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 9 and 10 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.
Regarding Claims 9 and 10, both claims impose the limitation “the negative electrode active material layer further includes a conductive material.” The limitation is unclear because the invention in claim 1, upon which both of these claims depend, already requires including graphite, well-established as use as conductive material, with a limitation on its wt% that contradicts those in these claims. The applicant’s specification provides several carbon-based examples of conductive material for the negative electrode active material layer (paragraph 45) but excludes graphite. (Graphite is provided as an example of conductive material for the positive electrode, paragraph 18.)
The examiner will interpret claims 9 and 10 as “the negative electrode active material layer further includes a conductive material other than graphite, and a content of the conductive material other than graphite is 0.01 wt% or more and 1 wt% or less when a total weight of the negative electrode active material layer is 100 wt%.”
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, 5, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (“Nanostructured Phosphorus Doped Silicon/Graphite Composite as Anode for High-Performance Lithium-Ion Batteries,” ACS Applied Materials and Interfaces) in view of Tillmann et al. (US-20230395774-A1), hereafter referred to as Huang and Tillmann, respectively.
Regarding Claim 1, Huang teaches a secondary battery (“for High-Performance Lithium-Ion Batteries,” title) comprising an electrode body including a positive electrode and a negative electrode (“A 2032-type coin cell system was used to carry out the electrochemical properties,” Experimental Section, Sample Characterization, paragraph 1), wherein the negative electrode includes a negative electrode current collector and a negative electrode active material layer disposed on the negative electrode current collector [“The composite anodes were prepared by mixing carboxymethyl cellulose sodium (CMC), conductive carbon black (super P) and active materials at a weight ratio of 1:2:7. Slurry was formed on copper foil (current collectors) using deionized water as solvent. A vacuum oven was used to dry the obtained anodes at 100 °C for 12 h.,” Experimental Section, Sample Characterization, paragraph 1], the negative electrode active material layer includes Si-containing particles as a negative electrode active material [“we prepared a nanostructured P-doped Si/ graphite (PSG) composite by a two-step ball milling process using commercially available phosphorus, silicon, and graphite as primary materials,” Introduction, paragraph 3; Scheme 1], the Si-containing particle is a complex of Si and C, Si of the Si-containing particle is doped with an element M, the element M is at least one kind of element among elements belonging to Group 15 and Group 16 in the periodic table, a doping amount of the element M in the Si-containing particle is 0.1 at% or more and 5 at% or less (“Electrochemical impedances of different kinds of P-doped Si with 0.1%, 0.5%, 1%, and 2% of P,” Results and Discussion, paragraph 1), and a weight ratio between the graphite particles and the Si-containing particles is 9:1 to 4:6 (“[P-doped Si/graphite at weight ratios of 3:7 (PSG37), 5:5 (PSG55), and 7:3 (PSG73)] were investigated as anodes systematically,” Experimental Section, Material Synthesis, paragraph 1; “Cost-effective materials and the scalable preparation methods made it feasible for large-scale application of nanostructured PSG55 composite as anodes for Li-ion batteries,” Conclusion, paragraph 1).
Huang does not explicitly teach that the negative electrode active material layer include graphite particles separate from the silicon-containing particles. However, Tillmann teaches negative electrode active material that is a combination of doped silicon-containing particles (paragraph 321) and graphite particles (“The composition may be a hybrid electrode composition which comprises the silicon-containing composite particles and at least one additional particulate electroactive material,” paragraph 326; “most preferably the at least one additional particulate electroactive material is graphite,” paragraph 326). Tillmann discloses that issues with excessive silicon in the anode are well-known, particularly when present at the solid electrolyte interface (paragraph 5).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to take the secondary battery taught by Huang and modify the negative electrode active material to also include graphite particles, as taught by Tillmann, in order to provide additional particulate electroactive material that dilutes the total amount of silicon in the active layer.
Regarding Claim 5, Tillmann further teaches that the graphite particles have an average particle diameter D50 of 10 μm or more and 25 μm or less (“additional electroactive material preferably has a D50 particle diameter in the range from 10 to 50 μm, preferably from 10 to 40 μm, more preferably from 10 to 30 μm and most preferably from 10 to 25 μm,” paragraph 329).
Regarding Claim 9, Huang, modified by Tillmann, teaches the secondary battery according to claim 1, wherein the negative electrode active material layer further includes a conductive material other than graphite [“The composite anodes were prepared by mixing carboxymethyl cellulose sodium (CMC), conductive carbon black (super P) and active materials,” Experimental Section, Sample Characterization, paragraph 1]. However, Huang does not specifically teach that the content of the conductive material other than graphite is 0.01 wt% or more and 1 wt% or less when a total weight of the negative electrode active material layer is 100 wt%. However, Tillmann teaches adding a conductive additive that overlaps with this range (“The one or more conductive additives may suitably be present in a total amount of from 0.5 to 20 wt %,” paragraph 339). Tillmann teaches that the purpose is “to improve electrical conductivity between the electroactive components of the composition and between the electroactive components of the composition and a current collector,” paragraph 338.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to take the secondary battery, including the additional conductive material, taught by Huang and modified by Tillmann and further adjust the conductive material’s wt% to be within the range taught by Tillmann in order to optimize the electrical conductivity of the composition and between the composition and the current collector. Please see MPEP § 2144.05(I): “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists.”
Claims 2-4, 6-8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang in view of Tillmann and in further view of Adireddy et al. (US-10964935-B1), hereafter referred to as Adireddy.
Regarding Claim 2, Huang as modified by Tillmann does not teach the secondary battery according to claim 1, wherein a Si content in the Si-containing particles is 30 wt% or more and 75 wt% or less when a total weight of the Si-containing particles is 100 wt%. However, Adireddy teaches anode active material for use in a secondary battery, wherein the anode active material is a silicon-carbon composite particulate with the silicon existing as nanoparticles embedded in a porous carbon matrix (“amorphous silicon nanoparticles embedded in the carbon matrix,” paragraph 9). Adireddy also teaches that the silicon nanoparticles can be doped with Group 15 or 16 elements (“The alloying element can be, for example, an alkali metal, an alkaline-earth metal, a Group 13 to 16 element,” paragraph 10). Adireddy teaches that the Si content in the Si-containing nanoparticles is 30 wt% or more and 75 wt% or less when a total weight of the Si-containing particles is 100 wt% (“The silicon alloy is understood to include a majority silicon. A majority silicon means that the nanoparticles have a weight percentage that is greater than about 50% (50 wt. %) silicon,” paragraph 10; “The particulate can have a composition that includes the porous carbon matrix and the amorphous silicon nanoparticles. On a total mass basis, the particulate can include about 1 wt. % to about 75 wt. % silicon,” paragraph 21). Adireddy explains that an over-abundance of silicon in the anode active material, and the form of that silicon, can hinder the lithium-ion battery’s performance (“formation cycles of Si based anodes consume, irreversible, a large percentage of the lithium available in a cell. This formation-cycle loss, typically associated with the deposition of a solid-electrolyte interface (SEI) between the silicon and an electrolytic solution, limits the utility of silicon in a lithium ion battery,” paragraph 6).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to take the secondary battery taught by Huang and modified by Tillmann and modify the anode active material to contain P-doped silicon nanoparticles embedded in porous carbon at the wt% taught by Adireddy, in order to optimize the amount of and form of silicon in the anode in order to prevent the deleterious effects to the anode caused by excessive silicon, as taught by Adireddy.
Regarding Claim 3, Huang, modified by Tillmann and Adireddy, teaches the secondary battery according to claim 1, wherein Adireddy further teaches the Si-containing particle includes a porous carbon material including a pore and a Si nanoparticle disposed in the pore of the porous carbon material (“amorphous silicon nanoparticles embedded in the carbon matrix,” paragraph 9; “The particulate can have a composition that includes the porous carbon matrix and the amorphous silicon nanoparticles,” paragraph 21). Again, Adireddy teaches that the amount of and form of silicon in the anode can affect the secondary battery’s performance (“formation cycles of Si based anodes consume, irreversible, a large percentage of the lithium available in a cell. This formation-cycle loss, typically associated with the deposition of a solid-electrolyte interface (SEI) between the silicon and an electrolytic solution, limits the utility of silicon in a lithium ion battery, paragraph 6).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to take the secondary battery taught by Huang, modified by Tillmann and Adireddy, and further modify the anode active material to contain P-doped silicon nanoparticles embedded in porous carbon material as taught by Adireddy, in order to optimize the amount of and form of silicon in the anode in order to prevent the deleterious effects to the anode caused by excessive/more irreversibly reactive forms of silicon, as taught by Adireddy.
Regarding Claim 4, Huang, modified by Tillmann and Adireddy, further teaches the secondary battery according to claim 2, wherein the Si-containing particle includes a porous carbon material including a pore and a Si nanoparticle disposed in the pore of the porous carbon material (“amorphous silicon nanoparticles embedded in the carbon matrix,” paragraph 9; “The particulate can have a composition that includes the porous carbon matrix and the amorphous silicon nanoparticles,” paragraph 21). Again, Adireddy teaches that the amount of and form of silicon in the anode can affect the secondary battery’s performance (“formation cycles of Si based anodes consume, irreversible, a large percentage of the lithium available in a cell. This formation-cycle loss, typically associated with the deposition of a solid-electrolyte interface (SEI) between the silicon and an electrolytic solution, limits the utility of silicon in a lithium ion battery, paragraph 6).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to take the secondary battery taught by Huang, modified by Tillmann and Adireddy, and further modify the anode active material to contain P-doped silicon nanoparticles embedded in porous carbon material as taught by Adireddy, in order to optimize the amount of and form of silicon in the anode in order to prevent the deleterious effects to the anode caused by excessive/more irreversibly reactive forms of silicon, as taught by Adireddy.
Regarding Claims 6-8, Tillmann further teaches that the graphite particles have an average particle diameter D50 of 10 μm or more and 25 μm or less (“additional electroactive material preferably has a D50 particle diameter in the range from 10 to 50 μm, preferably from 10 to 40 μm, more preferably from 10 to 30 μm and most preferably from 10 to 25 μm,” paragraph 329). Adireddy separately teaches that the silicon-containing particles’ average D50 also be in this range (“The particulate, preferably, has an average cross section of about 1 to about 25 μm,” paragraph 18), suggesting this D50 range is established as generally preferable for electroactive particles in the negative electrode active layer material.
Regarding Claim 10, Huang, modified by Tillmann and Adireddy, further teaches the secondary battery according to claim 8, wherein the negative electrode active material layer further includes a conductive material [“The composite anodes were prepared by mixing carboxymethyl cellulose sodium (CMC), conductive carbon black (super P) and active materials,” Experimental Section, Sample Characterization, paragraph 1]. However, Huang does not specifically teach that the content of the conductive material other than graphite is 0.01 wt% or more and 1 wt% or less when a total weight of the negative electrode active material layer is 100 wt%. However, Tillmann further teaches adding a conductive additive that overlaps with this range (“The one or more conductive additives may suitably be present in a total amount of from 0.5 to 20 wt %,” paragraph 339). Tillmann teaches that the purpose is “to improve electrical conductivity between the electroactive components of the composition and between the electroactive components of the composition and a current collector,” paragraph 338.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to take the secondary battery, including the additional conductive material, taught by Huang and modified by Tillmann and Adireddy, and further adjust the conductive material’s wt% to be within the range taught by Tillmann in order to optimize the electrical conductivity of the composition and between the composition and the current collector. Please see MPEP § 2144.05(I): “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists.”
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JORDAN P WILKERSON whose telephone number is (571)270-1891. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-4:30pm.
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, Veronica Ewald can be reached at (571) 272-8519. 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.
/JORDAN P WILKERSON/Examiner, Art Unit 1783
/MARIA V EWALD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights