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 .
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.
Specification
The specification and drawings have been reviewed and no clear informalities or objections have been noted.
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 12 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.
In claim 12, which depends from claim 1, Applicant defines the silicon compound differently that what is present in claim 1 which adds a clarity issue to this claim. In claim 1, the SiOx compound is defined with x between and including 0.5 and 1.5. Then, in claim 12, Applicant claims that the silicon compound can be SiO2 which conflicts with the definition of the silicon compound of claim 1 and renders the claim indefinite. 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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 12-15 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Son (US 2019/0207221).
Regarding claims 1 and 12, Son discloses a negative electrode material, comprising a silicon compound SiO (core 1 comprises a silicon compound, see paragraph 81 and see paragraph 78 which discloses the presence of SiO in the silicon compound), a first conductive layer (the first conductive layer 2 comprises graphene, see paragraph 84 which discloses that the shell 2 comprises graphene), and a second conductive layer (the second conductive layer comprises carbon nanotube and see paragraphs 109-112 which discloses that a carbonaceous coating 12 is placed on the silicon composite compound 10 and can be composed of carbon nanotube);
wherein 0.5≤x≤1.5; at least a part of the first conductive layer is disposed between the silicon compound and the second conductive layer (see Fig. 1B which illustrates the first conductive layer 2 is between the second conductive layer 12 and the silicon compound 10); and
the first conductive layer comprises graphene and the second conductive layer comprises carbon nanotubes (as described above).
Son teaches a silicon oxide contained in the core, and teaches a formula of SiOx (see paragraph 82). Son does not explicitly teach the claimed range of values for x but does teach a range that overlaps the claimed range (x is between 0 and 2, see paragraph 82). As such, arriving at the claimed range would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. 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)).
Regarding claim 4, Son further discloses a median particle size C μm of the negative electrode material (diameter of the negative electrode active material in Son is the particle size of the core plus the thickness of the graphene and nanotube layer, which is in the nanometer range according to paragraphs 79 and 109) and a median particle size A μm of the silicon compound (silicon compound is the core of Son and is taught to be between 3-10 microns, see paragraph 79) satisfy the following relational expression: A≤C≤2A. While Son does not explicitly teach this range of relationship defined by A≤C≤2A, it does teach an overlapping range as described above. As such, arriving at the claimed range would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. 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)).
Regarding claims 13 and 14, Son further discloses the negative electrode material comprising nano Si grains, and a size of the nano Si grain being less than 100 nm (see paragraph 169 which discloses silicon nanoparticles with a size range that overlaps the claimed range). While Son does not explicitly teach the claimed range, it does teach a range that overlaps the claimed range. As such, arriving at the claimed range would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. 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)).
Regarding claim 15, Son further discloses a median particle size of the negative electrode material being 1 μm to 50 μm (see paragraph 100 which discloses a range of the core and the shell to give the particle size of the negative electrode active material that overlaps the claimed range). While Son does not teach the exact claimed range, it does teach an overlapping range. As such, arriving at the claimed range would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. 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)).
Regarding claim 17, Son further discloses based on a total weight of the negative electrode material, a percentage of the graphene being 1 wt % to 20 wt % (see paragraph 101 which discloses a weight of the graphene relative to the silicon which results in a range that overlaps the claimed range), and a percentage of the carbon nanotubes being 0.1 wt % to 10 wt %. (similarly, the carbonaceous coating/nanotube coating of Son is layered on in a thickness, as described in paragraph 113, that will produce a weight ratio that overlaps the claimed range). While Son does not teach the exact claimed range with regard to the graphene content or the nanotube content, it does teach an overlapping range. As such, arriving at the claimed range would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. 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(s) 8-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Son (US 2019/0207221) in view of Pan (US 2018/0241032).
Regarding claim 8, Son teaches a silicon active material compound but is silent regarding a polymer layer, wherein at least a part of the polymer layer being disposed between the silicon compound and the second conductive layer.
Pan also discloses an anode with silicon as an active material (see abstract).
Pan, like Son, teaches silicon particles (10) in the anode where a polymer layer (12, see Fig. 4 which illustrates an embodiment where the polymer layer 12 is directly coating the silicon active material) encapsulates the silicon active material. Pan teaches such a layer in order to limit rapid capacity decay associated with silicon based anode active materials (paragraph 16).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to add the polymer layer of Pan to the active material of modified Son, which would place it between the silicon compound and the second conductive layer, in order to limit rapid capacity decay associated with silicon based anode active materials (paragraph 16).
Regarding claim 9, Son, as modified by Pan, further discloses the polymer layer comprising at least one of polyvinylidene fluoride and derivatives thereof, carboxymethyl cellulose and derivatives thereof, sodium carboxymethyl cellulose and derivatives thereof, polyvinylpyrrolidone and derivatives thereof, polyacrylic acid and derivatives thereof, polymerized styrene butadiene rubber, polyacrylamide, polyimide, or polyamideimide (see paragraph 33 of Pan which discloses several of the claimed polymer materials).
Regarding claims 10-11, Son, as modified by Pan, further discloses based on a total weight of the negative electrode material, a percentage of the polymer layer being 0.05 wt % to 10 wt % (see paragraph 70 which discloses a layer thickness of the polymer material to be between 0.5nm to 10 microns and combining with the size range of the negative electrode active material of modified Son, a range is produced between the weight of the active material and the polymer layer that overlaps the claimed range). Modified Son does not explicitly teach the claimed range, but does teach an overlapping range. As such, arriving at the claimed range would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. 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(s) 3 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Son (US 2019/0207221) in view of Sakamoto (US 2023/0109890).
Regarding claims 3 and 16, Son teaches an average particle size of the silicon compound to be 3-10 microns (see paragraph 79) and teaches carbon nanotubes, but is silent regarding the average tube length of the carbon nanotubes as well as the claimed relationship between the particle size and tube length: 0.5*A≤B≤2*π*A, Son is also silent regarding the claimed nanotube diameter and the length to diameter ratio.
Sakamoto also discloses a negative electrode for a battery (see abstract).
Sakamoto, like Son, teaches the presence of carbon nanotubes in the anode active material for purposes of conductivity (paragraph 54). Sakamoto goes on to teach that the carbon nanotubes has a preferable fiber length of 1-100 microns in order to suppress a decrease in the charge-discharge cycle characteristics (paragraph 55). In addition, Sakamoto teaches a preferable nanotube length of 1-100 microns and a preferable nanotube diameter of 0.5nm to 20nm, see paragraph 56. Such a range overlaps the claimed ranges of claim 16.
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the carbon tube length and diameter of Sakamoto in the carbon nanotube conductive material of Son in order to suppress a decrease in the charge-discharge cycle characteristics. In addition, such a modification would create a relationship between the particle size of the silicon compound of Son (3-10 microns) and the carbon nanotube length of modified Son (1-100 microns) that would create a range that overlapped the claimed relationship between A and B, but would not explicitly teach the claimed relationship (0.5*A≤B≤2*π*A). As such, arriving at the claimed range would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. 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(s) 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Son (US 2019/0207221) in view of Venkatachalam (US 2019/0207209).
Regarding claim 18, Son teaches a negative electrode plate, comprising a current collector and the negative electrode material according to claim 1, wherein the negative electrode material is applied onto at least one surface of the current collector (as described in paragraph 223 which discloses a current collector and the electrode coated on a surface).
Son, however, does not go into specifics regarding the thickness of the electrode plate or the compacted density.
Venkatachalam also discloses a silicon oxide based anode (see abstract).
Venkatachalam teaches an anode material that is coated on a current collector and is pressed to a desired density (see paragraph 86 which discloses an electrode density of 0.5-2 g/cm3) and a desired thickness (see paragraph 68 which discloses the current collector has a thickness of 2-20 microns while the electrode layer has a thickness of 25-75 microns per paragraph 86). Venkatachalam goes on to teach that these parameters contribute to enhancing cycling performance (paragraph 66-67).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to utilize the electrode thickness and density of Venkatachalam in the electrode plate of modified Son in order to enhance cycling performance. Furthermore, while modified Son does not teach the exact claimed ranges, it does teach overlapping ranges. As such, arriving at the claimed range would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. 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)).
Regarding claim 19, while modified Son does not explicitly teach the physical property of the peeling strength, modified Son does teach an identical product which includes all the claimed structural limitations. As such, it is assumed that the claimed physical traits will also be present in modified Son. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding claim 20, modified Son further discloses an electrochemical apparatus, comprising: a positive electrode plate; the negative electrode plate according to claim 18; a separator disposed between the positive electrode plate and the negative electrode plate; and an electrolyte (as described in paragraph 251).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 and 5-7 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art, Son, teaches graphene flakes (paragraph 173). However, the prior art is silent regarding the number of flakes on a single silicon compound particle as well as the claimed relationship between the flake diameter and the median particle size of the silicon compound. Likewise, Son teaches the inclusion of a metal oxide in the silicon oxide electrode (paragraph 174), but the prior art neither teaches nor suggests including a carbon material in the same layer as the metal oxide. Finally, with regard to claim 2, the prior art neither teaches nor suggests a motivation to modify Son to change the configuration of the layers, placing the first carbon layer, which comprises carbon nanotubes, in between the silicon compound and the second conductive layer comprising graphene.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW J MERKLING whose telephone number is (571)272-9813. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8am-6pm.
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, Basia Ridley can be reached at 571-272-1453. 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.
/MATTHEW J MERKLING/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725