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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 5/26/26 and 2/5/24 were filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements have been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 2/5/24. These drawings are acceptable.
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.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NPL, “La3Ni2Sn7 Ternary Intermetallic Phase for Lithium Insertion and Deinsertion” (Matsuno et al.) in view of US 20050214643 A1 (US'643) and US 20190312271 A1 (US'271).
As to Claim 1:
Matsuno discloses a negative electrode active material included in a negative electrode of a lithium-ion battery; wherein the negative electrode active material is represented by the general formula M₃Me₂X₇, wherein M includes at least one of the group consisting of La and Ca (Matsuno discloses La), Me includes at least one element selected from the group consisting of Mn, Ni, Fe, and Co (Matsuno discloses Ni), and X includes at least one element selected from the group consisting of Ge, Si, Sn, and Al (Matsuno discloses Sn) to form a ternary intermetallic phase represented by the specific formula La₃Ni₂Sn₇. (Matsuno, pp. A234–A235).
However, Matsuno does not explicitly disclose that the broad chemical genus permutations for M, Me, and X elements can be substituted across the entirety of the formula M₃Me₂X₇, nor does Matsuno disclose that a dislocation density of the negative electrode active material is greater than or equal to 1×10¹⁵ cm⁻².
US'643 discloses the broader chemical genus and element substitution framework of the M₃Me₂X₇ intermetallic crystal structure, explicitly teaching a composition formula Ln₃M1ₓM2ᵧ where Ln represents rare earth/alkaline earth elements including La or Ca, M1 is a transition metal selected from Ti, V, Cr, Mn, Fe, Co, Ni, Cu, Zn, and Nb, and M2 is an element selected from Si, P, Ge, Sn, and Sb. (US'643, [0040]–[0056]). Furthermore, US'271 discloses methods for stabilizing silicon-based alloy negative electrode active materials by implementing high-energy mechanical alloying via ball milling to intentionally induce ultra-fine nano-grain matrix tracking (10 nm to 200 nm), which purposefully creates structural buffering zones containing a high density of fine crystal defects and local lattice mismatch configurations to suppress active material expansion and scattering during charging and discharging. (US'271, [0105]–[0115], [0165]–[0177]).
Matsuno, US'643, and US'271 are analogous arts because they belong to the same field of endeavor, which is the field of metallurgy and electrochemical battery design, and each reference is specifically directed to solving the same technical problem: engineering microstructural and crystal lattice stability in metal-alloy negative electrode active materials to maximize cycle lifetime and performance in lithium-based secondary batteries. (Matsuno, pp. A234–A236; US'643, [0005]–[0011], [0028]–[0039]; US'271, [0001]–[0011], [0057]–[0059], [0105]–[0115]).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the conventional baseline M₃Me₂X₇ intermetallic active material (La₃Ni₂Sn₇) disclosed by Matsuno and US'643 by applying the intensive high-energy mechanical ball milling processing steps disclosed by US'271. (Matsuno, pp. A234–A235; US'643, [0055]–[0067]; US'271, [0105], [0177]). A person skilled in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to intentionally generate severe internal lattice configurations and fine voids to serve as structural expansion buffers for smooth lithium intercalation pathways. (Matsuno, p. A234; US'271, [0105], [0111]–[0115], [0165]–[0170]). The application of such high-energy milling parameters to the crystalline compound of Matsuno inherently and predictably breaks down the grain layout and generates extreme atomic alignment distortions, thereby successfully driving the structural crystal abnormalities up to the claimed dislocation density threshold of greater than or equal to 1×10¹⁵ cm⁻². (Matsuno, pp. A234–A236; US'643, [0055]–[0067]; US'271, [0105], [0111]–[0115], [0165]–[0177]).
As to Claim 2:
Matsuno discloses a lithium-ion battery, comprising: a negative electrode including the negative electrode active material according to claim 1 (Matsuno discloses a negative electrode constructed as a La₃Ni₂Sn₇ pellet, see the rejection of Claim 1); a positive electrode (Matsuno utilizes a lithium foil counter electrode for evaluating active material characteristics); and a non-aqueous electrolyte (Matsuno utilizes a 1 M solution of LiPF₆ in ethylene carbonate:diethyl carbonate). (Matsuno, pp. A234–A235).
As to Claim 3:
Matsuno discloses a lithium-ion battery comprising a negative electrode including a negative electrode active material, a positive electrode, and a non-aqueous electrolyte (Matsuno discloses an analytical cell utilizing a 1 M solution of LiPF₆ in ethylene carbonate:diethyl carbonate liquid non-aqueous electrolyte, see the rejection of Claim 2); and wherein the lithium-ion battery is configured such that the negative electrode active material is represented by the formula M₃Me₂X₇ (Matsuno discloses La₃Ni₂Sn₇, see the rejection of Claim 1). (Matsuno, pp. A234–A235).
However, Matsuno does not disclose the limitation of claim 3 wherein the non-aqueous electrolyte is a solid, as Matsuno exclusively utilizes a liquid solution non-aqueous electrolyte to perform material evaluation.
US'643 discloses a nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery assembly where the non-aqueous electrolyte can be configured as a solid carrier layer. Specifically, US'643 teaches that the nonaqueous electrolyte layer can be in the form of a liquid, a gel, or a solid, and explicitly notes that instead of a liquid nonaqueous electrolysis solution, a lithium conductive solid electrolyte may be also used, highlighting suitable solid ceramic materials containing lithium such as Li₃N, Li₃PO₄–Li₂S–SiS₂ glass, and LiI–Li₂S–SiS₂ glass. (US'643, [0089]–[0096]; claim 11).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the lithium-ion battery system of Matsuno and US'643 by implementing a lithium-conductive solid electrolyte layer as the non-aqueous electrolyte medium as disclosed by US'643. (Matsuno, pp. A234–A235; US'643, [0089]–[0096]; claim 11). A person skilled in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because substituting a standard liquid non-aqueous solution with a non-flammable, solid-state electrolyte is known to vastly strengthen the baseline structural safety, eliminate risk of leakages, and prevent internal cell degradation over a long period. (US'643, [0089]–[0096]; claim 11). Utilizing a solid-state electrolyte as taught in the prior art would yield the predictable result of providing a reliable, completely solid-state cell architecture well-suited to interface with the stable, low-volumetric-expansion intermetallic active material core. (Matsuno, pp. A234–A236; US'643, [0089]–[0096], [0142]–[0143]; US'271, [0009]–[0011]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
TW I256158 B discloses a lithium secondary battery with a negative electrode which comprises a negative electrode active material layer comprising alloy particles comprising silicon and tin and having an average particle diameter of 0.05 to 2 mum as an active material, and a negative electrode current collector.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIMMY K VO whose telephone number is (571)272-3242. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8 am to 6 pm 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, Tong Guo can be reached at (571) 272-3066. 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.
/JIMMY VO/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1723
/JIMMY VO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights