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
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.
Claims 1 and 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (KR 101461220 B1), and further in view of Canham et al. (GB 2520946 A).
As claim 1, Park et al. disclose a secondary battery, comprising an electrode body having a positive electrode and a negative electrode (see e.g. “A lithium secondary battery according to an embodiment includes an electrode assembly including a positive electrode, a negative electrode, and a separator disposed between the positive electrode and the negative electrode” in Par. [0100]),
wherein the negative electrode comprises a negative current collector, and a negative active material layer placed on the negative current collector (see e.g. “The negative electrode may be prepared by mixing the above-described negative electrode active material, a binder, and optionally a conductive material to prepare a composition for forming a negative electrode active material layer, and then applying the composition to a negative electrode current collector such as copper” in Par. [0101]),
Park et al. disclose a negative active material layer comprising Si particles and hard carbon as negative active materials (see e.g. “The anode active material for a lithium secondary battery according to an embodiment may have a structure of core particles and a shell layer coated on the surface of the core particles. The core particle may comprise an active particle, a first carbon-based particle, a first amorphous carbon and a pore, and the shell layer may comprise a second carbon-based particle and a second amorphous carbon” in Par. [0040]). Moreover, Park et al. disclose that the active particles may be silicon (see e.g. “The active particles include a metal element capable of alloying with lithium, and metal particles, metal-containing compound particles, or a combination thereof can be used” in Par. [0045] and “The metal particles may be Si, Sn, Sb, Al, Ge, Zn, Pb or a combination thereof. Among them, Si may be preferably used.” in Par. [0046]). Furthermore, Park et al. disclose the use of black carbon for the first amorphous carbon (see e.g. “The first amorphous carbon may be soft carbon, hard carbon, or a combination thereof” in Par. [0076])
At the same time, Park et al. disclose silicon particles with an average diameter of 1 nm to 5 µm (see e.g. “The active particles may have an average particle diameter (d50) of 1 nm to 5 μm, and may be included in an amount of 3 to 50% by weight based on the total amount of the core particles” in Par. [0019]). Park et al. also disclose a carbon particle with an average diameter of 2 to 30 microns (see e.g. “The core particle may have an average particle diameter (d50) of about 2 μm to about 30 μm” in Par. [0027]). Then, from the information disclosed by Park et al., the ratio of the average particle diameter of the Si particles to the average particle diameter of the carbon results in (1 nm / 30 μm) = 0.33 x 10-3 to (5 μm / 2 μm) = 2.5. It is noted that the range of ratio of average particle diameters of 0.1 to 0.7 in the claim invention is enclosed in the one recited by Park et al. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the current invention to routinely select the overlapping portions of the disclosed range (0.1 to 0.7 significantly overlaps with the recited range of 0.33 x 10-3 to 2.5 by Park et al.) because selection of overlapping portions of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. 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) (see MPEP 2144.05). Therefore, the claim limitation that establishes a ratio of an average particle diameter D1 of the Si-containing particles to an average particle diameter D2 of the hard carbon (D1/D2) of 0.1 to 0.7 is met.
Additionally, Park et al. disclose an amount of Si particles of 3 to 50% by weight based on the total amount of the core particles in the active material (see e.g. “The active particles may have an average particle diameter (d50) of 1 nm to 5 μm, and may be included in an amount of 3 to 50% by weight based on the total amount of the core particles” in Par. [0019]). Similarly, Park et al. disclose an amount of carbon particles of 5 to 80% by weight based on the total amount of the core particles in the active material (see e.g. “The first amorphous carbon may be included in an amount of 5 to 80% by weight based on the total amount of the core particles” in Par. [0025]). Then, from the maximum amount values of silicon (50%) and carbon (80%) disclosed by Park et al., the weight ratio of silicon particles and carbon particles results in 20:80 to 50:50. It is noted that Park et al. differ in the exact same weight ratio of silicon and carbon particles, 15:85 to 55:45, as recited in the instant claim. However, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the range of weight ratio of silicon and carbon particles of 20:80 to 50:50 disclosed by Park et al. overlap the instant claimed weight ratio of silicon and carbon particles of 15:85 to 55:45, and therefore is considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It has been held in the courts that 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) (see MPEP 2144.05). Therefore, the claim limitation that establishes a weight ratio of the Si-containing particles and the hard carbon of 15:85 to 55:45 is met.
Park et al. do not disclose the porous Si-containing particles that contain Si nanoparticles with a network structure.
Canham et al. disclose porous silicon-containing particles (see e.g. “The porous silicon-containing particles preferably comprise or consist of microcrystalline or nanocrystalline silicon.” in Page 6, lines 5-6) to facilitate the expansion of the silicon material during the charging process. The pores within the silicon-containing particles are formed by the voids within the silicon nanoparticle network structure (see e.g. “the term "porous particle" shall be understood as referring to a particle comprising a plurality of pores, voids or channels within a particle structure” in Page 4, lines 2-3). Moreover, Canham et al. disclose porous silicon-containing particles with a mean diameter D50 in the range of 500 nm to 50 µm (see e.g. “The porous silicon-containing particles preferably have a mass median diameter (D50) in the range of from 500 nm to 50 μm, more preferably in the range of 1 to 30 μm” in Page 5, lines 28-29).
Both Park et al. and Canham et al. are analogous in the field of batteries, it would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skills in the art to modify the silicon particles of Park et al. (see e.g. “The active particles may include Si, SiO, or a mixture of Si and SiO” in Par. [0018] from Park et al.) with the porous silicon-containing particles as taught by Canham et al. (see e.g. “The porous silicon-containing particles preferably comprise or consist of microcrystalline or nanocrystalline silicon.” in Page 6, lines 5-6 from Canham et al.) for facilitating the expansion of the silicon material during the charging process as suggested by Canham et al. (see e.g. “while increased porosity is desirable from the perspective of facilitating expansion of the silicon material during charging” in Page 3, lines 19-21 from Canham et al.).
As claim 3, Park et al. in view of Canham et al. disclose a secondary battery according to claim 1,
Park et al. discloses a range of weight percent of silicon particles of 3 to 50% by weight based on the total amount of the core particles in the active material (see e.g. “The active particles may have an average particle diameter (d50) of 1 nm to 5 μm, and may be included in an amount of 3 to 50% by weight based on the total amount of the core particles” in Par. [0019]). It is noted that Park et al. differ in the exact same weight percent of silicon particles,10 to 60%, as recited in the instant claim. However, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the range of weight percent of silicon particles of 3 to 50% disclosed by Park et al. overlap the instant claimed weight percent of silicon particles of 10 to 60%, and therefore is considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It has been held in the courts that 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) (see MPEP 2144.05). Therefore, the claim limitation that establishes the amount of the Si-containing particles is 10 wt% to 60 wt% when a weight of the negative active materials is 100 wt% is met.
As claim 4, Park et al. in view of Canham et al. disclose a secondary battery according to claim 1,
Canham et al. disclose porous silicon-containing particles with an average particle diameter of 500 nm to 50 μm (see e.g. “The porous silicon-containing particles preferably have a mass median diameter (D50) in the range of 500 nm to 50 µm, more preferably in the range of from 1 to 30 µm.” in Page 5, lines 28-29). It is noted that the range of average particle diameters in the claim invention is enclosed in the one recited by Canham et al. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the current invention to routinely select the overlapping portions of the disclosed range (1 to 30 µm significantly overlaps with the recited range of 500 nm to 50 µm by Canham et al.) because selection of overlapping portions of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. 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) (see MPEP 2144.05). Therefore, the claim limitation that establishes the average particle diameter of the Si-containing particles is 2 μm to 10 μm is met.
As claim 5, Park et al. in view of Canham et al. disclose a secondary battery according to claim 1,
Park et al. disclose carbon particles with an average particle diameter of 2 μm to 30 μm (see e.g. “The core particle may have an average particle diameter (d50) of about 2 μm to about 30 μm” in Par. [0027]). It is noted that the range of average particle diameters in the claim invention (10 μm to 25 μm) is enclosed in the one recited by Park et al. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the current invention to routinely select the overlapping portions of the disclosed range (10 to 25 µm significantly overlaps with the recited range of 2 to 30 µm by Park et al.) because selection of overlapping portions of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. 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) (see MPEP 2144.05). Therefore, the claim limitation that establishes the average particle diameter of the hard carbon is 10 μm to 25 μm is met.
Claims 2 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (KR 101461220 B1) in view of Canham et al. (GB 2520946 A), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Nakamura et al. (JP 5602262 B2).
As claim 2, Park et al. in view of Canham et al. disclose a secondary battery according to claim 1,
Park et al. in view of Canham et al. disclose porous silicon-containing particles derived from plants (see e.g. “Preferably the biogenic silica is derived from land based plants which may offer the most sustainable method of silica fibre production” in Page 13, lines 11-13 from Canham et al.). Additionally, Park et al. in view of Canham et al. disclose carbon particles (see e.g. “The core particle may have an average particle diameter (d50) of about 2 μm to about 30 μm” in Par. [0027] from Park et al.), but Park et al. in view of Canham et al. do not recite a plant-based source for carbon.
Nakamura et al. disclose carbon particles for a negative electrode active material, where the carbon particles are derived from plants (see e.g. “For raw materials for poorly crystalline carbonaceous materials” in column 8, lines 25-26, and “plant derived substances such as coconut shell, chaff, coffee husks, bamboo coal, broad-leaved tree or needle-leaved tree can be used” in column 8, lines 36-38).
Park et al., Canham et al., and Nakamura et al. are analogous in the field of batteries, it would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skills in the art to modify the carbon particles of Park et al. in view of Canham et al. to be the plant-based carbon particles as taught by Nakamura et al. in order to have renewable environmental friendly electrode active materials as suggested by Nakamura et al. (see e.g. column 8, lines 25-38 from Nakamura et al.).
As claim 6, Park et al. in view of Canham et al. disclose a secondary battery according to claim 1,
Park et al. in view Canham et al., and further in view of Nakamura et al., disclose that the Si-containing particles and the hard carbon are derived from plants (See the discussion in claim 2).
Park et al. in view Canham et al. disclose the amount of the Si-containing particles is 10 wt% to 60 wt% when a weight of the negative active materials is 100 wt% (See the discussion in claim 3),
Park et al. in view Canham et al. disclose the average particle diameter of the Si-containing particles is 2 μm to 10 μm (See the discussion in claim 4), and
Park et al. in view Canham et al. disclose the average particle diameter of the hard carbon is 10 μm to 25 μm (See the discussion in claim 5).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Onodera et al. (US 20210194009 A1) disclose a negative electrode active material on a current collector for a cylindrical secondary battery. The active material includes silicon particles, and different carbon layers. Onodera et al. present intervals for particle size, percentage amount of particles, and diameter ratio between particles close to the instant application.
An et al. (CN 115172746 A) disclose a negative electrode material composed of stacked silicon nanoparticles that form a porous particle.
Farrel et al. (WO 2006121870 A2) disclose a silicon nanosponge particle that comprises a plurality of nanocrystals with pores between the nanocrystals, which gives the particle a sponge-like structure.
Yamanoi et al. (US 20160164104 A1) disclose a “silicon-containing plant-derived raw material”, which is a porous carbon material that uses a plant-derived material.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ISAAC G. TORRES DIAZ whose telephone number is (571)270-7055. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 am - 5:00 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, Tong Guo can be reached at (571) 272-3066. 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.
/I.T.D./Examiner, Art Unit 1723
/TONG GUO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights