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 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “comprising;” should be --comprising:[[;]]--. 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:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claims 1 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ionescu (US 2022/0393162 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Ionescu teaches a negative active material for a rechargeable lithium battery (paragraph 20 and 57), comprising a silicon-carbon composite (paragraphs 28, 42-44); and graphene on a surface of the silicon-carbon composite (Abstract; paragraph 53). Ionescu teaches a surface area that’s less than about 2 m2/g (paragraphs 39-41), which overlaps with the claimed range. It is noted that a prima facie case of obviousness exists when a claimed range overlaps, falls within or is near a prior art range. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 7, Ionescu teaches the negative active material for a rechargeable lithium battery as claimed in claim 1, exemplary particles that are preferably between 1 nm to about 10 μm (paragraph 31), and a graphene coating thickness that is between about 1 nm and 20 μm (paragraph 55). As silicon and graphene have roughly the same density, and Ionescu suggests that the particles can be spherical (paragraph 30), the graphene content may be between 1/((10 μm ^3 / (10.1 μm ^3 – 10 μm ^3))+1) * 100 = 2.94, and 1/((10 μm ^3 / (10.4 μm ^3 – 10 μm ^3))+1) * 100 = 11.1 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the negative active material. The claimed range falls within this range. It is noted that a prima facie case of obviousness exists when a claimed range overlaps, falls within or is near a prior art range. See MPEP 2144.05. Ionescu explains that the coating may be provided for various purposes including conductivity (paragraph 54), and clearly indicates that a lower or higher content of graphene may also be used (paragraph 53). Accordingly, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have engaged in routine experimentation to select a suitable amount of graphene to achieve a desired conductivity. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use graphene content in the claimed range because one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use a suitable amount of graphene as suggested by Ionescu or because one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use an amount of graphene in the claimed range as a matter of routine experimentation to achieve suitable conductivity in accordance with the above noted teachings of Ionescu.
Regarding claim 8, Ionescu teaches the negative active material for a rechargeable lithium battery as claimed in claim 1, wherein the silicon-carbon composite has a porous structure (abstract and paragraph 48).
Regarding claim 9, Ionescu teaches the negative active material for a rechargeable lithium battery as claimed in claim 1, wherein the silicon-carbon composite comprises nano silicon (paragraph 29) and amorphous carbon (additives include conductive materials, paragraph 28; examples of conductive materials include…carbon black, paragraph 70)
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ionescu as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Bendimerad (US 2017/0117538 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Ionescu teaches the negative active material for a rechargeable lithium battery of claim 1, but fails to teach an electrical conductivity of about 16 S/cm or more.
However, in related art Bendimerad teaches an electrical conductivity of about 10 to about 100 S/cm (paragraph 49). It is noted that a prima facie case of obviousness exists when a claimed range overlaps, falls within or is near a prior art range. See MPEP 2144.05. Bendimerad notes that tradeoffs need to be made for optimum performance while making sure the carbon is as conductive as possible (paragraph 47). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the negative active material of Ionescu with a conductivity in the claimed range because one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to achieve the above noted benefits in accordance with the teachings of Bendimerad.
Regarding claim 3, Ionescu in view of Bendimerad teaches the negative active material for a rechargeable lithium battery of claim 2, but Ionescu fails to teach an electrical conductivity of about 16 S/cm to 40 S/cm. However, Bendimerad teaches an electrical conductivity of about 10 to about 100 S/cm (paragraph 49). See analysis for claim 2 above. Claim 3 is rejected for the reasons provided above.
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ionescu, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Peng (WO 2022/121334 A1, referencing US 2023/0261177 A1 as an English language equivalent).
Regarding claim 4, Ionescu teaches the negative active material for a rechargeable lithium battery of claim 1, but fails to teach the specific surface area of the negative active material is up to 30% higher than that of the silicon-carbon composite alone.
However, in related art Peng suggests that the specific surface area of the negative active material is up to 30% higher than that of the silicon-carbon composite alone (paragraphs 88, 92, 93, and 98). Peng explains that a primary particle preferably has a specific surface area that ranges from 10 to 50 m2/g, and the anode material has a controlled specific surface area of 10 to 50 m2/g. For example, a primary particle with a specific surface area of 10 m2/g, and an anode material having a specific surface area between 10 and 13 m2/g would result in a specific surface area of the negative active material that is up to 30% higher than that of the composite alone. It is noted that a prima facie case of obviousness exists when a claimed range overlaps, falls within or is near a prior art range. See MPEP 2144.05. Peng explains that it’s better when the specific surface area of the anode material is smaller, and suggests that an excessively large specific surface area would reduce the initial efficiency of the battery (paragraph 98). The minimization of the specific surface area of the anode material would allow for values to fall within the claimed range. Accordingly, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have engaged in routine experimentation to configure the negative active material to achieve a lower specific surface area. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the negative active material of Ionescu with specific surface area values in the claimed range because one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to configure a suitable specific surface area of the negative active material as suggested by Peng or because one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to configure a specific surface area of the negative active material as a matter of routine experimentation to achieve a suitable specific surface area in accordance with the above noted teachings of Peng.
Regarding claims 5 and 6, Ionescu teaches the negative active material for a rechargeable lithium battery of claim 1, but fails to teach the limitations of these claims. However, Ionescu in view of Peng teaches all the limitations, see analysis for claim 4 above. Claims 5 and 6 are rejected for the reasons provided above.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ionescu, as applied to claim 9 above, in view of Jo (US 2018/0269519 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Ionescu teaches the negative active material for a rechargeable lithium battery as claimed in claim 9, but fails to teach wherein a mixing ratio of the nano silicon and the amorphous carbon is a weight ratio of about 70:30 to about 40:60.
However, in related art Jo teaches a material wherein a mixing ratio of the nano silicon and the amorphous carbon is a weight ratio of about 70:30 to about 40:60 (paragraphs 30-31, 39, and 44). Paragraph 39 of Jo notes that the silicon may be included in an amount of 5 wt % to 90 wt %, based on a total weight of the negative electrode active material. Paragraph 44 of Jo notes that the amorphous carbon may be included in an amount of 0.1 wt % to 50 wt % based on the total weight of the negative electrode active material. The claimed range falls within these ranges. It is noted that a prima facie case of obviousness exists when a claimed range overlaps, falls within or is near a prior art range. See MPEP 2144.05. Jo explains that balancing the amount of amorphous carbon can affect the conductivity, structural support characteristics, and discharge capacity of the final active material (paragraph 88). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the negative active material of Ionescu with mixing ratios in the claimed range because one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to control the above noted characteristics in accordance with the teachings of Jo.
Regarding claim 11, Ionescu teaches a rechargeable lithium battery, comprising: a negative electrode comprising the negative active material as claimed in claim 1, but fails to teach a positive electrode comprising a positive active material and a non-aqueous electrolyte.
However, Jo teaches a positive electrode comprising a positive active material and a non-aqueous electrolyte (paragraphs 134 and 136). Jo describes the functions of these limitations to include:
the intercalating and deintercalating of lithium by using a positive electrode (paragraph 137).
the minimization of decomposition due to the oxidation reaction during the charge and discharge of the battery by using a non-aqueous electrolyte (paragraphs 142-143).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the rechargeable lithium battery of Ionescu with the above limitations because one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include the above noted functions in accordance with the teachings of Jo.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ionescu in view of Jo as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Bendimerad.
Regarding claim 12, Ionescu in view of Jo teaches the rechargeable lithium battery and the negative active material as a first negative active material as claimed in claim 11, but this combination fails to teach wherein the negative electrode further comprises a crystalline carbon as a second negative active material.
However, Bendimerad teaches a battery wherein the negative electrode (paragraph 6) further comprises a crystalline carbon as a second negative active material (carbon particles 401, paragraphs 38 and 41; figure 4). Bendimerad explains that the use of crystalline carbon tends to substantially create pores throughout the nanocomposite anode structure, which minimizes the structural stress created during the expansion and contraction of the nanocomposite anode structure during the absorption and release of lithium ions (paragraph 40). 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 Ionescu in view of Jo, and incorporate the teachings of Bendimerad to create a negative electrode with the above limitation because one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include the above noted benefits in accordance with the teachings of Bendimerad.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RENAD NAKDALI whose telephone number is (571)270-3286. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10:00 AM - 4:00 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, Philip Tucker can be reached at (571)272-1095. 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.
/R.N./Examiner, Art Unit 1745
/MICHAEL A TOLIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1745
Prosecution Insights