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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided. In this instant case, the phrases “disclosed is” and “further disclosed” are used.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 5-7: silicon content accounting for a percentage of “the total silicon content” is interpreted as referring to the silicon content percentage based on the total silicon content in the porous silicon negative electrode material, where ““total silicon content” refers to the percentage of the mass of the silicon particles in the porous silicon negative electrode material accounting for the mass of the porous silicon negative electrode material”, as stated in paragraph [0038] of the instant specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 recites the limitation "the porosity" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if “the porosity” refers to the porosity of each of the layers (sparse-silicon inner core, transition ring, dense-silicon ring), the silicon particles, or the carbon matrix.
Additionally, it is unclear what is meant by “the porosity sequentially decreases, and the silicon density sequentially increases”. Specifically, do porosity and silicon density sequentially change within a given layer or do the porosity and silicon density of each layer sequentially change relative to each other.
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 recites “a dense-silicon ring”, “a transition ring”, and “a carbon coating layer”. It is unclear what is meant by “ring” and if a “ring” implies a different structure that a “coating layer”. The instant disclosure does not appear to provide a definition of “ring” or details to suggest that there is a structural difference between a “ring” and a “coating layer” in the claimed invention. For the purpose of examination, the limitations “a transition ring” and “a dense-silicon ring” are interpretated as being layers, pending further clarification from applicant.
Claims 2-20 are indefinite as they depend from an indefinite base and fail to cure the deficiencies of said claim.
Regarding claim 4, both the “fine silicon crystal-type” and “coarse silicon crystal-type” size ranges include 6.8 nm. It is unclear how 6.8 nm can simultaneously satisfy both “fine silicon crystal-type” and “coarse silicon crystal-type”.
Regarding claim 17, the term “fine” and “coarse” are relative terms which render the claim indefinite. The terms “fine” and “coarse” are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For the purpose of examination, fine is interpreted as a size of 1.2-6.8 nm and coarse is interpreted as 6.8-20 nm, as described in the instant specification paragraph [0009].
Claim 18 is indefinite as it depends from an indefinite base and fails to cure the deficiencies of said claim.
Regarding claim 19, claim 19 states “the areal density of the negative electrode material layer on the silicon negative electrode sheet”. However, claim 15, from which claim 19 depends, states that there is “a negative electrode material layer formed on at least one side surface of the negative electrode current collector” and that the silicon negative electrode sheet comprises this negative electrode material layer. Therefore, it is unclear how the negative electrode material layer can be both part of the silicon negative electrode sheet and “on the silicon negative electrode sheet”.
It is suggested that claim 19 be amended to recite “the areal density of the negative electrode material layer on the negative electrode current collector”.
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.
Claims 1-8 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (CN115642234A, English Translation used for text citations and original document used for Figure citations) in view of Zhong (US 2023/0268494 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Wang teaches a porous silicon negative electrode material (Wang abstract):
wherein the porous silicon negative electrode material comprises a sparse-silicon inner core (1, Wang Fig. 1), and
a transition ring (interface between 1 and 2, Wang Fig. 1),
a dense-silicon ring (2, Wang Fig. 1)
and a carbon coating layer (3, Wang Fig. 1) which are sequentially coated on the surface of the sparse-silicon inner core (Wang Fig. 1);
the sparse-silicon inner core and the transition ring being silicon-carbon composite layers, the silicon-carbon composite layers comprising a carbon matrix (carbon source and conductive agent, Wang pg. 29 [n0051], Fig. 1) and silicon particles embedded in the carbon matrix (5, Wang Fig. 1),
wherein pores are distributed in the carbon matrix (6, Wang Fig. 1);
the dense-silicon ring is a silicon layer (2, Wang Fig. 1 comprises silicon);
wherein in the sparse-silicon inner core, the transition ring and the dense-silicon ring, the porosity sequentially decreases (pore gradient structure, “the porosity decreases sequentially form the inside to the outside”, Wang pg. 41),
Wang is silent to the silicon density.
Zhong teaches a silicon negative electrode material including a core comprising silicon microcrystals and a carbon coating layer, wherein the silicon density (distribution density of the silicon microcrystals) gradually decreases from a surface of the core to the center of the core (Zhong [0008]). Zhong teaches that this silicon density profile “effectively inhibits the volume expansion” of silicon and “prevents stress concentrations” in the core of the material (Zhong [0015]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to tune the porous silicon negative electrode material of Wang to have a silicon density that sequentially increases from the sparse-silicon inner core to the dense-silicon ring in order to inhibit volume expansion and prevent stress concentration.
Regarding claim 2, Wang in view of Zhong teaches all features of claim 1, as described above. Wang further teaches the mass proportion of silicon particles being 49% (Wang Table 1 Example 1 shown below, 100% – 50.84% = 49%; Wang pg. 59 [n0109]).
PNG
media_image1.png
791
778
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Wang in view of Zhong teaches all features of claim 1, as described above. Wang further teaches the silicon particles comprising silicon elementary substance (nano-silicon particles, Wang pg. 7). Wang teaches that the silicon particles have a size of 30-100 nm (Wang pg. 23-24 [n0038]). Wang does not expressly teach the silicon particles having a size of 1.2-20 nm.
However, Zhong teaches a silicon-based negative electrode material comprising a silicon-based core and a carbon layer on the core wherein the core comprising silicon microcrystals having a size of 1 nm – 20 nm (Zhong claims 1 and 2). Zhong teaches that using silicon particles within this range can reduce particle agglomeration and result in a monodisperse distribution of particles, thus leading to stress dispersion during charging/discharging, reduced volume expansion, and improved cycling performance (Zhong [0043]).
Since Wang and Zhong bother teach silicon-based negative electrode materials comprising a core and a carbon coating on the core and the presence of silicon particles in the core and Zhong teaches that a silicon particle size of 1 nm – 20 nm is suitable for use in negative electrode materials and can reduce the volume expansion of the silicon particles and lead to stress dispersion during charging/discharging, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use silicon particles having a size of 1 nm – 20 nm in the porous silicon negative electrode material of Wang in order to reduce the volume expansion effect of the silicon particles, disperse stress during charge and discharging, and improve cycling performance.
The silicon particle size range of Zhong substantially overlaps the claimed range in the instant claims 3 and 4. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by Zhong, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness.
Regarding claims 5-7, Wang in view of Zhong teaches all features of claim 1, as described above. Wang is silent to the silicon content at different locations in the porous silicon negative electrode material.
It is noted that claims 1 and 8 have not required any structural differences between “ring”, “core”, and “layer” and how these components are differentiated from each other. The structure required by claim 1 is a negative electrode material comprising a core that includes silicon particles in a carbon matrix, wherein the porosity decreases and the silicon density increase from the core of the material to the surface of the material, and a carbon layer on the core. Thus, one can draw lines to distinguish these “layers” at various different locations while still meeting the structural limitations of claim 1. Additionally, claims 5-7 do not limit or define the radius of the sparse-silicon inner core or the thicknesses of the transition ring and the dense-silicon ring.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to distinguish “layers” in the material of Wang at locations that lead to the satisfaction of the silicon content in the sparse-silicon inner core accounting for 45-87% of the total silicon content, the silicon content in the transition ring accounting for 0.3-15% of the total silicon content, the silicon content in the dense-silicon ring accounting for 15-50% of the total silicon content, the total silicon content in the sparse-silicon inner core being greater than the silicon content in the dense-silicon ring, and the silicon content in the dense-silicon ring being greater than the silicon content in the transition ring.
Regarding claim 8, Wang in view of Zhong teaches all features of claim 1, as described above.
It is noted that claims 1 and 8 have not required any structural differences between “ring”, “core”, and “layer” and how these components are differentiated from each other. The structure required by claim 1 is a negative electrode material comprising a core that includes silicon particles in a carbon matrix, wherein the porosity decreases and the silicon density increase from the core of the material to the surface of the material, and a carbon layer on the core. Thus, one can draw lines to distinguish these “layers” at various different locations while still meeting the structural limitations of claim 1.
The radius of the porous silicon negative electrode material of Example 1 of Wang without the carbon coating layer is 4.1 µm ((5.2 µm + 3 µm) / 2 = 4.1 µm, Wang Table 1). In claim 8, the minimum radius is 3.527 µm (3.5 µm + 0.015 µm + 0.012 µm = 3.527 µm) and the maximum radius is 9.655 µm (9.5 µm + 0.080 µm + 0.075 µm = 9.655 µm).
Since the radius of Wang falls within the claimed range, as calculated above, and Wang teaches that the porosity increases from the core to the surface (pore gradient structure, “the porosity decreases sequentially form the inside to the outside”, Wang pg. 41), it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to distinguish “layers” in the material of Wang at locations within the claimed ranges of the sparse-silicon inner core radius, the transition ring thickness, and the dense-silicon ring thickness.
Regarding claim 13, Wang in view of Zhong teaches all features of claim 1, as described above. Claim 13 does not affirmatively require the presence of oxygen. Therefore, Wang in view of Zhong reads on claim 13, as Wang does not teach or disclose the presence of oxygen in the porous silicon negative electrode material.
Regarding claim 14, Wang in view of Zhong teaches all features of claim 1, as described above. Modified Wang further teaches the transition ring comprising the carbon matrix, the silicon particles, and the pores (Wang Fig. 1), the carbon matrix comprising porous carbon and non-porous carbon (carbon source and conductive agent, Wang pg. 29 [n0051], Fig. 1), and the silicon particles being distributed within the porous carbon and the nonporous carbon (5, Wang Fig. 1).
Claims 9-10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Zhong, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Liu (CN113193183A, English Translation used for text citations and original document used for Figure citations).
Regarding claim 9, Wang in view of Zhong teaches all features of claim 1, as described above. Wang does not teach a first carbon layer and a second carbon layer, wherein the first carbon layer is porous and the second carbon layer is non-porous.
Liu teaches a silicon-carbon composite material that comprises a first carbon layer (middle layer, Liu abstract) and a second carbon layer (outer layer, Liu abstract) wherein the first carbon layer is porous and the second carbon layer is non-porous (Liu pg. 4). Liu further teaches that the first carbon layer relieves the volume change of silicon and the second layer provides isolation from the electrolyte (Liu abstract).
Since Wang and Liu both teach silicon-carbon composite materials comprising a carbon coating and Liu teaches that it is beneficial to form a double-layer carbon layer in order to obtain the benefits of silicon volume change relief and isolation from the electrolyte, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the carbon layer of Wang to have a double-layer structure, as taught by Liu, in order to relieve silicon volume change and provide isolation from the electrolyte.
Regarding claim 10, Wang in view of Zhong and Liu teaches all features of claims 1 and 9, as described above. Modified Wang further teaches the total thickness of the first carbon layer and the second carbon layer being 10 nm – 1 µm (Wang pg. 5). The thickness range of Wang substantially overlaps the claimed range in the instant claim 10. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by Wang, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness.
There is a finite number of relationships between the thicknesses of the first and second carbon layers: the first carbon layer being thicker than the second carbon layer, the first carbon layer being thinner than the second carbon layer, and the first carbon layer having the same thickness of the second carbon layer. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected one of this relationships in order to achieve the predictable solution of porous silicon negative electrode material comprising a first carbon layer and second carbon layer.
Regarding claim 12, Wang in view of Zhong and Liu teaches all features of claims 1 and 9, as described above. Modified Wang is silent to the thickness “at each position of the first carbon layer” or “at each position of the second carbon layer”. However, the ordinary artisan would recognize that coating layers are not perfectly even or uniform. Therefore, there is a reasonable basis to conclude that the thickness at each position of the first carbon layer or the second carbon layer being different would obviously flow from modified Wang.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Zhong and Liu, as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, and in further view Kim (US 7,951,489 B2).
Regarding claim 11, Wang in view of Zhong and Liu teaches all features of claim 1 and 9, as described above. Modified Wang does not teach metal elements in the second carbon layer.
Kim teaches a negative electrode material comprising a core and a coating layer formed on the core, wherein the coating layer is carbon-based and includes a conductive metal material (Kim abstract, Fig. 3) that “facilitates electron and ion transfer, and alleviates volume changes in the metal cores, making reversible intercalation and deintercalation of lithium easier” (Kim Col. 11 lines 1-6). Kim teaches that aluminum and magnesium are suitable conductive metal materials for use in the coating layer (Kim Col. 4 lines 39-41).
Since Wang and Kim both teach negative electrode materials comprising a core and a carbon coating layer and Kim teaches that the addition of a metal element (conductive metal material) improves performance, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add magnesium or aluminum to the second carbon coating layer of modified Wang in order to improve electron and ion transfer, alleviate volume changes, and promote easier lithium intercalation and deintercalation.
Claims 15-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Zhong, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Ambrock (Ambrock, K. et al. Optimization of graphite/silicon-based composite electrodes for lithium ion batteries regarding the interdependencies of active and inactive materials. Journal of Power Sources. 552, 232252 (2022)).
Regarding claims 15-17, Wang in view of Zhong teaches all features of claim 1, as described above. Modified Wang further teaches a silicon negative electrode sheet comprising a negative electrode material layer that comprises:
a negative electrode active material (silicon-carbon anode material, Wang pg. 33 [n0060])
a conductive agent (conductive agent, Wang pg. 33 [n0060])
a binder (binder, Wang pg. 33 [n0060])
the negative electrode active material comprises the porous silicon negative electrode material of claim 1 (silicon-carbon anode material, Wang pg. 33 [n0060])
Wang teaches that the slurry used to form the negative electrode material layer is coated and dried to obtain an electrode sheet; however, Wang is silent to what the slurry is coated on. Zhong teaches a negative electrode material layer comprising a silicon based active material that is coated on a current collector to form a silicon negative electrode sheet (Zhong [0128]). Since it is known and suitable to coat a negative electrolyte slurry on a current collector, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to coat the slurry of Wang on a current collector, thus resulting in a negative electrode material layer formed on at least one side surface of a negative electrode current collector, in order to obtain the predictable result of an negative electrode suitable for use in a secondary battery.
Wang does not teach the negative electrode active material comprising graphite.
Ambrock teaches that it is known to form composite electrodes that comprises more than one active materials, for example a Si-based material and graphite, in order to achieve synergistic effects and that “graphite can reduce inter-particle electrical resistance and ensure sufficient electronic and indirectly also ionic conductivity” within a composite electrode (Ambrock pg. 2 left column). Ambrock further teaches that it is suitable for the mass proportion of silicon in an negative electrode active material to be within 0.4-80% (Ambrock Table 4 rows 5-10).
Since Ambrock teaches that it is known and suitable to utilized composite electrodes comprising multiple active materials, that Si with graphite is a suitable option, and that graphite reduces electrical resistance and improves conductivity, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to had graphite to the negative electrode active material of Wang at a mass % taught by Ambrock in order to obtain an active material with suitable electrical and ionic conductivity for a desired battery application.
Modified Wang teaches the negative electrode material layer comprising a negative electrode coating on any surface of the current collector (1 layer), as described above. Wang teaches that the silicon particles have a size of 30-100 nm (Wang pg. 23-24 [n0038]). Given the interpretation of “fine” and “coarse” presented above with the 112(b) rejection of claim 17, Wang does not expressly teach the silicon particles having a size of 1.2-20 nm.
However, Zhong teaches a silicon-based negative electrode material comprising a silicon-based core and a carbon layer on the core wherein the core comprising silicon microcrystals having a size of 1 nm – 20 nm (Zhong claims 1 and 2). Zhong teaches that using silicon particles within this range can reduce particle agglomeration and result in a monodisperse distribution of particles, thus leading to stress dispersion during charging/discharging, reduced volume expansion, and improved cycling performance (Zhong [0043]).
Since Wang and Zhong bother teach silicon-based negative electrode materials comprising a core and a carbon coating on the core and the presence of silicon particles in the core and Zhong teaches that a silicon particle size of 1 nm – 20 nm is suitable for use in negative electrode materials and can reduce the volume expansion of the silicon particles and lead to stress dispersion during charging/discharging, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use silicon particles having a size of 1 nm – 20 nm in the porous silicon negative electrode material of Wang in order to reduce the volume expansion effect of the silicon particles, disperse stress during charge and discharging, and improve cycling performance.
The silicon particle size range of Zhong substantially overlaps the range of 1.2-20 nm. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by Zhong, thus resulting in a negative electrode coating A or B, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness.
Regarding claim 18, Wang in view of Zhong and Ambrock teaches all features of claims 1, 15, and 17, as described above. In paragraph [0009] the instant specification, a 6.8 nm silicon particle size is considered both fine and coarse. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a silicon particle size of 6.8, as taught by the 1-20 nm range of Zhong described above, thus resulting in the negative electrode material layer comprising fine and coarse silicon crystal-type, in order to achieve the predictable result of a silicon negative electrode sheet comprising a porous silicon negative electrode material comprising silicon particles.
Claim 18 does not provide a structural difference between coating A and coating B. Therefore, the ordinary artisan could choose a position of the negative electrode material layer to denote as a boundary between two layers or “coatings”, thus resulting in the negative electrode material layer comprising negative electrode coating A and negative electrode coating B, wherein coating A is located outside of coating B.
Regarding claim 20, Wang in view of Zhong and Ambrock teaches all features of claims 1 and 15, as described above. Modified Wang further teaches a coin cell comprising a negative electrode sheet according to claim 15 and an electrolyte (Wang pg. 33-34 [n0060]). Wang does not explicitly teach an embodiment of a lithium-ion battery comprising a positive electrode sheet, a negative electrode sheet, a separator, and an electrolyte. Wang further teaches that their invention relates to the field of lithium-ion battery technology (Wang pg. 2 [n0001]).
Zhong teaches that secondary batteries commonly include a positive electrode sheet (cathode), a negative electrode sheet (anode), a separator that separates the positive electrode and the negative electrode, and an electrolyte (Zhong [0129]) and that lithium-ion batteries are known secondary batteries (Zhong [0130]). Therefore, since it is known that lithium-ion batteries comprising a positive electrode sheet, a negative electrode sheet, a separator that separates the positive and negative electrode sheets, and an electrolyte, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to fabricate a lithium-ion battery comprising the negative electrode sheet of modified Wang, a positive electrode sheet, a separator, and an electrolyte in order to obtain a lithium-ion battery suitable for a desired battery application.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Zhong and Ambrock, as applied to claims 1 and 15 above, and in further view of Park (K.Y. Park et al. Understanding capacity fading mechanism of thick electrodes for lithium-ion rechargeable batteries. Journal of Power Sources. 468, 228369 (2020)).
Regarding claim 19, Wang in view of Zhong and Ambrock teaches all features of claims 1 and 15, as described above. Wang is silent to the thickness of the silicon negative electrode sheet and the areal density of the negative electrode material layer.
Park teaches that using thick electrodes with high-loading density can increase volumetric/specific energy density of a lithium ion battery, but they suffer from deterioration of electrochemical performance due to ion transport limitations and increased local resistance (Park abstract). Park further teaches that higher electrode loading can result in higher energy density, however, capacity retention over extended cycling can be negatively impacted by high electrode loading (Park pg. 2 left column paragraph 3). Since Park teaches that electrode thickness and loading density (areal density) impact battery performance and that it is known to tune these factors in order to achieve optimal performance, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the thickness of the silicon negative electrode sheet and areal density of the negative electrode material layer, including values within the ranges of claim 19, in order to obtain a silicon negative electrode sheet with suitable performance for a desired battery application.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lee (US 20250038181 A1): appears to disclose a porous silicon-carbon composite having a core-shell structure, wherein the core comprises silicon particles and pores dispersed in a carbon matrix (claims 1 and 4).
Sha (US 2023/0286808 A1): appears to disclose silicon carbon composite materials including a core comprising a carbon matrix and silicon oxide particles and a carbon coating layer (abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JULIA S CASERTO whose telephone number is (571)272-5114. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 am - 5 pm ET.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached at 571-270-7692. 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.
/J.S.C./
Examiner, Art Unit 1789
/MARLA D MCCONNELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights