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 .
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.
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 . 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.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
claim 1 recites “...selected form...” instead of “...selected from”;
claim 15 recites a plurality of elements without the required separation by line indentation. 37 C.F.R. 1.75(i); M.P.E.P. § 608.01(i).
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-17 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.
Claims 1-3 recite mass percentages without providing a basis for the percentage, rendering the claims indefinite. For example, claim 1 recites a limitation drawn to the mass percentage of the polar functional group(s) but fails to state if the basis of the percentage is the total mass of the polymer, the total mass of the active material, the total mass of the electrode, or some other basis.
Claim 1 further recites the limitations that the mass percentage of the silicon-containing negative electrode active material, A2, is from 5% to 100% and that the ratio of the mass percentage of the silicon-containing negative electrode active material to that of the polar functional group(s), A2/A1, is 0.2 to 8, rendering the claim indefinite. Specifically, if A2 is 100% then there can be no other components in the active material besides the silicon-containing material. This would result in an A2/A1 value of 1/0, which is undefined. Applicant must amend claim 1 so that the claimed mass percentage range and ratio yields a mathematically sound result in order to overcome this rejection.
Claim 3 recites that A1 is from 5% to 90%, rendering the claim indefinite because the sums of the claimed ranges for A1 and A2 yield values exceeding 100%.
Claim 10 recites the limitation drawn to the carbon content of carbon nanotubes without providing the basis of the percentage, rendering the claim indefinite. Is the basis total mass of the carbon nanotubes, total volume, or some other basis?
Claim 15 recites the limitations “conductive agent” and “binder” in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. For the purposes of examination the claim will be interpreted to recite “...wherein the negative electrode film layer comprises the silicon-containing active material according to claim 1, a conductive agent, and a binder.”
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.
Claims 1-8, 10, 11, and 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang et al. (WO 2021/128198 A1, relying on US 2022/0223854 A1 for English translation), hereinafter “Jiang,” in view of Choi et al. (US 2024/0290983 A1), hereinafter “Choi.”
Regarding claim 1, Jiang discloses a silicon-containing negative electrode active material comprising:
a silicon-based material, in this case silicon-based particles (¶ [0025] & [0059], Fig. 1, ref. no. 1); and
a conductive layer located on the surface of the silicon-based material that comprises a polymer and a one-dimension conductive material, in this case the outer layer comprises a polymer containing a carbon material (¶ [0025] & [0059], Fig. 1, ref. no. 2) where the carbon material may be carbon nanotubes (¶ [0038]) with a diameter of 1 nm to 30 nm (¶ [0041]) and a length-to diameter ratio of 100 to 20,000 (¶ [0042])1.
Jiang does not disclose the polar functional group(s) or the claimed loading ratio. However, Choi teaches including functional groups selected from carbonyl groups, an amino group, and others in polymeric coatings in order to improve the lithium ion conductivity in negative electrode active material layers (¶ [0033]-[0036]). Choi further teaches that the electrode active material includes 7 wt% of a silicon-containing material and 2.7 wt% of polymers (¶ ([0099]), which would result in an A2/A1 ratio that overlaps with the claimed range of 0.2 to 8. Applicant is reminded that a prima facie case of obviousness exists in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. M.P.E.P. § 2144.05. One having ordinary skill in the art would have realized that including such functional groups in the polymer at the claimed loading ratio would have yielded improved lithium ion conductivity in the negative electrode, thereby facilitating improved battery operation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have included an amino functional group or a carbonyl functional group in order to have facilitated improved battery operation.
Regarding claim 2, Jiang does not disclose the polar functional group(s) or the claimed loading ratio. However, Choi teaches including functional groups selected from carbonyl groups, an amino group, and others in polymeric coatings in order to improve the lithium ion conductivity in negative electrode active material layers (¶ [0033]-[0036]). Choi further teaches that the electrode active material includes 7 wt% of a silicon-containing material and 2.7 wt% of polymers (¶ ([0099]), which would result in an A2/A1 ratio that overlaps with the claimed range of 0.6 to 2.5. Applicant is reminded that a prima facie case of obviousness exists in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. M.P.E.P. § 2144.05. One having ordinary skill in the art would have realized that including such functional groups in the polymer at the claimed loading ratio would have yielded improved lithium ion conductivity in the negative electrode, thereby facilitating improved battery operation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have included an amino functional group or a carbonyl functional group in order to have facilitated improved battery operation.
Regarding claim 3, Jiang does not disclose the polar functional group(s). Choi teaches the polar functional group(s) as discussed in the rejection of claim 1, above, but does not specify the loading of the functional group(s). However, Choi does teach that including the polar functional group(s) improves the lithium ion conductivity in negative electrode active material layers (¶ [0033]-[0036]). One having ordinary skill in the art would have understood to provide a sufficient loading of the polar functional group(s) in order to provide the desired improvement in lithium ion conductivity (see ¶ [0034]), thereby facilitating improved battery operation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have provided the polar functional group(s) at 5 mass% to 90 mass% in order to have facilitated improved battery operation.
Regarding claim 4, Jiang further teaches that the polymer has a weight average molecular weight, B1, of greater than 100,000, in this case 1x104 to 2x106 (¶ 0028]). Applicant is reminded that a prima facie case of obviousness exists in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. M.P.E.P. § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 5, Jiang further teaches that the one-dimension conductive material has an aspect ratio, B2, of 100 to 20,000, in this case a length-to diameter ratio of 100 to 20,000 (¶ [0042]). Applicant is reminded that a prima facie case of obviousness exists in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. M.P.E.P. § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 6, Jiang further teaches that B1/B2 is 5 to 200, in this case 0.5 (1x104 ÷ 20,000 = 0.5) to 20,000 (2x106 ÷ 100 = 20,000). Applicant is reminded that a prima facie case of obviousness exists in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. M.P.E.P. § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 7, Jiang further discloses that:
the one-dimension conductive material has a diameter from 1 nm to 30 nm, in this case the carbon nanotubes have diameter of 1 nm to 30 nm (¶ [0041]); and
the one-dimension conductive material has a length from 0.5 μm, in this case a diameter of 1 nm and an aspect ratio of 500 results in a length of 500 nm = 0.5 μm (see ¶ [0041]-[0042]), to 20 μm, in this case a diameter of 1 nm and an aspect ratio of 20,000 results in a length of 20,000 nm = 20 μm (see ¶ [0041]-[0042]).
Regarding claim 8, Jiang further discloses that the polymer has a glass transition temperature of below 150°C, in this case the polymer layer may include polyacrylic acid (¶ [0112]), which is known to have a glass transition temperature of 103°C to 126°C.
Regarding claim 10, Jiang further discloses that the one-dimension conductive material comprises carbon nanotubes, in this case the outer layer comprises a polymer containing a carbon material (¶ [0025] & [0059], Fig. 1, ref. no. 2) where the carbon material may be carbon nanotubes (¶ [0038]) with a diameter of 1 nm to 30 nm (¶ [0041]) and a length-to diameter ratio of 100 to 20,000 (¶ [0042]).
Regarding claim 11, Jiang further discloses that the silicon-based material comprises silicon, silicon oxide, and a silicon carbon compound, in this case Si, SiO, SiO2, and SiC (¶ [0037]).
Regarding claim 13, Jiang further discloses that the conductive layer thickness is from 1 nm to 2 μm, in this case the polymer layer thickness is 5 nm to 200 nm (¶ [0040]). Applicant is reminded that a prima facie case of obviousness exists in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. M.P.E.P. § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 14, Jiang further discloses that:
the silicon-containing negative electrode active material has an average particle size Dv50 of 2 μm to 10 μm, in this case 5.2 μm (¶ [0145]); and
the silicon-containing negative electrode active material has a specific surface area from 0.8 m2/g to 5 m2/g, in this case 3 m2/g and 4 m2/g (¶ [0046])
Regarding claim 15, Jiang discloses a negative electrode plate (¶ [0114]) comprising:
a negative current collector (¶ [0063]);
a negative electrode film layer located on at least one of the surfaces of the negative current collector (¶ [0063]);
wherein the negative electrode film layer comprises:
the silicon-containing negative electrode active material in this case silicon-based particles (¶ [0025] & [0059], Fig. 1, ref. no. 1; see rejection of claim 1, above);
a conductive agent (¶ [0076]); and
a binder (¶ [0076]).
Regarding claim 16, Jiang further discloses a lithium battery (¶ [0091]).
Regarding claim 17, Jiang further discloses an electrical device, in this case an electrical apparatus (¶ [0093]-[0095]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang and Choi as applied to claim 8, above, and further in view of Nakayama et al. (CN 112385062 A), hereinafter “Nakayama.”
Regarding claim 9, neither Jiang nor Choi discloses the recited polymeric materials. However, Nakayama teaches a negative electrode with a polymeric thickening agent selected from the salt of carboxymethyl cellulose or poly (methyl) acrylic acid (p. 12-13). One having ordinary skill in the art would have realized that providing such a polymer in the coating would have improve the coating property and the charge and discharge characteristics of the battery (see p. 12-13), thereby facilitating improved battery operation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have included the salt of carboxymethyl cellulose or poly (methyl) acrylic acid in the polymer coating in order to have facilitated improved battery operation.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang and Choi as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Liu et al. (US 2024/0113282 A1), hereinafter “Liu.”
Regarding claim 12, Jiang further discloses that:
the silicon-based material has a mass percentage content, W1, of 90 mass% to 98 mass%, in this case
the polymer has a mass percentage content, W2, of 1 mass% to 9 mass% (¶ [0039]); and
the one-dimension conductive material has a mass percentage content, W3, of 0.1 mass% to 1 mass% (¶ [0042]).
Applicant is reminded that a prima facie case of obviousness exists in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. M.P.E.P. § 2144.05.
Neither Jiang nor Choi disclose that the silicon-based material mas a mass percentage content of 70 mass% to 98 mass%. However, Liu teaches a silicon-based active material where the silicon is present in the negative electrode or anode at 90 wt%, 95 wt%, and 98 wt% (¶ [0109]). One having ordinary skill in the art would have understood that providing such loadings would have yielded the predictable result of a functioning anode. See M.P.E.P. § 2143 I. A. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have provided the silicon at 90 mass% to 98 mass% in order to have yielded the predictable result of a functioning anode.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT J CHMIELECKI whose telephone number is (571)272-7641. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 am to 5 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, Ula Ruddock can be reached at (571) 272-1481. 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.
/SCOTT J. CHMIELECKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729
1 “One-dimensional” materials are understood to have two dimensions at nanoscale and the third dimension to be orders of magnitude larger. See. https://www.nature.com/collections/eddjehjdee.
Prosecution Insights