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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-11 are currently pending in the application and are being examined on the merits of this Office Action.
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 7-9 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.
Claim 7 describes the “the negative electrode active material comprises a silicon-carbon composite.” It is unclear whether the silicon-carbon composite is used to further describe the aforementioned “silicon particles” from claim 1, or whether this is a newly introduced element. For the purposes of this Office Action, the silicon-carbon composite in claim 7 is being interpreted as “silicon-carbon composite particles.”
Regarding claims 8 & 9, these claims are unclear on the basis that they are dependent on parent claim 7 and are henceforth rejected under the same rationale.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-7, 10, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shul Kee Kim et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2023/0178724A1), herein referred to as "Kim".
Regarding Claim 1, Kim teaches a rechargeable lithium battery [0002] comprising:
a positive electrode comprising a positive electrode active material layer; and a negative electrode comprising a negative electrode active material layer [0036],
wherein the positive electrode active material layer comprises a positive electrode active material and Li5FeO4 [0063];
and the negative electrode active material layer comprises a negative electrode active material comprising about 10 wt% to about 15 wt% of silicon particles [0031].
Regarding Claim 3, Kim teaches the rechargeable lithium battery, wherein the positive electrode active material comprises a lithium nickel-based composite oxide represented by Chemical Formula 1:
Chemical Formula 1 Lia1Nix1M1y1M2z1O2-b1Xb1 wherein, in Chemical Formula 1, 0.9≤a1≤1.2, 0.7≤x1≤1, 0≤y1≤0.2, 0≤z1≤0.2, 0.9≤x1+y1+z1≤1.1, and 0≤b1≤0.1; M1 and M2 are each independently one or more elements selected from among Al, B, Ba, Ca, Ce, Co, Cr, Cu, Fe, Mg, Mn, Mo, Nb, Si, Sr, Ti, V, W, and Zr; and X is one or more elements selected from among F, P, and S (Kim Chemical Formula 1 [0041-0044]).
Regarding Claim 4, Kim teaches the rechargeable lithium battery, wherein the positive electrode active material comprises a lithium nickel-based composite oxide represented by Chemical Formula 2:
Chemical Formula 2 Lia2Nix2Coy2M3z2O2-b2Xb2 wherein, in Chemical Formula 2, 0.9≤a2≤1.8, 0.7≤x2<1, 0<y2≤0.2, 0≤z2≤0.2, 0.9≤x2+y2+z2≤1.1, and 0≤b2≤0.1; M3 is one or more elements selected from among Al, B, Ba, Ca, Ce, Cr, Fe, Mg, Mn, Mo, Nb, Si, Sr, Ti, V, W, and Zr; and X is one or more elements selected from among F, P, and S (Kim Chemical Formula 1 [0041-0044]).
Regarding Claim 5, Kim teaches the rechargeable lithium battery, wherein the positive electrode active material comprises a lithium nickel-based composite oxide or a lithium nickel-cobalt-manganese oxide represented by Chemical Formula 3:
Chemical Formula 3 Lia3Nix3Coy3M4z3M5w3O2-b3Xb3 wherein, in Chemical Formula 3, 0.9≤a3≤1.8, 0.7≤x3≤0.98, 0.01≤y3≤0.19, 0.01≤z3≤0.19, 0≤w3≤0.19, 0.9≤x3+y3+z3+w3≤1.1, and 0≤b3≤0.1; M4 is one or more elements selected from among Al and Mn; M5 is one or more elements selected from among B, Ba, Ca, Ce, Cr, Fe, Mg, Mo, Nb, Si, Sr, Ti, V, W, and Zr; and X is one or more elements selected from among F, P, and S (Kim Chemical Formula 1 [0041-0044]).
Regarding Claim 6, Kim teaches the rechargeable lithium battery, wherein the positive electrode active material layer further comprises a binder and a conductive material [0069].
Regarding Claim 7, Kim teaches the rechargeable lithium battery, wherein the negative electrode active material comprises a silicon-carbon composite [0092].
Regarding Claims 10 & 11, Kim teaches the rechargeable lithium battery, wherein the rechargeable lithium battery further comprises an electrolyte solution, wherein the electrolyte solution comprises a non-aqueous organic solvent and a lithium salt [0102-0103].
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2023/0178724 A1).
Regarding Claim 2, Kim teaches The rechargeable lithium battery, wherein based on a total amount of 100 wt% of the positive electrode active material layer, an amount of Li5FeO4 is about 1 wt% to about 10 wt% (the lithium iron oxide represented by Chemical Formula 3 {Li5FeO4} are included as the positive electrode additive [0063]; the positive electrode additive may be included in an amount of 0.1 to 5 parts by weight; [0064]).
It is noted that Kim et al. differ in the exact same lithium iron oxide weight percent range 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 lithium iron oxide weight percent range of Kim overlap the instant claimed 1 wt% to about 10 wt% 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).
Claim(s) 8 & 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2023/0178724 A1) in view of Young-Min Kim et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0280060 A1), herein referred to as "Kim '060".
Regarding claims 8 and 9, Kim teaches the rechargeable lithium battery, wherein the negative electrode active material comprises a silicon-carbon composite, wherein the silicon-carbon composite is in a form of the silicon particles and an amorphous carbon, wherein the negative electrode active material further comprises crystalline carbon.
Kim does not teach an amorphous carbon coated on the surface of the silicon particles.
Kim ‘060 directs to the rechargeable lithium battery, wherein the silicon-carbon composite is in a form of the silicon particles and an amorphous carbon coated on a surface of the silicon particles, wherein the negative electrode active material further comprises crystalline carbon [0043].
Kim ‘060 further teaches that inclusion of amorphous carbon on the surface of the silicon nanoparticles in the negative active material composite results in the suppression or reduction side reaction(s), resulting in the improved performance of the negative active material composite [0068].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at or before the effective filing date of the claimed invention filed to have modified the negative electrode active material of Kim by coating the silicon nanoparticles with amorphous carbon in order to suppress or reduce side reactions as suggested by Kim ‘060, in order to improve the performance of the negative active material composite.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to J. ALEX SINCLAIR whose telephone number is (571)272-0484. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Allison Bourke can be reached at (303)297-4684. 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.
/J. ALEX SINCLAIR/Examiner, Art Unit 1721
/ALLISON BOURKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1721
