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 § 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.
Claims 1, 2, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qu et al. (WO 2022042266 A1), hereinafter Qu.
Regarding claim 1, Quo teaches an anode material comprising a silicon-based core and a coating layer disposed on at least a surface of the silicon-based core (Abstract, [0021], [0090]). Qu further teaches that the coating layer is provided on the silicon particles to improve electrochemical performance and durability of the anode material (Abstract, [0021], [0090]).
More specifically, Qu teaches:
An anode material comprising a core of a silicon-based material (Abstract, [0021], [0090]);
A coating layer having a max and min thickness (Rmin, Rmax) ([0075]);
The silicon-based material having a median particle size (D50) ([0021], [0090], Abstract, [0170]);
The coating layer being present in a defined amount corresponding to the coating content (C) ([0084-0085]).
Qu therefore teaches all of the structural components necessary to define the claimed coated silicon particle.
Qu does not explicitly disclose that the first coating layer has an undulation value, y, satisfying 1 ≥ y ≥ 0.l0, or that the undulation is expressed by Formula (I):
y
=
1
-
exp
-
(
R
m
a
x
-
R
m
i
n
)
D
50
X
C
However, the claimed equation merely mathematically characterizes the geometry and coating distribution of the coated silicon particles already disclosed by Qu using known measurable parameter, namely coating thickness variation, particle size, and coating amount. Expressing a known article by a mathematical relationship derived from its physical characteristics does not patentably distinguish the article itself.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to characterize or optimize Qu’s coated silicon particles using the recited mathematical relationship, since coating thickness, coating uniformity, particle size, and coating amount are recognized result-effective variables affecting electrochemical performance. Routine optimization and characterization of these variables to quantify coating morphology would have been nothing more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions, yielding no unexpected result.
Regarding claim 2, Qu teaches the limitations of claim 1, as stated above. Qu further teaches the anode material comprises of at least one of the following:
the core of the silicon-based material comprises crystalline silicon and silicide, and the silicide comprises at least one of SiOx, silicon dioxide, silicate, and silicon alloy, wherein l.5 ≥ x ≥ 0.5 ([0021], [0090], Abstract);
the core of the silicon-based material comprises crystalline silicon and silicide, and the silicide comprises at least one of SiOx, silicon dioxide, silicate, and silicon alloy, wherein l.5 ≥ x ≥ 0.5, and the crystalline silicon has a grain size DSi of 2.5 nm to 15 nm ([0021], [0090], Abstract, [0170]);
the core of the silicon-based material comprises crystalline silicon and silicide, and the silicide comprises at least one of SiOx, silicon dioxide, silicate, and silicon alloy, wherein l.5 ≥ x ≥ 0.5, and the silicon alloy comprises at least one of silicon-iron alloy, silicon-silver alloy, silicon-nickel alloy, silicon-cobalt alloy, silicon-manganese alloy, silicon-indium alloy, silicon-rhodium alloy, silicon-ruthenium alloy, silicon-iridium alloy, silicon-platinum alloy, silicon-titanium alloy, and silicon-molybdenum alloy ([0021], [0090], Abstract, [0170], 103);
the core of the silicon-based material comprises crystalline silicon and silicide, and the silicide comprises at least one of SiOx, silicon dioxide, silicate, and silicon alloy, wherein l.5 ≥ x ≥ 0.5, and a cation of the silicate comprises a metal element ([0021], [0090], Abstract, [0170], [0017]);
the core of the silicon-based material has a median particle size of 1 μm to 13 μm ([0021], [0090], Abstract, [0170]).
Regarding claim 15, Qu teaches the limitations of claim 1, as stated above. Qu further teaches a lithium-ion battery, comprising the anode material according to claim 1 ([0059]).
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qu.
Regarding claim 4, Qu teaches the limitations of claim 1, as stated above. Qu further teaches an anode material including a silicon-based materials ([0021], [0090], Abstract). Specifically, Qu teaches a silicon-based material comprising a silicon alloy and discloses coating components that correspond to the claimed second coating layer (Abstract, [0021], [0090], [0103] [0170]). Although, Qu fails to teach a second coating layer is further provided between the core of the silicon-based material and the first coating layer, Qu teaches the constituent materials and their use in coating the silicon-based active material.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to arrange the silicon alloy-containing coating as an intermediate coating layer between the silicon-based core and the outer first coating layer because the positioning of known coating materials in a multilayer coating structure constitutes a predictable design choice. Such an arrangement would have been expected to improve adhesion between adjacent layers, accommodate differences in material properties, and enhance the structural integrity and electrochemical stability of the coated silicon-based active material, yielding no more than the predictable results of using known coating materials in a known multilayer configuration.
Regarding claim 5, Qu teaches the limitations of claim 4, as stated above. Qu further teaches a coating layer comprises at least one of the following features:
a material of the second coating layer comprises silicon alloy (Abstract, [0021], [0090], [0103], [0170]);
a material of the second coating layer comprises silicon alloy (Abstract, [0021], [0090], [0103], [0170]),
silicon alloy comprises at least one of silicon-iron alloy, silicon-silver alloy, silicon-nickel alloy, silicon-cobalt alloy, silicon-manganese alloy, silicon-indium alloy, silicon-rhodium alloy, silicon-ruthenium alloy, silicon-iridium alloy, silicon-platinum alloy, silicon-titanium alloy, and silicon-molybdenum alloy (Abstract, [0021], [0090], [0103], [0170]).
Qu fails to teach:
the second coating layer has a thickness of 0 nm to 10 nm but excluding 0 nm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to optimize the thickness of the silicon alloy coating as a matter of routine experimentation to achieve a desired balance of protection, conductivity, and mechanical stability. The selection of a particular coating thickness would have been recognized as a result-effective variable that may be varied to obtain predictable improvements in electrochemical performance while maintaining the intended function of the coating.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qu in view of Shin et al. (EP 3703163 A1), hereinafter Shin.
Regarding claim 2, Qu teaches the limitations of claim 1, as stated above. Qu further teaches the anode material comprises of at least one of the following:
the core of the silicon-based material comprises crystalline silicon and silicide, and the silicide comprises at least one of SiOx, silicon dioxide, silicate, and silicon alloy, wherein l.5 ≥ x ≥ 0.5 ([0021], [0090], Abstract);
the core of the silicon-based material comprises crystalline silicon and silicide, and the silicide comprises at least one of SiOx, silicon dioxide, silicate, and silicon alloy, wherein l.5 ≥ x ≥ 0.5, and the crystalline silicon has a grain size DSi of 2.5 nm to 15 nm ([0021], [0090], Abstract, [0170]);
the core of the silicon-based material comprises crystalline silicon and silicide, and the silicide comprises at least one of SiOx, silicon dioxide, silicate, and silicon alloy, wherein l.5 ≥ x ≥ 0.5, and the silicon alloy comprises at least one of silicon-iron alloy, silicon-silver alloy, silicon-nickel alloy, silicon-cobalt alloy, silicon-manganese alloy, silicon-indium alloy, silicon-rhodium alloy, silicon-ruthenium alloy, silicon-iridium alloy, silicon-platinum alloy, silicon-titanium alloy, and silicon-molybdenum alloy ([0021], [0090], Abstract, [0170], 103);
the core of the silicon-based material comprises crystalline silicon and silicide, and the silicide comprises at least one of SiOx, silicon dioxide, silicate, and silicon alloy, wherein l.5 ≥ x ≥ 0.5, and a cation of the silicate comprises a metal element ([0021], [0090], Abstract, [0170], [0017]);
the core of the silicon-based material has a median particle size of 1 μm to 13 μm ([0021], [0090], Abstract, [0170]).
Additionally, Shin teaches:
the core of the silicon-based material comprises crystalline silicon and silicide, and the silicide comprises at least one of SiOx, silicon dioxide, silicate, and silicon alloy, wherein l.5 ≥ x ≥ 0.5 ([0089]).
Qu and Shin are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of anode materials. Accordingly, Qu teaches several of the alternatively recited configurations of the claimed feature, while Shin teaches additional alternatively recited configurations. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to incorporate the alternative configurations taught by Shin. The substitution of one known alternative for another would have amount to the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qu in view of Shin, in further view of Jung et al (US 20200194785), hereinafter Jung, in further view of Ham et al. (US 20180205084), hereinafter Ham.
Regarding claim 3, Qu teaches the limitations of claim 1, as stated above. Qu further teaches the anode material comprises at least one of the following:
the first coating layer comprises a carbon layer, and a material of the carbon layer comprises at least one of amorphous carbon, graphite, soft carbon, and hard carbon ([0009-0010]);
a surface morphology of the first coating layer comprises at least one of petal shape, stripe shape, cone shape, and granular shape ([0012]);
Additionally, Shin teaches:
the first coating layer comprises a carbon layer, and a material of the carbon layer comprises at least one of amorphous carbon, graphite, soft carbon, and hard carbon ([0009], [0049]);
the first coating layer has a thickness of 10 nm to 500 nm ([0016]);
the first coating layer has pores with a pore diameter of 10 nm to 60 nm ([0018]).
Additionally, Jung teaches:
the first coating layer has a porosity of 0.5% to 15% ([0089]).
Additionally, Ham teaches:
the core of the silicon-based material comprises a first dopant element, and the first dopant element comprises at least one of lithium, magnesium, sodium, copper, platinum, iron, manganese, cobalt, nickel, indium, silver, gold, titanium, molybdenum, aluminum, palladium, calcium, iridium, chromium, gallium, rhodium, and ruthenium ([0077-0079]).
Qu, Shin, Jung, and Ham are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of anode materials. Accordingly, Qu teaches several of the alternatively recited configurations of the claimed feature, while Shin, Jung, and Ham teaches additional alternatively recited configurations. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to incorporate the alternative configurations taught by Shin, Jung, and Ham. The substitution of one known alternative for another would have amount to the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions.
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to optimize the coating layer thickness of the anode material as a matter of routine experimentation to achieve a desired balance of protection, conductivity, and mechanical stability. The selection of a particular coating layer thickness would have been recognized as a result-effective variable that may be varied to obtain predictable improvements in electrochemical performance while maintaining the intended function of the coating layer thickness.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qu in view of Oh et al. (WO 2022060181), hereinafter Oh, in further view of Eom et al. (US 20170069909), hereinafter Eom.
Regarding claim 6, Qu teaches the limitations of claim 1, as stated above. Qu further teaches the anode material comprises at least one of the following:
the anode material has a median particle size D50 of 6 μm (Abstract, [0021], [0090], [0170]);
the anode material has a carbon content of 0.013% to 0.5% ([0084-0085])
Additionally, Oh teaches:
in a Raman spectrum of the anode material measured by a Raman spectroscopy, a ratio of a strongest peak intensity I1 of the anode material at 1300 cm-1 to 1400 cm-1 to a strongest peak intensity I2 of the anode material at 1550 cm-1 to 1650 cm-1 satisfying 0<I1/I2<3, and a ratio of a strongest peak intensity I3 of the anode material at 480 cm-1 to 540 cm-1 to the strongest peak intensity I1 of the anode material at 1300 cm-1 to 1400 cm-1 satisfying 1<I3/I1 <4.5 (Abstract).
Additionally, Eom teaches:
the anode material has a powder conductivity of 0.1 S/m to 100 S/m (Table 3, conductivity);
the anode material has a specific surface area of 0.8 m2/g to 10 m2/g ([0039]).
Qu, Oh, and Eom are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of anode materials. Accordingly, Qu teaches several of the alternatively recited configurations of the claimed feature, while Oh and Eom teaches additional alternatively recited configurations. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to incorporate the alternative configurations taught by Oh and Eom. The substitution of one known alternative for another would have amount to the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions.
Additionally, it is well established that where the claimed ranges overlap or lie within the ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art to select particle size/carbon content within the claimed ranges as a matter of routine optimization of a result-effective variable.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to optimize the D50 particle size and carbon content through routine experimentation to obtain the desired balance of electrochemical performance, conductivity, capacity retention, and mechanical stability. The selection of particular values for these parameters would have been a matter of design choice, as they are recognized result-effective variables that may be varied to achieve predictable improvement in battery performance.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tamara Orduna whose telephone number is (571)431-1457. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00 EST.
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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at (571) 270-7872. 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.
/TAMARA ORDUNA/Examiner, Art Unit 1776
/Jennifer Dieterle/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1776
Prosecution Insights