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 § 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 1-9 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.
Regarding claim 1, the “x” of the general formula is indefinite. It is unclear whether the “x” as defined by 1 ≤ x < 6, refers to the “x” in the modified SiOx material or refers to “x” in the MxSiOy.
Appropriate clarification is required.
Regarding claim 1, the recitation of “a modified SiOx material with a silicate material dispersed inside “ in the middle of claim 1 is unclear. It is unclear because an SiOx material that is modified with a metal is the same thing as a silicate, and being the same as a silicate, it is unclear how a silicate is dispersed inside of a silicate.
Appropriate clarification is required as to whether the negative electrode material contains both silicon oxide and a silicate, or only a silicate.
Regarding claim 1, the recitation of “the silicate material accounts for 5-60% of the total mass of the modified SiOx material” is unclear. If the modified SiOx material is a silicate, then how can the silicate account for less than 100% of the modified SiOx material.
Appropriate clarification is required.
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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi (US 20200168890 A1) and further in view of Oh (US 20180090750 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Choi discloses a silicon-based negative electrode material containing a silicate skeleton (abstract, [neg electrode active material … includes a core including SiOx]), wherein the silicon-based negative electrode material comprises a modified SiOx material with a silicate material dispersed inside (para. 0049, metal compound is doped into the primary particle which comprises the core comprising SiOx); the general formula of the modified SiOx material with a silicate material dispersed inside is MxSiOy, 1 < x <6, 3 < y < 6, the element M is Mg and Li (para. 0055, [MgSiO3, Mg2SiO4, Li2SiO3, Li4SiO4, Li2Si2O5]), and in the modified SiOx material, the silicate material accounts for 5-60% of the total mass of the modified SiOx material (para. 0057 [the metal compound may be included in an amount of 1 wt% to 60 wt% based on a total weight of the core] and according to the abstract, the core includes SiOx wherein 0≤x<2.) (For example, if the metal compound is MgSiO3, then the SiOx core is made of 1 wt% MgSiO3 ); and the dispersed silicate material constitutes a skeleton structure of the silicon-based negative electrode material (para. 0056, structure is the doped SiO2 matrix).
Choi is silent regarding grain size and does not teach the grain size of the modified SiOx material is 0.5-100 nm.
Oh, in the same field of endeavor, silicon-based negative electrode materials, teaches that the grain size of the modified SiOx material is 0.5-100 nm (para. 0077, example 2/sample 2 [15nm]).
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 , in order to prepare a silicon oxide composite, of which silicon crystals are controlled to several nm levels to retain the battery capacity through an efficient reaction of the added metal, as taught by Oh (para. 0039).
Regarding the recitation that the silicate material does not have physical and chemical reactions with lithium intercalation and deintercalation of the silicon-based negative electrode material during a cycling process, and keeps an original structure even after multiple cycles, modified Choi teaches the silicon based negative electrode, including the modified SiOx material, the grain size, and mass percent, and thus contains the inherent properties of a silicate material that does not have physical and chemical reactions with lithium intercalation and deintercalation of the silicon-based negative electrode material during a cycling process.
Regarding product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.).
Regarding claim 2, Choi teaches the Silicon-based negative electrode material according to claim 1, and further teaches wherein the Silicon-based negative electrode material further comprises a carbon coating layer (para. 0021), and the modified SiOx material is coated with the carbon coating layer with a thickness of 1-100 nm (para. 0033 [1 nm to 100 nm).
Regarding claim 3, modified Choi teaches the Silicon-based negative electrode material according to claim 1, wherein the grain size of the modified SiOx material is 2-30 nm (Oh, para. 0077, example 2/sample 2 [15nm]) and in the modified SiOx material, the silicate material accounts for 10-30% of the total mass of the modified SiOx material (para. 0057 [the metal compound may be included in an amount of 1 wt% to 60 wt%]).
Regarding claim 4, modified Choi teaches the Silicon-based negative electrode material according to claim 1, wherein an average particle diameter (D50) of the Silicon-based negative electrode material is 0.1-40 µm (claim 9, [0.1-20 µm]).
Choi does not teach that the specific surface area of the Silicon-based negative electrode material is 0.5-40 m2/g.
Oh teaches the specific surface area of the Silicon-based negative electrode material is 0.5-40 m2/g (para. 0057, [1 - 50 m2/g]).
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 inserted Choi’s negative electrode active material with a surface area of 0.5-7.5 m2/g, as taught by Oh, in order to have a material with uniform electrode film in the coating process after the slurry is prepared and to have a material unfavorable to side reaction in the battery at the time of charge and discharge, that may result in a deterioration in battery characteristics, as taught by Oh (para. 0050).
Regarding claim 5, modified Choi teaches the Silicon-based negative electrode material according to claim 4, wherein the average particle diameter (D50) of the Silicon-based negative electrode material is 2-15 µm (claim 9, [0.1-20 µm]), and the specific surface area is 1-10 m2/g (Oh, para. 0057, [1 - 50 m2/g]).
Regarding claim 6, modified Choi teaches the Silicon-based negative electrode material according to claim 1.
Choi does not teach wherein when the element M is Mg, the corresponding silicate is MgSiO3 and/or Mg2SiO4, maximum X-ray diffraction (XRD) peaks of MgSiO3 are located at one or more of 28.1 degrees, 31.1 degrees, 34.8 degrees, 34.9 degrees and 36.9 degrees, and a maximum XRD peak of Mg2SiO4 is located at 36.5 degrees.
Oh, in the same field of endeavor, silicon-based negative electrode materials, teaches a maximum XRD peak of Mg2SiO4 is located at 36.5 degrees (Fig. 2, example 2, sample 2).
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 analyzed Choi’s negative electrode material and to have a maximum XRD peak of Mg2SiO4 located at 36.5 deg., as taught by Fig. 2 of Oh, in order to measure the relative ratio between the intensity of a diffraction peak belonging to Si and Mg2SiO4 (para. 0086 and Table 1), which then determines the size of the Si crystals which have an overall effect on the efficiency and capacity of the battery, as taught by Oh (para. 0043).
Regarding claim 7, Choi teaches a negative electrode plate (abstract, [negative electrode]), wherein the negative electrode plate comprises the Silicon-based negative electrode material containing the silicate skeleton according to any one of claims 1-6 (abstract, [negative electrode … which include the same]).
Regarding claim 8, Choi teaches a lithium battery, wherein the lithium battery comprises the Silicon-based negative electrode material containing the silicate skeleton according to any one of claims 1-6 (abstract, [ a lithium secondary battery which include the same]).
Regarding claim 9, Choi teaches the lithium battery according to claim 8, wherein the lithium battery (abstract, [lithium secondary battery]) is a liquid lithium ion battery (para. 0070 [inorganic liquid electrolyte] [organic liquid electrolyte]), a semi-solid lithium ion battery (para. 0070, [gel-type polymer electrolyte]), an all-solid ion battery (para. 0070 [solid polymer electrolyte, solid inorganic electrolyte]).
Pertinent Art
US 20220231280 A1
Teaches a silicon based active material including a metal-silicon oxide.
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