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 .
Relevant MPEP Sections
MPEP 2112.01 relating to Composition, Product, and Apparatus Claims: 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). “When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, applicant argues that the Examiner has erred in misconstruing the teachings of the previously applied LG prior art. However, as the prior art specifically:
[0026] As shown in the schematic diagram of FIG. 1, the negative active material according to one embodiment of the present invention includes porous silicon-based particles including a plurality of pores; and a carbon coating layer on the surface of the porous silicon-based particles. The carbon coating layer may be formed to cover the entire surface of the porous silicon-based particles and may include a portion spaced apart from the carbon-coated layer and the porous silicon- based particles, wherein the spaced portion is a pore formed on the surface of the porous silicon- desirable.
In other words, the schematic of figure 1 shows multiple porous silicon-based particles, which are carbon coated. Therefore, the interpretation of the prior art as previously applied is maintained, in that there are multiple porous silicon particles which are carbon coated as instantly claimed. Further, a person of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that regardless of how many particles are shown in the schematic figure, the anode active material of the prior art includes an agglomeration of these particles as shown in the SEM images in figures 2-4, where the multiple porous silicon particles are spaced apart by the carbon coating layer as instantly claimed.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., carbon in the pores, by not fully volatizing the polymer filler) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant also argues various differences in pyrolysis and carbonization variables such as temperature during heat treatments. Again, these are limitations which are not positively claimed, and the Examiner notes that these limitations would be drawn to products by process. Per MPEP 2113, “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) In the instant case, the product set forth in prior art and the structure required by the instant claims are the same.
In any event, a new ground of rejection, necessitated by the amendments, is made below. The rejections below are either being maintained or necessitated by amendment, and therefore this action is FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-7, 9-12 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1 or 2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over LG Chemical LTD (KR 10-1856926 B1 cited in IDS, using applicant’s provided machine translation, hereinafter “LG”)
In regard to claim 1-6, 10 and 12, LG teaches an anode active material for a lithium secondary battery having a core-shell structure composite with a D50 from 0.5 to 20 micron (paragraph [0030] of applicant’s provided translation),
the anode active material comprising (annotated figure 1 below):
a core comprising porous spherical particles with an internal porosity from 5% to 90% (as required by claim 12 -paragraph [0055]) comprising silicon (as required by claims 2-4) nano-particles with a D50 such as 100nm (paragraph [0067] – as required by claims 5 and 6) and carbon which is formed from an amorphous precursor such as sucrose (paragraphs [0092-0094] – as required by claim 10); and
a shell comprising one or more of crystalline carbon and amorphous carbon (the Examiner notes this encompasses substantially all possible forms of carbon),
wherein the metal particles of the core are physically connected to each other through the amorphous carbon of the core (paragraphs [0023-0026] - figure 1 annotated below), and wherein the metal particles (white dots below) are dispersed rather than coming into contact with each other, and the amorphous carbon is interposed between the metal particles.
PNG
media_image1.png
194
605
media_image1.png
Greyscale
While the prior art does not specifically disclose the carbon as amorphous or crystalline in the coating or core, the carbon in the core is formed in substantially the same manner as the instant invention (i.e. thermal decomposition of sucralose) and as the sucralose precursor is amorphous it is reasonably presumed that the carbon of the core is amorphous (see MPEP 2112.01). Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the before the effective filing date of the claimed invention filed that the core and shell could both include amorphous carbon as such is typically the resultant carbon from amorphous sucralose thermal decomposition at the temperatures described in the prior art.
Further, the endpoints of the ranges in the prior art anticipate the claimed ranges (MPEP 2131.03 – Anticipation of Ranges) or alternatively, the ranges for the particle sizes and porosity in the prior art overlap the claimed ranges in a manner which provides a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05 – Obviousness of Ranges).
In regard to claims 7 and 9, while the prior art does not specify a value for the electrical conductivity of the core-shell structure composite or perform Raman spectroscopy on the composition, the prior art has substantially identical structure and is therefore presumed to have properties which anticipate or obviate the claimed properties (see MPEP 2112.01). Further, the prior art specifies that electrical conductivity should be optimized through complete carbon coating of the silicon nanoparticles (paragraph [0170]), therefore as shown in figure 1 above, the silicon particles are dispersed in the core without coming into contact with each other.
In regard to claim 11, the Examiner notes that the claim does not positively require crystalline carbon if amorphous carbon is present in the shell (claim 1 requires crystalline or amorphous in the alternative). In any event, the prior art teaches graphite-based carbon (paragraph [0038]).
In regard to claim 16, LG teaches a lithium secondary battery comprising: an anode; a cathode; and an electrolyte, wherein the anode comprises the anode active material of claim 1 (paragraphs [0003, 0107-0111]).
Claims 1-7, 9-12 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1 or 2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Liu et al. (US Pub 2020/0161635 cited in IDS)
In regard to claim 1-6, 10 and 12, Liu et al. teach an anode active material for a lithium secondary battery having a core-shell structure composite with a D50 from 3 to 5 micron (paragraph [0043] as required by claim 6),
the anode active material comprising (annotated figure 1 below):
a core comprising porous spherical particles 12 with an internal porosity (as required by claim 12 -paragraph [0055]) comprising silicon (as required by claims 2-4) nano-particles with a D50 such as 3 to 10nm (paragraph [0039] in a manner which obviates the nanoscale ranges of claims 5 and 6) and carbon which is formed from an hydrocarbon precursor (paragraphs [0052] – as required by claim 10); and
a shell (coating 20, including silicon-carbide layer 106) comprising one or more of crystalline carbon and amorphous carbon (silicon-carbide interface is amorphous – paragraph [0047]),
wherein the metal particles 12 of the core are physically connected to each other through the amorphous carbon of the core (paragraphs [0023-0026] - figure 9 annotated below), and wherein the metal particles 12 are dispersed rather than coming into contact with each other, and the amorphous carbon 20, 106 is interposed between the metal particles (see annotated figure below, amorphous carbide coating 106 is formed in various degrees on all surfaces of the silicon particles, dispersing and preventing direct contact of some silicon particles).
PNG
media_image2.png
669
801
media_image2.png
Greyscale
While the prior art does not specifically disclose the carbon 20 as amorphous or crystalline in the coating or core, the carbon in the core is formed in substantially the same manner as the instant invention (i.e. thermal decomposition of hydrocarbon) it is reasonably presumed that the carbon of the core is amorphous (see MPEP 2112.01).
Further, the endpoints of the ranges in the prior art anticipate the claimed ranges (MPEP 2131.03 – Anticipation of Ranges) or alternatively, the ranges for the particle sizes and porosity in the prior art overlap the claimed ranges in a manner which provides a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05 – Obviousness of Ranges).
In regard to claims 7 and 9, while the prior art does not specify a value for the electrical conductivity of the core-shell structure composite or perform Raman spectroscopy on the composition, the prior art has substantially identical structure and is therefore presumed to have properties which anticipate or obviate the claimed properties (see MPEP 2112.01). Further, the prior art specifies that electrical conductivity should be optimized through carbon coating of the silicon nanoparticles (paragraph [0047]), therefore as shown in figure 9 above, the silicon particles are dispersed in the core without coming into contact with each other.
In regard to claim 11, the Examiner notes that the claim does not positively require crystalline carbon if amorphous carbon is present in the shell (claim 1 requires crystalline or amorphous in the alternative).
In regard to claim 16, Liu et al. teach a lithium secondary battery comprising: an anode; a cathode; and an electrolyte, wherein the anode comprises the anode active material of claim 1 (paragraphs [0003, 0059-0063]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US Pubs 2018/0145316 and 2023/0187614, now US Pub 2017/0187032 (both newly cited) teach similar carbon-silicon composite anode materials relevant to the instant claims.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nicholas P D'Aniello whose telephone number is (571)270-3635. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 9am to 5pm 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, Matthew Martin can be reached at 571-270-7871. 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.
/NICHOLAS P D'ANIELLO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723
