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 .
2. Claims 1-20 are pending in this office action.
Priority
3. Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) or (f), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. Information disclosure statements (IDS), submitted July 19, 2024; February 18, 2025; and, May 15, 2025, have been received and considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. Claims 1-13 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berhe et al. “A new class of lithium-ion battery using sulfurized carbon anode from polyacrylonitrile and lithium manganese oxide cathode”.
With regard to Claim 1, Berhe et al. disclose an anode comprising: an anode current collector, called an Al foil current collector; and an electrodeposition inducing layer, called the anode material, on the anode current collector, the electrodeposition inducing layer formed of S-C(PAN), or sulfurized carbonized polyacrylonitrile, which comprises a first carbonaceous material, wherein the first carbonaceous material is amorphous carbon comprising a nitrogen element (pages 2-3, Section 2.3). Berhe et al. do not specifically disclose an amount of the nitrogen element is more than about 1 wt% with respect to the total weight of the electrodeposition inducing layer. The specific amount of nitrogen in the electrodeposition inducing layer is not considered to confer patentability to the claims. As the electrodeposition inducing layer stability is a variable that can be modified, among others, by adjusting said amount of nitrogen in the electrodeposition inducing layer, with the layer stability increasing as the amount of nitrogen is increased, the precise amount of nitrogen would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the amount of nitrogen in the electrodeposition inducing layer of Berhe et al. to obtain the desired balance (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
With regard to Claim 2, Berhe et al. do not specifically disclose wherein an amount of the nitrogen element is about 1.1 wt% to about 10 wt% with respect to the total weight of the electrodeposition inducing layer. The specific amount of nitrogen in the electrodeposition inducing layer is not considered to confer patentability to the claims. As the electrodeposition inducing layer stability is a variable that can be modified, among others, by adjusting said amount of nitrogen in the electrodeposition inducing layer, with the layer stability increasing as the amount of nitrogen is increased, the precise amount of nitrogen would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the amount of nitrogen in the electrodeposition inducing layer of Berhe et al. to obtain the desired balance (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
With regard to Claims 3-4, Berhe et al. disclose wherein the first carbonaceous material is a carbide of a polymer comprising the nitrogen element, wherein the polymer comprising the nitrogen element comprises carbonized sulfurized polyacrylonitrile (c-SPAN) (page 2, Sections 2.1 and 2.2).
With regard to Claim 5, Berhe et al. disclose wherein the first carbonaceous material is amorphous carbon further comprising a sulfur element since the polymer comprises carbonized sulfurized polyacrylonitrile (c-SPAN) (page 2, Sections 2.1 and 2.2).
With regard to Claim 6, Berhe et al. disclose wherein an amount of the sulfur element among the first carbonaceous material is 44.7% (page 3, Section 2.3), which meets the claimed limitation of about 0.1 wt% to about 50 wt%.
With regard to Claim 7, Berhe et al. disclose wherein the electrodeposition inducing layer further comprises Li2S (page 3, Section 3.1).
With regard to Claim 8, Berhe et al. do not specifically disclose wherein an intensity ratio (Id/lg) of D peak to G peak of the first carbonaceous material, the intensity ratio (Id/lg) being obtained from Raman analysis spectrum, is about 0.8 to about 1.5. However, such properties are inherent given that both Berhe et al. and the instant application utilize the same materials. A reference which is silent about a claimed invention’s features is inherently anticipatory if the missing feature is necessarily present in that which is described in the reference. See MPEP 2112.
With regard to Claim 9, Berhe et al. disclose wherein the first carbonaceous material is in a form of particles (pages 2-3, Sections 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3), but do not specifically disclose wherein the particles have an average particle diameter of about 100 nm to about 10 µm. Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to manufacture the particles to have an average particle diameter of about 100 nm to about 10 µm, since such a modification would only involve a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04(IV).
With regard to Claims 10-11, Berhe et al. disclose the electrodeposition inducing layer further comprises a second carbonaceous material, called Super P. and the second carbonaceous material is a carbonaceous conductive material and comprises carbon black (pages 2-3, Section 2.3).
With regard to Claim 12, Berhe et al. disclose wherein the anode material is fabricated by mixing S-C(PAN), sodium carboxymethyl cellulose binder, and Super P in ethanol as a solvent in a weight ratio of 80:10:10 (pages 2-3, Section 2.3), which meets the claimed limitation of wherein a ratio of the first carbonaceous material S-C(PAN) to the second carbonaceous material Super P, in the electrodeposition inducing layer, is about 1:99 to about 99:1.
With regard to Claim 13, Berhe et al. disclose wherein the electrodeposition inducing layer further comprises a binder of sodium carboxymethyl cellulose (pages 2-3, Section 2.3).
With regard to Claim 16, Berhe et al. do not specifically disclose wherein the electrodeposition inducing layer has a thickness of about 1 µm to about 50 µm. Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to manufacture the thickness of the electrodeposition inducing layer to be about 1 µm to about 50 µm, since such a modification would only involve a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04(IV).
With regard to Claim 17, Berhe et al. further disclose a lithium electrodeposition layer in the form of Li2S on the electrodeposition inducing layer (page 3, Section 3.1).
With regard to Claim 18, Berhe et al. do not specifically disclose wherein the lithium electrodeposition layer has a thickness of about 50 µm or less. Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to manufacture the thickness of the lithium electrodeposition layer to be about 50 µm or less, since such a modification would only involve a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04(IV).
With regard to Claim 19, Berhe et al. disclose in Figure 1, a lithium battery comprising: a cathode; the anode noted above; and an electrolyte between the cathode and the anode (page 3, Section 3.1).
With regard to Claim 20, Berhe et al. disclose wherein the electrolyte is a liquid electrolyte, formed of a 1.0 M solution of LiPF6 in EC/DEC (page 3, Section 3.1).
9. Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berhe et al. “A new class of lithium-ion battery using sulfurized carbon anode from polyacrylonitrile and lithium manganese oxide cathode”, as applied to Claims 1-13 and 16-20 above, and in further view of Tenzer et al. (US 2015/0155560 A1).
With regard to Claim 14, Berhe et al. disclose the anode in paragraph 8 above, including wherein the anode material is fabricated by mixing S-C(PAN), sodium carboxymethyl cellulose binder, and Super P in ethanol as a solvent in a weight ratio of 80:10:10 (pages 2-3, Section 2.3), but do not specifically disclose wherein the binder comprises a fluorine-based binder or an acryl-based binder.
Tenzer et al. disclose a polyacrylonitrile-sulfur composite for use as an electrode material comprising mixing and homogenizing in a ratio of 70:15:15, the sulfurous, cyclized polyacrylonitrile (SPAN), carbon black under the trade name Super P as an electrically conductive additive, and polyvinylidene fluoride (PvDF) as a binder (paragraph 0069). Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the anode of Berhe et al. to include the binder comprising a fluorine-based binder or an acryl-based binder, because Tenzer et al. teach that these materials are well known in the art as binder materials that exhibit excellent use in forming electrode active material slurries (paragraphs 0068-0069).
With regard to Claim 15, Berhe et al. disclose wherein the anode material is fabricated by mixing S-C(PAN), sodium carboxymethyl cellulose binder, and Super P in ethanol as a solvent in a weight ratio of 80:10:10 (pages 2-3, Section 2.3), which meets the claimed limitation of wherein the electrodeposition inducing layer comprises the binder in an amount of about 1 part by weight to about 30 parts by weight with respect to 100 parts by weight of the first carbonaceous material.
Conclusion
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KARIE O APICELLA whose telephone number is (571)272-8614. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday; 8:00AM to 5:00PM 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, Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at 571-270-3879. 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.
/KARIE O'NEILL APICELLA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights