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
Claims 3 and 5 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3, line 2: “the adjacent flake carbon fragment” should be “an adjacent flake carbon fragment
Claim 5, line 1: “lithophilic” should be “lithiophilic”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 7-8, 10-11, and 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hoon et al. (KR 20190134537 A with attached machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, Hoon et al. teaches an anode for an all-solid-state battery comprising an anode active material (composite particle [0009]) and a solid electrolyte [0018],
wherein the anode active material comprises:
a particle comprising a plurality of flake carbon fragments overlapped in multiple layers (flake-like graphite [0040]); and
a coating part covering at least a portion of a surface of the particle and comprising a lithiophilic material (outer surface coated with mixture [0009]). The mixture comprises of a conductive material, and the conductive material can be aluminum [0065], which is lithiophilic (Pg. 2, lines 11-16 of the instant specification)
Regarding claim 2, Hoon et al. teaches the anode of claim 1, wherein the particle is formed in a spherical shape, an elliptical shape, or a rod shape (spherical shape [0118]).
Regarding claim 4, Hoon et al. teaches the anode of claim 1, wherein the lithiophilic material is aluminum [0065].
Regarding claim 7, Hoon et al. teaches the anode of claim 1, wherein the coating part covers 100% of the entire surface of the particles [0009]. This is within the claimed range of 90% or greater.
Regarding claim 8, Hoon et al. teaches the anode of claim 1, wherein an area of an interface between the particle and the solid electrolyte is about 0% of a total area of an interface between the anode active material and the solid electrolyte [0009]. Since the particle is entirely coated, there is 0% interface area, which is within the claimed range of about 10% or less.
Regarding claim 10, Hoon et al. teaches the anode of claim 1, wherein the anode active material further comprises a filling part which is filled in a space between the plurality of the flake carbon fragments, wherein the filling part comprises a material alloyable with lithium (mixture between the gaps [0009], [0073]).
Regarding claim 11, Hoon et al. teaches the anode of claim 10, wherein the filling part comprises: one or more selected from the group consisting of aluminum [0065].
Regarding claim 16, Hoon et al. teaches the anode of claim 1, wherein the solid electrolyte comprises a sulfide-based solid electrolyte [0013].
Regarding claim 17, Hoon et al. teaches an all-solid-state battery comprising an anode of claim 1 [0035].
Regarding claim 18, Hoon et al. teaches a vehicle comprising an all-solid battery of claim 17 [0109].
Regarding claim 19, Hoon et al. teaches a method of producing an anode active material for an all-solid-state battery comprising: forming a particle, wherein the particle comprises a plurality of the flake carbon fragments and the particle is formed by stacking or overlapping the plurality of the flake carbon fragments in multiple layers [0073]; depositing a coating part on the particle comprising a lithiophilic material [0040]; and optionally depositing a filler part [0073]
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 13 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoon et al.
Regarding claim 13, Hoon et al. teaches the anode of claim 1, wherein the anode active material has an average particle diameter D50 of about 5 μm to 50 μm [0010]. This overlaps with the claimed range of 1 μm to 20 μm. 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 14, Hoon et al. teaches the anode of claim 10, wherein the anode active material comprises: an amount of about 49% by weight to 95% by weight of the particle; and an amount of about 4% by weight to 60% by weight of a sum of the coating part and the filling part, the % by weight is based on the total weight of the anode active material [0017]. This overlaps with the claimed ranges of 40% by weight to 90% by weight and 10% by weight to 60% by weight, respectively. 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(s) 5 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoon et al. in view of Kim et al. (KR 20220089625 A, cited in IDS, English translation attached).
Regarding claim 5, Hoon et al. teaches the anode of claim 1, but does not specifically teach that the lithophilic material comprises silicon (Si) or an alloy of silicon (Si) and lithium, and wherein the lithiophilic material is amorphous.
Kim et al, however, teaches of an anode for an all-solid-state battery [0019] comprising of an active material comprising a coating part comprising a lithiophilic material [0070]. Kim et al. also teaches that the lithophilic material comprises silicon and wherein the lithiophilic material is amorphous [0070].
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date to modify the Hoon et al. anode by substituting in silicon as the lithiophilic material. This is because the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use, in the instant case suitable material for a coating used in the anode active material, supports prima facie obviousness determination (MPEP 2144.07). Hoon et al explains how the conductive material is not particularly limited as long as it is conductive without causing chemical changes in the battery [0065], meaning that the silicon taught in Kim et al. can be a suitable material as the lithiophilic material in the coating.
Regarding claim 12, Hoon et al. teaches the anode of claim 10, but does not specifically teach that the filling part comprises silicon (Si), and wherein the material alloyable with lithium is amorphous.
Kim et al, however, teaches that the filling part comprises silicon (Si), and wherein the material alloyable with lithium is amorphous [0065].
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date to modify the Hoon et al. anode by substituting in silicon as the lithiophilic material. This is because the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use, in the instant case suitable material for a filling used in the anode active material, supports prima facie obviousness determination (MPEP 2144.07). Hoon et al explains how the conductive material is not particularly limited as long as it is conductive without causing chemical changes in the battery [0065], meaning that the silicon taught in Kim et al. can be a suitable material in the filling.
Claim(s) 3, 6, 15, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoon et al. in view of Jo et al. (US 10622631 B2).
Regarding claim 6, Hoon et al. teaches the anode of claim 1, not does not specifically teach that the coating part has a thickness of about 20 nm to 1,000 nm.
Jo et al, however, teaches of an anode active material for a lithium secondary battery (Col. 1, lines 57-61), with the anode active material comprising a silicon-carbon primary and secondary particles (Col. 2, lines 1-11). The secondary particles have a coating layer (Col. 2, lines 56-58). Jo et al. also teaches that this coating layer has a thickness of 0.1 nm to 50 nm. This overlaps with the claimed range.
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date to modify the Hoon et al. anode to have the coating thickness from Jo et al because the coating with that thickness may serve as a protective layer of the surface of the silicon-carbon secondary particles and suppress a side reaction with an electrolyte solution (Jo et al. Col. 10, lines 41-45).
Also, 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 3, modified Hoon et al. teaches the anode of claim 1, wherein a shortest distance between one flake carbon fragment and the adjacent flake carbon fragment is 0.2 nm to 100 nm. As noted above, the thickness of the coating layer ranges from 0.1 nm to 50 nm. Since the spheroidization process compacts the coated graphite flakes together in order for them to be overlapped in multiple layers, there will be at least two flakes where the coating of one flake is in contact with the coating of another. Therefore, the shortest distance between the two flakes would be 0.2 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, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F. 2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 15, Hoon et al. teaches the anode of claim 1, but does not specifically teach that the anode active material has a specific surface area of about 0.5 m2/g to 4 m2/g.
Jo et al, however, teachers that the anode active material has a specific surface area of 3 m2/g to 20 m2/g.
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date to modify the Hoon et al. anode active material so it falls into the Jo et al. specific surface area range because in this range, lifespan characteristics of a lithium secondary battery may effectively be improved (Jo et al. Col. 10, lines 28-29). The specific surface area of the anode active material can be modified by altering the porosity through applying appropriate pressure to the coated electrode active material layer (Hoon et al. [0086]).
Also, 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 20, Hoon et al. teaches the method of claim 19, but does not specifically teach that the coating part and/or the filler part is deposited a chemical vapor deposition (CVD) or a physical vapor deposition (PVD).
Jo et al, however, teaches that the coating part and/or the filler part is deposited a chemical vapor deposition (CVD) (Col 11, lines 3-9). It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use a known technique, such as the chemical vapor deposition technique taught in Jo et al. to deposit the coating. Also, combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results supports prima facie obviousness determination. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoon et al. in view of Lee et al. (US 6896706 B2).
Regarding claim 9, Hoon et al. teaches the anode of claim 1, but does not specifically teach that the coating part prevents contact between the particle and the solid electrolyte, and the anode does not comprise a solid electrolyte interphase layer due to a side reaction between the particle and the solid electrolyte on the surface of the anode active material.
Lee et al, however, teaches of an anode active material comprising of a carbon particle and a metal oxide coating (Col. 1, lines 54-58). Lee et al. also teaches that the coating part prevents contact between the particle and the solid electrolyte, and the anode does not comprise a solid electrolyte interphase layer due to a side reaction between the particle and the solid electrolyte on the surface of the anode active material (Col.4, lines 8-17).
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the Hoon et al. anode to make it so that the coating part does not comprise of solid electrolyte and it prevents contact between the particle and the solid electrolyte. The solid electrolyte interphase layer will consequently not form. This is because the making this modification can improve the conductivity of the electrode (Lee et al. Col. 4, lines 17-18).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-7 and 10-15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3 and 5-13, of U.S. Patent No. 12218355. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the limitations of the instant claims are anticipated in the claims of the conflicting patent.
Regarding instant claim 1:Conflicting claim 1 teaches an anode material and a solid electrolyte, wherein the anode active material comprising a plurality of flake carbon fragments overlapped in multiple layer and a second material, corresponding the claimed “coating part” of instant claim 1, applied onto at least a portion of a surface of the particle and having lithophilic property.
Regarding instant claims 2-5, 6-7, and 10-15:
Instant claim 2 is recited in conflicting claim 2
Instant claim 3 is recited in conflicting claim 3
Instant claim 4 is recited in conflicting claim 9
Instant claim 6 is recited in conflicting claim 8
Instant claim 7 is recited in conflicting claim 7
Instant claim 10 is recited in conflicting claims 1 and 6
Instant claim 11 is recited in conflicting claim 5
Instant claim 12 is recited in conflicting claim 6
Instant claim 13 is recited in conflicting claim 11
Instant claim 14 is recited in conflicting claim 12
Instant claim 15 is recited in conflicting claim 13
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kwak et al. (US 10388951 B2) teaches an anode active material that can be used for a solid-state battery (Col. 9, lines 28-34) comprising a flake graphite core and a metal oxide and metal nitride shell (Abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YVONNE WEI whose telephone number is (571)270-0870. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30am-5pm, Friday 7:30am-4pm.
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, Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at (571) 272-3433. 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.
/YVONNE WEI/ Examiner, Art Unit 1722
/NIKI BAKHTIARI/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1722
Prosecution Insights