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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In [0026], line 2, “carbo” should read “carbon.
Appropriate correction is required.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US-20050214644-A1 (A).
Regarding claim 1, A teaches
A negative active material for a rechargeable lithium battery [0039], the negative active material comprising a core (1) comprising silicon particles (11, [0037]), the silicon particles having a particle diameter of 100 nm to 10 microns (see Fig. 1), which overlaps with the claimed range of 0.8 μm to 2 μm.
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 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.
A further teaches an amorphous carbon coating layer on a surface of the core ([0097], conductive agent is added to anode mixture).
Regarding claim 2, A teaches an amount of the amorphous carbon coating layer is between 20 and 70% of the weight of the negative active material [0098], the endpoint of which overlaps with the claimed range of less than 20 wt% based on a total weight of the negative active material.
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 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 3, A teaches an amount of the amorphous carbon coating layer is between 20 and 70% of the weight of the negative active material [0098], the endpoint of which overlaps with the claimed range of between 5 wt% to 20 wt% based on a total weight of the negative active material.
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 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 4, A teaches the particle diameter of the silicon particles is 100 nm to 10 microns (see Fig. 1), which overlaps with the claimed range of 0.8 μm to 1.5 μm (100 nm to 10 microns, see Fig. 1).
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 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 5, A teaches the amorphous carbon coating layer comprises sintered cokes ([0097], “various coke powders”).
Regarding claim 6, A teaches a silicon to carbon ratio of 90:10 [0050], which overlaps with the claimed amount of the silicon particles which is 80 wt% or more based on a total weight of the negative active material.
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 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 7 A teaches a silicon to carbon ratio of 90:10 [0050], which overlaps with the claimed amount of the silicon particles which is 80 wt% to about 95 wt% based on a total weight of the negative active material.
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 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, A teaches A rechargeable lithium battery [0007], comprising: a negative electrode comprising the negative active material [0028]; a positive electrode comprising a positive active material [0096]; and a non-aqueous electrolyte [0009].
Regarding claim 9, A teaches a silicon to carbon ratio of 90:10 [0050], which overlaps with the claimed amount of the silicon particles which is 80 wt% or more based on a total weight of the negative active material.
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 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 10, A teaches a silicon to carbon ratio of 90:10 [0050], which overlaps with the claimed amount of the silicon particles which is 80 wt% to about 95 wt% based on a total weight of the negative active material.
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 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 11, A teaches an amount of the amorphous carbon coating layer is between 20 and 70% of the weight of the negative active material [0098], the endpoint of which overlaps with the claimed range of less than 20 wt% based on a total weight of the negative active material.
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 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 12, A teaches an amount of the amorphous carbon coating layer is between 20 and 70% of the weight of the negative active material [0098], the endpoint of which overlaps with the claimed range of between 5 wt% to 20 wt% based on a total weight of the negative active material.
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 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 13, A teaches the particle diameter of the silicon particles is 100 nm to 10 microns (see Fig. 1), which overlaps with the claimed range of 0.8 μm to 1.5 μm (100 nm to 10 microns, see Fig. 1).
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 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 14, A teaches the amorphous carbon coating layer comprises sintered cokes ([0097], “various coke powders”).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LOUISE JAMES IANNUCCI whose telephone number is (571)272-6917. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00 A.M. - 5:00 P.M..
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, Allison Bourke can be reached at (303) 297-4684. 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.
/LOUISE JAMES IANNUCCI/Examiner, Art Unit 1721
/ALLISON BOURKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1721
Prosecution Insights