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 .
Claims 1-16 remain in the application.
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.
Claim 10 is 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 10, the terms “Dn and Dv” are unclear and confusing. Clarification is requested.
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.
Claims 1-11 and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Do et al. (2014/0255785).
Do et al. (2014/0255785) teaches a silicon-graphene nanocomposite for electrochemical applications. The nano graphitic composite for use as an anode in a lithium-ion battery includes nanoparticles if an electroactive material and a plurality of graphene nanoplatelets (abstract). Do et al. (2014/0255785) teaches the electroactive material to include silicon [0019],[0078],[0087-0088] with a particle size of 10nm to 3 microns [0087],[0103] and the graphene to include graphitic particle/platelets having size of 30-220 nm [0089] which meet the claimed formulas M<N and 2<N<10 where M is the graphite particle size and N is the electrochemical/Si size as M is greater than N as shown in Figs. 1A-1C and .
Regarding claim 2, Do et al. (2014/0255785) teaches the number of graphite particles W being more than 3, i.e. W>3.
Regarding claim 3, Do et al. (2014/0255785) teaches the silicon-graphene composite to meet the formula 3<N<10 as the silicon particle is 3-10 microns [0103].
Regarding claim 4, Do et al. (2014/0255785) teaches the formular 0.1<M/N<0.99 as the graphene particles are smaller than the silicon particle.
Regarding claim 5, Do et al. (2014/0255785) teaches the aspect ratio of the graphene particles to be 900/200=4.5 which meets the claims 3-10 aspect ratio.
Regarding claim 6, Do et al. (2014/0255785) teaches silicon content to be 5% to 90% and variation thereof [0085] and the content of carbon would balance to 100% making it 95% to 10%.
Regarding claim 7, Do et al. (2014/0255785) teaches graphite from petroleum or coal coke [0103] and silicon being elemental [0088].
Regarding claim 8, Do et al. (2014/0255785) teaches the silicon-graphene composite to be less than or equal to 30 microns [0087]-[0089].
Regarding claim 9, Do et al. (2014/0255785) teaches the silicon-graphene nanocomposite for use as anode in a lithium-ion battery application which meets the claimed electrode active material (abstract and [0109]-[0111]).
Regarding claim 10, Do et al. (2014/0255785) teaches a particle size distribution which would meet the claims formula 0.3<Dn10/Dv50<1.
Regarding claim 11, the Examiner takes the position that the claimed highest intensity values would be met as the materials and sizes are the same and hence one skilled in the art would have had a reasonable expectation that the intensity values to be similar.
Regarding claim 13, Do et al. (2014/0255785) teaches the claimed silicon and graphene particle sizes meeting the claimed formulas as well as using an organic carbon source (coal and tar pitch) while grinding and milling to produce the claimed materials [0104]-[0112].
Regarding claim 14, Do et al. (2014/0255785) teaches the same carbon source (pitch/tar) and hence would have similar softening point of 200-250C [0104]-[0112].
Regarding claims 15 and 16, Do et al. (2014/0255785) teaches the silicon-graphene nanocomposite for use as anode in a lithium-ion battery application which meets the claimed electrochemical apparatus and electronic apparatus (abstract and [0109]-[0111]).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Do et al. (2014/0255785) in combination with CN 110797520.
Features detailed above concerning the teachings of Do et al. (2014/0255785) are incorporated here.
Do et al. (2014/0255785) fails to teach coating the silicon/graphene nanoparticle composite with a layer of metal oxide and a polymer layer.
CN 110797520 teaches negative electrode material including a silicon particle including graphene whereby the c particle is coated with MeOy layer with wt% of 0.001-0.9 wt% and a thickness of 1-800 nm as well as a polymer layer including carbon material.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Do et al. (2014/0255785) silicon/graphene nanoparticle composite to include a metal oxide and polymer thereon as evidenced by CN 110797520 with the expectation of improved performance of the electrode material
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN K TALBOT whose telephone number is (571)272-1428. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 6:30-5PM - Fri OFF.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at 571-272-5166. 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 K TALBOT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1715