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 .
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.
The terms “sparse” and “dense” in claims 1-5, 7-8, and 14-16 are relative terms which render the claims indefinite. The terms “sparse” and “dense” 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. It is unclear as to which property of the composite material the term “sparse” is meant to refer to. Furthermore, the term “dense” renders the density of the material unclear as there is insufficient definition for the relative term. Claims 6, 9-13, and 17-20 are rejected for their dependence on the indefinite limitations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 8, 10-13, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Troegel et al. (US 20180342732 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Troegel discloses a porous silicon-carbon anode electrode material (paragraph 0011), wherein the anode electrode material has a core-shell structure (paragraph 0011) and the core-shell structure sequentially comprises: a porous sparse silicon-carbon core, a transition layer, a dense silicon-carbon layer, and a carbon coating layer from inside to outside (paragraph 0011, 0029, a thickness boundary can be drawn in the 1-90µm matrix core to qualify as a central “transition layer” and outer “dense silicon-carbon layer” due to the lack of structural definition of the claimed transition layer and silicon-carbon layer).
Regarding claim 2, Troegel discloses the limitations of claim 1. Troegel further discloses wherein the porous sparse silicon-carbon core comprises porous carbon and silicon crystal particles inserted in the skeleton of the porous carbon; and the particle size of the porous sparse silicon-carbon core is 1.5-28.0 μm (paragraphs 0011, 0029, preferably 10-20µm, within the claimed range).
Regarding claim 8, Troegel discloses the limitations of claim 1. Troegel further discloses that Si in the porous silicon-carbon anode electrode material is distributed as elemental silicon and/or silicon oxide in the porous sparse silicon-carbon core, the transition layer, and the dense silicon-carbon layer (paragraph 0026); Si accounts for 5%-90% of the mass of the porous silicon-carbon anode electrode material (paragraph 0065, 20-40% by weight, within the claimed range); and the median particle size D50 of the porous silicon-carbon anode electrode material is 3.0-22.0 μm (paragraph 0118, D50 of 13.6µm, within the claimed range).
Regarding claims 10-11, Troegel discloses the limitations of claim 1. Claims 10-11 are considered product-by-process claims. The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus or product. The determination of patentability is based upon the apparatus structure itself. The patentability of a product or apparatus does not depend on its method of production or formation. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. See In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP § 2113). In this case, Troegel teaches the positively recited material according to claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection).
Regarding claim 12, Troegel discloses the limitations of claim 1. Troegel further discloses an anode electrode plate, comprising the porous silicon-carbon anode electrode material (paragraph 0084-0085).
Regarding claim 13, Troegel discloses the limitations of claim 12. Troegel further discloses a lithium-ion battery, comprising the anode electrode plate (paragraph 0084-0085).
Regarding claim 19, Troegel discloses the limitations of claim 10. Troegel further discloses an anode electrode plate, comprising the porous silicon-carbon anode electrode material (paragraphs 0084-0085).
Regarding claim 20, Troegel discloses the limitations of claim 11. Troegel further discloses an anode electrode plate, comprising the porous silicon-carbon anode electrode material (paragraphs 0084-0085).
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 4 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Troegel et al. (US 20180342732 A1) in view of Shin et al. (US 20200280062 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Troegel discloses the limitations of claim 1. Troegel further discloses that the dense silicon-carbon layer comprises a carbon and silicon crystal particles which is contact with carbon particles; and the thickness of the dense silicon-carbon layer is 2-150 nm (paragraph 0011, 0029, an arbitrary thickness boundary of 2-150nm can be drawn in the 1-90µm matrix core to qualify as the “dense silicon-carbon layer” due to the lack of structural definition of the claimed layer). Troegel is silent regarding wherein the dense silicon-carbon layer is an oligoporous structure.
Shin discloses a negative active material composite including a silicon-carbon core and a coating layer (Shin paragraph 0010). Shin further discloses that the pore volume may be less than or equal to 3x10-2 cm3/g for the purpose of improving initial efficiency and/or cycle-life characteristics (Shin paragraph 0060, oligoporous, as defined by the instant specification paragraph 0012, pore volume of 0.05 cm3/g). Shin and Troegel are analogous because they both disclose silicon-carbon composites.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the region equivalent to the “dense silicon-carbon layer” to include the oligoporous structure disclosed by Shin. Doing so would improve initial efficiency and/or cycle-life characteristics.
Regarding claim 18, modified Troegel discloses the limitations of claim 4. Troegel further discloses that Si in the porous silicon-carbon anode electrode material is distributed as elemental silicon and/or silicon oxide in the porous sparse silicon-carbon core, the transition layer, and the dense silicon-carbon layer (paragraph 0026); Si accounts for 5%-90% of the mass of the porous silicon-carbon anode electrode material (paragraph 0065, 20-40% by weight, within the claimed range); and the median particle size D50 of the porous silicon-carbon anode electrode material is 3.0-22.0 μm (paragraph 0118, D50 of 13.6µm, within the claimed range).
Claims 5 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Troegel et al. (US 20180342732 A1) in view of An et al. (US 20240322131 A1).
Regarding claims 5 and 14, Troegel discloses the limitations of claims 1 and 2. Troegel further discloses that the carbon content of the porous sparse silicon-carbon core is >40 wt % (paragraph 0032, 40 to 90%, within the claimed range), the carbon content of the transition layer is 10 wt %-40 wt % (paragraph 0032, 40-90%, overlapping the claimed range). MPEP 2144.05: In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Troegel is silent regarding wherein the carbon content of the dense silicon-carbon layer is 2 wt %-32 wt %.
An discloses an anode material including a core and a porous silicon- carbon composite layer distributed on at least part of a surface of the core, including a carbon matrix and silicon particles dispersed in the carbon matrix (An paragraph 0006). An further discloses that the silicon-carbon layer includes 5-80% mass of the carbon matrix, for example 5%, 10%, 20%, 30% (An paragraph 0121, within the claimed range). The reference teaches that controlling the amount of carbon matrix accommodates the silicon particles well, and avoids the loss of electrical contact due to volume changes (An paragraph 0121). An and Troegel are analogous because they both disclose silicon-carbon composites.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the silicon-carbon layer to include the carbon content disclosed by An for the purpose of accommodating the silicon particles and compensating for volume changes.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Troegel et al. (US 20180342732 A1) in view of Zhu et al. (CN 107293700 A).
Regarding claim 7, Troegel discloses the limitations of claim 1. Troegel regarding wherein the thickness of the carbon coating layer is 5-400 nm; the carbon coating layer sequentially comprises a porous carbon coating layer and a dense carbon coating layer from inside to outside; the porous carbon coating layer is a porous fluffy structure; the dense carbon coating layer is a dense structure; the thickness of the porous carbon coating layer is greater than the thickness of the dense carbon coating layer; and the porosity of the porous carbon coating layer structure is greater than the porosity of the porous sparse silicon-carbon core structure.
Zhu discloses an anode active material including a core that is a silicon-carbon composite particle, the middle layer is a porous carbon layer, and the outermost layer is a dense carbon layer (Zhu paragraph 0008). Zhu further discloses that the thickness of the shell is 100nm to 500nm, and the thickness of the porous layer may be greater than the dense layer, overlapping the claimed range, to provide high mechanical strength and low polarization (Zhu paragraph 0029, 0034, porous layer is 10 to 50% of the core size, resulting in for example, 200nm when the core is 1µm and the porous layer is 10%, greater than the dense layer when it is for example, 100nm). Zhu and Troegel are analogous because they both disclose silicon-carbon composite materials.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the carbon layer disclosed by Troegel to include the structure and thickness of the carbon layer disclosed by Zhu. Doing so would provide high mechanical strength and low polarization.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Troegel et al. (US 20180342732 A1) in view of in view of Shin et al. (US 20200280062 A1) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of An et al. (US 20240322131 A1).
Regarding claim 16, modified Troegel discloses the limitations of claim 4. Troegel further discloses that the carbon content of the porous sparse silicon-carbon core is >40 wt % (paragraph 0032, 40 to 90%, within the claimed range), the carbon content of the transition layer is 10 wt %-40 wt % (paragraph 0032, 40-90%, overlapping the claimed range). MPEP 2144.05: In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Troegel is silent regarding wherein the carbon content of the dense silicon-carbon layer is 2 wt %-32 wt %.
An discloses an anode material including a core and a porous silicon- carbon composite layer distributed on at least part of a surface of the core, including a carbon matrix and silicon particles dispersed in the carbon matrix (An paragraph 0006). An further discloses that the silicon-carbon layer includes 5-80% mass of the carbon matrix, for example 5%, 10%, 20%, 30% (An paragraph 0121, within the claimed range). The reference teaches that controlling the amount of carbon matrix accommodates the silicon particles well, and avoids the loss of electrical contact due to volume changes (An paragraph 0121). An and Troegel are analogous because they both disclose silicon-carbon composites.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the silicon-carbon layer to include the carbon content disclosed by An for the purpose of accommodating the silicon particles and compensating for volume changes.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Troegel et al. (US 20180342732 A1) in view of Kim et al. (US 20190140262 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Troegel discloses the limitations of claim 1. Troegel is silent regarding wherein the residual alkaline lithium content of the porous silicon-carbon anode electrode material is 50-4000 ppm.
Kim discloses a negative active material for a rechargeable lithium battery. The negative active material includes a silicon-carbon composite including crystalline carbon and a silicon particle (Kim paragraph 0007). Kim further discloses that the alkaline metal is included in an amount of 500 to 5000 ppm to improve efficiency and life cycle characteristics (Kim paragraph 0021). Kim and Troegel are analogous because they both disclose silicon-carbon composites.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the material disclosed by Troegel to include the residual alkaline content disclosed by Kim. Doing so would improve efficiency and life cycle characteristics.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 15, and 7 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 3 would be allowable for disclosing wherein the transition layer comprises a carbon skeleton and silicon crystal particles inserted in the carbon skeleton, and the carbon skeleton at least comprises pore carbon and poreless carbon; the structure of the transition layer gradually becomes denser in a direction from the porous sparse silicon-carbon core to the dense silicon-carbon layer; and the thickness of the transition layer is 3-150 nm.
Troegel discloses a porous silicon-carbon anode electrode material (paragraph 0011), wherein the anode electrode material has a core-shell structure (paragraph 0011) and the core-shell structure sequentially comprises: a porous sparse silicon-carbon core, a transition layer, a dense silicon-carbon layer, and a carbon coating layer from inside to outside (paragraph 0011, 0029, an arbitrary thickness boundary can be drawn in the 1-90µm matrix core to qualify as each of the “transition layer” and “dense silicon-carbon layer” due to the lack of structural definition of the claimed transition layer and silicon-carbon layer). However, Troegel is silent regarding the matrix including pore and poreless carbon, and the structure of the transition layer gradually becomes denser in a direction from the porous sparse silicon-carbon core to the dense silicon-carbon layer.
An discloses an anode material including a core and a porous silicon- carbon composite layer distributed on at least part of a surface of the core, including a carbon matrix and silicon particles dispersed in the carbon matrix (An paragraph 0006). However, An is silent regarding the matrix including pore and poreless carbon, and the structure of the transition layer gradually becomes denser in a direction from the porous sparse silicon-carbon core to the dense silicon-carbon layer. An further discloses that the concentration of the silicon decreases from inside to outside (An paragraph 0127).
Yushin et al. (US 20220077462 A1) is cited of being of interest for disclosing composite particles that may comprise, for example, a high-capacity active material and a porous, electrically-conductive scaffolding matrix material (Yushin paragraph 0007). However, Yushin is silent regarding the matrix including pore and poreless carbon, and the structure of the transition layer gradually becomes denser in a direction from the porous sparse silicon-carbon core to the dense silicon-carbon layer. Contrary to the claimed invention, Yushin discloses that the density decreases from inside to outside the material (Yushin figures 12a-12b).
None of the cited reference teach the disclosed limitations, and there is no teaching or motivation to reach the claimed configuration. Claims 15 and 17 would subsequently be allowable for their dependence on claim 3.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN T LUSTGRAAF whose telephone number is (571)272-0165. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 am - 6:00 pm.
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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at 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 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.
/B.T.L./ Examiner, Art Unit 1727
/WYATT P MCCONNELL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1727
Prosecution Insights