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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: in [0051] “until dryness” should read “until dry” & in [0008] line 8 “clapping layer” appears to be a typo and should read “cladding layer”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liao et al. (WO 2021189349 A1, “Liao”, US 20230034617 A1 used herein for citation purposes) in view of Yushin et al. (US 20170233579 A1, “Yushin”).
Regarding claim 1, Liao discloses an electrochemical device (see title “electrochemical device”), comprising: a negative electrode (see title “negative electrode”), wherein the negative electrode comprises a negative active material layer (see title “negative electrode material” & see [0085] “negative electrode plate according to the present invention is coated with the negative electrode material” which reads on layer; see [0147] “active material on the electrode plate”), the negative active material comprises a magnesium- doped carbon-silicon-oxide material (see [0072] “negative electrode material” & “preferable that the general formula of the silicon-based particles is SiOxCyMz” & describes M includes magnesium). Regarding the limitation a surface of a crystalline oxide of the magnesium-doped carbon-silicon-oxide material is coated with a carbon nanotube cladding layer, Liao discloses in [0017] “negative electrode material” & “carbon coating” & “exists on a surface of the graphite particles” & in [0018] describes “preferably, the carbon coating is formed” & “carbon nanoparticles”. Liao does not explicitly disclose a cladding layer.
Yushin teaches in [0065] “may be advantageous to deposit a layer of another material on the surface of the metal” & “protection against undesirable actions of the outside environment” which describes a protection layer.
Liao and Yushin are analogous to the current invention because they are related to the same field of endeavor, namely electrochemical devices (see [0092]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a layer of another material on the surface, as suggested by Yushin (see [0065]) because doing so provides a protection layer, as suggested by Yushin (see [0065] & [0092]).
Regarding claim 2, Liao discloses the electrochemical device of claim 1 and further discloses wherein a general formula of the crystalline oxide of the magnesium-doped carbon-silicon oxide material is MgzSiCxOy (see [0072] “negative electrode material” & “preferable that the general formula of the silicon-based particles is SiOxCyMz” & describes M includes magnesium). Regarding the limitation wherein 0 < x < 0.3, 0.4 < y < 1.0, and 0.1 < z < 0.2, Liao discloses in [0072] “where 0≤x≤2, 0≤y≤1, 0≤z≤0.5” which 0≤x≤2 overlaps 0.4 < y < 1.0 & 0≤y≤1 overlaps 0 < x < 0.3 & 0≤z≤0.5 overlaps 0.1 < z < 0.2. MPEP 2144.05 I states 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)'.
Regarding claim 3, Liao discloses the electrochemical device of claim 1 and further discloses wherein, in the magnesium-doped carbon-silicon-oxide material, a molar percent of silicon, a molar percent of carbon, and a molar percent of magnesium (see [0033] “the content of silicon-based particles is 5 wt % to 30 wt % the content of the conductive agent is 0.5 wt % to 5 wt %, and the remainder is graphite particles”). Regarding the limitation a molar percent of silicon is 40 mol% to 70 mol%, a molar percent of carbon is 3.5 mol% to 24 mol%, and a molar percent of magnesium is 7.0 mol% to 7.5 mol%, Liao discloses a range of Si 5 wt% to 30 wt% & conductive agent 0.5 wt% to 5 wt% & remainder graphite, which overlaps with the claimed range of silicon is 40 mol% to 70 mol%, a molar percent of magnesium is 7.0 mol% to 7.5 mol%, a molar percent of carbon is 3.5 mol% to 24 mol%. MPEP 2144.05 I states 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)'.
Regarding claim 4, Liao discloses the electrochemical device of claim 1 and further discloses wherein, in the magnesium-doped carbon-silicon-oxide material, a molar ratio between magnesium and silicon is 0.1 to 0.2 (see [0072] describes “SiOxCyMz” & describes M includes magnesium & [0072] “where 0≤x≤2, 0≤y≤1, 0≤z≤0.5” which describes 0≤z≤0.5 & Si is 1 which overlaps the claimed range 0.1 to 0.2. MPEP 2144.05 I states 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)'.
Regarding the limitation and a molar ratio between magnesium and carbon is 0.2 to 10.0, Liao discloses a molar ratio between magnesium and carbon in [0072] “SiOxCyMz” & describes M includes magnesium & “0≤x≤2, 0≤y≤1, 0≤z≤0.5” & 0≤z≤0.5 Mg to 0≤y≤1 carbon ratio reads on 0.5 which lies within the claimed range of 0.2 to 10.0.
Regarding claim 5, Liao discloses the electrochemical device of claim 1 and further discloses wherein, in a Raman spectrum of the magnesium-doped carbon-silicon-oxide material, an ID/IG value is 0.05 to 0.9 (see [0025]) which overlaps the claimed range of 0.023 to 0.32. MPEP 2144.05 I states 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)'.
Regarding claim 6, Liao discloses the electrochemical device of claim 3 and further discloses wherein in a Raman spectrum of the magnesium-doped carbon-silicon-oxide material, a ratio of an ID/IG value to the molar percent of carbon is 1.8 which lies within the claimed range of 0.095 to 6.78 (see [0072] describes “SiOxCyMz” & describes M includes magnesium & “0≤x≤2, 0≤y≤1, 0≤z≤0.5” which describes 0≤y≤1 molar percent of carbon & see [0025] descriebs ratio from 0.05 to 0.9 & when y=0.5 & I ratio = 0.9, I value ratio to molar percent of carbon = 0.9/0.5 = 1.8 which lies within the claimed range). MPEP 2144.05 I states 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)'.
Regarding claim 7, Liao discloses the electrochemical device of claim 1 and further discloses wherein a thickness of the carbon nanotube layer (see [0097] describes “thickness of an active layer of the negative electrode plate is 50 to 200 µm”). Liao does not explicitly disclose a thickness of the carbon nanotube cladding layer is 0.5 nm to 5.0 µm.
Yushin discloses thickness of “around 0.3 nm to around 30 nm has been found to work well for many applications” & “protection against undesirable actions of the outside environment” in [0065].
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a thickness of 0.3 nm to around 30 nm (which overlaps the claimed range of 0.5 nm to 5.0 µm), as suggested by Yushin (see [0065]) into the electrochemical device of Liao because doing so provides protection as suggested by Yushin (see [0065]) and further doing so “has been found to work well for many applications”, as suggested by Yushin (see [0065]).
Regarding claim 8, Liao discloses the electrochemical device of claim 1 and further discloses carbon nanotubes (see [0034]). Liao does not explicitly disclose wherein the carbon nanotube cladding layer comprises a carbon nanotube cluster, the carbon nanotube cluster extends from a surface of the carbon nanotube cladding layer, and a length of the carbon nanotube cluster is 0.1 µm to 1.0 µm.
Yushin teaches thickness of the layer (see [0090] “carbon small wires” & “carbon nanotubes” reads on carbon nanotube cluster & see [0078] “The deposition of individual layers of aligned (or misaligned) small wires may be repeated multiple times until the desired thickness and the desired number of layers is obtained” & see [0092] “the suitable thickness of the disclosed membranes herein may range from around 1 micron to around 20 mm for standalone membranes”). MPEP 2144.05 I states 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)'.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate thickness of 1 micron (which overlaps the claimed range of 0.1 µm to 1.0 µm) as suggested by Yushin (see [0092]) into the electrochemical device of Liao because doing so uses a suitable thickness, as suggested by Yushin (see [0092]).
Regarding claim 9, Liao discloses the electrochemical device of claim 1 and further discloses wherein a particle diameter Dv50 of the magnesium-doped carbon-silicon-oxide material is 2.5 µm to 10.0 µm (see [0022] “a particle diameter range of the silicon-based particles is 0.01 to 50 µm).
Liao discloses a range of 0.01 to 50 µm, which overlaps with the claimed range of 2.5 µm to 10.0 µm. MPEP 2144.05 I states 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)'.
Regarding claim 10, Liao discloses the electrochemical device of claim 1 and further discloses wherein a particle size distribution of the magnesium-doped carbon-silicon-oxide material satisfies 0.3≤Dn10/Dv50≤0.6 (see [0068] “Dn50/Dv50 ratio of the silicon-based particles falls within the range of 0.3 to 0.85, the electrical performance of the battery is optimal”).
Liao discloses a range of 0.3 to 0.85 (see [0068]), which overlaps with the claimed range of 0.3 to 0.6. MPEP 2144.05 I states 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)'.
Regarding claim 11, Liao discloses the electrochemical device of claim 1 and further discloses wherein a specific surface area of the magnesium-doped carbon-silicon-oxide material is 1 m2/g to 50 m2/g (see [0081] “specific surface area of the silicon-based particles is 0.1 to 50 m2/g).
Liao discloses a range of 0.1 to 50 m2/g (see [0081]), which overlaps with the claimed range of 1 m2/g to 50 m2/g. MPEP 2144.05 I states 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)'.
Regarding claim 12, Liao discloses the electrochemical device of claim 1 and further discloses wherein the negative active material layer further comprises a binder (see [0086] “binder”); the binder comprises a synthetic rubber; the synthetic rubber comprises one of styrene butadiene rubber (see [0094] “styrene butadiene rubber”); and, based on a total mass of the negative active material layer, a mass percent of the binder is 2 wt% to 6 wt% (see [0093] describes “weight ratio between the first mixture and the binder is 100:(1 to 6), for example, but not limited to, 100:1, 100:6, or 100:3”).
Liao discloses a range of 100:1 to 100:6 (see [0093]), which overlaps with the claimed range of 2 wt% to 6 wt%. MPEP 2144.05 I states 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)'.
Regarding claim 13, Liao discloses the electrochemical device of claim 1 and further discloses further comprising an electrolyte solution, wherein: the electrolyte solution comprises an organic solvent and a lithium salt (see [0050] “electrolyte solution includes an organic solvent, a lithium salt”); the organic solvent comprises one or more of ethylene carbonate (EC), propylene carbonate (PC), diethyl carbonate (DEC), ethyl methyl carbonate (EMC), dimethyl carbonate (DMC), propylene carbonate, ethyl propionate (see [0051] “organic solvent includes at least one of ethylene carbonate, propylene carbonate, diethyl carbonate, ethyl methyl carbonate, dimethyl carbonate, propylene carbonate, or ethyl propionate”); and the lithium salt comprises one or more of lithium hexafluorophosphate LiPF6, lithium tetrafluoroborate LiBF4, lithium difluorophosphate LiPO2F2, lithium bistrifluoromethanesulfonimide LiN(CF3SO2)2, lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide Li(N(SO2F)2), lithium bis(oxalate) borate LiB(C2O4)2, or lithium difluoro(oxalate)borate LiBF2(C2O4) (see [0052] “the organic lithium salt includes at least one of lithium hexafluorophosphate, lithium tetrafluoroborate, lithium difluorophosphate, lithium bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide, lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide, lithium bis(oxalato)borate, or lithium difluoro(oxalato)borate”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAH APPLEGATE whose telephone number is (571)270-0370. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm ET.
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.
/S.A.A./ Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/NICOLE M. BUIE-HATCHER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights