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 .
Claim Interpretation
Claim 6 is interpreted as the thin film has a thickness of 3nm up to less than 30 nm. Claim 1 requires the thickness to be less than 30 nm and is seen to limit the range of claim 3.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0161635 (Liu) in view of JP 2021077592 (Takeshita).
Liu discloses an anode active material comprising an core particle 10 with the interconnected silicon structure is illustrated in FIG. 1. The interconnected structure of the core particle 10 is formed of nano-sized silicon particles 12 interconnected to form internal walls 14, an example of which is illustrated by the broken line. The internal walls 14 define internal pores 16 within the core particle 10. To form the type I primary particle 30, the internal pores 16 are coated with a thin layer of carbon 18, such as amorphous carbon, and the exterior surface of the interconnected structure is coated with a conformal coating 20 of carbon, as illustrated in FIG. 2. This increases the overall conductivity of the type I primary particle 30 by forming a conductive coating connecting the nano-sized silicon particles 12. The void space provided by the internal pores can accommodate the volume change of the silicon, thus maintaining the integrity of the structure free of cracking during charge/discharge. The thin coating of the carbon 18 on the internal walls increases the conductivity while maintaining the void space that absorbs the particle expansion. The interconnected structure with the carbon coating throughout also improves its mechanical strength, making high pressure electrode calendering of the silicon-carbon secondary particles viable [abstract, 0038]. The pores (16) of the core particle 10 formed of interconnected silicon is considered to form a porous silicon particle (10, 30). Liu does not disclose a solid electrolyte having the shape of a thin film that covers at least a part of an inner surface of each pore, and wherein the thin film has an average thickness of less than 30nm. Note that the internal pores of Liu have a mean dimension between 2nm and 5 nm, after the carbon coating [0040].
Takeshita discloses an active material for an electrode (negative) and discloses a porous carbon active material where a solid electrolyte (102) is formed inside the pores (101). The active material uses porous carbon having a plurality of pores as an active material having an ability to occlude or release ions, so that the active material can expand even when a large amount of ions are occluded. The plurality of internal pores can be relaxed, and as a result, the expansion of the electrode and the accompanying collapse can be suppressed. By including the solid electrolyte in at least a part of the plurality of pores of the porous carbon, the reaction site inside the active material can be used, and it is possible to develop a high volume as in the case of using an electrolytic solution (page 13). In addition, since no liquid material is used, there is no risk of liquid leakage, and a highly safe power storage element can be realized. When the solid electrolyte is contained in at least a part of the plurality of pores in the porous carbon, it is possible to have an interface with the solid electrolyte inside the porous carbon, and the active surface inside the porous carbon. When the number of reaction sites in one porous carbon particle is increased, ion transfer via a solid electrolyte can be smoothly performed, and the utilization efficiency per active material particle is improved, and the capacity per unit volume is improved. Note that Takeshita also states that silicon may be used for the negative electrode active material as well as carbonaceous materials. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the porous silicon particles of Liu to further include a solid electrolyte layer within the pores with the predictable result disclosed by Takashita such as improved safety and improved efficiency and capacity as noted above. Regarding the thickness of the layer, the pores of Liu are 2-5 nm thick providing an overlapping range with claims 1 and 6; thus, the thickness of the solid electrolyte would be at most 5 nm and considered a thin film. Moreover, changes to the amount of electrolyte formed in the pores is considered to be within the purview of one of ordinary skill and differences in ranges are considered prima facie obvious absent a showing of criticality.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, the addition of electrolyte to the pores would decrease the remaining void volume (pore volume). Thus, the pore volume of the active material must be less than the porous volume of the active material before addition of the electrolyte. If no electrolyte is added, then the ratio would be 100% (when the ratio is expressed as a percentage), thus, addition of the electrolyte will reduce the porosity of the active material. The degree of reduction will depend upon the amount of electrolyte added and is considered an optimizable condition. Furthermore, Takeshita discloses addition of the solid electrolyte to at least a part of the plurality of pores, and the specific surface area changes by 20-50wt% which indicates that not all pores have electrolyte added thereto. The surface area change is also considered to meet the claimed ratio. Note that the claims appear to be directed to properties of an intermediate (porous particles before addition of the electrolyte) and the final product (active material comprising the porous particles and electrolyte). The claims are considered directed to a final product having a set porosity and surface area. Absent a showing of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to optimize the relative pore volumes and surface areas.
Regarding claim 4, Liu does not disclose the ratio of volume of solid electrolyte to volume of the porous particles as claimed. Takeshita discloses a range of the solid electrolyte is 10-60% of the active material and notes that when the content is more than 60%, the amount of the solid electrolyte is excessive with respect to the porous carbon, and the reaction sites inside the porous carbon are reduced in terms of the unit volume. When the content is 40% or less, it is more preferable from the viewpoint of the reaction site. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to optimize the amount/volume of solid electrolyte relative the amount/volume of porous material and maintain the desired reaction sites in terms of unit volume. Absent a showing of unexpected results, the relative amounts are a manner of routine optimization.
Regarding claim 7, Liu discloses a battery structure comprising a cathode, anode made of the active material, and an electrolyte therebetween (claim 17) [0059].
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0161635 (Liu) in view of JP 2021077592 (Takeshita) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of US 6022640 (Takada).
Liu and Takeshita do not disclose the claimed solid electrolyte. Liu does disclose allowing lithium to be passed through the active material [0047]. Takada discloses known solid electrolytes comprising Li, P, S and a halogen as described in column 25, lines 55-67. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to use a known electrolyte in the active material of Liu as modified by Takeshita as Takeda describes known solid electrolytes useful for lithium-ion conductivity. One of ordinary skill would reasonably expect the electrolyte of Takeda to successfully conduct lithium ions in the active material of Liu.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 6, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over over US 2020/0161635 (Liu) in view of WO 2022/129941 (Meoto). (relying on international filing date of 12/17/21). Applicant cannot rely upon the certified copy of the foreign priority application to overcome this rejection because a translation of said application has not been made of record in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55. When an English language translation of a non-English language foreign application is required, the translation must be that of the certified copy (of the foreign application as filed) submitted together with a statement that the translation of the certified copy is accurate. See MPEP §§ 215 and 216.
Liu discloses an anode active material comprising a core particle 10 with the interconnected silicon structure is illustrated in FIG. 1. The interconnected structure of the core particle 10 is formed of nano-sized silicon particles 12 interconnected to form internal walls 14, an example of which is illustrated by the broken line. The internal walls 14 define internal pores 16 within the core particle 10. To form the type I primary particle 30, the internal pores 16 are coated with a thin layer of carbon 18, such as amorphous carbon, and the exterior surface of the interconnected structure is coated with a conformal coating 20 of carbon, as illustrated in FIG. 2. This increases the overall conductivity of the type I primary particle 30 by forming a conductive coating connecting the nano-sized silicon particles 12. The void space provided by the internal pores can accommodate the volume change of the silicon, thus maintaining the integrity of the structure free of cracking during charge/discharge. The thin coating of the carbon 18 on the internal walls increases the conductivity while maintaining the void space that absorbs the particle expansion. The interconnected structure with the carbon coating throughout also improves its mechanical strength, making high pressure electrode calendering of the silicon-carbon secondary particles viable [abstract, 0038]. The pores (16) of the core particle 10 formed of interconnected silicon is considered to form a porous silicon particle (10, 30). Liu does not disclose a solid electrolyte having the shape of a thin film that covers at least a part of an inner surface of each pore, and wherein the thin film has an average thickness of less than 30nm. Note that the internal pores of Liu have a mean dimension between 2nm and 5 nm, after the carbon coating [0040].
Meoto discloses electroactive materials for batteries comprising a porous particle framework and a multilayer coating disposed in the internal pore surfaces of the framework. The interlayers may comprise a solid electrolyte with a thickness of less than 5 nm thus overlapping the ranges of claims 1 and 6 (pages 15-16). Meoto discloses that a porous framework having the layered coating inside the pores contribute to improved performance and mitigates volumetric expansion (page 5). It would have been obvious to provide an electrolyte layer inside the pores of the particles of Liu as described by Meoto to provide improved performance and mitigates volumetric expansion.
Regarding claim 3, Meoto discloses the surface area of the porous particle framework is at least 150m2/g and preferably at least 250 m2/g whereas the composite particles have a surface area of no more than 100 m2/g. These amounts provide an overlapping ratio of active material (composite) to porous (framework) material.
Regarding claim 7, Meoto discloses a battery with an anode comprising the active material, a cathode and an electrolyte therebetween (claim 34).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0161635 (Liu) in view of WO 2022/129941 (Meoto) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of US 6022640 (Takada).
Liu and Meoto do not disclose the claimed solid electrolyte. Liu does disclose allowing lithium to be passed through the active material [0047]. Takada discloses known solid electrolytes comprising Li, P, S and a halogen as described in column 25, lines 55-67. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to use a known electrolyte in the active material of Liu as modified by Meoto as Takeda describes known solid electrolytes useful for lithium-ion conductivity. One of ordinary skill would reasonably expect the electrolyte of Takeda to successfully conduct lithium ions in the active material of Liu.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 9 of copending Application No. 18/415,204 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all of the limitation of instant claim 1 are present in reference application claim 9.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER C MCNEIL whose telephone number is (571)272-1540. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Tong Guo can be reached at 5712723066. 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.
JENNIFER C. MCNEIL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1723
/Jennifer McNeil/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights