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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 33 & 52 are amended. Claims 1-32 & 39-40 are canceled. Claims 53-54 are newly added. Claims 33-38 & 41-54 and are currently pending.
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 33-38, 41-47, 50-51 & 53 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loveridge (US 2014/0335410 A1) and Manthiram (US 2014/0308583 A1).
Regarding claims 33-36, 38, 41-47, 51 & 53, Loveridge teaches an anode comprising a a binder comprising a mixture including polyacrylic acid with pendant carboxyl groups and known binders such as polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF); and a composite material comprising a carbon material such as a hard carbon material and a sodium alloying electrochemical modifier such as silicon nanoparticles having a particle size ranging from 10 nm to 500 nm, wherein the composite material comprises (i) particles having a core-shell structure, wherein the shell comprises substantially the carbon material and the core comprises substantially the sodium alloying electrochemical modifier such as silicon nanowire particles which are encapsulated by particles of the carbon material; or (ii) particles having a core-shell structure, wherein the core comprises substantially the carbon material and the shell comprises substantially the sodium alloying electrochemical modifier ([0001]-[0004], [0008], [0010], [0048], [0051], [0079], [0085]-[0087] & [0099]-[0102]). Loveridge further teaches wherein a ratio of carbon material to sodium alloying electrochemical modifier ranges from 19:1 to 1:9 on a mass basis ([0110] & [0112]). Loveridge further teaches the composite material having a first cycle insertion and extraction of up to 3000 mAh/g and a first cycle efficiency in the absence of ex situ prelithiation of greater than 90% (Fig. 2 & [0048]-[0050]). Loveridge is silent as to the sodium alloying electrochemical modifier being tin, aluminum, phosphorous, or a combination thereof. While Loveridge does not explicitly teach the anode being included in a sodium-ion battery, it is noted that Loveridge discloses the electrode active material being able to incorporate and release metal ion charge carriers such as lithium and sodium with lithium being preferred and described in the exemplary embodiments ([0010]). Furthermore, sodium-ion batteries and lithium-ion batteries are analogous batteries in that they operate respectively by intercalating/deintercalating sodium ions and lithium ions ([0004]). Since Loveridge’s active material is capable of incorporating and releasing sodium ions, it would have been obvious to one of skilled in the art to include the anode in a sodium-ion battery. “The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945)”. See MPEP 2144.07. As further evidenced by Manthiram, the use of a composite tin-based carbon material as an anode active material for a sodium-ion battery is known in the art (Abstract; [0080]-[0083]). In Manthiram’s anode, the tin functions as a sodium alloying electrochemical modifier ([0082]). Manthiram further discloses the use of acetylene black as an example for the carbon material which acts as matrix material within which nanoparticles such as tin are dispersed ([0067]-[0068], [0108] & [0112]). One of ordinary skill in the art readily understands that acetylene black is a porous material (typically mesoporous with a pore size ranging from 2 nm to 50 nm) and the description of the matrix material within which the active material such as silicon is dispersed and is surrounded by ([0112]) suggests that the matrix material is porous in order to accommodate the active material within the matrix. It is also noted that the small particle size (10-15 nm) of the active material allows it infiltrate the mesopores of acetylene black used as the matrix material.
Regarding claim 37, Loveridge teaches the anode of claim 33 and a first cycle extraction of at least 600 mAh/g ([0048]) but is silent as to a fifth cycle retention of greater than 99%. However, Loveridge teaches a composite material which is substantially identical to the presently claimed composite material as noted above. Accordingly, Loveridge’s composite material would be expected to possess the claimed property (i.e a fifth cycle retention of greater than 99%). “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)”. See MPEP 2112.01 I.
Regarding claim 50, Loveridge teaches the composite material having a purity in the range of 95-99.99% which corresponds to an impurity range of any chemical of 0.01-5%. This impurity range equates to an impurity range of 100 ppm to 5000 ppm ([0107]: the composite electrode material of the third aspect of the invention an electroactive material having a purity in the range 90.0 to 99.99%, preferably 95.0 to 99.99%). Therefore, Loveridge discloses the composite material of claim 1, having a total of 100 ppm to 200 ppm of any element seen as impurity, excluding any intentionally added electrochemical modifier, which reads on a portion of the instantly claimed range (less than 200 ppm). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would look to minimizing the impurities of the electrode composite material and in particular impurities in the silicon material within said electrode composite material to provide effective use of binders in adhesion of the electroactive materials as taught by Loveridge ([0025]).
Claims 48-49, 52 & 54 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loveridge (US 2014/0335410 A1) and Manthiram (US 2014/0308583 A1), as applied to claims 33-38, 41-47 & 50-51 above, and further in view of Yamada (US 5,834,138 A).
Regarding claims 48-49, 52 & 54, Loveridge and Manthiram teaches the anode of claims 33, 35 & 47, as noted above, but is silent as to the composite material further comprising an efficiency enhancing electrochemical modifier. Yamada teaches an anode active material composed of a carbonaceous material and comprising a sum total of 0.2 to 20 wt% of at least one of phosphorous and sulfur (Column 5, lines 66-67 - Column 6, lines 1-25). 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. In addition, it would have been obvious to optimize the amount of phosphorous in the total composite material to within the instantly claimed ranges because it is a result effective variable which affects charging/discharging efficiency of the battery, as taught by Yamada (Column 5, lines 66-67 - Column 6, lines 1-25), barring any evidence of criticality or unexpected results. After KSR, the presence of a known result-effective variable would be one, but not the only, motivation for a personal of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process. See MPEP 2144.05 II B.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/05/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to Applicant’s arguments that the combination of Loveridge and Manthiram does not fairly teach or suggest the presently claimed subject matter, the examiner respectfully disagrees. As noted in the above rejected of claims 33 & 52, Manthiram renders obvious the use of tin as a sodium alloying electrochemical modifier to be dispersed in a carbonaceous matrix ([0080]-[0083]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to substitute silicon with sin as a suitable electrochemical modifier for sodium-ion batteries. Thus, in view of the foregoing, claims 33-38 & 41-54 stand rejected.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHANAEL T ZEMUI whose telephone number is (571)272-4894. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8am-5pm (EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, BARBARA GILLIAM can be reached on (571)272-1330. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NATHANAEL T ZEMUI/Examiner, Art Unit 1727