relative terms “near” and “adjacent”.
3) The term “Rz” recited in claims 9 and 17 is not definite, because even if paragraph [0047] of the instant specification states that Rz is defined as the difference between the tallest “peak” and the deepest “valley”, it is unclear what kind of difference it refers to. For example: dimension difference? Shape difference? Surface area difference? etc. The claims are thus indefinite. For purposes of examination, the term is interpreted as referring to a height difference since it appears to be the Applicant’s intent.
4) In claim 5, it is unclear what the definition of porosity of the carbonaceous network is. Is it referring to a porosity of the material of carbonaceous network at a macro-scale, or a porosity of the claimed “linked carbon atoms that define a plurality of pores” at a nano- or atomic- scale. Applicants are invited to point out where their interpretation is supported by the specification as originally filed. For purposes of examination, either of the above two scenarios.
5) Claims 4 and 14 recite the limitation "the carbonaceous electroactive material". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Furthermore, it is unclear what’s the relationship or whether there is a relationship between “the carbonaceous electroactive material” and “the carbonaceous network”. For purposes of examination, any form of carbonaceous electroactive materials will be considered to read on the said limitation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 8 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Takeuchi et al. (US 20130052537 A1, hereafter Takeuchi).
Regarding claim 1, Takeuchi teaches an electrode (e.g., “205”, Fig. 1) for an electrochemical cell that cycles lithium ions, the electrode comprising:
an electroactive material layer (e.g., “203”, Fig. 1) comprising: a plurality of hierarchical silicon columns (e.g., “211”, Fig. 1) having interstices defined between hierarchical silicon columns of the plurality of hierarchical silicon columns; and a carbonaceous network (e.g., graphene “215”, Fig. 1) that at least partially fills the interstices (See Fig. below).
PNG
media_image1.png
691
359
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Since the carbonaceous network is graphene (“215”), it is generally knowledge that graphene generally contains a plurality of pores having a hexagon shape formed of linked carbon atoms (See also “openings”, [0071], [0099]).
Regarding claim 8, Takeuchi teaches the electrode of claim 1, wherein the electrode further comprises a current collector (“201”) disposed on or adjacent to the electroactive material layer, wherein a longest dimension (See vertical dotted lines, above in the Fig.) of each hierarchical silicon column is perpendicular to a major axis of the current collector (See dotted lines in the above annotated Fig.).
Regarding claim 11, Takeuchi teaches an electrochemical cell (“lithium-ion secondary battery”, [0138]) that cycles lithium ions, wherein the electrochemical cell comprises (See Fig. 6 and [0138]-[0148]):
a first electrode (“405”) comprising a first current collector (“401”) and a first electroactive material layer (“403”) disposed on or near the first current collector;
a separating layer (“413”) disposed between the first electroactive material layer (“403”) and a second electroactive material layer (“409”); and
a second electrode (“411”) comprising a second current collector (“407”) and the second electroactive material layer (“409”) disposed on or near the second current collector, the second electroactive material layer comprising:
a plurality of hierarchical silicon columns (e.g., “211”, Fig. 1), each of the hierarchical silicon columns having a longest dimension (See vertical dotted lines in the annotated figure below) of each hierarchical silicon column is perpendicular to a major axis of the second current collector (See dotted lines); and
a carbonaceous network (e.g., graphene “215”, Fig. 1) that at least partially fills the interstices defined between hierarchical silicon columns of the plurality of hierarchical silicon columns (See the annotated figure below).
PNG
media_image1.png
691
359
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, Takeuchi teaches the electrochemical cell of claim 11, wherein the separating layer is a solid-state electrolyte (See [0146]).
Regarding claim 13, Takeuchi teaches the electrochemical cell of claim 11, wherein the separating layer comprises a liquid electrolyte (See [0143]-[0145]).
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 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained through the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claims 2-5, 9-10, 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeuchi.
Regarding claim 2, Takeuchi teaches the electrode of claim 1, but does not expressly teach the porosity as instantly claimed. However, Takeuchi discloses “there is a space between the adjacent projected portions” ([0014]; Fig. 1). The volume of the said space is variable by adjusting the dimensions of the projected portions (corresponding to interstices as claimed) in longitudinal and width directions ([0041]-[0044]). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have readily arrived at the claimed porosity of the electroactive material layer through routine experimentations by adjusting the volume of the said space since one of ordinary skill in the art knows that a porosity is directly related to a volume of space(s).
Moreover, although Takeuchi is silent on the claimed porosity portion that graphene fills in the electroactive material layer, Takeuchi does disclose that the number of single-layer graphene sheet can be adjustable from 2 to 100 ([0071]). This would necessarily lead to an adjustable space volume(s) (and thus porosity) between the plurality of silicon columns. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have readily arrived at the claimed porosity portion of graphene (the carbonaceous network, the term used in the claim) through routine experimentations by adjusting the number of single-graphene sheet.
Regarding claim 3, Takeuchi teaches the electrode of claim 1, but is silent on the electroactive material layer further comprising a carbonaceous electroactive material. However, it is well known in the battery field that a carbonaceous electroactive material, such as graphite, is the most commonly used negative electrode active material. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have combined the electroactive material layer and a further carbonaceous electroactive material (e.g., graphite) to form a new electroactive material layer of the electrode, since it is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art.” In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980). MPEP § 2144.06.
Regarding claim 4, Takeuchi teaches the electrode of claim 1, and the graphene (“215”) can be considered a/the carbonaceous electroactive material as claimed. The claimed content percentage by weight of the hierarchical silicon columns or the carbonaceous electroactive material in the electroactive material layer can be readily achieved by adjusting the number of single-graphene sheet (e.g., 2 to 100 sheets, [0071]).
Regarding claim 5, Takeuchi teaches the electrode of claim 1, and further teaches that graphene (“215”) may contain poly-membered rings (pores, openings) such as six-, sever-, eight-, nine-, or ten-membered ring ([0068]), which would lead to different porosity due to different size of the rings. One of ordinary skill in the art would have readily arrive at the claimed porosity by adjusting the size of the rings (pores).
Regarding claim 9, Takeuchi teaches the electrode of claim 8, and further discloses the surface of the current collector has an uneven shape, which implicitly teaches a Rz being greater than 0 µm. The claimed range of Rz overlaps that of greater than 0 µm. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP § 2144.05 (I).
Regarding claim 10, Takeuchi teaches the electrode of claim 1, and the instantly claimed areal capacity of the hierarchical silicon columns and the electrical conductivity and BET surface area of the carbonaceous network represent characteristics or properties of the claimed hierarchical silicon columns and carbonaceous network. Since Takeuchi teaches the same hierarchical silicon columns and carbonaceous network as claimed, the claimed characteristics or properties are necessarily present. Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. See MPEP § 2112.01.
Regarding claim 14, Takeuchi teaches the electrode of claim 11, and the graphene (“215”) can be considered either the claimed “carbonaceous network” or/and the claimed “carbonaceous electroactive material”. The claimed content percentages by weight of the hierarchical silicon columns, the carbonaceous electroactive material and the carbonaceous network in the electroactive material layer can be readily achieved by adjusting the number of single-graphene sheet (e.g., 2 to 100 sheets, [0071]) through routine experimentations. This adjustment involves merely ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. Unless there is evidence to show the claimed content percentages are critical, the said percentages are not patentably distinguishable.
Regarding claim 15, Takeuchi teaches the electrode of claim 11, but does not expressly teach the porosity as instantly claimed. However, Takeuchi discloses “there is a space between the adjacent projected portions” ([0014]; Fig. 1). The volume of the said space is variable by adjusting the dimensions of the projected portions (corresponding to interstices as claimed) in longitudinal and width directions ([0041]-[0044]). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have readily arrived at the claimed porosity of the electroactive material layer through routine experimentations by adjusting the volume of the said space since one of ordinary skill in the art knows that a porosity is directly related to a volume of space(s).
Moreover, although Takeuchi is silent on the claimed porosity portion that graphene fills in the electroactive material layer, Takeuchi does disclose that the number of single-layer graphene sheet can be adjustable from 2 to 100 ([0071]). This would necessarily lead to an adjustable space volume(s) (and thus porosity) between the plurality of silicon columns. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have readily arrived at the claimed porosity portion of graphene (the carbonaceous network, the term used in the claim) through routine experimentations by adjusting the number of single-graphene sheet.
Regarding claim 17, Takeuchi teaches the electrode of claim 11, and further discloses the surface of the current collector has an uneven shape, which implicitly teaches a Rz being greater than 0 µm. The claimed range of Rz overlaps that of greater than 0 µm. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP § 2144.05 (I).
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeuchi, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhang et al. (US 20160240851 A1, hereafter Zhang) and Zhang et al. (US 20170125800 A1, hereafter Zhang-II).
Regarding claims 6-7, Takeuchi teaches the electrode of claim 1, but is silent as to the carbonaceous network further comprising a heteroatom.
In the same field of endeavor, however, Zhang discloses that “nitrogen-doped graphene can have high reversible capacity and good cycling stability due to high thermal conductivity, high electrical conductivity, good chemical stability, and a high number of activated defects induced by the way the nitrogen atoms are incorporated into the sp2 hybridized carbon network” ([0001]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have used nitrogen-doped graphene taught by Zhang as an alternative to the graphene of Takeuchi in order to achieve advantages/benefits stated above.
Takeuchi as modified is silent on the nitrogen content as claimed. However, Zhang-II discloses a high conductivity of 1000-30000 S/m of the nitrogen-doped graphene with a nitrogen content of 2-10 wt% of the nitrogen-doped graphene ([0011]-[0012]). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have used a nitrogen content of 2-10 wt% taught by Zhang-II in order to achieve a high conductivity. The range of “greater than 0 wt% to less than or equal to about 50 wt%” overlaps that of 2-10 wt%. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP § 2144.05 (I).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeuchi, as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Zhang and Zhang-II.
Regarding claim 16, Takeuchi teaches the electrode of claim 11, but is silent as to the carbonaceous network further comprising a heteroatom.
In the same field of endeavor, however, Zhang discloses that “nitrogen-doped graphene can have high reversible capacity and good cycling stability due to high thermal conductivity, high electrical conductivity, good chemical stability, and a high number of activated defects induced by the way the nitrogen atoms are incorporated into the sp2 hybridized carbon network” ([0001]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have used nitrogen-doped graphene taught by Zhang as an alternative to the graphene of Takeuchi in order to achieve advantages/benefits stated above.
Takeuchi as modified is silent on the nitrogen content as claimed. However, Zhang-II discloses a high conductivity of 1000-30000 S/m of the nitrogen-doped graphene with a nitrogen content of 2-10 wt% of the nitrogen-doped graphene ([0011]-[0012]). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have used a nitrogen content of 2-10 wt% taught by Zhang-II in order to achieve a high conductivity. The range of “greater than 0 wt% to less than or equal to about 50 wt%” overlaps that of 2-10 wt%. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP § 2144.05 (I).
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZHONGQING WEI whose telephone number is (571)272-4809. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:30 - 6:00.
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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at (571)272-1330. 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.
/ZHONGQING WEI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1727