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 Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 2 is identified as “withdrawn”. This appears to be an error. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: “Styrene” is recited in claim 8 with a capital “S”. This should be a lower-case “s”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 3, 5-7 and 9-10 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.
Claims 3, 5, 6, 7, 9 and 10 each recite the limitation "the temperature range”, “the range”, “the size range”, “the particle size, and “the weight percent" in line 1, respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims. For the purposes of this office action, "the temperature range”, “the range”, “the size range”, “the particle size, and “the weight percent" will be interpreted as "a temperature range”, “a range”, “a size range”, “a particle size, and “a weight percent".
Claims 9 and 10 each recite the limitation "SBR” and “CMC", respectively in lines 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of this office action, claims 9 and 10 will be interpreted as depending from claim 8.
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 non-obviousness.
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.
Claims 1, 3-6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2006/0216606) in view of Wu et al. (“From flour to honeycomb-like carbon foam: Carbon makes room for high energy density supercapacitors”).
Regarding claim 1, Kim et al. discloses in Figs 1-3, a method of making an anode (ref 2, [0025]) for use in lithium-ion battery (ref 1), the method comprising: providing silicon nanoparticles ([0027]-[0029], [0036], [0069]); mixing ([0029], [0069]) the silicon nanoparticles with carbon to form a homogenized mixture ([0029], [0069]) of carbon and silicon nanoparticles ([0027]-[0029], [0036], [0069]); heating ([0070]) the homogenized mixture of carbon and silicon nanoparticles ([0027]-[0029], [0036], [0069]) for a period of time ([0070]) in an inert atmosphere ([0070[) to form a silicon-carbon composite comprising a coating of carbon on the silicon nanoparticles ([0027]-[0029], [0036], [0069]-[0070]); heating ([0070], [0031]) the silicon-carbon composite comprising a coating of carbon on the silicon nanoparticles along with an additional quantity of carbon ([0031], multiple carbon layers disclosed) in an inert atmosphere ([0070]) thereby forming an additional coating of carbon ([0031], multiple carbon layers disclosed), resulting in an anode (ref 2) comprising silicon-carbon composite ([0027], [0029]) with a double coating ([0031]) on the silicon nanoparticles ([0027]-[0029], [0036], [0069]); and mixing ([0089]) the silicon-carbon composite ([0027], [0029]) with a double coating of carbon ([0031]) on the silicon nanoparticles ([0027]-[0029], [0036], [0069]) with a polymeric binder ([0089]), resulting in an anode (ref 2, [0089]) for use in a lithium battery (ref 1, [0093]).
Kim et al. does not disclose wheat flour as the carbon source.
Wu et al. discloses a carbon battery electrode material sourced from wheat flour (P11387/C1/¶2). Wheat flour is a readily available natural material cultivated worldwide and enhances battery electrical performance (P527/Abstract, P529/Results and discussion).
Wu et al. and Kim et al. are analogous since both deal in the same field of endeavor, namely, carbon materials for battery electrodes.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the wheat flour disclosed by Wu et al. as the carbon material of Kim et al. since wheat flour is an abundant natural resource and to enhance battery electrical performance.
Regarding claim 3, modified Kim et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the heating is in the temperature range of 500 0C to 1000 oC ([0070]).
Regarding claim 4, modified Kim et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the inert atmosphere is argon ([0070]).
Regarding claim 5, modified Kim et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the time period is in the range 2 hours to 24 hours ([0070]).
Regarding claim 6, modified Kim et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the silicon nanoparticles are in the size range of 10-1000 nm ([0036]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges (50-100 nm) disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549.
Regarding claim 8, modified Kim et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the polymer binder comprises styrene butadiene rubber (SBR) ([0089]), carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC) ([0089]).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2006/0216606) in view of Wu et al. (“From flour to honeycomb-like carbon foam: Carbon makes room for high energy density supercapacitors”) in view of Wu et al. (“From flour to honeycomb-like carbon foam: Carbon makes room for high energy density supercapacitors”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Andersen et al. (WO 2017/058024, citations from US 2018/0040880).
Regarding claim 2, modified Kim et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above but does not explicitly disclose the mixing the silicon nanoparticles with wheat flour is by ball milling.
Andersen et al. discloses in Figs 1-6, a method of making an anode comprising a silicon-carbon composite including ball milling the mixture (P9/Claim 9). This configuration enhances homogeneity of the mixture (P9/Claim 9)
Andersen et al. and Kim et al. are analogous since both deal in the same field of endeavor, namely, methods of making anodes in batteries.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the ball milling disclosed by Andersen et al. into the method of Kim et al. to enhance homogeneity of the mixture.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2006/0216606) in view of Wu et al. (“From flour to honeycomb-like carbon foam: Carbon makes room for high energy density supercapacitors”) in view of Wu et al. (“From flour to honeycomb-like carbon foam: Carbon makes room for high energy density supercapacitors”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jouanneau-si Larbi et al. (US 2013/0273433).
Regarding claim 7, modified Kim et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above but does not explicitly disclose the particle size of the wheat flour is in the range of 5 micrometers to 200 micrometers.
Jouanneau-si Larbi et al. discloses in Fig 1, a method of making an anode material comprising a silicon-carbon composite material utilizing carbon raw material at a size of 100 microns (P8/Claim 31). This configuration enhances electrochemical performance of the battery ([0094]).
Jouanneau-si Larbi et al. and Kim et al. are analogous since both deal in the same field of endeavor, namely, methods of making anodes in batteries.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the carbon of Kim et al. at the 100 micron size disclosed by Jouanneau-si Larbi et al. to enhance overall electrochemical performance of the battery.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2006/0216606) in view of Wu et al. (“From flour to honeycomb-like carbon foam: Carbon makes room for high energy density supercapacitors”) in view of Wu et al. (“From flour to honeycomb-like carbon foam: Carbon makes room for high energy density supercapacitors”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Taguchi et al. (US 2008/0055819).
Regarding claim 9, modified Kim et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above but does not explicitly disclose the weight percent of styrene butadiene rubber (SBR) is approximately 3.0 weight percent. However, the change in the amount of SBR is not considered to confer patentability to the claims. Taguchi et al. (see [0066]) teaches that it was known in the art at the time of the invention that varying SBR amount will vary the adherence strength to a current collector. Therefore the adherence strength is a variable that can be modified, among others, by varying the amount of SBR. For that reason, the amount of SBR, would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed. As such, without showing unexpected results, the SBR amount cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the SBR amount in the method of Kim et al. as taught by Taguchi et al. to obtain the desired adherence strength (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding claim 10, modified Kim et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above but does not explicitly disclose the weight percent of carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC) is approximately 7.0 weight percent. However, the change in the amount of CMC is not considered to confer patentability to the claims. Taguchi et al. (see [0066]) teaches that it was known in the art at the time of the invention that varying CMC amount will vary the thickness/viscosity of the anode material. Therefore the thickness/viscosity of the anode material is a variable that can be modified, among others, by varying the amount of SBR. For that reason, the amount of SBR, would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed. As such, without showing unexpected results, the SBR amount cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the SBR amount in the method of Kim et al. as taught by Taguchi et al. to obtain the desired thickness/viscosity of the anode material (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
De Peralta (US 441,967) discloses in Figs 1-4, a battery (Title) including an active material including wheat flour (C2/L69-71)
Gao et al. (“Carbon Nanotubes Derived from Yeast-Fermented Wheat Flour and Their Energy Storage Application”) discloses a carbon battery electrode material sourced from wheat flour (P11387/C1/¶2). Wheat flour is an abundant, renewable, and inexhaustible natural resource (P11387/C1/¶2).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH J DOUYETTE whose telephone number is (571)270-1212. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8A - 4P 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, Basia Ridley can be reached on 571-272-1453. 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.
/KENNETH J DOUYETTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights