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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 03/06/2024 and 06/05/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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:
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.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chan et al. (US 2012/0021283 A1) in view of Choi et al. (US 2019/0363358 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Chan discloses an electrode comprising silicon clathrate active material particles ([0006] silicon clathrate electrode particles).
Chan discloses wherein the silicon clathrate can be used in the electrode, however, is silent with respect to wherein the electrode can comprise aluminum fluoride particles having an average particle size of 3.0 μm or less.
Choi discloses an electrode for a lithium battery and is analogous with the instant invention as being within the same field of endeavor of battery cells. Choi wherein an electrode, such as the positive electrode and can also be the negative electrode, can include 1-10 wt% of AlF3 having an average particle diameter of 0.1-3 μm ([0027,0029,0075,0091,0098]) and discloses wherein the incorporation of a metal fluoride such as AlF3, can be used to improve the capacity and cycle life improvement effect of the battery ([0026-0028]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious in view of a skilled artisan to modify the electrode of Chan to incorporate the metal fluoride such as AlF3 within the electrode in order to improve the capacity and cycle life improvement effect of the battery as taught by Choi. The resulting modification would render obvious the electrode mixture of claim 1 wherein the electrode mixture includes aluminum fluoride particles having an average particle size of 3.0 μm or less. 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, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 2, modified Chan discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Choi further discloses wherein an average particle size of the aluminum fluoride particles is 0.1-2.5 μm ([0026-0029] metal fluoride may have an average particle diameter of 0.1-3 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, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 3, modified Chan discloses all the claim limitations of claim 2. Choi further discloses wherein an average particle size of the aluminum fluoride particles is 0.8-1.8 μm ([0026-0029] metal fluoride may have an average particle diameter of 0.1-3 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, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 4, modified Chan discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Choi further discloses wherein an average particle size of the aluminum fluoride particles is 0.1-3 μm ([0026-0029] metal fluoride may have an average particle diameter of 0.1-3 μm). Chan further discloses wherein the average particle size of the silicon clathrate can be 0.1-100 μm (abstract) such as 5-10 μm ([0023]). Examiner notes that the ratio can then be between 0.001 and 30 and thus can be less than 2.5. 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, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 5, modified Chan discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Choi further discloses wherein the metal fluoride can be provided at a weight of 1-10 wt% based on the total weight of the electrode layer for capacity, cycle life improvement while minimizing or reducing reduction of initial capacity and efficiency ([0026-0029]). While modified Chan is silent with respect to a ratio of a content of the aluminum fluoride particles relative to a content of the silicon clathrate active material particles is less than 2.0% by area when a cross sectional observation by SEM-EDX measurement is carried out on the electrode mixture, this is deemed to be based on the content of aluminum fluoride particles present in the mixture. Thus the teaching of Choi of the metal fluoride particles being provided between 1-10 wt% with respect to the total weight of the electrode layer would appear to render obvious that when a sample is chosen from the electrode that the amount of aluminum fluoride particles in the selected sample would be in a ratio of 1-10 % and thus would render obvious the content ratio as claimed. Examiner notes that the method of performing the measurement is not given patentable weight as a product claim does not depend upon the method of measuring. Thus all the claim limitations of claim 5 are rendered obvious as Choi discloses wherein the amount of aluminum fluoride in the mixture can be between 1-10 % and thus would overlap with the claimed invention of claim 5. 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, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 6, modified Chan discloses a lithium ion battery, comprising an electrode active material of claim 1 (Chan abstract; electrode material for lithium ion battery).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Otaki et al. (US 2021/0305556 A1)-discloses an active material for a battery comprising a silicon clathrate.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Adam J Francis whose telephone number is (571)272-1021. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 7 am-4 pm 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, Matthew Martin can be reached at (571)270-7871. 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.
/ADAM J FRANCIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Prosecution Insights