DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-10 are presented for examination.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because in step 3 the limitation “the disperser” is respectfully recommended to be indicated as a “second disperser,” or equivalent, for clarity, since the disperser of step 3 must be a different disperser to that of step 1 because step 3 requires “adding the nano-silicon aqueous solution (which was formed by dispersing evenly in a disperser in step 1) …into the disperser” (emphasis added).
Claim 1 is objected to because in step 5, the limitation “soaking the gel solution with ethanol solution until a gel turning into a white solid…” (emphasis added) does not make grammatical sense. An appropriate correction is respectfully required.
Claim 1 is objected to because in step 5, the limitation “…then using absolute ethanol to soaking the white solid for 1 to 24 hours, and collecting the white solid” (emphasis added) does not make grammatical sense. An appropriate correction is respectfully required.
Claim 1 is objected to because in step 7, the tilde in limitation “a mass ratio of (2 ̃15): 1” should be replaced with a dash. An appropriate correction is respectfully required.
Claim 1 is objected to because in step 8, the step “keep temperature constant for 1 to 3 hours” (emphasis added) should be a gerund, e.g. “keeping temperature constant for 1 to 3 hours,” or equivalent. An appropriate correction is respectfully required.
Claim 3 is objected to because the limitation “in step 8” is respectfully recommended to be presented earlier for clarity, such as e.g. “The preparing method for silicon-carbon composite negative electrode material according to claim 1, wherein in step 8, the mixed material obtained by step 7 is heated to 400° C. at a rate of no more than 10° C. per minute
Claim 4 is objected to because the limitation “the mixed material” should indicate “the mixed material of step 7…,” similar to claim 3, since there are three mixing steps in independent claim 1 (steps 1, 7, and 10), from which claim 4 depends.
Claim 4 is objected to because the limitation “in step 8” is respectfully recommended to be presented earlier for clarity, such as e.g. “The preparing method for silicon-carbon composite negative electrode material according to claim 1, wherein in step 8, the mixed material is continued to heat up to 600° C. at a rate of no more than 5° C. per minute
Claim 5 is objected to because the limitation “the protective gas used in step 8 is selected one or more of nitrogen, helium, neon, argon, krypton, xenon and radon” requires a preposition, such as e.g. “the protective gas used in step 8 is selected from one or more of nitrogen, helium, neon, argon, krypton, xenon and radon.” An appropriate correction is respectfully required.
Claim 6 is objected to because the limitation “the protective gas used in step 8 is selected one or more of nitrogen, helium, neon, argon, krypton, xenon and radon” requires a preposition, such as e.g. “the protective gas used in step 9 is selected from one or more of nitrogen, helium, neon, argon, krypton, xenon and radon.” An appropriate correction is respectfully required.
Claim 7 is objected to because the limitation “in step 9” is respectfully recommended to be presented earlier for clarity, such as e.g. “The preparing method for silicon-carbon composite negative electrode material according to claim 1, wherein in step 9, the coated material is heated to 1050-1150° C. at a rate of no more than 6° C. per minute
Claim 8 is objected to because the limitation “in step 9” is respectfully recommended to be presented earlier for clarity, such as e.g. “The preparing method for silicon-carbon composite negative electrode material according to claim 1, wherein in step 9, the coated material is heated to 1100° C. at a rate of no more than 6° C. per minute
Claim 10 is objected to because the limitation “in step 9” is respectfully recommended to be presented earlier for clarity, such as e.g. “The preparing method for silicon-carbon composite negative electrode material according to claim 1, wherein in step 10, the carbonized material is mixed with the graphite negative electrode material according to a mass ratio of 1: (1-99)
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 1-10 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.
Regarding claim 1, from which the other claims depend, in step 1 the limitation, “the dispenser” does not have a proper antecedent basis.
Still regarding claim 1, in step 1 the limitation “the nano-silicon aqueous solution” does not have a proper antecedent basis.
Still regarding claim 1, in step 2 the limitation “the mass ratio of 1 : (0.1-10)” does not have a proper antecedent basis.
Still regarding claim 1, in step 2 the limitation “at the same time” is not clear as to what it modifies, such as e.g. (a) “mixing starch and water” or (b) “mixing starch and water…and stirring….” See also instant specification, at e.g. ¶¶ 0007, 24, 48, and 61.
Still regarding claim 1, in step 3 the limitation “the mass ratio of nano-silicon and starch (0.5-5): (0.1-10)” does not have a proper antecedent basis.
Still regarding claim 1, in step 3 the limitation “the disperser” does not have antecedent basis, since the disperser of step 3 must be a different disperser to that of step 1 because step 3 requires “adding the nano-silicon aqueous solution…into the disperser” (emphasis added).
Still regarding claim 1, in step 7 the limitation “the carbon source” does not have a proper antecedent basis.
Still regarding claim 1, in step 8 the limitation “stirring at a speed of 100 to 200 rpm in the whole process” (emphasis added) is not clear as to what it modifies, such as e.g. (a) all of steps 1-8, (b) all of step 8, and (c) for step of “keep temperature constant for 1 to 3 hours.” See also instant specification, at e.g. ¶0013.
Still regarding claim 1, in step 8 the limitation “at the same time passing through the protective gas” (emphasis added) is not clear as to what it modifies, such as e.g. (a) all of steps 1-8, (b) all of step 8, and (c) for step of “keep temperature constant for 1 to 3 hours.” See also instant specification, at e.g. ¶0013.
Still regarding claim 1, in step 8 the limitation “at the same time passing through the protective gas” (emphasis added) is not clear as to what the protective gas passes through, such as e.g. (a) the mixed material obtained by step 7, (b) the reactor, or (c) both the mixed material obtained by step 7 and the reactor. See also instant specification, at e.g. ¶¶ 0013, 30, 54, and 67.
Still regarding claim 1, in step 8 the limitation “the carbon source coating” does not have a proper antecedent basis.
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al (CN111540896, published 2020), noting the art shares an inventor with the instant application.
Regarding independent claim 1, Liu teaches a method for preparing silicon-carbon composite anode material (e.g. ¶¶ 0007-08), reading on “preparing method for silicon-carbon composite negative electrode material,” said method comprising:
Step 1. E.g., “Disperse nano-silicon and water in a disperser at a mass ratio of 1:(0.5~5) to obtain a nano-silicon aqueous solution” (e.g. ¶¶ 0009, 29, 50, and 64), wherein a person of ordinary skill in the art would put said nano-silicon and said water into said disperser in order to be able to perform the taught step to disperse nano-silicon and water in a disperser,” reading on “step1: putting a nano-silicon and water into the disperser, according to a mass ratio of 1: (0.5-5) and dispersing … to obtain the nano-silicon aqueous solution;”
Step 2. E.g., “Simultaneously, mix starch and water at a mass ratio of 1:(0.1～10) and stir for 1～20 minutes at a temperature of 85～95℃” (e.g. ¶¶ 0010, 30, 51, and 65), reading on “step 2: mixing starch and water according to the mass ratio of 1: (0.1-10), and stirring for 1-20 minutes at a temperature of 85-95° C.; at the same time;”
Step 3. E.g., “According to the mass ratio of nano-silicon to starch (0.5-5):(0.1-10), add the nano-silicon aqueous solution from step 1 and the starch solution obtained in step 2 into a disperser and continue to disperse until uniform to form a gel solution” (e.g. ¶¶ 0011, 31, 52, and 66), reading on “step 3: adding the nano-silicon aqueous solution and a starch solution obtained by step 2 into the disperser according to the mass ratio of nano-silicon and starch (0.5-5): (0.1-10), and dispersing evenly to form a gel solution;”
Step 4. E.g., “Cool the above gel solution to room temperature and let it stand for 8-48 hours” (e.g. ¶¶ 0012, 32, 53, and 67), reading on “step 4: cooling the gel solution to room temperature and standing for 8-48 hours;”
Step 5. E.g., “Soak the gel solution from step 4 in ethanol solution until the gel turns into a white solid. Then, soak it in anhydrous ethanol for 1 to 24 hours and collect the white solid” (e.g. ¶¶ 0013, 33, 54, and 68), wherein said taught “anhydrous ethanol” is a synonym of “absolute ethanol;” and/or, anhydrous ethanol is ethanol without water (“anhydrous”) and understood to not include components other than ethanol since none are taught/suggested, so anhydrous ethanol is highly pure ethanol, reading on “step 5: soaking the gel solution with ethanol solution until a gel turning into a white solid, and then using absolute ethanol to soaking the white solid for 1 to 24 hours, and collecting the white solid;”
Step 6. E.g., “Place the white solid obtained above into a supercritical dryer for drying, and pulverize the dried material to D50 = 13-25 micrometers” (e.g. ¶¶ 0014, 34, 55, and 69), reading on “step 6: putting the white solid into a supercritical dryer for drying, and crushing the dried white solid to D50=13-25 microns;”
Step 7. E.g., “Mix the crushed material from step 6 with the carbon source at a mass ratio of (2-15):1,” wherein “The carbon source mentioned in step seven is asphalt, resin, or sucrose” (e.g. ¶¶ 0015, 19, 35, 39, 56, and 70), reading on “step 7: … mixing a pulverized material obtained by step 6 with the carbon source according to a mass ratio of (2 ̃15): 1;”
Step 8. E.g., “Heat the mixture in a reactor to 180-400°C at a rate not exceeding 10°C per minute, hold at that temperature for 1-3 hours, then continue heating to 450-600°C at a rate not exceeding 5°C per minute, hold at that temperature for 1-3 hours, stirring at 100-200 rpm throughout the process while introducing a protective gas to complete the carbon source coating. Cool to room temperature to obtain the coated material,” wherein “The protective gas mentioned in step eight is one or more of nitrogen, helium, neon, argon, krypton, xenon, and radon” (e.g. ¶¶ 0016, 20, 36, 42, 57, and 71), reading on “step 8 heating a mixed material obtained by step 7 in a reactor to 180-400° C. at a rate of no more than 10° C. per minute, keeping temperature constant for 1-3 hours, and continue to heat up to 450-600° C. at a rate of no more than 5° C. per minute, keep temperature constant for 1 to 3 hours, stirring at a speed of 100 to 200 rpm in the whole process, and at the same time passing through the protective gas to complete the carbon source coating, cooling to room temperature, and obtaining a coated material;”
Step 9. E.g., “The coated material is heated to 1000-1200°C in a protective gas atmosphere at a heating rate not exceeding 6°C per minute, and kept at the temperature for 1-5 hours. After cooling to room temperature, the carbonized material is obtained,” wherein “The protective gas mentioned in step nine is one or more of nitrogen, helium, neon, argon, krypton, xenon, and radon” (e.g. ¶¶ 0017, 21, 37, 43, 58, and 72), reading on “step 9 heating the coated material to 1000-1200°° C. at a rate of no more than 6° C. per minute in a protective gas atmosphere, keeping temperature constant for 1-5 hours, and cooling to room temperature to obtain a carbonized material;” and,
Step 10. E.g., “The carbonized material is mixed with the graphite anode material to obtain the silicon-carbon composite anode material,” wherein “The graphite anode material mentioned in step ten is either artificial graphite anode material or natural graphite anode material;” and, “the carbonized material in step 10 is mixed with the graphite anode material at a mass ratio of 1:(1 to 99)” (e.g. ¶¶ 0018, 22-23, 38, 46-47, 59, and 73), reading on “step 10 mixing the carbonized material with a graphite negative electrode material to obtain a silicon-carbon composite negative electrode material.”
Regarding Step 1, Liu teaches “Disperse nano-silicon and water in a disperser at a mass ratio of 1:(0.5~5) to obtain a nano-silicon aqueous solution” (e.g. supra), but does not expressly teach said dispersing is “evenly.”
However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to perform the dispersion until it is even, since an even distribution of dispersion results in an even property throughout said dispersion, a favorable characteristic for a predictable and even intervening products and even final product.
Regarding Step 7, Liu teaches ““Mix the crushed material from step 6 with the carbon source at a mass ratio of (2-15):1” (e.g. supra), but does not expressly teach said mixing is “uniformly mixing.”
However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to perform the mixing so that it is “uniformly mixing,” since a “uniformly mixing” results in a uniform property throughout a resulting mixture, a favorable characteristic for a predictable and even intervening products and even final product.
Regarding claim 2, Liu teaches the method of claim 1, wherein in Step 7, Liu teaches “The carbon source mentioned in step seven is asphalt, resin, or sucrose” (e.g. supra), reading on “the carbon source of step 7 is selected of pitch, resin or sucrose.”
Regarding claims 3-5, Liu teaches the method of claim 1, wherein in Step 8, which follows Step 7 (incorporated herein by reference), Liu teaches “Heat the mixture in a reactor to 180-400°C at a rate not exceeding 10°C per minute, hold at that temperature for 1-3 hours, then continue heating to 450-600°C at a rate not exceeding 5°C per minute, hold at that temperature for 1-3 hours, stirring at 100-200 rpm throughout the process while introducing a protective gas to complete the carbon source coating. Cool to room temperature to obtain the coated material,” wherein “The protective gas mentioned in step eight is one or more of nitrogen, helium, neon, argon, krypton, xenon, and radon” (e.g. supra), severably establishing a prima facie case of obviousness of the claimed ranges, see also e.g. MPEP § 2144.05(I), reading on “the mixed material obtained by step 7 is heated to 400° C. at a rate of no more than 10° C. per minute, in step 8” (claim 3); “the mixed material is continued to heat up to 600° C. at a rate of no more than 5° C. per minute, in step 8” (claim 4); and, “the protective gas used in step 8 is selected one or more of nitrogen, helium, neon, argon, krypton, xenon and radon” (claim 5).
Regarding claims 6-8, Liu teaches the method of claim 1, wherein in Step 9, which follows Step 8 (incorporated herein by reference), Liu teaches “The coated material is heated to 1000-1200°C in a protective gas atmosphere at a heating rate not exceeding 6°C per minute, and kept at the temperature for 1-5 hours. After cooling to room temperature, the carbonized material is obtained,” wherein “The protective gas mentioned in step nine is one or more of nitrogen, helium, neon, argon, krypton, xenon, and radon” (e.g. supra), reading on “the protective gas used in step 9 is selected one or more of nitrogen, helium, neon, argon, krypton, xenon and radon” (claim 6); severably establishing a prima facie case of obviousness of the claimed ranges, see also e.g. MPEP § 2144.05(I), reading on “the coated material is heated to 1050-1150° C. at a rate of no more than 6° C. per minute, in step 9”(claim 7); and, “the coated material is heated to 1100° C. at a rate of no more than 6° C. per minute, in step 9” (claim 8).
Regarding claims 9-10, Liu teaches the method of claim 1, wherein in Step 10, which follows Step 9 (incorporated herein by reference), Liu teaches “The carbonized material is mixed with the graphite anode material to obtain the silicon-carbon composite anode material,” wherein “The graphite anode material mentioned in step ten is either artificial graphite anode material or natural graphite anode material;” and, “the carbonized material in step 10 is mixed with the graphite anode material at a mass ratio of 1:(1 to 99)” (e.g. supra), reading on “the graphite negative electrode material in step 10 is an artificial graphite negative electrode material or a natural graphite negative electrode material” (claim 9); and, “the carbonized material is mixed with the graphite negative electrode material according to a mass ratio of 1: (1-99), in step 10” (claim 10).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YOSHITOSHI TAKEUCHI whose telephone number is (571)270-5828. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9-6.
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, TIFFANY LEGETTE-THOMPSON can be reached at (571)270-7078. 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.
/YOSHITOSHI TAKEUCHI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723