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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Republic of Korea on 02/22/2023. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the KR 10-2023-0023435 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on 02/20/2024 and 10/08/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings received on 02/20/2024 were reviewed and are acceptable.
Specification
The specification filed on 02/20/2024 was reviewed and is acceptable.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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) 1-2, 4, 6, and 8-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (KR 102286231 B1; hereinafter "Park"; hereinafter US 2022/0037656 A1 will be referenced as the English language equivalent).
Regarding claims 1 and 2, Park discloses an anode active material (a negative electrode active material; [0010]) for a lithium secondary battery [0064] comprising: a lithium-silicon oxide particle that contains Li2Si2O5 (and at least one lithium silicate selected from Li2SiO3, Li2Si2O5, and Li4SiO4 in at least a part of the silicon oxide; [0010]).
Further, with respect to the limitations, a phase fraction ratio of 1.0 or less defined by Equation 1 and the phase fraction ratio is in a range from 0.1 to 1.0; Park discloses a method of preparing a negative electrode active material [0086] comprising mixing a silicon source (silicon metal and silicon dioxide were mixed; [0083]) and a lithium precursor (LiOH; [0087]) and performing a heat treatment to prepare particles comprising silicon oxide, Li--2SiO-3 and Li2Si2O5 [0088]. The Li/Si molar ratio values disclosed of 0.5 to 0.8 fall within range of claimed from 0.1 to 0.7 [0046]. Park discloses the method of making the anode active material, as well as the obtained product.
Applicant discloses that a Si crystalline peak may be at least one of about 28.2°, 47.0° and 55.7°, and a Li2SiO3 crystalline peak may be at least one of about 18.9°, 19.0°, 27.0°, 33.0° and 38.6°, and a Li2Si2O5 crystalline peak may be at least one of about 23.8°, 24.3°, 24.8°and 37.5° (see Instant Specification [0053]).
Park discloses from the obtained results, peaks of (111) of Si positioned at 28.4±0.3°, (111) of Li2Si2O[5] positioned at 24.9±0.3°, and (111) of Li2SiO3 positioned at 26.9±0.3° were confirmed [0096].
Accordingly, it is reasonably interpreted that the crystalline peaks obtained with XRD are critical to the recited product components (see instant specification [0049]-[0053]), it is submitted that the peaks obtained by Park are substantially similar to the instant example peaks such that the disclosed product would reasonably possess the same properties and exhibit the same results.
The Office realizes that all of the claimed effects or physical properties are not positively stated by the reference(s). However, the reference(s) teaches all of the claimed ingredients, claimed amounts, and substantially similar process of making, according to the original specification (see [0153]-[0159]). Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties, i.e. phase fraction ratio, would expectedly be achieved by a composition with all the claimed ingredients, claimed amounts, and substantially similar process of making. See MPEP § 2112.01. If it is the applicant's position that this would not be the case: (1) evidence would need to be provided to support the applicant's position; and (2) it would be the Office' s position that the application contains inadequate disclosure that there is no teaching as to how to obtain the claimed properties with only the claimed ingredients, claimed amounts, and substantially similar process of making.
Regarding claim 4, Park discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Park further discloses that the lithium-silicon oxide particle includes a carbon coating formed on at least a portion of a surface portion thereof ([t]he obtained silicon compound particles were subjected to pyrolysis chemical vapor deposition (CVD) to coat a surface of the silicon compound particles with a carbon material; [0084]). Therefore, the mix powder includes a carbon coating on the silicon compound particles.
Regarding claim 6, Park discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Park further discloses the anode active material for a lithium secondary battery according to claim 1, further comprising a graphite-based particle containing at least one selected from the group consisting of natural graphite and artificial graphite (Examples of the crystalline carbon include graphite such as amorphous, plate-shaped, flake-shaped, spherical, or fibrous natural graphite or artificial graphite; [0062]).
Regarding claim 8, Park discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Park further discloses a lithium secondary battery [0064], comprising:
a cathode (positive electrode; [0064]); and an anode (negative electrode; [0064]) facing the cathode (a separator positioned between the negative electrode and the positive electrode; [0064]); and comprising the anode active material ([t]he negative electrode active material; [0054]) for a lithium secondary battery of claim 1.
Regarding claim 9, Park discloses a method of preparing an anode active material (Preparation of Negative Electrode Active Material; [0086]) for a lithium secondary battery [0006], comprising:
mixing a silicon source and a lithium source to form a mixture ([t]he prepared silicon compound particles and LiOH powder were mixed to form mixed powder; [0087]); and firing the mixture to prepare a lithium-silicon oxide particle containing Li2Si2O5 ([t]hereafter, the mixed powder was filtered using a sieve of 25-250 μm and then placed in an aluminum crucible; [0087]; [t]he aluminum crucible was heat-treated in a furnace under an inert gas atmosphere for 1-12 hours; [0088])
Further, with respect to the limitation a phase fraction ratio of 1.0 or less defined by Equation 1, Park discloses a method of preparing a negative electrode active material [0086] comprising mixing a silicon source (silicon metal and silicon dioxide were mixed; [0083]) and a lithium precursor (LiOH; [0087]) and performing a heat treatment to prepare particles comprising silicon oxide, Li--2SiO-3 and Li2Si2O5 [0088]. The Li/Si molar ratio values disclosed of 0.5 to 0.8 fall within range of claimed from 0.1 to 0.7 [0046]. Park discloses the method of making the anode active material, as well as the obtained product.
Applicant discloses that a Si crystalline peak may be at least one of about 28.2°, 47.0° and 55.7°, and a Li2SiO3 crystalline peak may be at least one of about 18.9°, 19.0°, 27.0°, 33.0° and 38.6°, and a Li2Si2O5 crystalline peak may be at least one of about 23.8°, 24.3°, 24.8°and 37.5° (see Instant Specification [0053]).
Park discloses from the obtained results, peaks of (111) of Si positioned at 28.4±0.3°, (111) of Li2Si2O[5] positioned at 24.9±0.3°, and (111) of Li2SiO3 positioned at 26.9±0.3° were confirmed [0096].
Accordingly, it is reasonably interpreted that the crystalline peaks obtained with XRD are critical to the recited product components (see instant specification [0049]-[0053]), it is submitted that the peaks obtained by Park are substantially similar to the instant example peaks such that the disclosed product would reasonably possess the same properties and exhibit the same results.
The Office realizes that all of the claimed effects or physical properties are not positively stated by the reference(s). However, the reference(s) teaches all of the claimed ingredients, claimed amounts, and substantially similar process of making, according to the original specification (see [0153]-[0159]). Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties, i.e. phase fraction ratio, would expectedly be achieved by a composition with all the claimed ingredients, claimed amounts, and substantially similar process of making. See MPEP § 2112.01. If it is the applicant's position that this would not be the case: (1) evidence would need to be provided to support the applicant's position; and (2) it would be the Office' s position that the application contains inadequate disclosure that there is no teaching as to how to obtain the claimed properties with only the claimed ingredients, claimed amounts, and substantially similar process of making.
Regarding claim 10, Park discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Park further discloses the method of claim 9, wherein the silicon source includes a silicon particle and a SiO2 particle ([a] raw material in which a silicon metal and silicon dioxide were mixed; [0083]), wherein the preparation is directed to silicon compound particles [0082]. Thus, the disclosed silicon source reads on the claim limitation.
Regarding claim 11, Park discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Park further discloses the method of claim 9, wherein the lithium source includes at least one selected from the group consisting of LiOH, Li, LiH, Li2O and Li2CO3 ([t]he prepared silicon compound particles and LiOH powder were mixed; [0087]); directed to the preparation of the negative electrode active material [0086]. Thus, the disclosed lithium source reads on the claim limitation.
Regarding claim 12, Park discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Park further discloses the method of claim 9, wherein a ratio (Li/Si) of the number of moles of lithium elements contained in the lithium source relative to the number of moles of silicon elements contained in the silicon source is in a range from 0.1 to 0.7 ([s]pecifically, it is preferred that the mixing of the silicon compound particles and the Li precursor is performed so that a Li/Si mole ratio is more than 0.3 and 1.0 or less, specifically more than 0.3 and 0.8 or less, preferably 0.4 to 0.8, and more preferably 0.5 to 0.8; [0046]).
Before the effective filing date of the current invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to routinely select the overlapping portions of the disclosed ranges (0.5 to 0.8 significantly overlaps 0.1 to 0.7) because selection of overlapping portions of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (KR 102286231 B1; hereinafter "Park"; hereinafter US 2022/0037656 A1 will be referenced as the English language equivalent), in view of Luo et al. (KR 20220092556 A; hereinafter “Luo”; hereinafter US 2023/0361274 A1 will be referenced as the English language equivalent).
Regarding claim 3, Park discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Park fails to disclose that a content of lithium elements contained in the lithium-silicon oxide particle is in a range from 2 wt% to 10 wt% based on a total weight of the lithium-silicon particle.
Luo teaches, directed to an anode active material, that the content of the lithium in the silicon oxide compound particles is 0.1-20 wt %, preferably 2-18 wt %, and more preferably 4-15 wt %; [0009].
Park and Luo are analogous prior art to the current invention because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely active material for a battery.
Before the effective filing date of the current invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that lithium elements must necessarily be present at a certain wt% range, as explicitly shown by Luo, and would thus reasonably understand that such range should be from 2 wt% to 10 wt% based on a total weight of the lithium-silicon particle in order to improve the current capacity and charge/discharge cycle stability of the electrode [0048], and would thus find it obvious to select the overlapping portions of the disclosed ranges (0.1-20 wt % completely overlaps 2 wt% to 10 wt%) because selection of overlapping portions of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (KR 102286231 B1; hereinafter "Park"; hereinafter US 2022/0037656 A1 will be referenced as the English language equivalent), in view of Jung et al. (KR 20160113811 A; hereinafter “Jung”; see attached machine translation for reference).
Regarding claim 5, Park discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Park further discloses that a content of carbon elements on the surface of the lithium-silicon oxide particle measured through the XPS analysis based on the total number of atoms on the surface of the lithium-silicon oxide particle measured through the XPS analysis is 70 atomic% or more.
Jung teaches that with respect to the total of 100 atomic weight% of the carbon coating layer and nitrogen doping, carbon may be contained in an amount of 70 to 99.5 atomic weight% and nitrogen in an amount of 0.5 to 30 atomic weight% [0047].
Park and Jung are analogous prior art to the current invention because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely lithium batteries and active material.
Before the effective filing date of the current invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to include the carbon coating atom% from the teachings of Jung in the component disclosed by Park, with the reasonable expectation that doing so would improve the current capacity and charge/discharge cycle stability of the electrode [0048], as suggested by Jung.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (KR 102286231 B1; hereinafter "Park"; hereinafter US 2022/0037656 A1 will be referenced as the English language equivalent), in view of Matsuno et al. (US 20210376311 A1; hereinafter “Matsuno”).
Regarding claim 7, Park discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Park fails to disclose that a content of the lithium-silicon oxide particle is in a range from 5 wt% to 40 wt% based on a total weight of the lithium-silicon oxide particle and the graphite-based particle.
Matsuno teaches, directed to a negative electrode active material, the negative electrode active material was blended with a carbon-based active material such that the mass ratio of the silicon-based active material particles and carbon-based active material particles was 1:9 to produce a mixed negative electrode active material [0171]. Therefore, the [lithium] silicone based particles are 10wt% based on the total weight, while the graphite is 90wt%.
Park and Matsuno are analogous prior art to the current invention because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely lithium ion secondary batteries.
Before the effective filing date of the current invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to include a content of the lithium-silicon oxide particle in a range from 5 wt% to 40 wt% based on a total weight of the lithium-silicon oxide particle and the graphite-based particle, with the reasonable expectation that doing so would not only improve the electric conductivity of the negative electrode active material layer but also ease the expanding stress due to charging [0043], as suggested by Matsuno.
Claim(s) 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (KR 102286231 B1; hereinafter "Park"; hereinafter US 2022/0037656 A1 will be referenced as the English language equivalent), in view of Zhao et al. (US 2022/0223857 A1; hereinafter “Zhao”).
Regarding claims 13, 14 and 15, Park discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Park further discloses that the aluminum crucible, wherein the mixed powder was placed, was heat-treated in a furnace under an inert gas atmosphere for 1-12 hours [0088].
Park fails to disclose introducing a carbon source gas during the firing to form a carbon coating on at least a portion of a surface of the lithium-silicon oxide particle, wherein the carbon source gas includes at least one selected from the group consisting of a methane gas, an ethylene gas, an acetylene gas, an ethane gas, a liquefied petroleum gas and a propylene gas, and wherein the firing is performed at a temperature in a range from 800°C to 1000°C.
Zhao teaches a carbon coating in the step (3); [0025]; wherein the crushed particles obtained in the step (2) were added into a CVD (Chemical Vapor Deposition) furnace, then heating was performed at a heating rate of 5° C./min to 960° C., then 10% of hydrogen-argon mixed gas was introduced for 0.5 h, then methane was introduced, and carbon coating was carried out on the surface of the material; [0041]. Therefore, step 3 reads on the claimed carbon source during firing being methane gas, and the firing being performed in a range from 800°C to 1000°C.
Park and Zhao are analogous prior art to the current invention because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely lithium batteries.
Before the effective filing date of the current invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to include introducing a carbon source gas during the firing to form a carbon coating on at least a portion of a surface of the lithium-silicon oxide particle, wherein the carbon source gas includes methane gas and wherein the firing is performed at a temperature in a range from 800°C to 1000°C, in the method disclosed by Park, with the reasonable expectation that doing so would facilitate carbon material coating the surfaces of the silicon-containing particles effectively reducing the consumption of active lithium ions in the first charging and discharging process, and improving the Coulombic efficiency of the first charging and discharging [0008], as suggested by Zhao.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
McKinney et al. (US 2019/0044128 A1) discloses anode active material particles comprising a combination of Si, Li2SiO3 and Li2Si2O5.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA N LIZARAZU whose telephone number is (571)272-9697. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30am-6:00pm.
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 5712703879. 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.
/J.N.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/NICOLE M. BUIE-HATCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights