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 .
Status of Application
Claims 1-20 are pending and presented for examination on the merit.
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.
Claim 4 is 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. The instant claim recites “the electrode comprises greater than or equal to about 80 wt.% to less than or equal to about 98 wt.% of the silicon- containing electroactive material and greater than or equal to about 85 wt.% to less than or equal to about 95 wt.% of the carbonaceous electroactive material”. It is unclear how much each of the silicon-containing electroactive material and the carbonaceous electroactive material is because they make up more than 100% of the electrode. For examination purposes, the two electroactive materials together make up greater than or equal to about 80 wt.% to less than or equal to about 98 wt.% or greater than or equal to about 85 wt.% to less than or equal to about 95 wt.% of the electrode.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN 114122399 to Song (machine translation provided for citation).
Regarding claim 1, Song teaches an electrode for an electrochemical cell that cycles lithium ions, e.g. a lithium-ion battery ([n0002]), the electrode comprising:
a silicon-containing electroactive material; and
a binder comprising a polymeric network in contact with the silicon-containing electroactive material, the polymeric network comprising polyacrylic acid (PAA) as homopoplymer A cross-linked with poly(2-hydroxyethyl acrylate) (PHEA) in a triblock copolymer B, as the Poly(2-hydroxyethyl acrylate) is rich in hydroxyl groups, which form a strong hydrogen bond interaction with the carboxyl groups in polyacrylic acid, thereby constructing a hydrogen bond cross-linking network ([n0006];[n0035]).
Regarding claim 3, the silicon-carbon anode material of Song comprises silicon and carbon ([n0003]; [m0035]), which reads on the claimed carbonaceous electroactive material.
Regarding claim 4, Song teaches silicon carbon particles, Super-P conductive carbon black, and binder were mixed in a weight ratio of 80:10:10 in an example ([n0102]). This suggest that the electrode comprises about 80 wt% of the silicon and carbonaceous electroactive material.
Regarding claim 5, Song teaches that the silicon-containing electroactive material comprises a plurality of silicon-containing electroactive material particles, and the polymeric network defines a plurality of polymeric cages, wherein each polymeric cage of the plurality of polymeric cages at least partially surrounds one or more silicon- containing electroactive material particles of the plurality of silicon-containing electroactive material particles ([n0035]; [n0092]; [n0102]).
Regarding claim 7, Song teaches silicon carbon particles, Super-P conductive carbon black, and binder were mixed in a weight ratio of 80:10:10 in an example ([n0102]). This suggest that the electrode comprises about 10 wt% of the polymeric network or binder.
Regarding claim 9, Song teaches silicon carbon particles, Super-P conductive carbon black, and binder were mixed in a weight ratio of 80:10:10 in an example ([n0102]). This suggest that the electrode comprises about 10 wt% of a conductive additive Super-P.
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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 6, Song teaches that a mass ratio of homopolymer A to triblock copolymer B is (1-4):1 ([n006]), wherein in molar ratio, 2-hydroxyethyl acrylate:two other monomers in the triblock copolymer B is (80-90):(5-10):(5-10) ([n0007]).
Although Song does not expressly teach that the mass ratio of the polyacrylic acid (PAA) to the poly(2-hydroxyethyl acrylate) (PHEA) is greater than or equal to about 0.5 to less than or equal to about 10, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have arrived at the claimed mass ratio because the triblock copolymer B is primarily poly(2-hydroxyethyl acrylate) in 80-90 molar% ([n0007]) and the taught mass ratio of (1-4):1 for PAA to triblock copolymer B ([n0006]) suggests that the mass ratio of PAA to PHEA is expected to fall within the claimed range.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song.
Regarding claim 12, Song teaches an electrode for an electrochemical cell that cycles lithium ions, e.g. a lithium-ion battery ([n0002]), the electrode comprising:
a silicon-containing electroactive material comprising a plurality of silicon-containing electroactive material particles; and
a binder comprising a polymeric network forming polymeric cages around each of the silicon-containing electroactive material particles of the plurality, the polymeric cages comprising polyacrylic acid (PAA) as homopoplymer A covalently bonded with poly(2-hydroxyethyl acrylate) (PHEA) in a triblock copolymer B, as the poly(2-hydroxyethyl acrylate) is rich in hydroxyl groups, which form a strong hydrogen bond interaction with the carboxyl groups in polyacrylic acid, thereby constructing a hydrogen bond cross-linking network ([n0006]; [n0035]). Song further teaches the polymeric network having a mass ratio of homopolymer A to triblock copolymer B is (1-4):1 ([n006]), wherein in molar ratio, 2-hydroxyethyl acrylate:two other monomers in the triblock copolymer B is (80-90):(5-10):(5-10) ([n0007]).
Although Song does not expressly teach that the mass ratio of the polyacrylic acid (PAA) to the poly(2-hydroxyethyl acrylate) (PHEA) is greater than or equal to about 0.5 to less than or equal to about 10, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have arrived at the claimed mass ratio because the triblock copolymer B is primarily poly(2-hydroxyethyl acrylate) in 80-90 molar% ([n0007]) and the taught mass ratio of (1-4):1 for PAA to triblock copolymer B ([n0006]) suggests that the mass ratio of PAA to PHEA is expected to fall within the claimed range.
Claims 2 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song as applied to claims 1 and 12, respectively, in view of CN 111916662 to Xue et al. (machine translation provided for citation).
Regarding claims 2 and 13, Song does not expressly teach that the silicon-containing electroactive material comprises LiySiOx, where 0 < y < 1 and 0 < x < 2.
Xue et al. also relates to an electrode for a lithium ion battery ([0002]) and teaches that the electroactive material comprises coated Li-SiOx, 1.2>x>0.8 ([0011]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the claimed material as the silicon-containing electroactive material, motivated by the fact that Xue et al. teaches that Li-SiOx materials have outstanding advantages such as high initial cycle coulombic efficiency and good cycle performance compared to silicon oxide ([0006]; [0007]) and surface-coating the Li-SiOx material can effectively improve its stability in aqueous slurry, reduce gas generation from the reaction of Li-SiOx material with water, and simultaneously reduce side reactions between the negative electrode active material and the electrolyte, thereby improving cycle performance. The negative electrode active material can be stably processed in aqueous slurry, and at the same time, it can improve the problem of large cycle capacity decay of negative electrode sheets, improve cycle performance, thereby significantly increasing the energy density of lithium-ion batteries and extending the service life of lithium-ion batteries ([0009]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song as applied to claim 1 above, in view of US 2016/0006024 to Xiao et al.
Regarding claim 8, Song does not expressly teach that the polyacrylic acid (PAA) is lithiated polyacrylic acid (PAALi).
Xiao et al. also relates to an electrode for a lithium ion battery comprising a silicon-containing active material ([0001]; [0002]) and teaches that the electrode comprise a non-fluorinated binder including polyacrylic acid, lithiated polyacrylic acid, and cross-linked polyacrylic acid-polyethylenimine ([0028]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used lithiated PAA in the binder as claimed, because Xiao et al. demonstrates polyacrylic acid, lithiated polyacrylic acid, and cross-linked polyacrylic acid copolymer are known derivatives of polyacrylic acid binders ([0028]) and one skilled in the art would have obtained expected results using the lithiated counterpart in the prior art crosslinked binder as the difference is just the lithium ion.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song as applied to claim 1 above, in view of US 2016/0172665 to Zhou et al.
Regarding claims 10 and 11, Song does not expressly teach the claimed second polymeric binder.
Zhou et al. also relates to an electrode for a lithium ion battery comprising a silicon-containing active material ([0002]; [0003]) and teaches that the electrode comprise selected from the group consisting of polyvinylidene fluoride (PVdF), polyethylene oxide (PEO), an ethylene propylene diene monomer (EPDM) rubber, carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC)), styrene-butadiene rubber (SBR), styrene-butadiene rubber carboxymethyl cellulose (SBR-CMC), polyacrylic acid (PAA), cross-linked polyacrylic acid-polyethylenimine, polyimide, polyvinyl alcohol (PVA), poly(acrylamide-co-diallyl dimethyl ammonium chloride), sodium alginate, and combinations thereof (claims 1 and 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the claimed second binder in an amount greater than 0 wt%, because Zhou et al. suggests a combination of known binders for the electrode (claims 1 and 7) and one skilled in the art would have obtained expected results combining known elements.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14-20 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the closest prior art to Song does not teach the claimed method involving, in brief, heating an electroactive material slurry disposed adjacent to one or more surfaces of a current collector to a temperature greater than or equal to about 120 °C to less than or equal to about 180 °C, wherein after the heating, a polymeric network comprising the polyacrylic acid (PAA) cross-linked with the poly(2-hydroxyethyl acrylate) (PHEA) is formed. Although Song suggests that crosslinking between PAA and PHEA occurs ([n0035]), no heating at the claimed high temperature range is required when the slurry is applied to the current collector in the examples ([n0092]; [n0102]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HENG M CHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5859. The examiner can normally be reached 9 am - 5:30 pm on Monday, 9 am - 3 pm on Tuesday, and 9 am to 1 pm on Wednesday and Thursday.
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, Basia Ridley can be reached at 571-272-1453. 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.
/Heng M. Chan/Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/Sean P Cullen, Ph.D./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights