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 § 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.
1. Claims 1, 2, 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Thackeray et al. (US20220029156).
2. Regarding 1, Thackeray teaches a secondary battery (As used herein the term “lithium battery” refers to electrochemical cells and combinations of electrochemical cells in which lithium (e.g., lithium ion) shuttles between an anode and a cathode [0093]) comprising: a positive electrode; a negative electrode; a separator between the positive electrode and the negative electrode; and an electrolyte solution between the positive electrode and the negative electrode (Electrochemical cells typically comprise a cathode, an anode typically comprising carbon, silicon, lead, metallic lithium, some other anode active material, or a combination thereof; and a porous separator between the cathode and anode, with the electrolyte in contact with the anode, the cathode and the separator [0097]), wherein the negative electrode comprises a graphite particle (Typically, the anode comprises a carbon material such as graphite [0088]), a silicon particle (Preferably, the silicon-containing particles, when utilized in the anode [0090]; The silicon-containing particles can be silicon nanoparticles [0089]) with a smaller particle diameter than the graphite particle (The carbon particles can be carbon microparticles [0090]; The carbon particles can be graphite [0090], and a binder, and wherein the binder contains glutamic acid (In some cases, the binder comprises…poly(glutamic acid) (PGlu) [0085]).
3. Regarding claim 2, Thackeray teaches wherein an average particle diameter of the silicon particle is less than 1 μm (The silicon-containing particles can be silicon nanoparticles [0089]; Preferably, the silicon-containing particles, when utilized in the anode, have an average size in the range of about 50 to about 200 nm, more preferably about 70 to about 150 nm [0090]).
4. Regarding claim 6, Thackeray teaches wherein the electrolyte solution comprises an ionic liquid (In some embodiments, the non-aqueous solvent for a lithium electrochemical cell as described herein can be an ionic liquid [0095]).
5. Regarding claim 7, Thackeray teaches wherein the electrolyte solution comprises an organic solvent (solvent (e.g., N-methylpyrrolidone (NMP) [0087]).
6. Regarding claim 8, Thackeray teaches method for forming a negative electrode active material layer (The anode active components typically are mixed…and form an active layer on the current collector [0088]), comprising the steps of:
forming a mixture by mixing a binder containing glutamic acid (In some cases, the binder comprises…poly(glutamic acid) (PGlu) [0085]), a graphite particle (Typically, the anode comprises a carbon material such as graphite [0088]), and a silicon particle (Preferably, the silicon-containing particles, when utilized in the anode [0090]); preparing slurry by mixing the mixture and a solvent; and applying the slurry over a current collector (Electrodes for lithium electrochemical cells typically are formed by coating a slurry of electrode active material in a solvent with a polymeric binder (e.g., poly(vinylidene difluoride); PVDF) onto a current collector (e.g., metal foil [0084]).
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 of this title, 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.
7. Claims 3, 4, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thackeray et al. (US20220029156) as applied to claims 1 and 8.
8. Regarding claims 3, 4, 9 and 10, the complete discussion of Thackeray as applied to claim 1 is incorporated herein.
9. Regarding claim 3, Thackeray teaches wherein an average particle diameter of the graphite particle is greater than or equal to 5 μm (The carbon particles can be carbon microparticles [0090]; The carbon particles can be graphite [0090]; In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05).
10. Regarding claim 4, Thackeray teaches wherein a weight ratio of the silicon particle is less than a weight ratio of the graphite particle (Preferably, the electrode includes silicon and carbon particles in a respective weight ratio (Si:C) of about 1:9 [0090]). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05).
11. Regarding claim 9, Thackeray teaches wherein a weight ratio of the silicon particle is less than a weight ratio of the graphite particle (Preferably, the electrode includes silicon and carbon particles in a respective weight ratio (Si:C) of about 1:9 [0090]). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05).
12. Regarding claim 10, Thackeray teaches wherein a weight ratio of the binder is less than a weight ratio of the graphite particle (The composition of the graphite slurry was 91.83 wt % graphite powder…6 wt % PVDF binder [0113]), and
wherein a weight ratio of the binder to a sum of the graphite particle and the binder is greater than 5 wt % (The binder typically comprises about 5 to about 30 wt %, preferably about 10 to about 20 wt %, of the active material…, based on the combined weight of the silicon, carbon and binder in the finished electrode [0090]). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05).
13. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have optimized the ranges of Thackeray for the benefit of improvements in the electrochemical properties of the electrode materials by tailoring their synthesis and the voltage window of the cells during electrochemical cycling to achieve optimum cell performance [0121].
14. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thackeray et al. (US20220029156) as applied to claim 1 in view of Muthu et al. (US20120225199).
15. Regarding claim 5, the complete discussion of Thackeray as applied to claim 1 is incorporated herein. However, they are silent about claim 5.
16. Muthu teaches wherein the negative electrode further contains acetylene black (Negative electrode active mix 120 further includes a conductive additive material selected from the group consisting of…acetylene black [0040]), and wherein a weight ratio of the acetylene black (In an exemplary embodiment, the conductive additive material is about 0-10 percent (by weight) of the negative electrode active mix 120 [0040]) is less than or equal to a weight ratio of the silicon particle (In some embodiments, negative electrode active mix 120 comprises a negative electrode active material and materials selected from the group consisting of…silicon. More preferably, the negative electrode active material is about 80-95 percent (by weight) of the negative electrode active mix 120 [0039]) for the benefit of good chemical and electrochemical stability [0032].
17. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Thackeray with Muthu’s teachings for the benefit of good chemical and electrochemical stability.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLATUNJI GODO whose telephone number is (571)272-3104. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 am - 5:30 pm.
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, Nicholas Smith can be reached on 571-272-8760. 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.
/OLATUNJI A GODO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752