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 P2 par 1 lines 4-5 “or crushing of an electrode material occurring due to an internal stress caused by rapid volume expansion occurring during discharging and discharging” should read “or crushing of an electrode material occurring due to an internal stress caused by rapid volume expansion occurring during charging and discharging”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-4, 6-8, 10, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aramata et al. (US 20060003227 A1, “Aramata”).
Regarding claim 1, Aramata discloses an anode active material (see [0026] “negative electrode active material”) comprising: a core comprising metal particles (see FIG. 1 describes a core with Si; see abstract “silicon composite comprises silicon particles”); and a shell layer formed on an outer portion of the core (see FIG. 1 describes shell with SiC; see abstract “surface is at least partially coated with a silicon carbide layer”), wherein the shell layer comprises metal carbide particles and a carbon-based material (see FIG. 1 describes shell with SiC; see abstract “surface is at least partially coated with a silicon carbide layer”; see [0027] “the quantity of silicon carbide coated is determined by multiplying the quantity of carbon in silicon carbide” which reads on carbon-based material and metal carbide particles). Regarding the limitation wherein a number density (number/µm2) of the metal carbide particles in the shell layer is 50 or more to 100 or less, Aramata discloses in [0028] “quantity of silicon carbide coated is preferably 10 to 95% by weight” & “even more preferably 40 to 70% by weight”. Aramata discloses in [0037] “silicon composite powder” & “average particle size” & “preferably 0.1 to 50 µm” & describes “too small an average particle size corresponds to too large a surface area, which may lead to too low a negative electrode film density. Too large an average particle size has the risk of penetrating through the negative electrode film”.
Aramata discloses a range of 0.1 to 50 µm, which overlaps with the claimed range of 50 or more to 100 or less. MPEP 2144.05 I states that '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, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)'.
The instant specification on P8 line 15 describes number of particles per unit area in the shell layer. Aramata does not explicitly disclose number density.
However, Aramata discloses in [0028] “if the quantity of silicon carbide coated is less than 10 wt % of the silicon composite, the silicon composite may have insufficient cycle performance when incorporated in a lithium ion secondary cell” & if “more than 95 wt % of the silicon composite, the inactive silicon carbide coating has an increased thickness, which may inhibit migration of lithium ions and reduce the negative electrode capacity”.
A result effective variable is a variable which achieves a recognized result. The determination of the optimum or workable ranges of a result-effective variable is routine experimentation and therefore obvious. MPEP § 2144.05.
Thus, the amount of silicon carbide is a variable that achieves the recognized result of improving cycle performance. That makes the amount of silicon carbide a result-effective variable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to routinely experiment with the amount of silicon carbide and come up with greater than 10% and less than 95 wt%, as suggested by Aramata (see [0028]) for the purpose of improving cycle performance of the battery (see [0028]).
Regarding claim 2, Aramata discloses the anode active material of claim 1 and further discloses wherein the metal particles comprise Si (see FIG. 1 describes core with Si; see abstract “silicon composite comprises silicon particles”).
Regarding claim 3, Aramata discloses the anode active material of claim 1 and further discloses wherein the metal particles included in the core are silicon nanoparticles (see FIG. 1 describes core with Si & see abstract “silicon composite comprises silicon particles”; see [0031] “silicon particles” & “average particle size of 50 nm to 50 µm” which reads on silicon nanoparticles), and wherein the metal carbide particles included in the shell layer are silicon carbide (SiC) particles (see FIG. 1 describes shell with SiC & see abstract “surface is at least partially coated with a silicon carbide layer”).
Regarding claim 4, Aramata discloses the anode active material of claim 3 and further discloses wherein an average particle size D50 of the silicon nanoparticles is 50 nm to 50 µm (see [0031] “silicon particles” & “average particle size of 50 nm to 50 µm” which reads on silicon nanoparticles).
Aramata discloses a range of 50 nm to 50 µm, which overlaps with the claimed range of 80 nm to 130 nm. MPEP 2144.05 I states that '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, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)'.
Regarding claim 6, Aramata discloses the anode active material of claim 1 and further discloses wherein the carbon-based material comprises crystalline carbon (see [0049] “silicon composite powder was analyzed” & “crystalline silicon (diamond structure)”; see [0027] “carbon in silicon carbide”).
Regarding claim 7, Aramata discloses the anode active material of claim 6 and further discloses wherein the crystalline carbon comprises graphite-based carbon (see [0033] “graphite”).
Regarding claim 8, Aramata discloses the anode active material of claim 6, and further discloses wherein the amorphous carbon is formed of a phenol resin (see [0033] “phenol” & see [0039] “resins”).
Regarding the method limitations recited in claim 8, “wherein the amorphous carbon is formed of one or more selected from the group consisting of… a phenol resin…”, the Office notes that even though a product-by-process is defined by the process steps by which the product is made, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 227 USPQ 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985). As the court stated in Thorpe, 777 F.2d at 697, 227 USPQ at 966 (The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. In re Pilkington, 411 F. 2d 1345, 1348, 162 USPQ 145, 147 (CCPA 1969). If the product in a 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 MPEP § 2113.
Regarding claim 10, Aramata discloses the anode active material of claim 1 and further discloses wherein the core further comprises crystalline carbon (see [0049] “crystalline silicon (diamond structure)”).
Regarding claim 15, Aramata discloses the anode active material of claim 1 and further discloses a lithium secondary battery (see [0026] “a lithium ion secondary cell negative electrode active material”).
Claims 5, 9, 11, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aramata et al. (US 20060003227 A1, “Aramata”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yushin et al. (US 20200343580 A1, “Yushin”).
Regarding claim 5, Aramata discloses the anode active material of claim 3 and further discloses in [0022] “by varying the temperature and time of chemical vapor deposition treatment, the thickness and proportion of the silicon carbide layer can be controlled”. Aramata discloses in [0037] “silicon composite powder” & “average particle size” & “most preferably 1 to 20 µm” (equivalent to 1000 nm to 20,000 nm). Aramata does not explicitly disclose wherein the silicon carbide particles have a size of 50 nm to 200 nm.
Yushin teaches in [0124] functional surface layer & “metal carbides” & “Si” & teaches in [0123] “a protective layer thickness from around 0.5 nm to around 200 nm may be suitable”.
Yushin teaches a range of 0.5 nm to 200 nm, which overlaps with the claimed range of 50 nm to 200 nm. MPEP 2144.05 I states that '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, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)'.
Aramata and Yushin are analogous to the current invention because they are related to the same field of endeavor, namely active materials & metal carbides (see [0124]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate “0.5 nm to around 200 nm”, as suggested by Yushin (see [0124]) into the anode active material of Aramata because Yushin teaches doing so may be suitable (see [0123]).
Regarding claim 9, Aramata discloses the anode active material of claim 1 and further discloses wherein an average particle size D50 of a core-shell structure is 1 to 20 µm (see [0037] “silicon composite powder” & “average particle size” & “most preferably 1 to 20 µm”).
Aramata discloses a range of 1 to 20 µm, which overlaps with the claimed range of 3 µm to 10 µm. MPEP 2144.05 I states that '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, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)'.
Yushin teaches shell layer thickness (see [0124] describes a functional surface layer & “metal carbides” & “Si”; see [0123] “a protective layer thickness from around 0.5 nm to around 200 nm may be suitable”.
Yushin teaches a range of 0.5 nm to 200 nm, which overlaps with the claimed range of 100 nm to 3 µm. MPEP 2144.05 I states that '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, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)'.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate “0.5 nm to around 200 nm”, as suggested by Yushin (see [0124]) into the anode active material of Aramata because Yushin teaches doing so may be suitable (see [0123]).
Regarding claim 11, Aramata discloses a method of preparing an anode active material (see [0029] “method for preparing the electrically conductive silicon composite”; see [0026] “negative electrode active material”), the method comprising: step S1 of dispersing metal nanoparticles in a solvent (see [0044] “silicon composite powder” & “admixed with a solvent”); step S2 of preparing a spherical metal precursor powder by during the dispersed solution (see [0013] “heat dried” & see [0014] “heating the powder” & see [0034] “heat treatment of silicon powder and the organic matter gas and/or vapor is not particularly limited”; see [0025] “silicon composite is dissolved” & “solution is evaporated to dryness”). Aramata does not explicitly disclose spray-drying.
Yushin teaches spray-drying (see [0127] “spray drying”; see [0136] “spray drying”; see [0171] “it may be advantageous to form a porous coating” & “spray deposition (dry or wet) or slurry-based deposition may be used for the formation of such a coating”).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate spray drying, as suggested by Yushin (see [0127], [0136], [0171]) into the method of preparing an anode active material of Aramata because doing so advantageously forms the porous coating as suggested by Yushin (see [0171]).
Regarding the limitation of step S3 of mixing and compounding the spherical metal precursor powder with a crystalline carbon, Aramata discloses (see [0040] “conductive agent is added” & “carbon”; see [0033] “graphite” which reads on crystalline carbon). Aramata does not explicitly disclose amorphous carbon precursor.
Yushin teaches amorphous carbon (see [0133] “an average elastic modulus of the interlayer may exceed around 10 GPa in order to reduce the probability of its penetration by lithium dendrites. In some designs, it may be advantageous for the interlayer to be nanocrystalline or amorphous”).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate amorphous interlayer, as suggested by Yushin (see [0133]) into the method of Aramata because doing so is advantageous, as suggested by Yushin (see [0133]).
Regarding the limitation and step S4 of performing a heat treatment at 1100 °C to 1400 °C for 3 to 8 hours, Aramata discloses heat treated (see [0030] “heat treated” & “600 to 1,000°C”; see [0032] “temperature and time for CVD are determined as appropriate relative to the thickness of the carbon layer”; see [0048] “1150 °C for an average residence time of about 4 hours” which lie within the claimed ranges).
Regarding claim 13, Aramata discloses the method of claim 11 and further discloses wherein the crystalline carbon comprises graphite-based carbon (see [0033] “graphite”), and wherein the amorphous carbon is formed of a phenol resin (see [0033] “phenol” & see [0039] “resins”).
Regarding claim 14, Aramata discloses the method of claim 11. Regarding the limitation wherein a mixing weight ratio of the spherical metal precursor powder to the amorphous carbon precursor in step S3 is 40:20 to 40:35, Aramata discloses in [0039] “graphite” & see [0040] “conductive agent is added” & “1 to 60% by weight” & “by weight of a mixture of the silicon composite powder and the conductive agent”.
Aramata discloses a range of 1 to 60%, which overlaps with the claimed range of 20 to 35. MPEP 2144.05 I states that '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, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)'.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aramata et al. (US 20060003227 A1, “Aramata”) in view of Yushin et al. (US 20200343580 A1, “Yushin”) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Sheem et al. (US 6355377 B1, “Sheem”).
Regarding claim 12, Aramata discloses the method of claim 11 and further discloses wherein the metal nanoparticles are silicon nanoparticles (see FIG. 1 describes core with Si; see abstract “silicon composite comprises silicon particles”; see [0031] “silicon particles” & “average particle size of 50 nm” which reads on silicon nanoparticles). Aramata does not explicitly disclose and wherein the solvent is a solvent comprising one or more selected from a group consisting of methanol, ethanol, propanol, and butanol.
Sheem teaches solvent (see P8 col 7 par 1 “solvent may be ethanol”).
Aramata and Sheem are analogous to the current invention because they are related to the same field of endeavor, namely negative active materials (see Sheem title).
Sheem teaches ethanol amongst a list of other solvents. KSR Rationale E states that it is obvious to choose "from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success". Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to select ethanol from the list of possible solvents taught in Sheem.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAH APPLEGATE whose telephone number is (571)270-0370. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 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, Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at (571) 270-3879. 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.
/S.A.A./Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/JAMES M ERWIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725 06/10/2026
Prosecution Insights