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 .
Examiner’s Comments
The examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers, paragraphs, or figures in the references as applied to the claims for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
The Examiner notes that claim 5 recite(s) nominal methods of making limitations, in combination with product limitations encompassing those of claim 1. As such, there is presently no undue burden in examining these, technically, divergent statutory classes of invention. Should Applicants' amend these claims to include non-nominal method limitations, these newly added claims may be subject to restriction by original presentation.
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.
Claims 1 and 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Senoue (US 2019/0181420).
Regarding claim 1, Senoue discloses a negative electrode active material layer, wherein the negative electrode active material layer contains silicon particles (4), graphite particles (2), and inorganic solid electrolyte particles (3) (Abstract, Fig. 2), wherein the silicon particles and the graphite particles are mixed in the negative electrode active material layer (Fig. 2), and wherein the graphite is more than 0 to 30 mass% of the total mass of silicon particles and graphite ([0097], Table 1), which overlaps the claimed range. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness, In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549.
Further, although Senoue discloses silicon particles, Senoue fails to explicitly disclose that it is porous. However, it would have been well within the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose to use porous. One of ordinary skill in the art would be well aware that silicon particles are either porous or nonporous. Thus, choice of being porous given only two alternatives would be well within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 3, Senoue discloses the inorganic solid electrolyte particles are sulfide solid electrolyte particles [0026], 70 to less than 100 mass% of silicon particles based upon total mass of silicon particles and graphite, more than 0 to 30 mass% of graphite based upon to a total mass of silicon particles and graphite [0098], silicon particles is 30-90 mass% of the layer [0028], and the inorganic solid electrolyte particles is 10-60 mass% of the layer [0026]. This thereby overlaps the claimed ratio. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness, In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549.
Further, Senoue discloses that the graphite has a particle size of 15 µm [0076] and the silicon particle has a particle size of 6 µm [0078], which satisfies the claimed relationship.
Senoue fails to explicitly disclose the aspect ratio of the graphite particles is 1.5 or more.
However, Senoue discloses that the shape of the particle is not specifically limited [0019]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the aspect ratio within the limits known in the art based on the desired functionality of the graphite particles since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art and with reasonable expectation of success. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) 1980.
Furthermore, it has been held that a mere change in shape without affecting the functioning of the part would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art, In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47; Eskimo Pie Corp. v. Levous et al., 3 USPQ 23.
Regarding claim 4, please see Fig. 3.
Regarding claim 5, please see [0044] and [0080].
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Senoue (US 2019/0181420) in view of Harata et al. (US 2021/0066713).
Regarding claim 1, Senoue discloses a negative electrode active material layer, wherein the negative electrode active material layer contains silicon particles (4), graphite particles (2), and inorganic solid electrolyte particles (3) (Abstract, Fig. 2), wherein the silicon particles and the graphite particles are mixed in the negative electrode active material layer (Fig. 2), and wherein the graphite is more than 0 to 30 mass% of the total mass of silicon particles and graphite ([0097], Table 1), which overlaps the claimed range. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness, In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549.
Further, although Senoue discloses silicon particles, Senoue fails to explicitly disclose that it is porous clathrate silicon particles. However, it would have been well within the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose to use porous. One of ordinary skill in the art would be well aware that silicon particles are either porous or nonporous. Thus, choice of being porous given only two alternatives would be well within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Nevertheless, Harata discloses a negative electrode active material containing porous silicon clathrate II (Abstract)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Senoue’s silicon particles to be of a porous clathrate silicon particle, since Harata discloses that the expansion of the negative electrode active material is inhibited during charging, thereby inhibited from being degraded during charging and discharging [0012].
Regarding claim 3, Senoue discloses the inorganic solid electrolyte particles are sulfide solid electrolyte particles [0026], 70 to less than 100 mass% of silicon particles based upon total mass of silicon particles and graphite, more than 0 to 30 mass% of graphite based upon to a total mass of silicon particles and graphite [0098], silicon particles is 30-90 mass% of the layer [0028], and the inorganic solid electrolyte particles is 10-60 mass% of the layer [0026]. This thereby overlaps the claimed ratio. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness, In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549.
Further, Senoue discloses that the graphite has a particle size of 15 µm [0076] and the silicon particle has a particle size of 6 µm [0078], which satisfies the claimed relationship.
Senoue fails to explicitly disclose the aspect ratio of the graphite particles is 1.5 or more.
However, Senoue discloses that the shape of the particle is not specifically limited [0019]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the aspect ratio within the limits known in the art based on the desired functionality of the graphite particles since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art and with reasonable expectation of success. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) 1980.
Furthermore, it has been held that a mere change in shape without affecting the functioning of the part would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art, In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47; Eskimo Pie Corp. v. Levous et al., 3 USPQ 23.
Regarding claim 4, please see Fig. 3.
Regarding claim 5, please see [0044] and [0080].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
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 LINDA N CHAU whose telephone number is (571)270-5835. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST M-F.
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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at (571)272-1291. 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.
Linda Chau
/L.N.C/ Examiner, Art Unit 1785
/Holly Rickman/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1785
Prosecution Insights