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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 2 and 4 are indefinite because they do not have a lower limit for the ranges. Since the carbon nanotubes are stated to be present in the mixture, the lower limit needs to be greater than 0.
Regarding claim 4, it is unclear what the content of the carbon nanotubes is with respect to.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawakamisoichiro (KR Publication 2018-0117583) in view of Yabe (WO Publication 2023-002759, U.S. Patent Publication 2024/0204188 will be used as an English translation).
Regarding claim 1, Kawakamisoichiro discloses a negative electrode active material comprising: silicon particles; fibrous carbon, such as carbon nanotubes; and a solid electrolyte material, such as a sulfur-containing glass (Paragraphs 0039, 0044, 0048, 0049). Kawakamisoichiro also discloses that the solid mixture above can be mixed with a solvent, such as a ketone, to form a slurry (Paragraphs 0055, 0058). Kawakamisoichiro teaches that the carbon nanotubes are added to the solution at 0.0025 wt%, coal tar pitch at 0.02 wt%, artificial graphite at 0.05 wt%, and a lithium ion conductor at 0.2 wt% in addition to the silicon and graphite powder (Paragraphs 0102, 0104). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art from these weight percentages that the ratio of the carbon nanotubes is 0.15% by mass or less with respect to the solvent and less than 0.3% by mass with respect to a total solid content.
Kawakamisoichiro fails to disclose that the carbon nanotubes are single-wall carbon nanotubes.
Regarding claim 1, Yabe discloses a negative electrode active material comprising: a porous silicon particle, a solid electrolyte, and a carbon material, wherein the solid electrolyte can be a sulfide solid electrolyte, and wherein the carbon material can be a single wall carbon nanotube (Paragraphs 0052, 0128, 0140).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention that single-wall carbon nanotubes could be used instead of the multi-wall nanotubes of Kawakamisoichiro because Yabe teaches that single-wall carbon nanotubes are common alternatives to multi-wall carbon nanotubes when used as additives with a silicon active material in a negative electrode.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawakamisoichiro (KR Publication 2018-0117583) in view of Yabe (WO Publication 2023-002759, U.S. Patent Publication 2024/0204188 will be used as an English translation) as applied to claims 1 and 2 above, and further in view of Morita (EP Publication 4050679).
The teachings of Kawakamisoichiro and Yabe have been discussed in paragraph 5 above.
Kawakamisoichiro and Yabe fail to disclose that the ketone solvent has the formula of claim 3 of the present invention.
Morita discloses a carbon nanotube dispersion liquid that can be mixed with an active material to form an electrode, the dispersion liquid comprising: carbon nanotubes, a dispersant and a solvent, wherein the solvent can comprise a lower-ketone, such as acetone or methyl ethyl ketone (Paragraphs 0031, 0032, 0068).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention that the ketone solvent of Kawakamisoichiro could be acetone or methyl ethyl ketone, which has the formula of claim 3 of the present invention, because Morita teaches that carbon nanotubes can be easily dispersed in lower-ketones.
Claim(s) 4-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yabe (WO Publication 2023-002759, U.S. Patent Publication 2024/0204188 will be used as an English translation).
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Yabe discloses a negative electrode active material comprising: a porous silicon particle, a solid electrolyte, and a carbon material, wherein the solid electrolyte can be a sulfide solid electrolyte, and wherein the carbon material can be a single wall carbon nanotube (Paragraphs 0052, 0128, 0140). As to claims 6 and 8, Yabe teaches that the negative electrode active material is used to form a negative electrode layer that is used with a solid electrolyte and positive electrode in a solid state lithium ion battery (Paragraph 0158).
Yabe fails to specifically teach that the content of the carbon nanotubes is less than 0.3% by mass, and that after initial charging and discharging, the number of planar cracks having a length of 10 µm or more is less than 1 on average in regions of 50 µm in thickness direction x 50 µm in width direction at a cross-section of the negative electrode active material layer.
Yabe teaches that a ratio of a volume of the carbon material to the volume of the porous silicon particle is 0.01% or more and less than 20% (Paragraph 0121).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention that if the carbon material was used in the smaller amount of the range taught by Yabe, it would result in a weight percent of carbon nanotubes less than 0.3% with respect to the total solid content of the active material layer. Regarding claim 7, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that since the negative electrode active material of Yabe has the same components and amounts of components as that of the present invention, it would also have the same properties and have very few planar cracks.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRITTANY L RAYMOND whose telephone number is (571)272-6545. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9 am-6 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, Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at 571-272-3433. 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.
BRITTANY L. RAYMOND
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1722
/BRITTANY L RAYMOND/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722
Prosecution Insights