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 4 and claim 6 recite “multilayer graphene” three times and two instances should be removed.
Claims 14-17 recite “the silicon-carbon composite material according to the silicon-carbon composite material obtained through the preparation method according to claim.” and it seems this could be amended as “the silicon-carbon composite material
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Independent claims 1 and 5 recite the equation shown below:
PNG
media_image1.png
71
425
media_image1.png
Greyscale
To satisfy the above equation the true density value would need to be much lower than the person of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect and the specification does describe how a composite material having a true density value required to meet the above equation is achieved.
The claims state that R is an accessible porosity which ranges from 30-70% (or 20-70% for claim 5). As best understood, R, being a percentage is a number from 0-100 (e.g. “31.92”, Table 1, Example 1). The claims state that m is a true density with units of g/cm3 and n and P are percentages by mass of a carbon element (as best understood, the percentage by mass of the element carbon in the material) and a silicon element (as best understood, the percentage by mass of the element silicon in the material). The specification provides no example where the accessible porosity, R, is calculated.
The true density is understood to be the density of the solid components excluding voids such as pores. Therefore, the true density would be expected to be close to or at least within the same order of magnitude to that of the components of the composite material (e.g. graphite, ρ=1.5-2.26 g/cm3, elemental silicon, ρ=2.33 g/cm3, silicon carbide, ρ=3.21 g/cm3). However, when one solves for the true density using the values in Table 1, such as for Example 1, the density is two orders of magnitude lower (such as ≈0.017 g/cm3) than what would be expected. It is noted that the specification never provides an example calculation of the equation and never discloses a true density value in the examples nor provides any indication of the expected range of the true density.
Moreover, the person of ordinary skill would not recognize that the porosity, R, could be derived from the equation above as the variables consist only of true density and mass fraction, which are unrelated to porosity, and the specification does not describe how an accessible porosity (as best understood, a void volume percent in the material due to the accessible pores) could be linked to the equation or otherwise it is unclear what the technical significance of the equation is.
Thus, claim 1 and claim 5 contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Claims 2-4 and 6-17 are likewise rejected by virtue of their dependence on claim 1 or claim 5.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4, 9, 11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu et al. (US 20140302396) in view of Madokoro et al. (Applicant provided JP 2008235247A).
Regarding claim 1, Lu et al. discloses a silicon-carbon composite material (para. [0006]), comprising an inner core (carbon matrix, para. [0006]) wherein the inner core comprises a carbon substrate (carbon matrix, para. [0006]) and nanoparticles attached to a surface of the carbon substrate (“nano silicon dispersed on the carbon matrix”, para. [0006]) and/or an inner portion of the carbon substrate, and the nanoparticles comprise silicon and silicon carbide (“nano silicon carbide SiC dispersed on the interface of the carbon matrix and the nano silicon, and silicon oxide SiOx coated on the surface of the nano silicon”, para. [0006]).
Lu et al. discloses a density (para. [0014]), but does not expressly disclose the density is a true density nor does Lu et al. explicitly disclose the silicon-carbon composite material satisfies the equation (shown further below).
However, Lu et al. discloses the components are substantially the same or similar as the those disclosed in Applicant’s specification (Lu et al., flake or spherical carbon/graphite or mesocarbon microspheres, pars. [0007], [0010] and [0039], silicon carbide, para. [0007], see Applicant’s specification, pars. [0006] and [0013]) and where there are differences (silicon oxide coating rather than carbon, Lu et al., pars. [0006] and [0041]) those differences would not be expected to significantly alter the true density (as the density of silicon oxide and elemental carbon are similar and the coating would be expected to be a minor component, Lu et al., 1-5%, pars. [0006] and [0041]).
Thus, Lu et al. discloses the silicon-carbon composite material satisfies a relationship as follows:
PNG
media_image2.png
45
480
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein R is an accessible porosity and m is a true density with a unit of g/cm3 in the silicon-carbon composite material, and n and P respectively are percentages by mass of a carbon element and a silicon element in the silicon-carbon composite material with a unit of wt%; as where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established and “Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties.” See In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Lu et al. further discloses wherein R ranges from 30% to 70% (Lu et al. discloses an overlapping range, 5-65%, para. [0013], and is therefore considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness and Lu et al. also specifically discloses 32% for Embodiment 4, para. [0066]).
Lu et al. does not expressly disclose a carbon coating layer covering the inner core.
However, Madokoro et al. discloses a silicon-carbon composite material (Abstract) and Madokoro et al. discloses a carbon coating layer (film A and/or film B - coating film formed from a carbonaceous material, para. [0008]).
Therefore, 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 teachings of Lu et al. wherein the silicon-carbon composite material includes a carbon coating layer on the inner core.
The person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to use a carbon coating layer in order to suppress electrolyte decomposition reactions on the surface of silicon particles, improve charge-discharge efficiency, improve conductivity between silicon particles and the carbon substrate/graphitic material and to improve cycle characteristics (Madokoro et al., pars. [0016] and [0035]).
Regarding clam 2, Lu et al. discloses wherein at least one of following conditions (a) to (d) is satisfied: (a) the accessible porosity (R) of the silicon-carbon composite material ranges from 30% to 50% (Lu et al. discloses an overlapping range, 5-65%, para. [0013], and specifically discloses 32% for Embodiment 4, para. [0066]); (b) in the silicon-carbon composite material, the percentage by mass of the carbon element ranges from 35 wt % to 90 wt % (55-90%, para. [0006] and 75%, para. [0066]);
(c) in the silicon-carbon composite material, the percentage by mass of the silicon element ranges from 10 wt % to 65 wt % (2-40%, para. [0006] and such as more than 21% and less than 25% as indicated in para. [0066]) and (d) in the silicon-carbon composite material, a percentage by mass of the silicon carbide ranges from 0 wt % to 20 wt %, excluding 0 (0.1-3%, para. [0006] and 0.5%, para. [0066]).
Lu et al. discloses the above values within the claimed ranges or otherwise discloses overlapping ranges and one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the proportions taught by Lu et al. overlap the instantly claimed proportions and therefore are considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, particularly in view of the fact that:
“The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.” See In re Peterson, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (CAFC 2003) and MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 4, Lu et al. discloses wherein the carbon substrate is selected from at least one of artificial graphite, natural graphite, expanded graphite, flake graphite, multilayer graphene, multilayer graphene, hard carbon, soft carbon, mesocarbon microspheres, multilayer graphene, porous carbon, and hollow carbon microspheres (Lu et al., at least flake or spherical carbon/graphite or mesocarbon microspheres, pars. [0007], [0010] and [0039]).
Regarding claims 9, 11 and 13, Lu et al. discloses an electrochemical device (lithium ion battery, para. [0020]) comprising a negative electrode sheet (para. [0061]).
Insomuch as Lu et al. does not expressly disclose a current collector for the negative electrode sheet; Madokoro et al. further teaches wherein the negative electrode sheet comprises a negative electrode current collector and a negative electrode active material layer disposed on the negative electrode current collector, the negative electrode active material layer comprises a negative electrode active material (para. [0087]), and the negative electrode active material comprises a silicon-carbon composite material (pars. [0084]-[0086]).
Therefore, 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 teachings of Lu et al. wherein the negative electrode sheet comprises a negative electrode current collector and a negative electrode active material layer disposed on the negative electrode current collector, the negative electrode active material layer comprises a negative electrode active material, and the negative electrode active material comprises the silicon-carbon composite material (Lu et al., para. [0020]) according to claim 1, claim 2, or claim 4.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to provide a negative electrode current collector and the negative electrode active material layer disposed on the negative electrode current collector in order to produce the expected result of providing a negative electrode.
Claims 3 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu et al. (US 20140302396) in view of Madokoro et al. (Applicant provided JP 2008235247A) as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Takehisa et al. (US 20250132314) and Noh (US 20230361270) or He et al. (US 20220352509).
Regarding claim 3, Lu et al. is silent as to a specific surface area of the carbon substrate.
However, Takehisa et al. discloses a material comprising carbon and silicon nanoparticles wherein a carbon substrate (carbonaceous phase) has a specific surface area of from 1 cm2/g to 200 cm2/g in that Takehisa et al. discloses an overlapping range (greater than 100 cm2/g, para. [0051]).
Therefore, 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 teachings of Lu et al. wherein a specific surface area of the carbon substrate ranges from 1 cm2/g to 200 cm2/g.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use a specific surface area of the carbon substrate in a known range in order to improve performance.
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the proportions taught by Lu et al. overlap the instantly claimed proportions and therefore are considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, particularly in view of the fact that:
“The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.” See In re Peterson, supra.
Assuming, arguendo, that the specific surface area is not taught by Takehisa et al., the examiner has found that the specification contains no disclosure of any unexpected results arising therefrom, and that as such the parameters are arbitrary and therefore obvious. Such unsupported limitations cannot be a basis for patentability, because where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen parameters or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen parameters/variables are critical. See In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990) and MPEP 2144.05(III).
With respect to the limitation of the specific surface area, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have provided the device of Lu et al. within the range recited in the instant claims, which are now considered at most an optimum choice, lacking any disclosed criticality.
Lu et al. is silent as to a porosity of the carbon substrate.
However, Noh discloses a material for a negative electrode (Abstract) and teaches using a carbon substrate (graphite base, para. [0045]) wherein the porosity of the carbon substrate is in a range from 1% to 50% (15-20%, para. [0046]).
Similarly, He et al. discloses a material for a negative electrode (Abstract) and teaches using a carbon substrate (graphite, Abstract) wherein the porosity of the carbon substrate is in a range from 1% to 50% (10-50%, para. [0022]).
Therefore, 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 teachings of Lu et al. wherein the porosity of the carbon substrate ranges from 1% to 50%.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use a porosity within a range known to improve performance.
Assuming, arguendo, that the specific surface area is not taught by Noh or He et al., the examiner has found that the specification contains no disclosure of any unexpected results arising therefrom, and that as such the parameters are arbitrary and therefore obvious. Such unsupported limitations cannot be a basis for patentability, because where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen parameters or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen parameters/variables are critical. See In re Woodruff, supra.
With respect to the limitation of the porosity, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have provided the device of Lu et al. within the range recited in the instant claims, which are now considered at most an optimum choice, lacking any disclosed criticality.
Regarding claim 12, Lu et al. discloses an electrochemical device (lithium ion battery, para. [0020]) comprising a negative electrode sheet (para. [0061]).
Insomuch as Lu et al. does not expressly disclose a current collector for the negative electrode sheet; Madokoro et al. further teaches wherein the negative electrode sheet comprises a negative electrode current collector and a negative electrode active material layer disposed on the negative electrode current collector, the negative electrode active material layer comprises a negative electrode active material (para. [0087]), and the negative electrode active material comprises a silicon-carbon composite material (pars. [0084]-[0086]).
Therefore, 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 teachings of Lu et al. wherein the negative electrode sheet comprises a negative electrode current collector and a negative electrode active material layer disposed on the negative electrode current collector, the negative electrode active material layer comprises a negative electrode active material, and the negative electrode active material comprises the silicon-carbon composite material (Lu et al., para. [0020]) according to claim 3.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to provide a negative electrode current collector and the negative electrode active material layer disposed on the negative electrode current collector in order to produce the expected result of providing a negative electrode.
Claims 5-8 and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yan et al. (US 2022048774) in view of Liu et al. (US 20200161635), Burchak (US 20240356008), Jeon et al. (US 20250158038), and Lu et al. (US 20140302396).
Regarding claim 5, Yan et al. discloses a preparation method of a silicon-carbon composite material (Abstract), comprising: a carbon-silicon co-deposition step: co-depositing (simultaneous vapor deposition, Abstract, pars. [0014] and [0016]), by using a gaseous carbon source (methane, propane, and others listed in para. [0016]) and a gaseous silicon source (SiH4 and others listed in para. [0016]), carbon and silicon on a carbon substrate (a matrix core, such as comprising or consisting of nano conductive carbon, para. [0009]) by a first chemical vapor deposition and obtaining an intermediate (product of step S1, para. [0014]); a carbon coating step (step S2, pars. [0015] and [0020]-[0021]): forming, by using a carbon source (para. [0021]), a carbon coating layer on a surface of the intermediate by a second chemical vapor deposition (para. [0020]) and obtaining the silicon-carbon composite material, wherein the silicon-carbon composite material comprises an inner core (composite material precursor, para. [0005]) and the carbon coating layer covering the inner core (para. [0005]), the inner core comprises the carbon substrate and nanoparticles (uniformly dispersing nano silicon particles in conductive carbon, Abstract) attached to a surface of the carbon substrate and/or an inner portion of the carbon substrate, and the nanoparticles comprise silicon (nano silicon particles, Abstract).
Yan et al. does not expressly disclose the nanoparticles comprise silicon carbide.
However, Liu et al. discloses a silicon-carbon composite material (Abstract) and Liu et al. teaches that silicon carbide is formed during vapor deposition (CVD, para. [0048]) at temperatures less than 1000° C (para. [0048]) and Yan et al. discloses the temperature may be less than 1000° C (Yan et al., pars. [0014] and [0020]).
Therefore, 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 teachings of Yan et al. wherein the nanoparticles comprise silicon carbide.
Either the composite material of Yan et al. comprises silicon carbide (due to vapor deposition at less than 1000° C, Liu et al. para. [0048], Yan et al., pars. [0014] and [0020]) or it would have been obvious to modify the vapor deposition process to form silicon carbide in order to improve performance (Liu et al., para. [0046]).
Yan et al. is silent as to an accessible porosity and does not disclose the silicon-carbon composite material satisfies a relationship shown in the equation (shown further below).
However, Burchak discloses a method for the preparation of a carbon-silicon composite material using vapor deposition (Abstract) and Burchak teaches a porosity may preferably be 20 to 80% (20-40%, para. [0307]).
Similarly, Jeon et al. discloses a method for the preparation of a carbon-silicon composite material (a first composite comprising first silicon particles and a first carbon, Abstract) using vapor deposition (para. [0077]) and Jeon et al. teaches porosity may be controlled to a desired level (para. [0077]) such as up to 50% (para. [0064]).
Further, Lu et al. discloses a silicon-carbon composite material (para. [0006]), comprising an inner core (carbon matrix, para. [0006]) wherein the inner core comprises a carbon substrate (carbon matrix, para. [0006]) and nanoparticles attached to a surface of the carbon substrate (“nano silicon dispersed on the carbon matrix”, para. [0006]) and Lu et al. teaches a porosity of 32% (Embodiment 4, para. [0066]).
Therefore, 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 teachings of Yan et al. wherein an accessible porosity, R, ranges from 20-80%.
The person of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to use a porosity between 20-80% in order to control or buffer for expansion (Burchak, para. [0014], Jeon et al., para. [0065]) or as a porosity to allow for good strength (Lu et al., para. [0044]) while also preventing reduction in the speed of electrolytic reduction reactions (Lu et al., para. [0044]).
The combined teaching of the above cited references disclose components which are substantially the same or similar as the those disclosed in Applicant’s specification (Yan et al., graphene, para. [0011], carbon and silicon vapor deposited coatings, para. [0016], forming silicon carbide as taught by Liu et al., para. [0048], see Applicant’s specification, pars. [0006], [0019]-[0020] and [0013]).
Thus, the combined teaching of the above-cited references discloses the silicon-carbon composite material satisfies a relationship as follows:
PNG
media_image3.png
52
490
media_image3.png
Greyscale
wherein R ranges from 20% to 80% (as discussed above), wherein R is an accessible porosity and m is a true density with a unit of g/cm3 in the silicon-carbon composite material, and n and P respectively are percentages by mass of a carbon element and a silicon element in the silicon-carbon composite material with a unit of wt%; as where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established and “Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties.” See In re Spada, supra.
Regarding claim 6, Yan et al. discloses wherein at least one of following conditions (1) to (3) is satisfied: (1) the silicon source is selected from at least one of monosilane (SiH4), disilane, tetrachlorosilane, dimethyldichlorosilane, trimethyldichlorosilane, tetramethylsilane, trichlorosilane, tetrachlorosilane, methyl silicate, and ethyl silicate (para. [0016]), (2) the carbon source is selected from at least one of methane, ethane, acetylene, propane, and propylene (pars. [0016] and [0021]), and
(3) the carbon substrate is selected from at least one of artificial graphite, natural graphite, expanded graphite, flake graphite, multilayer graphene, multilayer graphene, hard carbon, soft carbon, mesocarbon microspheres, multilayer graphene, porous carbon, and hollow carbon microspheres (para. [0009]).
Regarding claim 7, Yan et al. discloses wherein a reaction temperature of the first chemical vapor deposition and the second chemical vapor deposition is 400° C. to 1000° C in that Yan et al. discloses an overlapping range (pars. [0014] and [0020]).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the temperatures taught by Yan et al. overlap the instantly claimed temperatures and therefore are considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any temperature in the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, particularly in view of the fact that:
“The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.” See In re Peterson, supra.
Regarding claim 8, Yan et al. discloses wherein when preparing the intermediate, a deposition time of the first chemical vapor deposition is 2 hours to 16 hours (para. [0014]), or when preparing the carbon coating layer, a deposition time of the second chemical vapor deposition is 0.5 hours to 2 hours (para. [0020]) in that Yan et al. discloses an overlapping range (pars. [0014] and [0020]).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the proportions taught by Yan et al. overlap the instantly claimed proportions and therefore are considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, particularly in view of the fact that:
“The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.” See In re Peterson, supra.
Regarding claims 14-17, Yan et al. discloses an electrochemical device (lithium ion battery, para. [0024]) comprising a negative electrode sheet (the lithium ion battery would have a negative electrode sheet, such as comprising copper foil, para. [0042]) wherein the negative electrode sheet comprises a negative electrode current collector (a lithium ion battery would have a anode current collector, para. [0004]) and a negative electrode active material layer disposed on the negative electrode current collector (a current collector would be in contact with the active material of the anode, para. [0004]), the negative electrode active material layer comprises a negative electrode active material, and the negative electrode active material comprises the silicon-carbon composite material according to the silicon-carbon composite material obtained through the preparation method according to claims 5-8.
Otherwise, Liu et al. further discloses an electrochemical device (lithium ion battery, para. [0058]) comprising a negative electrode sheet, wherein the negative electrode sheet comprises a negative electrode current collector and a negative electrode active material layer disposed on the negative electrode current collector (“the anode active material layer is formed on an anode current collector and electrically connected thereto”, para. [0058]), the negative electrode active material layer comprises a negative electrode active material (active material, para. [0058]), and the negative electrode active material comprises a silicon-carbon composite material (para. [0057]).
Therefore, 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 teachings of Yan et al. wherein the negative electrode sheet comprises a negative electrode current collector and a negative electrode active material layer disposed on the negative electrode current collector, the negative electrode active material layer comprises a negative electrode active material, and the negative electrode active material comprises the silicon-carbon composite material according to the silicon-carbon composite material obtained through the preparation method according to claim 5, claim 6, claim 7 or claim 8.
The person of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to use the silicon-carbon composite material as an active material in an anode (Yan et al., para. [0004]).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu et al. (US 20140302396) in view of Madokoro et al. (Applicant provided JP 2008235247A) as applied to claim 9 above and in further view of Burchak (US 20240356008).
Regarding claim 10, the above-cited references do not expressly disclose an electronic device comprising the electrochemical device according to claim 9.
However, Burchak discloses an electronic device (electric vehicle, para. [0002]) comprising an electrochemical device (lithium-ion battery, para. [0002]).
Therefore, 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 teachings of Lu et al. to include an electronic device comprising the electrochemical device according to claim 9.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use a battery to power a device.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK M MCCARTY whose telephone number is (571)272-4398. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9:00 AM - 5:00 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, Claire Wang can be reached at 571-270-1051. 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.
/P.M.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1774
/CLAIRE X WANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1774
Prosecution Insights