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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of invention I, claims 1-14 in the reply filed July 15, 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 15-20 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Foreign priority is claimed in the Instant Application; EFD is 03/20/2023.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informality:
Claim 5 recites “the weight ratio of the silicon nanoparticles” in line 2 which lacks an antecedent basis. It is respectfully suggested to define “a weight ratio of the silicon nanoparticles” earlier in the claim.
Appropriate correction 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.
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.
Claims 1-5, 7, and 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anguchamy et al., US 2014/0370387 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Anguchamy teaches a lithium-ion secondary battery comprising a negative electrode ([0008]). Anguchamy also teaches the negative electrode including a composite material of processed silicon suboxide and graphitic carbon ([0008]). This reads on the claimed “silicon/carbon anode composite for a lithium secondary battery comprising a carbonaceous material and silicon nanoparticles.” Anguchamy further teaches that the particles of processed silicon suboxide are embedded between graphene sheets, wherein the graphene sheets are formed from graphite ([0043]). This reads on the claimed “silicon nanoparticles bound to the surface of the carbonaceous material.”
Anguchamy differs from claim 1 because it is silent to the silicon nanoparticles surface-coated with a polymer or pitch. But Anguchamy teaches a negative electrode active composition which can comprise silicon suboxide-graphitic carbon composite material ([0048]) and a polymer binder, wherein the binder provides ionic conductivity to the active particles ([0049]). Thus, Anguchamy teaches a polymer binder in direct contact with the silicon-based active material.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the polymer binder as a coating on the silicon nanoparticles because Anguchamy teaches the binder in contact with the active particles to provide ionic conductivity ([0049]). Applying the binder as a surface coating would have been an obvious variation of placing the polymer in contact with the active particles while performing the same binding function taught by Anguchamy.
Regarding claim 2, Anguchamy teaches the composite material comprising processed silicon suboxide and graphitic carbon with a graphene component ([0063]). This reads on the claimed “silicon/carbon anode composition…wherein the carbonaceous material is at least one selected from the group… graphene.”
Regarding claim 3, Anguchamy differs from claim 3 because it is silent to the silicon nanoparticles coated on the surface of the carbonaceous material in an amount of 1-70 wt.%. However, Anguchamy teaches silicon-containing particles associated with graphite to form a silicon/carbon composite and teaches varying the relative amount of silicon-containing material and graphite within the composite ([0122]-[0124]). Anguchamy further teaches that varying the concentration of graphitic carbon of the silicon-graphitic carbon composite affects cycle life, discharge capacity, and capacity retention ([0124]). Thus, the relative amount of silicon-containing material with respect to the carbonaceous material is a result-effective variable.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the amount of silicon nanoparticles associated with the carbonaceous material, including selecting an amount within the claimed range of 1-70 wt.%, through routine optimization to achieve improved battery performance ([124]).
Regarding claim 4, Anguchamy teaches that the silicon nanoparticles comprise silicon oxide (SiOx), 0.1≤x≤1.9 ([0032]). The silicon oxide reads on the claimed “the silicon nanoparticles comprise silicon (Si) or silicon oxide (SiOx) (wherein 0.1≤x≤10).” Anguchamy also teaches that the processed silicon suboxide has an average particle size of 0.67 µm ([0115]) which is equivalent to 670 nm. The average particle size of 670 nm reads on the claimed “average particle size of 10-800 nm.”
Regarding claim 5, Anguchamy teaches a silicon/carbon anode composite including silicon nanoparticles with a polymer binder ([0049]). Anguchamy also teaches an electrode including at least 5 wt.% processed silicon suboxide-graphitic carbon composite active material and at least 2 wt. % polyimide binder ([0098]). The disclosed amounts correspond to a silicon composite active material-to-polymer binder weight ratio of at least 75:2 or 1:0.0267, which falls within the claimed ration of 1:0.005-0.3. Therefore, Anguchamy teaches the claimed weight ratio of the silicon nanoparticles to the polymer.
Regarding claim 7, Anguchamy teaches a negative electrode active composition which can comprise silicon suboxide-graphitic carbon composite material ([0048]) and a polymer binder, wherein the binder is polyethylene oxide ([0049]). The polymer reads on the claimed “polymer is at least one selected from the group consisting of…polyethylene oxide…”
Regarding claim 10, 11, and 12, Anguchamy teaches a lithium-ion battery comprising a negative electrode including the silicon suboxide-graphitic carbon composite ([0047]). Anguchamy also teaches the composite as a negative electrode active material ([0048]). This reads on the claimed “anode active material for lithium secondary battery comprising the silicon/carbon anode composite as defined in claim 1” (claim 10).
The composite as a negative electrode active material ([0048]) of the negative electrode ([0047]) reads on the claimed “anode for a lithium secondary battery comprising the anode active material as defined in claim 10” (claim 11).
The electrode of the battery comprising the composite further reads on the claimed “lithium secondary battery comprising the anode as defined in claim 11” (claim 12).
Regarding claim 13, Anguchamy teaches that lithium batteries are widely used in consumer electronics due to their relatively high density ([0003]), thereby teaching use of the disclosed lithium secondary battery reading on the claimed “device that comprises the lithium secondary battery as defined in claim 12 and is any one of selected from communication devices, transport devices and energy storage devices” (claim 13). Additionally, because Anguchamy teaches a lithium secondary battery ([0047]), the battery reads on the claimed “energy storage device.”
Regarding claim 14, Anguchamy teaches that improvement of battery capacities is desirable for vehicle applications and that maintaining suitable performance over numerous charge/discharge cycles is important for such vehicle applications ([0004]). Anguchamy also teaches the silicon-based material used in various commercial battery designs ([0058]) and that pouch cell batteries are particularly desirable for vehicle applications ([0060]). Thus, Anguchamy teaches use of the disclosed silicon-based anode in lithium batteries intended for vehicle applications reading on the claimed “an electric device which comprises the anode for a lithium secondary battery as defined in claim 11, and is any one selected from electric vehicles, hybrid electric vehicles, plug-in hybrid electric vehicles and electric power storage devices.”
Claims 6, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anguchamy et al., US 2014/0370387 A1 in view of Lee et al., US 2018/0069235 A1.
Regarding claims 6 and 8, Anguchamy differs from claim 6 because it is silent to thickness of the polymer or pitch coated on the surfaces of the silicon nanoparticles.
But Lee teaches an anode active material for a secondary battery including a crystalline carbon particle and silicon-based nanoparticles which are surface-coated with a first amorphous carbon layer and embedded into the crystalline carbon particle (abstract). Lee also teaches that the first amorphous carbon layer may be made up of petroleum-based pitch carbide ([0055]). Lee further teaches that the thickness of the first amorphous carbon layer may be in the range of 1-50 nm ([0056]). The carbon layer is beneficial because it suppresses the volume expansion of silicon during charge and discharge and imparts conductivity ([0054]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the silicon-carbon anode composite of Anguchamy to include the carbon layer comprising a petroleum-based pitch carbide in a thickness of 1-50 nm to suppress the volume expansion of silicon during charge and discharge and impart conductivity ([0054]). The thickness of 1-50 nm of Lee overlaps with the claimed range of 0.1-50 nm establishing a prima facie case of obviousness. This reads on the claimed “silicon/carbon anode composite for a lithium secondary battery according to claim 1, wherein the polymer or pitch is coated on the surfaces of the silicon nanoparticles to a thickness of 0.1-50” (claim 6).
With this modification, the silicon-carbon anode composite of Anguchamy with the petroleum pitch-based carbide read on the claimed “silicon/carbon anode composite for a lithium secondary battery according to claim 1, wherein the pitch is at least one selected from the group consisting of coal-based pitch, petroleum-based pitch and cokes” (claim 8).
Regarding claim 9, Anguchamy differs from claim 9 because it is silent to the silicon nanoparticles bound to the surface of the carbonaceous material through the physiochemical binding caused by mechanofusion. But Anguchamy teaches the silicon suboxide-graphitic carbon composite were formed by milling ([0113]).
However, Lee teaches that the silicon carbon composite mixing and pulverizing may be performed by using any one method selected from the group consisting of mechanofusion milling … and combinations thereof ([0097]). Lee also teaches that when a surface treatment processing process is performed using the mechanical apparatus as above the surface is coated with the carbon material ([0099]).
With this in mind, Lee further teaches that the anode active material comprising the silicon carbon composite is prepared in a mechanofusion apparatus and surface-treated at 2,500 rpm for 30 minutes ([0128]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to prepare the composite using mechanofusion as it is a known technique in the art. The composite prepared in a mechanofusion apparatus and surface-treated at 2,500 rpm for 30 minutes ([0128]) reads on the claimed “the silicon/carbon anode composite for a lithium secondary battery according to claim 1, which comprises silicon nanoparticles bound to the surface of the carbonaceous material through the physiochemical binding caused by mechanofusion at 1000-5000 rpm for 10-60 minutes.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sandra M Arias whose telephone number is (571)438-9468. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00 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, Insuk Bullock can be reached at 571-272-5954. 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.
/S.M.A./Examiner, Art Unit 1772
/IN SUK C BULLOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1772
Prosecution Insights