DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
2. Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. DE-10-2021-120-635.9, filed on 08/09/2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered. These include WO-2017140581-A1, which the examiner notes is the WIPO document that corresponds to the US patent listed in the IDS filed 06/07/2024, and Wang et al. Phys. Rev. B., 2008., 77, 045424.
Specification
4. The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Page 2, line 7 of the instant specification states “Since release of energy, in other words discharge, is accompanied…”; it should read “Since the release of energy, in other words. discharge, is accompanied…”.
Page 6, line 15 uses caret notation to indicate superscript, while elsewhere writes them as superscripts. This should be corrected as a superscript.
Page 10 line 6 states “This corresponds to the and conjunction in independent claim 1.” This sentence is unclear, and there is no subject the article “the” is acting on.
5. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
6. Regarding claim 13, the phrase “high conductivity” will be interpreted in light of the definition provided on page 12, lines 21-23 of the instant specification.
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.
7. Claims 1-20 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.
8. Claim 1 recites the limitation "A method for producing partially reacted silicon for controlling the lithium intercalation capacity, for use in lithium batteries, wherein….". There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation of “the lithium intercalation capacity” in the claim. The examiner interprets the battery to be what has the lithium intercalation capacity, as it is otherwise unclear what does in the context of the claim. Claims 2-20, depend on claim 1, and inherit the same issue.
9. Claims 3, 10 and 11 recite the limitation, in part, “that diffusion and reaction of metal […]”. It is unclear what this metal refers to. It appears to correspond to an added part of the diffusion barrier, which is inconsistent with claim 1, stating the stratum of silicon, metal and/or a further material is a diffusion barrier. Additionally, it appears to include the substrate of claim 1, which, as written, needs not be metal. The examiner recommends rewriting the claim to further clarify if the metal is a component of the diffusion barrier or not.
10. Claim 9, in part, is drawn to “…characterized in that volume expansion of the silicon in a stratum of the multi-stratum construction is controlled by the partially reacted silicon to silicide, with a gradual course from high silicide concentration …”. It is unclear what controls the volume expansion, as written. For the purposes of examination, it will be interpreted to be a ratio between the partially reacted silicon to silicide, which changes from a high silicide concentration close to the substrate to a low silicide concentration away from the substrate.
11. Regarding claim 10, the instant claim is drawn to the method for producing partially reacted silicon for controlling the lithium intercalation capacity as claimed in claim 1, characterized in that the reaction of metal and silicon to form silicide is controlled across strata by introduction of diffusion barriers and the frequency of the accelerated annealing is reduced as the number of strata increases. It is unclear if the frequency referred to is the frequency in the number of occurrences of the annealing step, or the frequency of the laser/lamp used during the annealing step. For the purposes of examination, this claim will be interpreted as the number of times the annealing step occurs.
12. Regarding claim 11, the phrase "more particularly" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For the purposes of claim interpretation, it will be limited to one of the listed metals.
13. Regarding claim 12, the phrase "preferably composed of copper" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Claims 13-17 depend on claim 12 and inherit the same issue.
14. Claims 18-20 indicate a use of a method of producing partially reacted silicon. The claims do not define any active, positive steps for its practice for its use in the directed use cases. Therefore, the claims are indefinite because it merely recites a use without any active, positive steps delimiting how this use is actually practiced. Ex parte Erlich, 3 USPQ2d 1011 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1986). See MPEP 2173.05(q).
15. Claims 18 and 20 state the use of the method of producing partially reacted silicon for controlling the lithium intercalation capacity as claimed in claim 1, for sodium, magnesium or aluminum-ion batteries. It is unclear if the stated systems would rely on lithium intercalation, or the intercalation of aluminum, sodium or magnesium.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
16. 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.
17. 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.
18. 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.
19. 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.
20. Claims 1-2, 6-9, and 12-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cherkouk et al (US 20200395608 A1; Henceforth, Cherkouk), in view of Wei et al. (CN 112542573 A; Henceforth, Wei).
21. Regarding claim 1, Cherkouk teaches a method for the manufacture of silicon-based anodes for secondary batteries ([0020]) that generates multiple phases in the region of the silicon layer and of the metal substrate, consisting of amorphous silicon and/or crystalline silicon of the silicon of the silicon layer and of crystalline metal of the metal substrate and of silicide ([0020]). The manufactured multi-phase Si alloys makes additional free spaces available for trapping of the volume change during lithiation and ensure the stabilization of the entire material composite ([0050]). The method consists of, depositing a silicon layer on a metal substrate, ([0021]) tempering the interface region of the silicon layer turned away from the metal surface by means of an energy-intensive treatment while the metal substrate is being heated, ([0023]) where the tempering may be performed by means of an arrangement for rapid thermal treatment and annealing ([0026]). Cherkouk teaches the annealing step favors the metal-induced layer-exchange process ([0044]) and that buffer layers can be disposed on either side of the silicon layer ([0035]-[0036]). Cherkouk teaches an additional thin layer may be applied and further considered as a buffer layer ([0048]), which can include metallic, oxidic, carbon-containing or polymer-containing materials ([0025]).
22. Cherkouk does not teach that, after the additional layer is added, a subsequent accelerated annealing step is performed to form partially reacted silicon is formed, not that it is for use in lithium batteries; regarding the latter point, Cherkouk teaches these for secondary batteries containing a mobile species, such as lithium and sodium ([0046]).
23. Wei teaches a silicon-based thin film negative electrode sheet ([n0005]) for lithium batteries ([n0005]), wherein the active stack is composed of alternating nano-silicon-based thing layers and graphite-like carbon layers ([n0005]). The method of making them includes the steps of providing a current collector ([n0009]), sputtering a silicon thin layer on the surface and annealing it ([n0010]), and sputtering on a graphite onto the silicon thin layer ([n0011]), and repeating steps 2 and 3 to form an active stack ([n0012]). The examiner notes that, by repeating step 2, the annealing step would be repeated. Wei teaches that this configuration achieves good dispersion of nano-silicon-based materials during the preparation of the anode, and, by sputtering a graphite-like carbon layer, the graphite-like carbon layer effectively coats and fills the nano-silicon-based thin layer, giving the resulting silicon-based thin-film anode good conductivity and the ability to suppress expansion ([n0019]).
24. Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the process of Cherkouk by performing an annealing step after adding the diffusion barrier is added, as taught by Wei in the same field of endeavor. There would have been a motivation to include multiple annealing steps, since the annealing steps help crystallize silicon at the interfaces of the various layers, as taught by Cherkouk, which generates a structure that has good conductivity and the ability to suppress expansion, as taught by Wei in the same field of endeavor.
25. Regarding claim 2, Cherkouk and Wei teach the method of claim 1. Wei teaches that the deposition and annealing steps are repeated a further time, to make a multilayered lamination ([n0012]). Wei further teaches this is done to make an active stack of a 1-4 μm thick ([n0012]). Wei teaches an embodiment ([n0038]-[n0041]), where each silicon layer is approximately 8 nm thick, and the graphite layer is approximately 25 nm thick ([n0040]). The examiner notes, to get the active stack to 4 μm thick ([n0041]), this process is repeated at least 9 times.
26. Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the process of Cherkouk by performing an annealing step after adding the diffusion barrier is added, as taught be Wei in the same field of endeavor, wherein the deposition and annealing steps are repeated a further time, to make a multilayered lamination. There would have been a motivation to include multiple annealing steps, since the annealing steps help crystallize silicon at the interfaces of the various layers, as taught by Cherkouk, which generates a structure that has good conductivity and the ability to suppress expansion, as taught by Wei in the same field of endeavor. Additionally, the instant claim is a duplication of a step; outside a showing of unexpected results, a prima facie case of obviousness exist where steps and their resulting products are nearly duplicates. In re Harza, 274 F. 2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). See also Ex parte Rubin, 128 USPQ 440 (Bd. App. 1959).
27. Regarding claim 6, Cherkouk and Wei teach the method of claim 1. Cherkouk discloses using chemical vapor deposition (CVD) to add the components of their active material layers ([0087]).
28. Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the process of Cherkouk by performing an annealing step after adding the diffusion barrier is added, as taught by Wei in the same field of endeavor, as outlined in claim 1, above.
29. Regarding claim 7, Cherkouk and Wei teach the method of claim 1. Wei teaches the diffusion barriers are made of graphite, which is a carbon material ([n0011]).
30. Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the process of Cherkouk by performing an annealing step after adding the diffusion barrier is added, as taught by Wei in the same field of endeavor, where the diffusion barrier is made of graphite. There would have been a motivation to utilize a graphitic diffusion barrier layer, as taught by Wei, since the process of forming an active material laminate generates a structure that has good conductivity and the ability to suppress expansion ([n0019]).
31. Regarding claim 8, Cherkouk and Wei teach the method of claim 1. Wei teaches the diffusion barriers are made of graphite, which is a carbon material ([n0011]). Cherkouk teaches graphite is a conventional material for the intercalation of lithium ions, which would allow lithium ions to pass through it ([0051]).
32. Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the process of Cherkouk by performing an annealing step after adding the diffusion barrier is added, as taught by Wei in the same field of endeavor, where the diffusion barrier permits the diffusion of lithium ions. There would have been a motivation to utilize a graphitic diffusion barrier layer, as taught by Wei, since the process of forming an active material laminate generates a structure that has good conductivity and the ability to suppress expansion ([n0019]).
33. Regarding claim 9, Cherkouk and Wei teach the method of claim 1. Cherkouk teaches, during annealing, multiple phases are formed in the silicon layer, consisting of amorphous silicon and/or crystalline silicon of the silicon of the silicon layer and of crystalline metal of the metal substrate and of silicide ([0084]). Cherkouk teaches, in Figures 3b and 4a-c, (reproduced below), shows a gradient between the phases is formed, where there is a nickel phase (region 8, Figure 3b), a silicon phase (region 11, Figure 3b), and a Ni/Si phase (region 10, Figure 3b) in-between. Cherkouk teaches that the multi-phase silicon-metal structures absorbs the volume change due to delithiation and lithiation to ensure the stabilization of the entire material composite ([0052]).
PNG
media_image1.png
385
701
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
363
725
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
395
756
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
506
434
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Figures 4a (bottom left), 4b-c (top row) and Figure 3b (bottom right), reproduced from Cherkouk.
34. Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the process of Cherkouk by performing an annealing step after adding the diffusion barrier is added, as taught by Wei in the same field of endeavor.
35. Regarding claim 12, Cherkouk and Wei teach the method of claim 1. Cherkouk teaches an anode, made by depositing a silicon layer on a metal substrate, ([0021]) tempering the interface region of the silicon layer turned away from the metal surface by means of an energy-intensive treatment while the metal substrate is being heated, ([0023]) where the tempering may be performed by means of an arrangement for rapid thermal treatment and annealing ([0026]). Cherkouk teaches the annealing step favors the metal-induced layer-exchange process ([0044]) and that buffer layers can be disposed on either side of the silicon layer ([0035]-[0036]). Cherkouk teaches an additional thin layer may be applied and further considered as a buffer layer ([0048]), which can include metallic, oxidic, carbon-containing or polymer-containing materials ([0025]). Cherkouk teaches the substrate may be copper ([0028]), and the silicon composition forms the active layer on the anode ([0030]).
36. Cherkouk does not teach the multi-stratum structure has a second layer of partially-reacted silicon layer, consisting of silicon, a metal and/or a further material and is likewise subjected to accelerated annealing, and the anode is for use in lithium batteries; regarding the latter point, Cherkouk teaches these for secondary batteries containing a mobile species, such as lithium and sodium ([0046]).
37. Wei teaches a silicon-based thin film negative electrode sheet ([n0005]) for lithium batteries ([n0005]), wherein the active stack is composed of alternating nano-silicon-based thing layers and graphite-like carbon layers ([n0005]). A method of making them includes the steps of providing a current collector ([n0009]), sputtering a silicon thin layer on the surface and annealing it ([n0010]), and sputtering on a graphite onto the silicon thin layer ([n0011]), and repeating steps 2 and 3 to form an active stack ([n0012]). The examiner notes that, by repeating step 2, the annealing step would be repeated. Wei teaches that this configuration achieves good dispersion of nano-silicon-based materials during the preparation of the anode, and, by sputtering a graphite-like carbon layer, the graphite-like carbon layer effectively coats and fills the nano-silicon-based thin layer, giving the resulting silicon-based thin-film anode good conductivity and the ability to suppress expansion ([n0019]).
38. Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the anode of Cherkouk adding another silicon, metal and/or further material layer, as taught by Wei in the same field of endeavor. There would have been a motivation to use a silicon composite on an anode for a secondary battery, as taught by Cherkouk, since the multi-phase silicon-metal structures absorb volume changes due to delithiation and lithiation and ensure the stabilization of the entire material composite ([0052]). Additionally, Wei further motivates utilizing a multi-stratum structure of alternating layers of silicon and graphite, since an alternating silicon and graphite structure has good conductivity and the ability to suppress expansion ([n0019]). Taken together, a person of ordinary skill would have had the reasonable expectation that this structure could be applied to a lithium battery with predictable results, as the silicon composite of Cherkouk has the same resulting effect as the desired function of the anode taught by Wei.
39. Regarding claim 13, Cherkouk and Wei teach the anode of claim 12, made by the method of claim 1. Cherkouk teaches the multi-phase silicon-metal structures absorb volume changes due to delithiation and lithiation and ensure the stabilization of the entire material composite ([0052]), and teaches the silicon composite has a gradient with a high silicide concentration on the side of the active layer facing the current collector to a low silicide concentration on the side of the anode active layer facing away from the current collector ([0073] and Figures 3b 4a-c, reproduced above). The silicon composite is the result of silicon atoms diffusing along the grain boundaries of the collector, resulting in a multiple phases where the proportion of Ni varies across the composite ([0096] and Figures 3b and 4a-c). Cherkouk teaches the buffer layer formed on the surface of the silicon composite away from the substrate does not impair conductivity ([0111]), and Wei teaches multi-stratum structures with alternating layers of silicon and graphite has good conductivity and the ability to suppress expansion ([n0019]).
40. Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the anode of Cherkouk adding another silicon, metal and/or further material layer, as taught by Wei in the same field of endeavor. While the exact conductivity/resistivity values of the anode active layers are not explicitly taught, the anode active material of Cherkouk and Wei is substantially identical to that of the instant claim. Therefore, even if they did not measure and report the exact conductivity/resistivity values, the inherent aspect did not need to be recognized at the relevant time. Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharm. Inc., 339 F.3d 1373, 1377, 67 USPQ2d 1664, 1668 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Thus, Cherkouk and Wei inherently teach that the anode active layers, which has a gradient of metal throughout the silicon layer with a high concentration of silicide near the substrate, have a high conductivity.
41. Regarding claim 14, Cherkouk and Wei teach the anode of claim 12, made by the method of claim 1. Cherkouk teaches an additional thin layer may be applied on top of the silicon composite as a buffer layer ([0048]), which can include metallic, oxidic, carbon-containing or polymer-containing materials ([0025]). Wei teaches a silicon-based thin film negative electrode sheet ([n0005]) for lithium batteries ([n0005]), wherein the active stack is composed of alternating nano-silicon-based thing layers and graphite-like carbon layers ([n0005]).
42. Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the anode of Cherkouk adding another silicon, metal and/or further material layer, as taught by Wei in the same field of endeavor, where the further material is a diffusion barrier is made of graphite, as taught by Wei. There would have been a motivation to utilize a graphitic diffusion barrier layer, as taught by Wei, since the active material laminate has good conductivity and the ability to suppress expansion ([n0019]).
43. Regarding claim 15, Cherkouk and Wei teach the anode of claim 12, made by the method of claim 1. While Cherkouk teaches the silicon composite layer is 2.2 μm ([0087]), Wei teaches the thickness of the active material stack is 1 to 4 μm ([n0012]). Wei further teaches an embodiment ([n0038]-[n0042]) where the final active stack thickness is 4 μm ([n0041]). The active material thickness taught lies within the claimed range and therefore anticipates it. Brown v. 3M, 265 F.3d 1349, 1351, 60 USPQ2d 1375, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2001). See MPEP 2131.
44. Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the anode of Cherkouk adding another silicon, metal and/or further material layer, as taught by Wei in the same field of endeavor, as outlined in claim 12, above.
45. Regarding claim 16, Cherkouk and Wei teach the anode of claim 12, made by the method of claim 1. Cherkouk teaches, during annealing, multiple phases are formed in the silicon layer, consisting of amorphous silicon and/or crystalline silicon of the silicon of the silicon layer and of crystalline metal of the metal substrate and of silicide ([0084]). Cherkouk teaches, in Figures 3b and 4, (reproduced above), that a gradient between the phases is formed, where there is a nickel phase (region 8, Figure 3b), a silicon phase (region 11, Figure 3b), and a Ni/S phase (region 10, Figure 3b) in-between. Cherkouk teaches that the multi-phase silicon-metal structures absorbs the volume change due to delithiation and lithiation to ensure the stabilization of the entire material composite ([0052]).
46. Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the anode of Cherkouk adding another silicon, metal and/or further material layer, as taught by Wei in the same field of endeavor, as outlined in claim 12, above.
47. Regarding claim 17, Cherkouk and Wei teach the anode of claim 16. Cherkouk teaches, during annealing, multiple phases are formed in the silicon layer, consisting of amorphous silicon and/or crystalline silicon of the silicon of the silicon layer and of crystalline metal of the metal substrate and of silicide ([0084]). Cherkouk teaches, in Figures 3b and 4a-c, (reproduced above), that a gradient between the phases is formed, where there is a nickel phase (region 8, Figure 3b), a silicon phase (region 11, Figure 3b), and a Ni/Si phase (region 10, Figure 3b) in-between. The examiner notes that, due to the gradient depicted in Figure 3b, the regions where silicides would form would be in the regions where there is a high nickel concentration, which is near the substrate. Cherkouk teaches that the multi-phase silicon-metal structures absorbs the volume change due to delithiation and lithiation to ensure the stabilization of the entire material composite ([0052]), but does not delineate which layer imparts which aspect.
48. Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the anode of Cherkouk adding another silicon, metal and/or further material layer, as taught by Wei in the same field of endeavor, wherein regions within a stratum having a high silicide concentration develop adhesion and stability of the active layer, and regions having a low silicide concentration and high proportion of silicon exhibit high lithium intercalation capacity. While the exact benefits imparted from high and low silicide concentrations are not explicitly taught, the anode active material of Cherkouk and Wei is substantially identical to that of the instant claim. Therefore, even if they did not identify that the high or low concentrations of silicide imparted the desired stability, adhesiveness, or intercalation ability, the inherent aspects did not need to be recognized at the relevant time. Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharm. Inc., 339 F.3d 1373, 1377, 67 USPQ2d 1664, 1668 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Thus, Cherkouk and Wei inherently teach that the anode active layers, which has a gradient of metal throughout the silicon layer with a high concentration of silicide near the substrate, gain added adhesion and stability from the regions with high silicide concentrations and gain their lithium intercalation ability from regions with low silicide concentrations.
49. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Cherkouk and Wei in view of Wang et al. (Phys. Rev. B., 2008., 77, 045424; Henceforth, Wang).
50. Regarding claim 3, Cherkouk and Wei teach the method of claim 1. Cherkouk teaches that annealing may be performed with an energy-intensive energy source, e.g. at least with a flash lamp that is capable of supplying a flash duration between 0.2 ms and 20 ms and an energy density of 0.6 J/cm2 and 160 J/cm2 ([0029]), allowing Si atoms to diffuse even at lower temperatures along the grain boundaries of the metal substrate, since at the interface to a metal the covalent bonding of the Si atoms is weakened ([0045]). Cherkouk teaches a heating step of between 200 and 1000°C ([0020]). The examiner notes the ranges of flash duration, energy density and heating temperature overlaps and/or encompasses the ranges taught by the instant claim. It has been held 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. It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the ranges of flash duration, energy density and heating temperature from the prior art ranges, because the prior art teaches the desired property/utility over the entire range. However, while Cherkouk and Wei teach the temperature of the heating step that overlaps at the end point of the instant range, they do not teach a heating step within the instant range.
51. Wang probes the thermodynamics and resulting configurations of various metal induced crystallization structures (page 045424-2, column 1). The annealing step includes heating a substrate, which includes silicon, at 165°C and 250°C. The examiner notes the first temperature value lies within the range and anticipates it. See MPEP 2133. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill that the metal-induced crystallization of Cherkouk could be modified to include the temperatures taught by Wang in the same field of endeavor. Since Wang demonstrates precedent for causing metal-induced crystallization of silicon layers when heated to 165°C, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had the reasonable expectation that performing the annealing step of Cherkouk at the temperature of Wang would have predictably led to metal-induced crystallization, since the resulting product relies on the same thermodynamic process. See MPEP 2143(I) D.
52. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Cherkouk, Wei, and Wang in view of Lee et al (US 20120115259 A1; Henceforth, Koo) and Tanaka (US 20010026835 A1).
53. Regarding claim 4, the instant claim is drawn to the method for producing partially reacted silicon for controlling the lithium intercalation capacity as claimed in claim 1, characterized in that diffusion and reaction of metal in laser annealing with the silicon is controlled by an annealing time in the range from 0.01 to 100 ms through the establishment of a rate of scanning of a local heating site and an energy density in the range from 0.1 to 100 J/cm2 and also preheating or cooling in the range from 4°C to 200°C in the laser annealing so as to generate partially reacted silicon in each stratum.
54. Cherkouk and Wei teach the method of claim 1. Cherkouk teaches that annealing may be performed with an energy-intensive energy source, (e.g. at least with a flash lamp) that is capable of supplying a flash duration between 0.2 ms and 20 ms and an energy density of 0.6 J/cm2 and 160 J/cm2 ([0029]), allowing Si atoms to diffuse even at lower temperatures along the grain boundaries of the metal substrate, since at the interface to a metal the covalent bonding of the Si atoms is weakened ([0045]). The examiner notes the Cherkouk teaches a heating step of between 200 and 1000°C. Additionally, Wang is applied for the same reasons as applied in claim 3, above.
55. Cherkouk, Wei, nor Wang do not explicitly teach laser annealing is used, nor heating is performed through the establishment of a rate of scanning of a local heating site.
56. Koo teaches a method for making an electrode for flexible electronic devices (Abstract and [0005]). Koo teaches a method comprising a step of crystallizing a cathode material on a current collector via laser irradiation or flash lamp irradiation ([0046], [0050]-[0054]). Koo teaches no additional high-temperature is necessary since laser or a flash lamp can be used to improve battery performance ([0062]), and laser annealing minimizes thermal deformation of the substrate ([0052]). Koo teaches the laser energy density is in the range of 10-200 mJ/cm2 ([0052]).
57. Koo does not teach that the heating is performed through the establishment of a rate of scanning of a local heating site.
58. Tanaka teaches the use of laser annealing to crystallize amorphous films, such as silicon on semiconductor devices ([0004]). Tanaka teaches a part of their laser annealing method includes a step of scanning a laser beam in a direction perpendicular to the longitudinal direction of the linear beam ([0005]-[0006]). Tanaka teaches an example ([0017]) using a scanning rate of 1.0 mm/s, with a laser power of 420 mJ/cm2 and a pulse frequency of 30 Hz.
59. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill that the metal-induced crystallization of Cherkouk and Wei could be performed by laser annealing, as taught by Koo in the same field of endeavor, with the temperatures taught by Wang and the annealing time in the range from 0.01 to 100 ms through the establishment of a rate of scanning of a local heating site and an energy density in the range from 0.1 to 100 J/cm2. Koo establishes precedent that flash lamp annealing and laser annealing are both suitable techniques for rapidly annealing films that require annealing. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation that using either method would yield predictable results, since Koo teaches laser annealing allows for annealing with minimal thermal deformations of the substrates being annealed. Additionally, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the annealing time and power to modulate the power delivered through a routine optimization of the parameters taught by Tanaka. Since Koo teaches laser annealing is comparable to flash lamp annealing, a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the discovery of an optimum value of the annealing time and power to obtain a proper level of crystallization in the silicon substrate is a result effective variable, that could be found by a person of ordinary skill in the art. In re Boesch, CCPA 1980, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ215.
60. Claims 5 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Cherkouk and Wei in view of Janke et al. (Carbon, 2020. 159, 656; Henceforth, Janke).
61. Regarding claim 5, the instant claim is drawn to the method for producing partially reacted silicon for controlling the lithium intercalation capacity as claimed in claim 1, characterized in that diffusion and reaction of metal from the substrate with the silicon is controlled by a diffusion barrier applied beforehand.
62. Cherkouk and Wei teach the method of claim 1. Cherkouk teaches the annealing step favors the metal-induced layer-exchange process ([0044]) and that buffer layers can be disposed on either side of the silicon layer ([0035]-[0036]). Cherkouk teaches an additional thin layer may be applied and further considered as a buffer layer ([0048]), which can include metallic, oxidic, carbon-containing or polymer-containing materials ([0025]). Wei teaches the application of graphite buffer layers on top of thin silicon layers ([n0019]). Neither Cherkouk nor Wei teach that the buffer layers control the diffusion and reaction of the metal of the substrate and silicon.
63. Janke explores the directionality of metal-induced crystallizations with layer-exchange between carbon/nickel thin film stacks (page 657, column 1). Janke teaches the depth at which the carbon and nickel layers occur when deposited and after an annealing step (Figures 2c-d, reproduced below), showing that, when a carbon-based layer is disposed on top of a metal layer, a reaction between the two occurs, much like the reaction taught by Cherkouk.
PNG
media_image5.png
311
757
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Figures 2c (left) and d (right), reproduced from Janke.
64. Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the process of Cherkouk by performing an annealing step after adding the diffusion barrier is added, as taught by Wei in the same field of endeavor, wherein a previously applied diffusion barrier controls the reaction between the metal substrate and silicon layers. Janke demonstrates precedent in the art that carbon-based layers undergo metal-induced crystallization effects with metal layers when annealed. Since Cherkouk teaches applying a buffer layer, which can be a carbon-containing species, between the silicon layer and a metal substrate, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had the reasonable expectation that applying a carbon-based buffer layer would control how the metal substrate and the silicon layer react, as Janke teaches it would first have to react with the buffer layer, before the silicon composite structures of Cherkouk can be formed. There would have been a reasonable expectation that this would slow down the reaction between the substrate and silicon, compared to a situation where they were adjacent, thereby controlling how the diffusion and reaction between the silicon layer and the substrate takes place.
65. Regarding claim 10, the instant claim is drawn to the method for producing partially reacted silicon for controlling the lithium intercalation capacity as claimed in claim 1, characterized in that the reaction of metal and silicon to form silicide is controlled across strata by introduction of diffusion barriers and the frequency of the accelerated annealing is reduced as the number of strata increases.
66. Cherkouk and Wei teach the method of claim 1. Cherkouk teaches the annealing step favors the metal-induced layer-exchange process ([0044]) and that buffer layers can be disposed on either side of the silicon layer ([0035]-[0036]). Cherkouk teaches an additional thin layer may be applied and further considered as a buffer layer ([0048]), which can include metallic, oxidic, carbon-containing or polymer-containing materials ([0025]). Cherkouk teaches the annealing step only occurs when the silicon is deposited (Claim 1). Wei teaches the application of graphite buffer layers on top of thin silicon layers ([n0019]), and the annealing step is repeated with each stratum ([n0012]). Neither Cherkouk nor Wei teach that the buffer layers control the diffusion and reaction of the metal of the substrate and silicon, or that the frequency employed during the accelerated annealing step decreases as more strata are introduced.
67. Janke explores the directionality of metal-induced crystallizations with layer-exchange between carbon/nickel thin film stacks (page 657, column 1). Janke teaches the depth at which the carbon and nickel layers occur when deposited and after an annealing step (Figures 2c-d, reproduced above), showing that, when a carbon-based layer is disposed on top of a metal layer, a reaction between the two occurs, much like the reaction taught by Cherkouk.
68. Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the process of Cherkouk by performing an annealing step after adding the diffusion barrier is added, as taught by Wei in the same field of endeavor, wherein a previously applied diffusion barrier controls the reaction between the metal substrate and silicon layers. Janke demonstrates precedent in the art that carbon-based layers undergo metal-induced crystallization effects with metal layers when annealed. Since Cherkouk teaches applying a buffer layer, which can be a carbon-containing species, between the silicon layer and a metal substrate, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had the reasonable expectation that applying a carbon-based buffer layer would control how the metal substrate and the silicon layer react, as Janke teaches it would first have to react with the buffer layer, before the silicon composite structures of Cherkouk can be formed. There would have been a reasonable expectation that this would slow down the reaction between the substrate and silicon, compared to a situation where they were adjacent, thereby controlling how the diffusion and reaction between the silicon layer and the substrate takes place.
69. Regarding the frequency of the accelerated annealing step controls the reaction of metal and silicon to form silicides, Janke teaches that a side reaction between graphite and nickel could occur, such that, when the nickel is deposited on top of the graphite layer, the nickel will pass through the graphite layer towards the substrate (Figure 2a-b, reproduced below).
PNG
media_image6.png
337
778
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Figures 2a (right) and b (left), reproduced from Janke.
70. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the process of Cherkouk by performing an annealing step after adding the diffusion barrier is added, as taught by Wei in the same field of endeavor, wherein the annealing step is performed less as the number of strata increases. There would have been a motivation to decrease the number of annealing steps, as evidenced by Janke, since, when metal is deposited on top of the graphite diffusion barrier, subsequent annealing steps could cause the metal layer to pass through to lower strata of the composite. Since Cherkouk teaches the interaction between the silicon and the metal substrate imparts the benefits of minimizing volume expansion ([0050]), a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had the reasonable expectation that, if the metal layers could pass through, the silicon alloy gradient taught by Cherkouk would have been at risk to not form, as the deposited metal can reasonable concentrate in the lower strata. This would create pockets of bare silicon, which could impart structural issues due to volume expansion ([0006]), and other spots where the gradient in the silicon composite is not as prominent. Since this effect would be more likely to occur if the annealing step is performed more times, a person of ordinary skill would have had the reasonable expectation that performing the annealing step less frequently would preserve the gradient in the silicon layer, ensuring the volume expansion of the base silicon is minimized.
71. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Cherkouk and Wei in view of Thai et al. (US 20220302439 A1; Henceforth, Thai).
72. Regarding claim 11, the instant claim is drawn to the method for producing partially reacted silicon for controlling the lithium intercalation capacity as claimed in claim 1, characterized in that for each stratum of silicon (16, 19), metal (20, 23) and diffusion barrier to be deposited, an adjustable amount of metal (23), more particularly copper (Cu), nickel (Ni), aluminum (Al), titanium (Ti), magnesium (Mg) and/or tin (Sn), is inserted in order to generate partially reacted silicon in the entire multi-stratum structure.
73. Cherkouk and Wei teach the method of claim 1. Cherkouk teaches that buffer layers can be disposed on either side of the silicon layer ([0035]-[0036]). Cherkouk teaches the buffer layers can include metallic, oxidic, carbon-containing or polymer-containing materials ([0025]). Wei teaches a silicon-based thin film negative electrode sheet ([n0005]) for lithium batteries ([n0005]), wherein the active stack is composed of alternating nano-silicon-based thing layers and graphite-like carbon layers ([n0005]). A method of making them includes the steps of providing a current collector ([n0009]), sputtering a silicon thin layer on the surface and annealing it ([n0010]), and sputtering on a graphite onto the silicon thin layer ([n0011]), and repeating steps 2 and 3 to form an active stack ([n0012]). The examiner notes that, by repeating step 2, the annealing step would be repeated. Cherkouk nor Wei teach the specific identities of the metal being additionally added in each stratum.
74. Thai teaches a method for forming copper coated anode active materials, and the resulting anodes (Abstract). The active material may comprise silicon ([0038] and [0044]) and a metal layer is formed on the active material layer prior to pyrolysis ([0044]). The metal may be copper, nickel, or any metal that will not adversely react with the components of the active material layer, including stainless steel, tungsten, gold, silver, or platinum ([0044]). Thai further teaches the deposited metal may alloy with the active material ([0044]), which may form silicides ([0058]).
75. Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the process of Cherkouk by performing an annealing step after adding the diffusion barrier is added, as taught by Wei in the same field of endeavor, wherein a previously applied diffusion barrier controls the reaction between the metal substrate and silicon layers, wherein for each stratum of silicon, metal and diffusion barrier to be deposited, an adjustable amount of metal is inserted in order to generate partially reacted silicon in the entire multi-stratum structure. Thai demonstrates precedent in the art for adding metals, including copper and nickel, on top of a silicon layer, with the intent to form an alloyed structure. Since Cherkouk teaches a buffer layer may be added that can be a carbon material or a metallic material, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had the reasonable expectation that, when forming a new stratum after the formation of a carbon diffusion layer, as taught by Wei, the addition of a metal layer before another silicon layer would have predictably led to the formation of an alloyed material, as Thai previously demonstrated that an alloy will form between the layers when heated, in order to form silicides. Since Cherkouk demonstrates this forms an composite with a gradient with the amount of metal in the silicon layer, this would form a stratum of partially reacted silicon.
76. Claims 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cherkouk and Wei as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Lee et al (US 20190181434 A1; Henceforth, Lee).
77. Regarding claim 18, the instant claim is drawn to the use of the method for producing partially reacted silicon for controlling the lithium intercalation capacity as claimed in claim 1 for functional layers in an aluminum-ion battery.
78. Cherkouk and Wei teach the method of claim 1. Cherkouk teaches the anode material can be used in secondary batteries containing mobile species such as lithium or sodium ([0046]). Wei teaches the silicon anode material is designed for lithium batteries ([n0008]). Neither explicitly teach the use of the anode material in an aluminum ion battery.
79. Lee teaches an electrode ([0004]) for batteries such as aluminum batteries, lithium ion batteries, magnesium batteries, sodium batteries, or a combination thereof ([0010]). The electrodes have a current collector of copper, nickel, iron, titanium, chromium, among others ([0005]), and an active material of silicon, graphite, silicon oxide, tin, or a combination thereof ([0005]). This can include the corresponding metal silicides ([0005]), and can have a second phase of metal ([0007]) or additional phases of graphite ([0008]). The examiner notes aluminum batteries is a broad battery category that encompasses aluminum ion batteries.
80. Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the process of Cherkouk by performing an annealing step after adding the diffusion barrier is added, as taught by Wei in the same field of endeavor, to create an anode for an aluminum-ion battery. Lee demonstrates precedent in the art to create an electrode containing a metal substrate, a silicon-based active material that can contain silicides, with additional graphite and metal layers for use in an aluminum battery. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had the reasonable expectation that substituting the electrode of Lee for that of Cherkouk and Wei would have predictably created a functioning aluminum battery, as the main components of the electrode of Lee are functionally the same as that taught by Cherkouk and Wei, and the components of Cherkouk and Wei would be capable of performing the same functions as the electrodes of Lee. See MPEP 2143 (I) B.
81. Regarding claim 20, the instant claim is drawn to the use of the method for producing partially reacted silicon for controlling the lithium intercalation capacity as claimed in claim 1 for sodium batteries or magnesium batteries.
82. Cherkouk and Wei teach the method of claim 1. Cherkouk teaches the anode material can be used in secondary batteries containing mobile species such as lithium or sodium ([0046]). Wei teaches the silicon anode material is designed for lithium batteries ([n0008]).
83. Lee teaches an electrode ([0004]) for batteries such as aluminum batteries, lithium ion batteries, magnesium batteries, sodium batteries, or a combination thereof ([0010]). The electrodes have a current collector of copper, nickel, iron, titanium, chromium, among others ([0005]), and an active material of silicon, graphite, silicon oxide, tin, or a combination thereof ([0005]). This can include the corresponding metal silicides ([0005]), and can have a second phase of metal ([0007]) or additional phases of graphite ([0008]).
84. Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the process of Cherkouk by performing an annealing step after adding the diffusion barrier is added, as taught by Wei in the same field of endeavor, to create an anode for a sodium or magnesium battery. Lee demonstrates precedent in the art to create an electrode containing a metal substrate, a silicon-based active material that can contain silicides, with additional graphite and metal layers, for use in a sodium or magnesium battery. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had the reasonable expectation that substituting the electrode of Lee for that of Cherkouk and Wei would have predictably created a functioning sodium or magnesium battery, as the main components of the electrode of Lee are functionally the same as that taught by Cherkouk and Wei, and the components of Cherkouk and Wei would be capable of performing the same functions as the electrodes of Lee. See MPEP 2143 (I) B.
85. Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cherkouk and Wei as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Son et al. (US 20190207221 A1; Henceforth, Son).
86. Regarding claim 19, the instant claim is drawn to the use of the method for producing partially reacted silicon for controlling the lithium intercalation capacity as claimed in claim 1 for thermoelectric systems.
87. Cherkouk and Wei teach the method of claim 1. Cherkouk teaches the anode material can be used in secondary batteries containing mobile species such as lithium or sodium ([0046]). Wei teaches the silicon anode material is designed for lithium batteries ([n0008]). Neither teach the use of the anode materials in a thermoelectric system.
88. Son teaches a thermoelectric device including a silicon-containing composite, or a carbon composite containing the silicon-containing composite and a carbonaceous material ([0011]). The silicon composite is a silicon core-shell species, with a porous silicon core, a silicon suboxide on its surface, and graphene on its surface ([0013]-[0016]). The purpose of the invention is to minimize the volume expansion of silicon, to prevent the degradation of the system ([0003]).
89. Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the process of Cherkouk by performing an annealing step after adding the diffusion barrier is added, as taught by Wei in the same field of endeavor, to create an anode for a thermoelectric system. Son demonstrates precedent in the art to create an electrode using silicon-containing composites aimed at minimizing the volume expansion of silicon during the operation of the system. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had the reasonable expectation that substituting the electrode of Son for that of Cherkouk and Wei would have predictably created a functioning thermoelectric system, as the components of Cherkouk and Wei would be capable of performing the same functions as the active materials of Son. See MPEP 2143 (I) B.
Double Patenting
90. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
91. A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
92. The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
93. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
94. Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-9 of copending Application No. 18/682029 (reference application) alone, or in view of Cherkouk, Wei, Janke, Lee and/or Son as stated in Table 1 below. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the reference application claims substantially teach the subject matter of the instant claims 1-20, except:
The use of the method can be directed towards a sodium, magnesium, aluminum ion or thermoelectric system (instant claims 18-20)
The diffusion barriers control the reaction to form silicides and the frequency of accelerated annealing is decreased as the amount of strata increases (Claim 10)
The gradient present in the silicon layer (Claim 9)
The diffusion barriers permit lithium diffusion (Claim 8)
The use of CVD or PVD to deposit the strata (Claim 6)
The use of the diffusion layer to control the reaction between the silicon and metal (claim 5)
The anode made by the method of claim 1 (claims 12-17)
Table 1
Application Number: 18/682029
Instant Claims
Additional Art
1-4, 7 and 11
None (taught by 18/682029)
5 and 10
Cherkouk, Wei and Janke
6, 8-9, and 12-17
Cherkouk and Wei
18, 20
Cherkouk, Wei and Lee
19
Cherkouk, Wei, Son
95. Regarding the use of the method for different types of batteries, Cherkouk, Wei, and Lee, and Son disclose such a teaching; see the 35 U.S.C. rejections for claims 18-20 above.
96. Regarding the use of diffusion barriers control the reaction to form silicides and the frequency of accelerated annealing is decreased as the number of strata increases, Cherkouk, Wei, and Janke disclose such a teaching; see the 35 U.S.C. rejection for claim 10 above.
97. Regarding the gradient in the silicon layer, Cherkouk and Wei disclose such a teaching; see the 35 U.S.C. rejection for claim 9 above.
98. Regarding the diffusion barriers permitting lithium diffusion, Cherkouk and Wei disclose such a teaching; see the 35 U.S.C. rejection for claim 8 above.
99. Regarding the use of CVD/PVD to deposit the strata, Cherkouk and Wei disclose such a teaching; see the 35 U.S.C. rejection for claim 6 above.
100. Regarding the use of the diffusion barrier to control the reaction between metal and silicon, Cherkouk, Wei, and Janke disclose such a teaching; see the 35 U.S.C. rejection for claim 5 above.
101. Regarding the anode made by the method of claim 1, Cherkouk and Wei disclose such a teaching; see the 35 U.S.C. rejections for claims 12-17 above.
102. It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to consider the present claims 1-20 and the reference claims 1-9 patentably indistinct, since Cherkouk, Wei, Lee, Son, and Janke teach the layers with the stated materials allows for better conductivity while reducing volumetric changes in the silicon layers during use, after a thermal treatment step, which flash and laser annealing are examples thereof.
103. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
104. Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-5, 8-13 of copending Application No. 18/876141 (reference application 2) alone, or in view of Cherkouk, Wei, Janke, Lee and/or Son as stated in Table 2 below. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the reference application claims substantially teach the subject matter of the instant claims 1-20, except:
The use of the method can be directed towards a sodium, magnesium, aluminum ion or thermoelectric system (instant claims 18-20)
The volume expansion during lithium intercalation is controlled by the partially reacted silicon (Claim 13)
The anode has a gradual change in metal concentration (Claim 16)
The diffusion barriers control the reaction to form silicides and the frequency of accelerated annealing is decreased as the amount of strata increases (Claim 10)
The diffusion barriers permit lithium diffusion (Claim 8)
The use of CVD or PVD to deposit the strata (Claim 6)
Table 2
Application Number: 18/876141
Instant Claims
Additional Art
1-5, 7, 9, 11-12, 14-15 and 17
None (taught by 18/876141)
6, 8, 13, and 16
Cherkouk and Wei
10
Cherkouk, Wei and Janke
18, 20
Cherkouk, Wei and Lee
19
Cherkouk, Wei, Son
105. Regarding the use of the method for different types of batteries, Cherkouk, Wei, Lee, and Son disclose such a teaching; see the 35 U.S.C. rejections for claims 18-20 above.
106. Regarding the volume expansion during lithium intercalation is controlled by the partially reacted silicon, Cherkouk and Wei disclose such a teaching; see the 35 U.S.C. rejection for claim 13 above.
107. Regarding the gradual change in metal concentration, Cherkouk and Wei, and disclose such a teaching; see the 35 U.S.C. rejection for claim 16 above.
108. Regarding the use of diffusion barriers control the reaction to form silicides and the frequency of accelerated annealing is decreased as the number of strata increases, Cherkouk, Wei, and Janke disclose such a teaching; see the 35 U.S.C. rejection for claim 10 above.
109. Regarding the diffusion barriers permitting lithium diffusion, Cherkouk and Wei disclose such a teaching; see the 35 U.S.C. rejection for claim 8 above.
110. Regarding the use of CVD/PVD to deposit the strata, Cherkouk and Wei disclose such a teaching; see the 35 U.S.C. rejection for claim 6 above.
111. It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to consider the present claims 1-20 and the reference claims 1-5, 8-13 patentably indistinct, since Cherkouk, Wei, Lee, Son, and Janke teach the layers with the stated materials allows for better conductivity while reducing volumetric changes in the silicon layers during use, after a thermal treatment step, which flash and laser annealing are examples thereof.
112. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
113. Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 4-12 and 15 of copending Application No. 18/722368 (reference application 3) alone, or in view of Cherkouk, Wei, Janke, Lee, Wang, Koo, Tanaka and/or Son as stated in Table 3 below. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the reference application claims substantially teach the subject matter of the instant claims 1-20, except:
The use of the method can be directed towards a sodium, magnesium, aluminum ion or thermoelectric system (instant claims 18-20)
The diffusion barriers control the reaction to form silicides and the frequency of accelerated annealing is decreased as the amount of strata increases (Claim 10)
The gradient present in the silicon layer (Claim 9)
The use of diffusion barriers (Claims 1, 5, 7, 8)
The conditions for laser annealing (claim 4) or flashlamp annealing (claim 3)
The repetition of the deposition and annealing steps (Claim 2)
The anode made by the method of claim 1 (claims 12-17)
Table 3
Application Number: 18/722368
Instant Claims
Additional Art
1-2, 6-8 and 11-17
Cherkouk and Wei
3
Cherkouk, Wei, and Wang
4
Cherkouk, Wei, Wang, Koo and Tanaka
5, 10
Cherkouk, Wei and Janke
18, 20
Cherkouk, Wei and Lee
19
Cherkouk, Wei, Son
114. Regarding the use of the method for different types of batteries, Cherkouk, Wei, Lee, and Son disclose such a teaching; see the 35 U.S.C. rejections for claims 18-20 above.
115. Regarding the use of diffusion barriers control the reaction to form silicides and the frequency of accelerated annealing is decreased as the number of strata increases, Cherkouk, Wei, and Janke disclose such a teaching; see the 35 U.S.C. rejection for claim 10 above.
116. Regarding the gradient in the silicon layer, Cherkouk and Wei disclose such a teaching; see the 35 U.S.C. rejection for claim 9 above.
117. Regarding the use of diffusion barriers, Cherkouk, Wei, and Janke disclose such a teaching; see the 35 U.S.C. rejections for claims 1, 3, 5 and 8 above.
118. Regarding the conditions for flashlamp annealing and laser annealing, Cherkouk, Wei, Wang, Koo and Tanaka disclose such a teach; see the 35 U.S.C. rejections for claims 3 and 4 above.
119. Regarding the anode made by the method of claim 1, Cherkouk and Wei disclose such a teaching; see the 35 U.S.C. rejections for claims 12-17 above.
120. It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to consider the present claims 1-20 and the reference claims 1, 2, 4-12 and 15 patentably indistinct, since Cherkouk, Wei, Lee, Son, Wang, Tanaka and Janke teach the layers with the stated materials allows for better conductivity while reducing volumetric changes in the silicon layers during use, after a thermal treatment step, which flash and laser annealing are examples thereof.
121. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
122. Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-9 of copending Application No. 18/682,000 (reference application 4), alone, or in view of Cherkouk, Wei, Lee, Son, and/or Janke as stated in Table 4 below. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the reference application claims substantially teach the subject matter of the instant claims 1-20, except:
The use of the method can be directed towards a sodium, magnesium, aluminum ion or thermoelectric system (instant claims 18-20)
The diffusion barriers control the reaction to form silicides and the frequency of accelerated annealing is decreased as the amount of strata increases (Claim 10)
The gradient present in the silicon layer (Claim 9)
The diffusion barrier permits lithium diffusion (Claim 8)
The use of CVD or PVD to deposit the diffusion layer (Claim 6)
The use of the diffusion layer to control the reaction between the silicon and metal (claim 5)
The anode made by the method of claim 1 (claims 12-17)
Table 4
Application Number: 18/682029
Instant Claims
Additional Art
1-4, 7-8 and 11
None (taught by 18/682029)
5 and 10
Cherkouk, Wei and Janke
6, 9, and 12-17
Cherkouk and Wei
18, 20
Cherkouk, Wei and Lee
19
Cherkouk, Wei, Son
123. Regarding the use of the method for different types of batteries, Cherkouk, Wei, Lee, and Son disclose such a teaching; see the 35 U.S.C. rejections for claims 18-20 above.
124. Regarding the use of diffusion barriers control the reaction to form silicides and the frequency of accelerated annealing is decreased as the number of strata increases, Cherkouk, Wei, and Janke disclose such a teaching; see the 35 U.S.C. rejection for claim 10 above.
125. Regarding the gradient in the silicon layer, Cherkouk and Wei disclose such a teaching; see the 35 U.S.C. rejection for claim 9 above.
126. Regarding the use of CVD or PVD to deposit the diffusion barrier, Cherkouk and Wei disclose such a teaching; see the 35 U.S.C. rejection for claim 6 above.
127. Regarding the use of the diffusion barrier to control the reaction between metal and silicon, Cherkouk, Wei, and Janke disclose such a teaching; see the 35 U.S.C. rejection for claim 5 above.
128. Regarding the anode made by the method of claim 1, Cherkouk and Wei disclose such a teaching; see the 35 U.S.C. rejections for claims 12-17 above.
129. It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to consider the present claims 1-20 and the reference claims 1-9 patentably indistinct, since Cherkouk, Wei, Lee, Son, and Janke teach the layers with the stated materials allows for better conductivity while reducing volumetric changes in the silicon layers during use, after a thermal treatment step, which flash and laser annealing are examples thereof.
130. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
131. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN P MURPHY whose telephone number is (571)272-9321. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:30 pm.
132. 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.
133. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nicholas A Smith can be reached at (571) 272-8760. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
134. 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.
/RPM/Examiner, Art Unit 1752
/NICHOLAS A SMITH/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752
Prosecution Insights