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 .
Summary
This is the initial Office Action based on Application 18/259,501 filed 06/27/2023 by Takakazu Hirose, Takumi Matsuno, Yusuke Osawa, Reiko Sakai, and Hiroyuki Koide.
Claims 8-18 are currently pending and have been fully considered.
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 8-18 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.
Claim 8 recites “the Li2SiO3 is a material in which at least a part of the Li2SiO3 is to change into Li4SiO4 by charging and discharging the negative electrode active material particle once or more, and an abundance ratio of the Li2SiO3 is higher than an abundance ratio of the Li4SiO4 before charging and discharging the negative electrode active material particle, and the abundance ratio of the Li4SiO4 is higher than the abundance ratio of the Li2SiO3 after charge and discharge at 100 times.” Therefore the claim recites the amount of the Li2SiO3 and Li4SiO4 based on the charge and discharge. However, the claim does not define what these parameters are used for the charge and discharge, and therefore it renders the claim indefinite, as it is not clear what parameters the charge and discharge are being performed under.
Claim 18 recites similar limitations and are taken to be indefinite for the same reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claim(s) 8-13 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over KAMO (10,862,122 B2).
With respect to claim 8 and 18. KAMO teaches a negative electrode active material which includes particles of silicon compound (column 3 lines 55-62). The particles of silicon contain one or more of LI2SiO3 and Li4SiO4 (column 4 lines 49-50). The particles of the active material then may be coated with a carbon material at a surface layer portion (column 5 lines 52-54).
KAMO does not explicitly teach an abundance ratio of the Li2SiO3 is higher than an abundance ratio of the Li4SiO4 before charging and discharging the negative electrode active material particle, and the abundance ratio of the Li4SiO4 is higher than the abundance ratio of the Li2SiO3 after charge and discharge at 100 times. However, KAMO teaches the same active material as claimed and it is taken to have the same property as claimed.
See MPEP 2112(III). Where applicant claims a composition in terms of a function, property or characteristic and the composition of the prior art is the same as that of the claim but the function is not explicitly disclosed by the reference, the examiner may make a rejection under both 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103. "There is nothing inconsistent in concurrent rejections for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 and for anticipation under 35 U.S.C. 102." In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255 n.4, 195 USPQ 430, 433 n.4 (CCPA 1977).
KAMO teaches the particles of the silicon compound contain one or more of the LI2SiO3 and Li4SiO4 (column 4 lines 49-50). The lithium silicates are materials in which the SiO2 component portion in the silicon compound, which becomes unstable when lithium is inserted and released at the time of charge and discharge of the battery, has previously been reformed into lithium silicates, so that irreversible capacity generated at the time of charging the battery can be reduced (column 4 lines 51-56). Therefore KAMO teaches the benefits of the lithium silicates being the reducing the irreversible capacity.
With respect to claim 9. KAMO does not explicitly teach the Li4SiO4 is a reversible component that contributes to the charge and discharge of the active material particle. However, KAMO teaches the same Li4SiO4 in the active material, and therefore it is taken to have the same property.
With respect to claims 10-11. KAMO teaches the negative electrode active material has an X-ray diffraction spectrum, with a peak Ia from an Si(111) face appear in a range of 2theta = 28.5+-0.5 degrees, and an intensity Ib of a peak in a range of 2theta = 31.8+-0.5 degrees (column 4 lines 15-19) satisfies a relationship of 1.0x10^-5<Ib/Ia<1.0x10^0 (column 4 lines 20). The peak in the range of 2theta = 31.8+-0.5 degrees is a peak derived from a crystal phase of lithium carbonite, zabuyelite (column 4 lines 25-30) Zabuyelite being Li2CO3.
KAMO does not explicitly teach the ratio of the crystal planes before charge and discharge satisfies the claimed relationship. However, as noted above KAMO teaches the same material as claimed, and therefore is taken to have the same properties.
With respect to claims 12-13. KAMO teaches the negative electrode active material has a particle diameter of 1- 15 microns (column 11 lines 29-34). Therefore this is taken to be an overlapping range with the claimed value of 5.5-15 microns. See MPEP 2144.05(I). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Claim(s) 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KAMO (10,862,122 B2) in view of LIANG (US 2022/0140318 A1).
Claim 14 is dependent upon claim 8 and claim 15 is dependent upon claim 9 both of which are rejected above in view of KAMO. KAMO does not explicitly teach the negative electrode active material particle has a true density of 2.3-2.4 g/cc before charge and discharge.
LIANG teaches a negative electrode active material including a silicon based materials (abstract). The negative electrode active material may have a true density of 2.2-2.4 g/cc (paragraph 0087). Such a true density is beneficial to make the negative electrode film layer have a higher compaction density and improve the energy density of the batteries (paragraph 0088).
At the time the invention was filed one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to form the negative electrode active material of KAMO to have the true density between 2.2-2.4 g/cc as taught by LIANG as LIANG teaches the benefits are for higher compaction density and improved energy density. Further the density of 2.2-2.4 g/cc is taken to be an overlapping range with the claimed value of 2.3-2.4 g/cc. See MPEP 2144.05(I). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Claim(s) 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KAMO (10,862,122 B2) in view of OH (US 2022/0367855 A1).
Claim 16 is dependent upon claim 8 and claim 17 is dependent upon claim 9 both of which are rejected above in view of KAMO. KAMO teaches a layer of carbon material is formed on the surface of the particles of the silicon compound (column 13 lines 32-35). The carbon material is used with a thermal decomposition CVD method (column 13 lines 33-36). However, KAMO does not explicitly teach an oxygen containing carbon layer on the outermost surface of the carbon layer.
OH teaches a composite negative electrode active material comprising a silicon based core material, an outer carbon coating layer, and an outer carbon coating layer comprising oxygen (abstract). The outer carbon coating on the core particles allow for volume expansion/contraction of the silicon based core particles (paragraph 0041). There may then be an outer carbon coating layer comprising the oxygen (paragraph 0042). If the oxygen content in the outer carbon coating layer is less than 35 wt% the outer carbon coating layer may be evaluated as being excessively carbonized by heat treatment, and it is difficult to form a free and flexible conductive network (paragraph 0044).
At the time the invention was filed one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include the oxygen containing carbon coating layer on the outermost layer of the carbon layer as taught by OH for the carbon coated active material of KAMO, as OH teaches such a oxygen containing layer is beneficial to help for the free and flexible carbon network of the carbon layer (see OH paragraph 0044).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN G JELSMA whose telephone number is (571)270-5127. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 9:00 AM to 4:00 PM EST.
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, Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at (571)272-3433. 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.
/JONATHAN G JELSMA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722