DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The 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.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 3-5, 9-11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burshtain (US 20170294648 A1) and further in view of Hamrock (US 6063522 A) and Choi (US 20190326631 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Burshtain teaches a pre-lithiated silicon negative electrode material (para. 0128, [anode active material particles may be pre-lithiated]) (Fig. 1A, item 110), comprising a silicon negative electrode material (para. 0128, [any of the disclosed anode active material particles may be coated as disclosed below, e.g., Si]) and a lithium-containing polymer ([para. 0131 for a list of lithium containing polymers used in the active material] (Fig. 1A, [item 120])) compounded with the silicon negative electrode material (para. 0140, [pre-lithiated anode material particles which contain lithium ions, e.g., as SixLiy …]).
Burshtain does not teach wherein the lithium-containing polymer comprises a polymer shown in the formula 1.
PNG
media_image1.png
568
528
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Hamrock, in the same field of endeavor, lithium-containing polymers, teaches a polymer that comprises formula 1 below:
(Hamrock, column 16, line 59, Lithium Phenyl Trifluoromethyl bis-Sulfonyl Imide) and (Hamrock, column 17, line17, Salt 5: Phenyl Pentafluoroethyl bis-Sulfonyl Imide):
PNG
media_image2.png
141
561
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
137
478
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have replaced Burshtain’s lithium containing polymer with Hamrock’s lithium containing polymer (Lithium Phenyl Trifluoromethyl bis-Sulfonyl Imide), in order to utilize a polymer that exhibits good conductivity (column 2, lines 14-15) and to use a polymeric material to improve the overall efficiency of the battery (column 3, lines 18-19, [the polymerizable mixed FC/HC imide and methide salts of this invention can be used in liquid and/or polymer electrolytes to improve the overall efficiency of the battery]).
Modified Burshtain does not teach wherein n in the compound of formula 1 ranges from 20 to 10,000.
Choi, in the same field of endeavor, batteries, teaches that a copolymer may have a degree of polymerization of about 10 to about 5,000, or about 50 to 4,500, or about 100 to about 4,000, or about 200 to about 3,000 (Choi, para. 0120).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Burshtain’s lithium polymer, as taught by Choi, in order to improve the mechanical strength and effectively inhibit the growth of lithium dendrites, and thus further improve performance of a lithium battery (Choi, para. 0121, [when the copolymer has a degree of polymerization … the copolymer may have improved mechanical strength and may effectively inhibit the growth of lithium dendrites, and thus may further improve performance of a lithium battery]).
Regarding claim 3, modified Burshtain teaches the pre-lithiated silicon negative electrode material according to claim 1, and further teaches wherein content of the lithium-containing polymer in the pre-lithiated silicon negative electrode material ranges from 0.1 wt% to 20 wt% (Burshtain, para. 0202, [the prepared Li-polymer may be placed in the ball miller together with the anode material particles, which may possibly be coated with B4C … and milled together.]).
Regarding claim 4:
Claim 4 recites “the pre-lithiated silicon negative electrode material according to claim 1, wherein the pre-lithiated silicon negative electrode material is prepared according to a preparation process comprising the following steps: placing the silicon negative electrode material in a solution containing a lithium-containing polymer, and then removing a solvent to obtain the pre-lithiated silicon negative electrode material.”
According to MPEP § 2113, this recitation of how the article is made does not limit the scope of the claim for patent examination purposes:
"Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Regarding claim 5, modified Burshtain teaches the pre-lithiated silicon negative electrode material according to claim 1, wherein the silicon negative electrode material comprises pure silicon (para. 0064).
Regarding claim 9, modified Burshtain teaches a pre-lithiated silicon negative electrode plate (Burshtain, Fig. 1A, [item 100]), comprising: a negative electrode current collector (para. 0044, [current collector]) and a functional layer coated on the negative electrode current collector (para. 0042, [the anode slurry which is then dried, consolidated and is position in contact with a current collector]), wherein a raw material of the functional layer comprises the pre-lithiated silicon negative electrode material according to claim 1 (para. 0044, describes the pre-lithiated anode of the invention), a conductive agent (para. 0042, the slurry includes [conductive fillers] to make the anode slurry), and a binder (para. 0042, anode preparation processes may comprise mixing additives such as binders … to make an anode slurry).
Regarding claim 10, modified Burshtain teaches the pre-lithiated silicon negative electrode plate according to claim 9, and further teaches wherein content of the conductive agent ranges from 5 wt% to 30 wt% (para. 0068, [conductive materials … may be added to the anode material at 5-60 weight %]) and content of the binder ranges from 5 wt% to 30 wt% (para. 0070, [0.1 – 15 weight %]).
Regarding claim 11, modified Burshtain teaches the pre-lithiated silicon negative electrode plate according to claim 9, wherein in a silicon negative electrode active material comprising the pre-lithiated silicon negative electrode material (see claim 9 above) and another negative electrode material (para. 0063, [various material combination embodiments for the active anode material are presented. It is emphasized that elements from different embodiments may be combined to form additional embodiments, and that any of the anode active material be combined with various coating embodiments and anode embodiments disclosed herein]), content of the pre-lithiated silicon negative electrode material ranges from 3 wt% to 100 wt% (para. 0068, [Si may be used at 4-35 weight % of the total weight of the anode material]).
Regarding claim 13, A lithium-ion battery, formed by using the pre-lithiated silicon negative electrode plate according to claim 9 (para. 0044, [anode may then be integrated in cells which may be part of lithium ion batteries]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VERITA E GRANNUM whose telephone number is (571)270-1150. The examiner can normally be reached 10-5 EST / 7-2 PST.
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, Allison Bourke can be reached at (303) 297-4684. 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.
/V.G./Examiner, Art Unit 1721 /ALLISON BOURKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1721
Prosecution Insights