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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed June 14, 2023 and July 15,2024 have been placed in the application file and the information referred to therein has been considered as to the merits.
With respect to foreign language references with no translation of the document: “If no translation is submitted, the examiner will consider the information in view of the concise explanation and insofar as it is understood on its face, e.g., drawings, chemical formulas, English language abstracts, in the same manner that non-English language information in Office search files is considered by examiner in conducting searches.” See MPEP §609.04(a)(II) (D) and 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(ii).
Drawings
The drawings received June 12, 2023 are acceptable for examination purposes.
Specification
The specification received June 12, 2023 has been reviewed for examination purposes.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The specification recites different compositions for “NAPA”. In Example 1 the material is recited as “N-allyl-(2-ethylxanthyl) propionamide” (para. [0030]) while in the remainder of the specification and the claims the term is recited as “N-allyl-(2-ethyl-xanthate) propionamide”. It appears that the recitation in Example 1 may be a typographical error and should be amended to “N-allyl-(2-ethyl-xanthate) propionamide”.
The specification appears to recite genus of materials that are inconsistent in scope. The specification first recites the following genus, “… one or more lithium-containing compound having a molecular format of LiyM, wherein M comprises a substance selected from the group consisting of B, Si, Ge, Sn, N, O, F, Cl, I, S, P, AlO2, TiO2. The specification then recites the aforementioned genus to be a more specific genus of materials as “… the lithium-containing compound (LiyM) comprises a material selected from the group consisting of Li5B4, Li22Si5, Li22Sn5, Li22Ge5, Li3N, Li2O, LiF, LiCl, LiI, Li2S, Li3PO4, LiAlO2, Li2TiO3.”. It can be seen that the genus of two groups are inconsistent in scope. For example. Li3PO4 does not fall under any material of the group consisting of B, Si, Ge, Sn, N, O, F, Cl, I, S, P, AlO2, TiO2 as P is not the same as PO4. Similarly, TiO2 is not the same as Li2TiO3.
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: Claims 3 and 16 recite that the polymer can be dimethylformamide. However, dimethylformamide (DMF) itself is not known as a polymer. It is known as a small-molecule organic solvent that can be used with polymers, but itself is not a polymer. A polymer is understood to be made of many repeating structural units into longer chains. DMF does not meet this definition as DMF is just one small molecule and is not built from repeating units. DMF is understood in the art as a solvent rather than polymer.
Neither the claims nor the specification provide any guidance therein as to how the instant invention employs DMF as a polymer and, as the general application of DMF (solvent rather than polymer) in the art is markedly different from the manner in which the instant application currently describes using DMF, the application does not provide sufficient written description relating to DMF as a polymer.
While the specification makes generic reference to the polymer as either NAPA, DMF or a combination thereof (such as para. [0017]), the specification lacks sufficient guidance pertaining to DMF as a polymer when DMF is not known to be a polymer material. It may be that DMF is in fact not meant to be recited as a polymer by the instant application, thus the specification would be objectionable. Alternatively, if DMF is in fact a binder, the specification fails to provide sufficient antecedent basis for this as DMF is not recognized as a polymer material and the specification provides insufficient guidance as to how DMF is obtained in polymer form.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 5-6, 13-14 and 17-19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
With respect to the Markush groups of claims 5-6, 13-14 and 17-19, the claims recite various Markush groups but do not include appropriate alternative form language between the last two species of each group (e.g. “group consisting of A, B, … or G). See MPEP § 2173.05(h) for guidance.
With respect to claims 13-20, base claims 13 and 18 recites a plurality of elements in the anode material of claim 13 and in the battery of claim 18. According to MPEP § 608.01(m). Where a claim sets forth a plurality of elements or steps, each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation, 37 CFR 1.75(i). Claims 13 and 18 would be in better form to adopt the suggested format with respect to each element of the battery. Claims 14-17 and 19-20 are dependent upon claims 13 and 18, respectively and thus objected for the same reasons.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 3 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 3 and 16 recite that the polymer can be dimethylformamide. However, dimethylformamide (DMF) itself is not known as a polymer. DMF is known as a small-molecule organic solvent that can be used with polymers, but itself is not a polymer. A polymer is understood to be made of many repeating structural units into longer chains. DMF does not meet this definition as DMF is just one small molecule and is not built from repeating units. DMF is understood in the art as a molecule rather than polymer. See example of structural formula of DMF below:
PNG
media_image1.png
352
588
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Neither the claims nor the specification provide any guidance therein as to how the instant invention employs DMF as a polymer and. The general application of DMF (molecular solvent rather than polymer) in the art is markedly different from the manner in which the instant application currently appears to describe using DMF and application does not provide sufficient written description relating to DMF as a polymer. For this reason, claims 3 and 16 fail to comply with the written description requirement.
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 1-20 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.
With respect to claims 1, 13 and 18 and all dependent claims, where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “polymer” in claims 1-20 is used by the claims to mean “polymer” (e.g., disclosed and claimed NAPA) or “molecule” (disclosed and claimed “DMF”) while the accepted meaning is “a chemical substance made of very large molecules built from smaller, repeating units linked together.” The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term.
Again, a polymer is understood to be made of many repeating structural units into longer chains. DMF does not meet this definition as DMF is just one small molecule and is not built from repeating units linked together. DMF is understood in the art as a molecule rather than polymer.
Claim 4 is indefinite as it is unclear how mechanical ball milling is different from mechanical processing. It would appear that the two methods are a broad method (mechanical processing) and a narrower mechanical processing (mechanical ball milling). Mechanical ball milling would be understood to be a type of mechanical processing and it is unclear how mechanical ball milling is not mechanical processing. As such the alternatives of claim 4 are not clear since they are not distinct from one another and one of ordinary skill in the art would have considered mechanical ball milling to be a specific type of mechanical processing.
The term “low vacuum” in claim 11 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “low vacuum” is not defined by the claim, 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. Neither the claims nor the disclosure provide any reasonable guidance as to what degree of vacuum was understood to be “low vacuum”. There is no clear art defined standard for the term “low vacuum” much less one in the context of the particular method of claim 11. Therefore the term “low vacuum” is indefinite. Applicant is advised to delete the term “low” from the claim.
Claims 14 and 19 recite a genus of materials that falls outside of the scope of respective base claims 13 and 18. Each of claims 13 and 18 recite the following genus, “… one or more lithium-containing compound having a molecular format of LiyM, wherein M comprises a substance selected from the group consisting of B, Si, Ge, Sn, N, O, F, Cl, I, S, P, AlO2, TiO2. Claims 14 and 19 recite a specific genus of materials as “… the lithium-containing compound (LiyM) comprises a material selected from the group consisting of Li5B4, Li22Si5, Li22Sn5, Li22Ge5, Li3N, Li2O, LiF, LiCl, LiI, Li2S, Li3PO4, LiAlO2, Li2TiO3.”. It can be seen that the genus of claims 14 and 19 are outside of the scope of respective base claims 13 and 18. For example. Li3PO4 does not fall under any material of the group consisting of B, Si, Ge, Sn, N, O, F, Cl, I, S, P, AlO2, TiO2 and P in base claims 13 and 18 is not the same as PO4 in claims 14 and 19.
Claim Interpretation
The term DMF in claims 3 and 16 is not interpreted to fall under the scope of the plain meaning of the term “polymer” (defined above) and is interpreted as a molecule shown below having both a hydrophilic part and hydrophobic part.
PNG
media_image1.png
352
588
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a hydrophilic part (C=O part is attached to N) is highly polar and interacts with water (i.e., hydrophilic part); and
a hydrophobic part (two methyl groups on N (N(CH3)2)) which are nonpolar parts that would contribute to hydrophobicity (i.e., hydrophobic part).
As can be seen above, DMF is a molecule, not a polymer.
As to the claimed polymer in claims 13-20 (particularly in claims 13, 16 and 20) it is noted that there is some issue with the materials disclosed and claimed, DMF, and being described as a type of polymer in the invention. As discussed above, DMF is not understood nor recognized to be a polymer but is instead a molecule. For examination purposes, pending resolution of the issues above, the term “polymer” therein is held to include polymers and DMF. The material being interpreted with DMF based on the example, whether or not DMF is or is not a polymer as understood by the conventional definition of what a polymer is.
The use of the term “nano” in the absence of any quantitative values or ranges is not limited only to certain nanometer values. For example, the term “nano” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide any clear boundaries to the term. The specification only recites the term “nano” in general without any teaching or guidance as to what the term “nano” encompasses. Merely reciting the term in the absence of any reasonable guidance permits a broad reasonable interpretation to include values such as Angstrom level and micrometer level values. “Nano” can be express as values both greater (micrometers) and less than (Angstroms) and still potentially read on a nano. For example, a 3 micrometer layer, can alternatively be expressed as 3,000 nanometers and thus potentially read on “nano”. Similarly a 100 Angstrom film can be expressed as 0.1nm and still potentially read on “nano”.
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.
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 13-15 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cai et al. (CN 109256544A) in view of Lin et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0050597).
As to claim 13, Cai discloses a silicon-carbon pre-lithium composite anode material comprising a silicon-carbon composite which is pre-lithiated wherein the silicon-carbon composite is a composite structure formed by nano-silicon (para. [0028]), carbon material (para. [0029]), a polymer binder (para. [0030]); and the composite is further prelithiated.
As to claim 17, the carbon material is carbon nanotubes (para. [0029], examples).
As to claim 18, Cai discloses a battery comprising a counter electrode (positive pole piece), negative electrode (negative pole piece); and a separator (para. [0022] and examples) wherein the negative pole piece comprises a silicon-carbon pre-lithium composite anode material comprising a silicon-carbon composite which is pre-lithiated wherein the silicon-carbon composite is a composite structure formed by nano-silicon (para. [0028]), carbon material (para. [0029]); a polymer binder (para. [0030]); and the composite is further pre-lithiated.
As to claims 13-15 and 18-20, Cai does not teach of prelithiating using a nanolayer material selected from the group consisting of B, Si, Ge, Sn, N, O, F, Cl, I, S, P, AlO2, TiO2 (claims 13 and 18); the lithium-containing compound (LiyM) comprises a material selected from the group consisting of Li5B4, Li22Si5, Li22Sn5, Li22Ge5, Li3N, Li2O, LiF, LiCl, LiI, Li2S, Li3PO4, LiAlO2, Li2TiO3 (claims 14 and 19) or the pre-lithium nanolayer being a solid electrolyte interface (SEI) on a surface of the composite film (claims 15 and 20).
As discussed above, Cai recognized that prelithiating silicon-carbon composites was known to provide certain benefits including, but not limited to, good stability and electrochemical performance over an increased number of cycles.
Lin, drawn to the same field of endeavor, that being silicon-carbon composite anode active materials and further teaches that prelithiating can be achieved by providing various lithium compounds as a coating which acts as an SEI layer to prevent further contact between the electrolyte and the active material (abstract, para. [0027]; examples). Lin teaches of LiyM where M is F (claims 13 and 18), LiF teaches of LiF (claims 14 and 19). Lin teaches that the SEI film layer on the composite can be any number of materials including LiCl, LiI, Li2O, LiF, etc. (claim 15).
Lin teaches that modifying a silicon-carbon composite anode active material with an artificial SEI layer such as those noted above would have improved electrochemical performance and would have effectively protected the anode active material from adverse contact with the electrolyte.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Si-C composite active material of Cai to utilize an SEI nanolayer such as LiCl, LiI, Li2O, LiF, etc. as taught by Lin since it would have provided a number of predictable results associated with the inclusion of a lithium based SEI layer, including but not limited to, protection of the anode active material, improved electrochemical performance such as cycling stability (para. [0149]).
As to the layer being a “nanolayer” (noting that the claim does not define a particular thickness or thickness range), the optimization of the thickness of the SEI layer of Lin in the context of the application of such layers to relatively small active material particles would have been of routine skill in the art to achieve sufficient benefits associated with the lithium based SEI coating layers of Lin such as improved electrochemical performance including cycling stability as well as protected the anode active material from adverse contact with the electrolyte, with sufficient thickness levels including “nanolayers”. Generally, differences in ranges will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such ranges is critical. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969).
Claims 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (CN 109216693A) in view of Lin et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0050597).
DMF reads on the particular “polymer” genus of the claims in terms of material. Therefore DMF applies to the term “polymer” in the instant invention.
As to claim 13, Chen discloses a silicon-carbon composite anode material comprising a silicon-carbon composite
the silicon-carbon composite is
a composite structure formed by nano-silicon (para. [0036]),
carbon material (para. [0036]),
and DMF (“polymer” para. [0036]).
As to claim 16, as best that the claim is understood in light of the issues above, teaches of mixing in the presence of DMF (examples such as para. [0036]).
As to claim 17, the carbon material is carbon nanotubes (para. [0036], examples).
As to claims 13-15, Chen does not teach of prelithiating using a nanolayer material selected from the group consisting of B, Si, Ge, Sn, N, O, F, Cl, I, S, P, AlO2, TiO2 (claim 13); the lithium-containing compound (LiyM) comprises a material selected from the group consisting of Li5B4, Li22Si5, Li22Sn5, Li22Ge5, Li3N, Li2O, LiF, LiCl, LiI, Li2S, Li3PO4, LiAlO2, Li2TiO3 (claim 14) or the pre-lithium nanolayer being a solid electrolyte interface (SEI) on a surface of the composite film (claim 15).
Lin, drawn to the same field of endeavor, that being silicon-carbon composite anode active materials and further teaches that prelithiating can be achieved by providing various lithium compounds as a coating which acts as an SEI layer to prevent further contact between the electrolyte and the active material (abstract, para. [0027]; examples). Lin teaches of LiyM where M is F (claim 13), LiF teaches of LiF (claim 14). Lin teaches that the SEI film layer on the composite can be any number of materials including LiCl, LiI, Li2O, LiF, etc. (claim 15).
Lin teaches that modifying a silicon-carbon composite anode active material with an artificial SEI layer such as those noted above would have improved electrochemical performance and would have effectively protected the anode active material from adverse contact with the electrolyte.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Si-C composite active material of Chen to further include an SEI nanolayer such as LiCl, LiI, Li2O, LiF, etc. as taught by Lin since it would have provided a number of predictable results associated with the inclusion of a lithium based SEI layer, including but not limited to, protection of the anode active material, improved electrochemical performance such as cycling stability (para. [0149]).
As to the layer being a “nanolayer” (noting that the claim does not define a particular thickness or thickness range), the optimization of the thickness of the SEI layer of Lin in the context of the application of such layers to relatively small active material particles would have been of routine skill in the art to achieve sufficient benefits associated with the lithium based SEI coating layers of Lin such as improved electrochemical performance including cycling stability as well as protected the anode active material from adverse contact with the electrolyte, with sufficient thickness levels including “nanolayers”. Generally, differences in ranges will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such ranges is critical. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-12 may be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, and any objections within claims 1-12 set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: none of the cited prior art of record, alone or in combination, are held to reasonably teach, suggest or render obvious the method of making silicon-carbon pre-lithium composite anode material as recited in at least claim 1 comprising the particular combination of steps and components present within each step. While the product may be obviated for reasons noted above with respect to modified Cai and Chen, there is no sufficient teaching or suggestion within either of modified Cai or Chen nor the remaining cited prior art of record to meet the method steps of at least claim 1 including the components added and manipulated in the manner explicitly recited claim 1.
For example neither of modified Cai nor Chen reasonably teach or suggest the sequence of adding carbon materials and “polymer” to the nano-silicon particles to obtain a silicon-carbon composite and the mixing the silicon-carbon composite with pre-lithium nanomaterial and granulating that particular mixture as in claim 1. None of the remaining cited prior art of record, alone or in combination, teach or suggest the particular method of claim 1 for at least the same reasons.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0093884 discloses prelithiating electrode materials with various LixM materials. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0241033 discloses LiF-embedded SiG active material. CN 106207177a discloses LiF coated silicon based active materials.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGG CANTELMO whose telephone number is (571)272-1283. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 7am to 5pm.
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.
/GREGG CANTELMO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725