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 1-15 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.
The term “about” in claims 1-2, 4-7, and 13-14 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. See MPEP 2173.05(b).III.A. Subsequently, the claimed potential band vs. Li, binding force, electrical conductivity, polymer amount, and silicon amount have also been rendered indefinite.
Claims 3, 8-12 and 15 are rejected as being dependent on the rejected claim 1.
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.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogata et al. (US 20170077497 A1), hereinafter Ogata.
Regarding claims 1-7 and 13-14, Ogata teaches a negative electrode [0106], as required by claim 1, comprising:
a current collector [0120]; and
a negative electrode active material layer on the current collector [0120], the negative electrode active material comprising:
a polymer, in this case an electrically conductive material [0144] that may be an electrically conductive polymer [0071], such as polythiophene or polypyrrole [0074], as required by claim 3, and
a silicon active material [0013].
Ogata is silent as to the polymer having a potential band vs. Li of less than or equal to about 1.5 V, as required by claims 1 and 2, and greater than or equal to about 0.1 V, as required by claim 2. However, Ogata teaches the polymer being at least one of polythiophene or polypyrrole [0074], which are included in the list of suitable polymers of claim 3. Further, the instant specification defines both polymers as having a potential band vs. Li of less than or equal to about 1.5 V and greater than or equal to about 0.1 V [Instant 0007, 0034] and Example 1 defines polythiophene as having a potential band vs. Li of 0.5 V. Therefore, someone of ordinary skill in the art would expect the polymer to have a potential band within the claimed ranges because "products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). Further, Ogata teaches the electrode active material, comprising the electrically conductive material [0142] in the form of an electrically conductive polymer [0071], as having an operating potential, which could be considered to be equivalent to the claimed potential band vs Li, in a range of about 200 mV to about 600 mV [0100], or 0.2 to 0.6 V, which lies within the claimed range of less than or equal to about 1.5 V and greater than or equal to about 0.1 V. Therefore, it would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art to select a polymer with a potential band vs Li within the taught active material potential band vs Li, which lies within the claimed range. 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).
Ogata is silent as to an amount of the polymer specifically being about 30 wt% to about 85 wt%, based on a total weight of the negative electrode active material layer, as required by claim 4, and about 35 wt% to about 85 wt%, based on a total weight of the negative electrode active material layer, as required by claim 5. However, Ogata teaches an amount of carbonaceous nanoscaffold and an amount of flake or spherical graphite being in a range of about 0.1 part by weight to about 50 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the electrode active material [0096, 0098], which overlap with the claimed ranges. Carbonaceous nanoscaffold, as another term for carbon nanotubes and nanowires [0089], and flake or spherical graphite are alternate forms of the electrically conductive material that may include the electrically conductive polymer [0071-0072]. Therefore, it would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art to include the polymer in an amount of about 0.1 part by weight to about 50 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the electrode active material in place of the art recognized equivalent carbonaceous nanoscaffold or flake or spherical graphite. See MPEP 2144.06.II. Further, it would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art to include the polymer in an amount within the claimed ranges. 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). Examiner notes that the referenced parts by weight of the carbonaceous nanoscaffold and the flake or spherical graphite correspond to both materials being used at the same time [0093]. Therefore, someone of ordinary skill in the art could interpret this to mean that the overall conductive material may be included in a greater amount than the individually specified amounts.
Ogata is silent as to an amount of the silicon active material specifically being about 15 wt% to about 70 wt%, based on a total weight of the negative electrode active material layer, as required by claim 6, and about 15 wt% to about 65 wt%, based on a total weight of the negative electrode active material layer, as required by claim 7. However, Ogata teaches an amount of the silicon composite being in a range of about 0.1 part by weight to about 99.9 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the electrode active material [0094], which overlaps with the claimed ranges. Therefore, it would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art to select an amount of silicon active material within the claimed ranges. 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).
Ogata does not explicitly disclose a binding force or an electrical conductivity of the negative electrode. However, Ogata teaches a substantially identical composition to the claimed invention comprising polypyrrole or polythiophene [Ogata 0074][Instant 0007, 0034] and a silicon active material [Ogata 0013, 0075][Instant 0014] in comparable amounts thereof [Ogata 0094, 0096, 0098][Instant 0008-0011]. Therefore, someone of ordinary skill in the art would expect the negative electrode to have a similar binding force of greater than or equal to about 1.0 gf/mm, as required by claim 1, and about 1.0 gf/mm to about 3.5 gf/mm, as required by claim 13, and a similar electrical conductivity of about 1 S/m to about 6 S/m, as required by claim 1, and about 1.5 S/m to about 5.5 S/m, as required by claim 14. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). Further, Ogata teaches forming fine uneven structures on the surface of the negative current collector to enhance a binding strength of the negative current collector to the negative active material [0127] and improving electrical conductivity of the electrode through inclusion of a chemically cross-linked water-insoluble polymer [0088], inclusion of a flake or spherical graphite [0093], and selection of a suitable current collector material [0127]. Therefore, it would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the binding force and electrical conductivity of the electrode to be within the claimed ranges. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claims 8, Ogata teaches the negative electrode as claimed in claim 1, wherein the silicon active material comprises a silicon material and an amorphous carbon coating layer on the silicon material, in this case a carbonaceous coating layer [0056] where the carbonaceous material may include amorphous carbon [0125].
Regarding claims 9 and 11, Ogata teaches the negative electrode as claimed in claims 1 and 8. Ogata teaches the primary particles of the silicon material consisting of silicon alone [0075] and having an average particle diameter in the range of about 0.1 nm to 1 µm [0076], which is considered to read on the silicon material comprising Si nanoparticles, as required by claims 9 and 11. Ogata further teaches the silicon material being in the form of a secondary particle comprising a plurality of primary particles, wherein a carbonaceous coating layer, that may be amorphous carbon [0125], is disposed on the surface [0056](Fig. 1), which is considered to read on the silicon active material comprising an agglomerated product and an amorphous carbon coating layer on a surface of the agglomerated product, as required by claim 11.
Regarding claim 10, Ogata teaches the negative electrode as claimed in claim 8, wherein the silicon material comprises Si, SiOx, in which 0<x≤2, or a combination thereof [0075, 0124].
Regarding claim 12, Ogata teaches the negative electrode as claimed in claim 8, wherein the amorphous carbon coating layer comprises soft carbon, hard carbon, a mesophase pitch carbonized product, sintered coke, or a combination thereof [0125].
Regarding claim 15, Ogata teaches a rechargeable lithium battery [0108], comprising:
the negative electrode as claimed in claim 1 [0107];
a positive electrode comprising a positive electrode active material [0109]; and
a non-aqueous electrolyte [0129].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
KR 20160149862 A teaches a silicon oxide-carbon-polymer composite of comparable wt% comprising aggregated silicon nanoparticles coated with amorphous carbon and a polymer coating layer.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUSTIN KENWOOD VAN KIRK whose telephone number is (703)756-4717. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm 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, 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.
/DUSTIN VAN KIRK/Examiner, Art Unit 1722
/ANCA EOFF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722
Prosecution Insights