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
Claim(s) 1-16 are currently pending.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The recitation “An prelithiation method of a silicon-based active material” should read “A
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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(s) 1-6, 8-11 and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 114613961 A, Zhou et al.* (hereinafter “Zhou”).
*Cited in IDS.
Regarding claim 1
Zhou teaches a prelithiation method of a silicon-based active material [Abstract and para. 0026], the prelithiation method comprising:
step S1 of immersing the silicon-based active material (carbon coated silicon oxygen material) in a prelithiation solution comprising an organic solvent (the solvent may be a conventional solvent in the art capable of dissolving the organolithium compound, preferably one or more of benzene, cyclohexane, tetrahydrofuran, pentane, diethyl ether, and petroleum ether) and a lithium-hydrocarbon molecule complex (corresponding to organolithium compound comprising one or more of butyl lithium, phenyl lithium, naphthyl lithium, methyl lithium and ethyl lithium) [paras. 0042-0043 and 0079-0080];
step S2 of obtaining a powder (amorphous silicon particles) by washing the silicon-based active material with the organic solvent and drying the silicon-based active material (the mixture including the lithium-coated silicon oxide material SiO@C@Li after lithium absorption is obtained by filtration, wherein the filtration process preferably includes washing with a conventional solvent and the solvent removal can be carried out by drying using vacuum drying at 60-80°C) [paras. 0046-0047, 0055-0060 and 0080]; and
step S3 of performing a heat treatment on the powder at a temperature of 400°C to 800°C in an inert gas atmosphere (the SiO@C@Li is placed in a tube furnace and heated under an argon atmosphere, wherein the heat treatment is performed at a temperature in a range of 400°C to 800°C) [paras. 0049, 0051, 0063 and 0078-0081].
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) [MPEP 2144.05].
Regarding the powder being washed with the organic solvent, Zhou teaches that the filtration process includes washing with a conventional solvent, and further teaches that conventional solvents include benzene, cyclohexane, tetrahydrofuran, pentane, diethyl ether, and petroleum ether [paras. 0043 and 0046]. Accordingly, in the absence of criticality or unexpected results, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious to choose from the known conventional solvents disclosed in Zhou with reasonable expectation of success. Said conventional solvents being also used in step S1 of Li [see MPEP 2143].
The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) [MPEP 2144.07].
Regarding claim 2
Zhou teaches the prelithiation method as set forth above, wherein a lithium content of the lithium-hydrocarbon molecule complex is 5 to 15 mass % with respect to a mass of the silicon-based active material (the percentage of lithium in the pre-lithiated silicon oxide material by mass is in a range of 4-20 wt%) [para. 0014].
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) [MPEP 2144.05].
Regarding claim 3
Zhou teaches the prelithiation method as set forth above, wherein the silicon-based active material in step S1 is SiOx (0<x<2) (silicon suboxide) [paras. 0029 and 0079].
Regarding claim 4
Zhou teaches the prelithiation method as set forth above, wherein the organic solvent comprises one or more of a cyclic ether-based solvent and a linear ether-based solvent (solvent may be a conventional solvent in the art capable of dissolving the organolithium compound, preferably one or more of benzene, cyclohexane, tetrahydrofuran, pentane, diethyl ether, and petroleum ether) and a lithium-hydrocarbon molecule complex (corresponding to phenyl lithium) [paras. 0043 and 0079-0080].
Regarding claim 5
Zhou teaches the prelithiation method as set forth above, wherein the cyclic ether-based solvent comprises one or more selected from a group consisting of tetrahydropyran, dioxolane, methyl dioxolane, dimethyl dioxolane, vinyl dioxolane, methoxy dioxolane, ethyl methyl dioxolane, oxane, dioxane, trioxane, tetrahydrofuran, methyl tetrahydrofuran, dimethyl tetrahydrofuran, dimethoxy tetrahydrofuran, ethoxy tetrahydrofuran, ethyl tetrahydrofuran, methyl tetrahydropyran, dimethyl tetrahydropyran, dihydropyran, tetrahydropyran, hexamethylene oxide, furan, dihydrofuran, dimethoxybenzene, and dimethyloxetane (the solvent may be tetrahydrofuran) [para. 0043].
Regarding claim 6
Zhou teaches the prelithiation method as set forth above, wherein the linear ether-based solvent comprises one or more selected from a group consisting of dimethyl ether, diethyl ether, ethyl methyl ether, ethyl propyl ether, dipropyl ether, diisopropyl ether, dibutyl ether, diisobutyl ether, ethyl tertbutyl ether, dimethoxymethane, trimethoxymethane, dimethoxyethane, diethoxyethane, dimethoxypropane, diethylene glycol dimethyl ether, diethylene glycol ethyl methyl ether, diethylene glycol isopropyl methyl ether, diethylene glycol butyl methyl ether, diethylene glycol diethyl ether, diethylene glycol tertbutyl ethyl ether, triethylene glycol dimethyl ether, tetraethylene glycol dimethyl ether, ethylene glycol ethylmethyl ether, ethylene glycol divinyl ether, diethylene glycol divinyl ether, triethylene glycol divinyl ether, and methoxypropane (the solvent may be diethyl ether) [para. 0043].
Regarding claim 8
Regarding the limitation “wherein the lithium-hydrocarbon molecule complex has an oxidation-reduction potential of 0.5 V or less with respect to lithium”, because the lithium hydrocarbon molecule complex is identical to the one claimed (see claim 9 below), the claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent.
The court has held that products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties. A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990)
Regarding claim 9
Zhou teaches the prelithiation method as set forth above, wherein hydrocarbon molecules of the lithium-hydrocarbon molecule complex comprise biphenyl, naphthalene, anthracene, phenanthrene, tetracene, diphenylanthracene, perylene, pyrene, triphenylene, bianthryl, terphenyl, quaterphenyl, and stilbene (e.g., naphthalene) [para. 0042], and the hydrocarbon molecules are substituted or unsubstituted with one or more substituents selected from a group consisting of an alkyl group having 1 to 4 carbon atoms, benzene, fluorine, and chlorine (the organolithium compound can be naphthyl lithium which provides the naphthalene hydrocarbon, wherein in the absence of any indication that the hydrocarbon molecules are substituted, it is interpreted that they are not) [para. 0042].
Regarding claim 10
Zhou teaches the method as set forth above, wherein the heat treatment is performed in step S3 at a temperature equal to or higher than 450°C and equal to or lower than 700°C (the heat treatment is performed at a temperature in a range of 400°C to 800°C) [paras. 0049, 0051, 0063 and 0078-0081].
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) [MPEP 2144.05].
Regarding claim 11
Zhou teaches a silicon-based active material (corresponding to a pre-lithiated silicon oxide material) prelithiated by the prelithiation method of claim 1 [0078-0081], the silicon-based active material comprising:
a complex of lithium silicon oxide of Li2SiO3 with a size of 12 nanometers (nm) or less (5 to 1000 nm) and silicon (silicon grains) with a size of 5 nm or less (no more han 20 nm) [paras. 0007-0008, 0010 and 0013].
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) [MPEP 2144.05].
Although disclosed in the art, the limitation “prelithiated by the prelithiation method of claim 1” is considered a product-by-process limitation.
Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself.
The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) [MPEP 2113].
Regarding claim 13
Zhou teaches an anode (corresponding to a negative electrode sheet) comprising:
the prelithiated silicon-based active material of claim 11 (pre-lithiated silicon oxide material) prelithiated by the prelithiation method of claim 1 [paras. 0001, 0004, 0078-0081 and 0109];
a conductive material (SuperP) [para. 0109]; and
a binder (LA132) [para. 0109].
Regarding claim 14
Zhou teaches the anode as set forth above, wherein a percentage of the prelithiated silicon-based active material is 70 weight % or more with respect to a total weight of the active material, the conductive material (Super-P), and the binder constituting the anode (the mass ratio of the prelithiated silicon-based active material, the conductive agent and the binder is 70:20:10) [para. 0109].
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) [MPEP 2144.05].
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou as applied to claims 1-6, 8-11 and 13-14 above, and further in view of US 2021/0066704 A1, Verbrugge et al.
Regarding claim 7
Zhou teaches the prelithiation method as set forth above, wherein the organic solvent comprises tetrahydrofuran [para. 0043].
Zhou is silent to 2-methyltetrahydrofuran.
In the same field of prelithiation methods, Verbrugge teaches that suitable solvents include cyclic ethers such as tetrahydrofuran and 2-methyltetrahydrofuran [Abstract, paras. 0053 and 0076].
Because Verbrugge shows that tetrahydrofuran and 2-methyltetrahydrofuran are equivalent cyclic ethers known in the art at the time the invention was made, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute tetrahydrofuran for 2-methyltetrahydrofuran [MPEP 2144.06].
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou as applied to claims 1-6, 8-11 and 13-14 above, and further in view of US 2024/0332501 A1, Wang et al.
Regarding claim 12
Zhou teaches the silicon-based active material as set forth above, wherein the complex further comprises lithium silicon oxide of Li2Si2O5 (para. 0009 of Zhou discloses preferably, the lithium silicate does not include Li2Si2O5, thereby contemplating embodiments in which Li2Si2O5 is included) with a size of 10 nm or less (a diameter of 5 to 1000 nm of the core formed by the lithium silicate is conventional in the art) [para. 0010].
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) [MPEP 2144.05].
Zhou does not teach a content of Li2Si2O5 is less than a content of Li2SiO3.
Wang teaches a negative electrode active material comprising a pre-lithiated silicon-based active material [para. 0034-0036] comprising Li2SiO3 and Li2Si2O5 [para. 0036], wherein the content of Li2Si2O5 is controlled in order to regulate the size of crystalline silicon, facilitate the control and optimization of residual lithium, reduce the residual lithium amount, avoid “jellification” of a slurry during the preparation of the slurry by using the negative electrode composite material, and to improve the processing performance of the slurry and the initial Coulombic efficiency and cycle performance of the lithium-ion secondary battery [para. 0034].
Accordingly, Wang shows that the content of Li2Si2O5 with respect to a content of Li2SiO3 is a parameter affecting the crystalline silicon size, residual lithium content, slurry processing performance initial Coulombic efficiency and cycle performance.
Zhou and Wang are analogous inventions in the field of negative electrode active materials comprising pre-lithiated silicon-based active materials.
Absent a showing of criticality or unexpected results with respect to the content of Li2Si2O5 with respect to a content of Li2SiO3 (a result-effective variable), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to optimize said parameter through routine experimentation in order to achieve the desired residual lithium amount, improve the processing performance of the slurry, and improve the initial Coulombic efficiency and cycle performance of the lithium-ion secondary battery. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art [MPEP 2144.05].
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou as applied to claims 1-6, 8-11 and 13-14 above, and further in view of US 2022/0149358 A1, Moon et al.
Regarding claim 15
Zhou teaches the anode material as set forth above, wherein the prelithiated silicon-based active material further comprises a carbon layer [paras. 0027-0030].
Zhou does not teach the carbon layer comprising one or more of graphite, amorphous carbon, hard carbon, soft carbon, and magnesium.
Moon teaches an anode material comprising silicon oxide (SiOx, 0<x≤2) containing a lithium compound, and a shell including carbon, positioned on the core [Abstract], wherein the shell i.e., the carbon layer, comprises amorphous carbon selected from soft carbon or hard carbon, a mesophase pitch carbide, calcined coke, and the like [paras. 0054-0055].
Zhou and Moon are analogous inventions in the field of anode materials. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to have chosen from the finite number of identified, predictable carbon materials disclosed in Moon, including amorphous carbon, soft carbon and soft carbon, with reasonable expectation of success [see MPEP 2143]. Since Moon teaches that amorphous carbon such as soft carbon and soft carbon lead to the anticipated success, said materials are not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense [see MPEP 2143].
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou in view of Moon as applied to claims 1-6, 8-11 and 13-15 above, and further in view of CN 111072038 A, Zhao et al.
Regarding claim 16
Modified Zhou teaches the anode as set forth above, wherein a weight ratio of the carbon layer to a silicon complex (pre-lithiated silicon oxide material) in the active material is 95:5 to 5:95 (the mass ratio of the carbon layer to the pre-lithiated silicon oxide material is in a range of 0.8-10%, said range overlapping with the claimed range of 95:5 to 5:95) [para. 0012].
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) [MPEP 2144.05].
Modified Zhou does not teach the carbon layer comprising graphite.
Zhao teaches an negative electrode active material comprising a modified silicon oxide material and a carbon coating layer [bottom of Page 3 to Page 4, wherein the carbon coating layer comprises amorphous carbon or graphite [Page 6, first paragraph].
Modified Zhou and Zhao are analogous inventions in the field of anode materials. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to have substituted amorphous carbon for graphite because Zhao shows that these carbon materials are equivalent structures known in the art for use a carbon coating layers [MPEP 2144.06].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2022/0158175 A1, Zhang et al. teaches an anode comprising a silicon-based active material including a lithium compound, the material comprising a carbon layer comprising includes carbon nanotubes, carbon nanoparticles, carbon fibers, graphene, conductive carbon black, or any combination thereof [Abstract and paras. 0028-0035].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAYLA GONZALEZ RAMOS whose telephone number is (571)272-5054. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 9:00-5:00 - 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, 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.
/MAYLA GONZALEZ RAMOS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1721
Prosecution Insights