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
2. 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.
3. Claim 20 is 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.
a. With regards to claim 20, the claim recites “…first second material…” This limitation renders the claim indefinite as the scope of the limitation is unclear. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as a first second material was previously established. For the purposes of examination, the claim will be interpreted as reciting that “the first material” instead of “the first second material”.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 7-8, 10, 13-14, 16-17, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He et al. (US-20220352509-A1) in view of Lee et al. (US-20120121988-A1).
With regards to claim 1, He teaches a silicon-based composite material that may be used as an anode active material for a lithium-ion battery (¶ 0152). He teaches that this composite material includes nano active particles and graphite (¶ 0006). He goes on to teach that the graphite has a layered structure in which the nano particles are embedded (¶ 0007). He teaches that the graphite may include a flake graphite (¶ 0019). This anode active material taught by He reads on an anode active material comprising a particle comprising a plurality of flake carbon fragments overlapped in multiple layers and having a first material (nano particles) loaded in a pace between the plurality of the flake carbon fragments. In ¶ 0006 and ¶ 0027, He teaches the nano active particles comprises of silicon which is a material having lithophilic property and thus, reads on the first material having lithophilic property. He goes on to teach a magnesium silicide layer that covers a surface of the nano active particles (¶ 0016). As the nano particles are a part of the particle, this magnesium silicide layer reads on a second material applied onto at least a portion of a surface of the particle and having lithophilic property. He does not teach that a dynamic angle of repose of the anode active materials in a range of about 25° to 50°.
In a similar field of endeavor, Lee teaches an anode active material for a lithium battery that includes carbon (¶ 0012). Lee teaches that the anode active material may have an angle of repose of 15° to 55° (¶ 0018). This overlaps with the claimed range of 25° to 50°. Lee explains that when the angle of repose is within this range, wetting of the negative active material may be optimized in attaching a negative compound to a negative current collector (¶ 0018). Lee teaches that this allows the negative compound to be uniformly attached without separation or sinking of the negative active material. Further, stripping of the negative compound is prevented and partial concentration of electrode reaction is controlled, thereby controlling deterioration in output and life of the rechargeable lithium battery (¶ 0018).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the anode active material taught by He to have a dynamic angle of repose within the range taught by Lee (15° to 55°). This would predictably control the deterioration of a battery in which the active material is utilized. Through this modification, modified He teaches that the dynamic angle of repose of the anode active material may be from 15° to 55° which overlaps with the claimed range of 25° to 50°. 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).
He does not specifically teach a solid-state battery however, the claim is directed to the anode material rather than the intended use in a solid state battery which does not result in a structural difference of the active material. See MPEP 2111.02.II.
With regards to claim 7, He teaches that the anode active material (silicon composite material) may have a specific surface area in a range of 1 m2/g to 20 m2/g (¶ 0010). This overlaps with the claimed range of 0.5 m2/g to 4 m2/g. 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).
With regards to claim 8, He teaches that the spacing between the flake graphite is 10 nm to 500 nm (¶ 0024). In this case, the shortest distance is at least 10 nm which is within the claimed range of the shortest distance between one flake carbon fragment and another adjacent carbon fragment being about 10 nm to 100 nm. 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).
With regards to claim 10, as discussed earlier, He teaches that the first material (nano particles) comprises silicon (¶ 0027). This reads on the first material comprising one or more selected from the group consisting of silver (Ag), magnesium (Mg), aluminum (Al), gallium (Ga), zinc (Zn), bismuth (Bi), tin (Sn), indium (In), antimony (Sb), lead (Pb), silicon (Si), and germanium (Ge), or an alloy thereof with lithium.
With regards to claim 13, He teaches that the second material (magnesium silicide) has a thickness of 1 nm - 100 nm (¶ 0017). This overlaps with the claimed range of 10 nm to 1000 nm. 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)
With regards to claim 14, as discussed above, in ¶ 0016 He teaches that the second material comprises magnesium silicide which reads on the second material comprising one or more selected from the group consisting of silver (Ag), magnesium (Mg), aluminum (Al), gallium (Ga), zinc (Zn), bismuth (Bi), tin (Sn), indium (In), antimony (Sb), lead (Pb), silicon (Si), and Germanium (Ge), or an alloy thereof with lithium.
With regards to claim 16, As discussed earlier, He teaches that the silicon based composite material may be used as an anode active material (¶ 0152). He teaches the average particle diameter of the of the composite material is 1 µm to 40 µm (¶ 0009). The claimed range of 1 µm to 20 µm falls within the range taught by He. 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).
With regards to claim 17, He teaches that the second material (magnesium silicide layer) is on a surface of the first material (nano-silicon particles) (¶ 0089). In ¶ 0082, He teaches that the anode active material (silicon-based composite material) may include the graphite flakes in an amount of 10% to 50%, which overlaps with the anode active material comprising an amount of about 40% to 90% of the particle. He also teaches that the anode active material may include the nanoparticles in an amount of 0.5% to 80% (¶ 0082). Since the second material is combined with the first material, the range of the amount of the nanoparticles included reads on the amount of the sum of the first and second material. Thus, the range of 0.5% to 80% taught by He overlaps with the claimed range of 10% to 60%. 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).
With regards to claim 20, modified He teaches producing the active material by mixing the nano active particles so that the nano active particles are embedded in the interlayers of the graphite (¶ 0027), and as shown in Figs. 10 and 11 below, the interlayered particle is formed into a shape. This reads on forming the particle in a predetermined shape by stacking or overlapping the plurality of the flake carbon fragments in multiple layers. In ¶ 0049 - ¶ 0049, He teaches that the second material (magnesium silicide layer) is formed on a surface of the nano particles via methods such as magnetron sputtering which reads on depositing the second material on the surface of the particle. As discussed earlier, in ¶ 0027, He teaches that the first material (nano active particles) is embedded in the interlayer of the graphite which reads on depositing the first material.
Claim(s) 2-4 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He et al.(US-20220352509-A1) in view of Lee et al. (US-20120121988-A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (US-20200266444-A1).
With regards to claim 2, 3 and 4, modified He teaches the anode active material of claim 1. He teaches a magnesium silicide layer that reads on the second material (¶ 0016). In ¶ 0049 - ¶ 0049, He teaches that the second material (magnesium silicide layer) is formed on a surface of the nano particles via methods such as magnetron sputtering which reads on depositing the second material on the surface of the particle. He does not specifically teach that the second material covers 90% or greater of the surface of the particle.
In a similar field of endeavor, Kim teaches an anode active material comprising a silicon-based coating layer that may have a form in which silicon nano-particles are dispersed in the matrix containing the silicon carbon compound (¶ 0065). In ¶ 0072, Kim teaches that a silicon-based coating layer may also be uniformly coated on the compound. This silicon coating layer reads on the first and second material as it is deposited inside the matrix as well as on a surface of the particle. Kim goes on to teach that this increases the capacity and decreases stress due to the volume expansion of the silicon-based coating layer. Kim teaches that the silicon-based coating may be formed by a chemical vapor deposition method.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the anode active material taught by modified He to include a uniform coating of the silicon-coating layer taught by Kim on the particle and to substitute the magnetron sputtering method taught by He with the chemical vapor deposition taught by Kim. This will predictably increase capacity and reduce the stress caused by the silicon expansion with no unpredictable results. Through this modification, modified He teaches a uniform silicon-based coating as the first and second material formed on the surface as well as in the layers of the particle via a chemical vapor deposition method.
On page 13 of applicant’s disclosure, applicant also discloses the same method of depositing the first and second material. As discussed above, modified He teaches the same materials, formed in the same manner as the claimed invention. Modified He also teaches a dynamic angle of repose range that covers the claimed range. As the prior art teaches substantially the same material formed in the same manner as the claimed invention, the anode active material taught by modified He will inherently have a ratio (Rz/Ra) of a 10-point average roughness (Rz) to an arithmetic average roughness (Ra) in a range of about 6.5 to 10. The anode active material taught by modified He will also inherently have an Ra value in a range of about 300 nm to 500 nm and an Rz value of 2,000 nm to 4,000 nm.
With regards to claim 12, as discussed above, modified He teaches a uniform silicon-based coating as the second material formed on the surface of the particle. This uniform coating reads on the material covering about 90% or greater of the particle.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He et al.(US-20220352509-A1) in view of Lee et al. (US-20120121988-A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Morikawa et al. (US-20190305291-A1).
With regards top claim 5, modified He teaches that anode active material of claim 1, however, modified He does not teach a moisture content of the anode active material.
In a similar field of endeavor, Morikawa teaches a negative electrode active material that may contain carbon and silicon (¶ 0053). Morikawa goes on to teach that by making the moisture content of the negative electrode mixture layer less than 200 ppm, the gas generation in the charge and discharge cycles is enabled to be suppressed. The claimed range of 1 ppm to 50 ppm falls within this range. 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).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the moisture content of the anode active material taught by modified He to have a moisture content within the range taught by Morikawa, such as less than 200 ppm. This will predictably suppress gas generation during charge and discharge cycles.
Claim(s) 6, 11, 15, and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He et al.(US-20220352509-A1) in view of Lee et al. (US-20120121988-A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ogino et al. (US-20150132649-A1).
With regards to claims 6, 11 and 15, a review of applicant’s disclosure shows that an increase in the silicon content of the anode active material increases, decreases and increases the L, a and b values respectively. As mentioned earlier, He teaches silicon nano particles embedded in the layered graphite flakes that read on the first material of the claimed invention (¶ 0006 - ¶ 0007). He also teaches a magnesium silicide later on a surface of the silicon nano particles that read on the second material of the claimed invention (¶ 0016 and ¶ 0089). He also teaches that the second material is combined with the first material which are embedded in the graphite layers. As discussed above, the amount of the nanoparticles included reads on the amount of the sum of the first and second material. Thus, the first material and second material which represent the content of silicon in the active material is within a range of 0.5% to 80% which overlaps with the claimed range of 10% to 60% (¶ 0082). Although He teaches that the first and second material comprises silicon, He does not specifically teach that the silicon is amorphous as claimed in claims 11 and 15.
In a similar field of endeavor, Ogino teaches an anode active material for a power storage device comprising alloy-based material particles, and graphene flakes (¶ 0071 and ¶ 0074). Ogino teaches that a plurality of graphene flakes may be multilayered and formed to wrap the alloy-based material (¶ 0074 and ¶ 0079). This reads on a particle comprising a plurality of flake carbon fragments overlapped in multiple layers with a first material loaded in a space between the plurality of the flake carbon fragments. In ¶ 0073, Ogino teaches that the alloy-based particles may comprise silicon. Ogino goes on to teach that the silicon may be amorphous as this allows for more lithium ions to be received which increases the discharge capacity (¶ 0053).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed to use an amorphous silicon as the first and second material in the active material taught by modified He as taught by Ogino. This will predictably increase the discharge capacity of the anode active material.
Through this modification, modified He teaches the anode active material with the same type of silicon as the claimed invention as well as a content within the range of the claimed invention. Thus, the anode active material taught by modified He will inherently have an L value in a range of about 44 to 70, an a value in a range of about -0.5 to -0.1, and a b value in a range of about -6 to 0 in an L*a*b*-coordinate color system. NOTE: Where … the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, the PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his claimed product. Whether the rejection is based on “inherency” under 35 USC § 102, on “prima facie obviousness” under 35 USC § 103, jointly or alternatively, the burden of proof is the same, and its fairness is evidenced by the PTO’s inability to manufacture products or to obtain and compare prior art products. In re Best, 562 F2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433-4 (CCPA 1977).
With regards to claim 18, as discussed earlier, He teaches that the anode active material (silicon based composite material) may be used in a lithium-ion battery (¶ 0152). However, He does not specifically teach an all-solid state battery.
As mentioned above, Ogino teaches a similar anode active material for a power storage device (¶ 0071 and ¶ 0074). In ¶ 0004, Ogino teaches that the power storage device may be a lithium-ion battery. In ¶ 0124, Ogino also teaches that a solid electrolyte may be utilized instead of an electrolytic solution. Ogino teaches that this removes the need for separator and a spacer and allows the battery to be entirely solidified, which in turn removes the possibility of liquid leakage and thus increases the safety of the battery (¶ 0124).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed to utilize the anode material as taught by He in a solid-state battery as taught by Ogino. This will predictably yield a battery with increased safety. Through this modification, modified He teaches an all-slid state battery comprising the anode active material of claim 1.
With regards to claim 19, modified He teaches the all-solid-state battery of claim 18. He does not specifically teach a vehicle comprising the battery. However, Ogino teaches that the use of storage batteries in vehicles enables the production of clean energy vehicles (¶ 0178).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the at the time the invention was effectively filed to utilize the battery taught by modified He a vehicle as taught by Ogino. This will predictably enable the production of clean energy vehicles. Through this modification, modified He teaches a vehicle comprising an all-solid state battery of claim 18.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He et al.(US-20220352509-A1) in view of Lee et al. (US-20120121988-A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Constantino et al. (US-20200020935-A1).
With regards to claim 9, modified He teaches that silicon is embedded between the graphite flakes, however, modified He does not teach that the silicon (first material) occupies about 80% or greater of the space between the flake carbon fragments.
In a similar field of endeavor, Costantino teaches graphitic anode material comprising graphene sheets that expands when lithium is inserted between the sheets (¶ 0291). Constantino teaches embedding silicon within the porous carbon scaffold (¶ 0295). Constantino goes on to teach that the embedded silicon may occupy 5% to 100% of the total available pore volume of the porous carbon scaffold (¶ 0296). The claimed range of 80% or greater falls within this range. Constantino teaches that allowing the silicon to occupy a fraction of the total available pore volume within the porous carbon scaffold, allows the remainder of the pore volume to be available for the silicon to expand into upon the uptake of lithium (¶ 0297).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed to include the embedded silicon to occupy 5% to 80% of the space between the graphite flakes taught by modified He as suggested by Constantino. This will predictably accommodate the expansion of the silicon upon the intake of lithium.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUNSUYADOR YUSIF whose telephone number is (571)272-4531. The examiner can normally be reached 7 am - 5 pm (M-R).
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, Galen H Hauth can be reached at (571) 270-5516. 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.
/HUNSUYADOR MUGEESATU YUSIF/Examiner, Art Unit 1743
/GALEN H HAUTH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1743
Prosecution Insights