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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 7/13/2026 is entered and fully considered.
In view of the amendments the 112 rejections to claims 3, 15 and 19 are removed.
In view of the amendments the 102 rejections are remove and replaced with 103 rejections.
Amendments to claims 1 and 9 refer to electrode attachment substance “may” be within the porosity of the carbon phase. This language is optional and is therefore not required by the claim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant notes that claim 20 does not recite “the hard carbon phase”. The rejection is maintained and rewritten to note that the problematic language is “the hard carbon”.
In view of the amendments the 102 rejections are removed and the arguments regarding the anticipation rejection are moot.
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 20 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.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “the hard carbon”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 4-6, 8-10, and 13-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PARK et al. (US 2011/0020701) in view of RAMASUBRAMANIAN et al. (US 2012/0115026) .
Regarding claims 1 and 9,
PARK teaches an electrode body that is made by pyrolyzing a carbon precursor mixture to form a carbon phase that is self-supporting monolithic (continuous phase in the entire electrode) [0045]. The precursor mixture can include graphite active material and silicon particles [0045]. The carbonized precursor holds carbon composite together in addition to distributing silicon throughout (held within) the composite [0045]. The electrode structures are also porous [0040]. The carbon electrode is deposited or placed with a second electrode and separator to make a complete cell [0059].
PARK further teaches forming a cell using an attachment substance [0010] (cell attachment substance) and notes that the attached layers can be sheets including separators and electrodes [0059]-[0060]. PARK does not teach using the cell attachment substance between the electrode and separator. However, RAMASUBRAMANIAN teaches that when using a monolithic anode, a uniform ion transport structure can be provided on the anode to improve ion transport to the anode [0029]-[0030]. The layer is made of binder and carbon black [0029]. The uniform ion transport structure allows for uniform insertion and extraction of ions from the electrolyte (separator) which reduces stress during cycling [0019]. At the time of filing the invention it would have been prima facie obvious to include the uniform ion transport structure between anode and separator to reduce stress during cycling.
Regarding claim 4,
When using the uniform ion transport structure (attachment substance) of RAMASUBRAMAN, the ion transport material is not on the surface of the electrode contacting the current collector, see figs. 2-3.
Regarding claim 5,
The uniform ion transport structure (attachment substance) of RAMASUBRAMAN is required to be porous to allow ions to flow to the anode [0019].
Regarding claims 6, 8, 10, and 13,
The uniform ion transport structure (attachment substance) of RAMASUBRAMAN includes carbon black (conductive particles) [0029].
Regarding claim 14,
The limitation of this claim describes a quality of the active material as being one that an “cast onto copper”. The examiner notes any active material can be cast onto a current collector.
Regarding claim 15,
Applicant’s specification indicates that the “additives” that react with carbon can be silicon (PGPub [0077]). As noted above, there is carbon in the layer between the anode and separator. There is also silicon used as the active material “additive” in the electrode. The same materials in adjacent layers will similarly react at the interface.
Regarding claims 16 and 17,
The claim is directed to an electrochemical cell product with a carbon material. This claim is directed to a step of replacing polymer precursor with carbon. The product is only limited to structures necessitated by the method. In this instance there is no additional required structural limitations by the replacing other than the presence of carbon.
Claim(s) 2, 3, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PARK et al. (US 2011/0020701) in view of RAMASUBRAMANIAN et al. (US 2012/0115026) further in view of MITCHELL (US 6,007,588).
Regarding claims 2 and 11,
RAMASUBRAMANIAN teaches applying a conductive composite of binder and carbon black to provide conductivity to the interface layer [0029]. The reference does not expressly teach how much conductive material to load into the composite. However, MITCHELL teaches that when forming a layer of material, such as an adhesive layer of polymeric material and conductive carbon the conductivity of the layer is determined by the loading of conductive carbon (particles) and the conductive carbon can be loaded at 15-25 wt% column 4 lines 1-15. At the time of filing the invention it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to load conductive carbon into an adhesive layer between layers to lower total resistivity of the cell.
Regarding claim 3,
Applicant’s specification indicates that the “additives” that react with carbon can be silicon (PGPub [0077]). As noted above, there is carbon in the layer between the anode and separator. There is also silicon used as the active material “additive” in the electrode. The same materials in adjacent layers will similarly react at the interface.
Claim(s) 7, 12, 18 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PARK et al. (US 2011/0020701) in view of RAMASUBRAMANIAN et al. (US 2012/0115026) further in view of LOPEZ et al. (US 2011/0111294).
Regarding claims 7 and 12,
PARK teaches adding conductive material to the anode and notes that the electrode can include metal [0038]. The reference does not expressly teach the claimed metals as conductive particles. However, LOPEZ teaches an anode formation is similarly done by pyrolyzation [0078] and teaches electrically conductive powder distinct from the active material, such as stainless steel fibers (particles) [0055]. At the time of filing the invention it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use stainless steel particles as the metal in PARK to reduce overall resistivity of the formed anode.
Regarding claim 18
PARK teaches using silicon in the composite [0045] but does not teach a porous silicon that gets filled with carbon phase. However, LOPEZ teaches an anode that includes silicon and carbon and further notes the silicon can be nanostructured [0077]. The formation is similarly done by pyrolyzation [0078]. At the time of filing the invention it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use nanostructured silicon in the anode of PARK as a known morphology of silicon active material used in anodes.
When using a nanostructure (porous) silicon, the same pyrolysis and carbonization will result in the same “filling” with carbon material.
Regarding claim 19,
PARK teaches pyrolyzing and carbonizing a precursor to make the carbon body [0045] but is silent to the carbon phase morphology as amorphous or crystalline. However, LOPEZ teaches that when pyrolyzing a precursor to form carbon for an anode, the pyrolytic carbon formed can be amorphous and diamond (crystalline) structure [0097]. It would be reasonable to expect the pyrolyzed carbon in PARK to form the same morphology of amorphous and crystalline carbon, because the same process is being used to make carbon material in an anode.
Claim(s) 7, 12, 18 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PARK et al. (US 2011/0020701) in view of RAMASUBRAMANIAN et al. (US 2012/0115026) further in view of ARAMATA et al. (US 2006/0003227).
Regarding claim 20,
PARK teaches the silicon particles create a silicon-carbon composite [0052] but does not teach formation of silicon carbide. However, ARAMATA teaches that a silicon carbide layer can be formed between silicon and carbon and is desirable to do so to prevent swelling [0011]. At the time of filing the invention it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art the use a SiC layer with silicon to provide structural support against the swelling that occurs in the silicon during battery cycling.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AUSTIN MURATA whose telephone number is (571)270-5596. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5.
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, MICHAEL CLEVELAND can be reached at 571272-1418. 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.
/AUSTIN MURATA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
