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 § 103
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.
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.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaspar (Silicon oxycarbide/nano-silicon composite anodes for Li-ion batteries, as cited within the IDS 6/17/2024).
As to claim 1, Kaspar discloses a negative electrode active material (Introduction, discussed throughout) comprising composite particles in which silicon nanoparticles are dispersed inside a matrix containing silicon oxycarbide and a carbonaceous phase (Abstract and Introduction, Table 1, discussed throughout), the negative electrode active material having a crystalline particle size of 40nm or less determined by the Scherrer method from a full width at half maximum (FWHM) of a diffraction line attributed to Si(111) around 2θ=28.4° in analysis of an X-ray diffraction pattern (Experimental 30-50 nm, figure 1, discussed throughout also MPEP 2112). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05 I).
As to claim 2, Kaspar discloses wherein, the matrix in the composite particles has a carbonaceous phase content in a range of 30% by weight to 85% by weight of a matrix total weight (Introduction and Table 1).
As to claim 3, Kaspar discloses wherein, the matrix in the composite particles has a carbonaceous phase content in a range of 40% by weight to 70% by weight of a matrix total weight (Introduction and Table 1). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05 I).
As to claim 5, Kaspar discloses wherein, the composite particles have a true density higher than 1.60 g/cm3 and less than 2.40 g/cm3 (introduction and experimental, the particles are silicon and silicon has a true density of 2.33 g/cm3).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaspar as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yoshikawa (US 2016/0087270).
As to claim 4, Kaspar is silent to wherein, the composite particles have a specific surface area (BET) in a range of 1 m2/g to 20 m2/g. Yoshikawa discloses a negative electrode material for lithium ion batteries ([0012]) wherein silicon has microcrystals ([0021]) with a surface area of 0.1 to 30 m2/g ([0036]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill within the art at the time of the effective filling date of the invention to use the surface areas of the silicon from Yoshikawa within Kaspar because if surface area is less than 0.1 m2/g, the surface activity may become lower, the binding force of a binder during electrode preparation may become lower, resulting in a degradation of cycle performance after repeated charge/discharge cycles and if the BET specific surface area exceeds 30 m2/g, a more amount of solvent may be absorbed during electrode preparation, which requires to add a larger amount of binder to maintain the binding force, resulting in a drop of conductivity as well as a degradation of cycle performance ([0036], Yoshikawa). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05 I).
Claim 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaspar as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of JP (JP 6547309B2).
As to claim 6, Kaspar is silent to wherein, the composite particles each have a surface with a coating layer mainly containing low crystalline carbon with an average thickness of 10 nm or more and 300 nm or less. JP discloses a negative electrode for lithium ion batteries (page 2, discussed throughout) wherein silicon particles are coated with carbon (page 2, discussed throughout) with a coating thickness of 2 nm to 20 nm (page 3, discussed throughout). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill within the art at the time of the effective filling date of the invention to use the coating from JP within Kaspar because carbon coating can prevent the loss of the reversible capacity due to the natural oxidation of the silicon particle surface (page 3, discussed throughout).
Modified Kaspar is silent to the type of carbon that is used as the coating however, JP discloses using soft carbon within the electrode (page 4). Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill within the art at the time of the effective filling date of the invention to use soft carbon as the coating carbon as a mere combing prior art elements according to known methods to obtain predictable results (see MPEP 2143).
As to claim 7, Kaspar discloses a nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery comprising the negative electrode active material according to claim 1 (Introduction shows that the battery is a lithium ion battery, Experimental shows the electrolyte is nonaqueous electrolyte).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN R OHARA whose telephone number is (571)272-0728. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 AM-3:30 PM EST M-F.
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, Miriam Stagg can be reached at 571-270-5256. 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.
/BRIAN R OHARA/Examiner, Art Unit 1724
Prosecution Insights