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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 10/9/02025 is entered and fully considered.
In view of the amendment, the 112 rejections are removed. In addition, the 102 rejection is removed and a new 103 rejection is made below.
Response to Arguments
In view of the amendment the 102 rejection is removed. On page 8 applicant specifically argues that the JIANG reference does not teach the embedded, spheroidized composite of claim 20. However, the examiner notes that the structure required in claim 20 is a deposited silicon material on the surface of the carbon material (step e) and spheroidization of that core-shell structure (step f). Applicant also argues there is not expectation that the shells of JIANG could withstand a spheroidization process. However, this appears to be a bodily incorporation argument, and the combination of references does not suggest that the structure of JIANG is incorporated into JIN. The references combine to teach formation of the core shell structure in JIN using different particle sizes.
Applicant argues the combination does not teach the particle sizes of 25-500µm. However, the examiner maintains that JIANG teaches that when making a core shell structure of silicon and graphite, the graphite particles can be 5-25µm with nanoscale silicon particles [0021]. Using particles 25µm overlaps the claimed range.
Applicant then argues that there is an unexpected result from using larger particle sizes. However, the evidence is not commensurate in scope with the claims. Specifically, the claims is directed to all carbon material while the evidence shows graphite material, and the claimed particle sizes are up to 500µm which is not supported. The testing is also exclusively limited to 1C rate, and a battery could have a better 1C rate at the expense of the 2C rate as a design choice depending on how the battery is intended to be used. In addition, the examiner is not persuaded that the examples C1 and C2 are actually superior. Applicant points out that the initial capacity and electrode capacity are higher. However, the initial reversible capacity (ICE - also sometimes IRC in the art) is much lower suggesting that any increase in initial capacity is not actually rechargeable (not superior).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 20-24, 28, 29, and 31-39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JIN (US 2021/0013499) in view of JIANG et al. (US 2021/0280860).
Regarding claims 20, 23, 24 and 35,
JIN teaches a silicon-graphite composite anode active material with silicon located inside the graphite material abstract. The silicon material is deposited on the graphite material using a raw material gas and can be particles (a precursor compound for nanostructured silicon) [0024] and [0028]. The deposition is by CVD [0067]. More specifically, the raw material is provided into a chamber with graphite base material (flakes of carbon-based material) and heated to a reaction temperature of 400-700°C [0088]. The examples show using nitrogen as the atmosphere (removing air and oxygen/dioxygen/O2) [0102]-[0104]. After the silicon is deposited on the graphite (first silicon-carbon composite material) a spheroidizing step is performed to form a core-shell structure with silicon on the inside surrounded by graphite (second silicon-carbon composite material) [0085].
JIN teaches using graphite particle sizes of 4µm in the examples [0102]-[0104]. In addition the reference teaches a particle size of 2-20µm [0086] which is understood to be a mean particle size. The reference still does not teach a particle size of 25-500µm. However, generally changes in size are not patentable, MPEP 2144.04.IV. In addition, JIANG teaches that when making a core shell structure of silicon and graphite, the graphite particles can be 5-25µm with nanoscale silicon particles [0021]. At the time of filing the invention it would have been prima facie obvious to use different particle sizes of graphite as a change in size of the graphite as a change in size without changing the operability of the graphite (forming a shell structure). The range in JIANG overlaps the claimed range and is prima facie obvious, MPEP 2144.04.I.
JIN teaches the deposition of silicon can result in silicon particles [0070] but does not expressly teach nanoparticles forming “nanostructured silicon”. However, the same precursor gas deposited on the same substrate at the same temperature will result in the same morphology of the deposited silicon. In addition, JIANG specifically teaches that when making a core shell structure, the silicon particles are nanoparticles (30-50nm which falls within the claimed range) while the graphite is micron sized [0021]. At the time of filing the invention it would have been prima facie obvious to use the particle sizes of JIANG as a known particle size for making core shell silicon carbon composite anode active material. The silicon nanoparticle sizes in JIANG fall within the claimed range.
Regarding claim 21,
JIN teaches using graphite particle sizes of 4µm in the examples [0102]-[0104]. In addition the reference teaches a particle size of 2-20µm [0086] which is understood to be a mean particle size. The reference still does not teach a particle size of 30-500µm. However, generally changes in size are not patentable without showing unexpected results, MPEP 2144.04.IV.
Regarding claim 22,
JIN teaches using the same precursor gas deposited on the same substrate at the same temperature will result in the same morphology of the deposited silicon. In addition, the reference teaches the same mechanical milling to shape the coated graphite into core shell spheres [0102]-[0104]. The same deposition process and the same spheroidization process is expected to form a silicon core with the same physical porosity.
Regarding claim 28,
JIN teaches using the same precursor gas deposited on the same substrate at the same temperature will result in the same deposition coverage of the deposited silicon.
Regarding claim 29
JIN teaches the silicon is located only on the inside of the particle (0% on the exposed outer surface) abstract, [0017], and [0093].
Regarding claim 31,
JIN teaches mechanical milling to form the spheres [0102]-[0104].
Regarding claims 32 and 33,
JIN shows examples of composite particles after spheroidization in fig. 7 [0052]. The particle sizes fall within the claimed range. A particle with rounded corners and a length to diameter ratio of 1:1 is considered to be spheroidized.
Regarding claim 34,
JIN teaches making spherical particles but does not expressly teach the specific surface area. However, spherical particles of the same diameter made of the same material will have the same surface area. Surface area of a sphere is determined by the same equation 4πr2. When the size of the particle is the same (r is equal) the surface area will also be equal.
Regarding claim 36,
JIN teaches the silicon raw material can be silane (SiH4) [0088].
Regarding claim 37,
JIN teaches the silicon graphite material can further have a surface coating formed from a carbon material different from the graphite [0075]-[0076].
Regarding claims 38 and 39,
JIN teaches the silicon graphite composite is for an anode active material and generally teaches making a battery with a positive electrode, negative electrode and electrolyte (separator) therebetween [0031].
Claim(s) 25-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JIN (US 2021/0013499) in view of JIANG et al. (US 2021/0280860) further in view of ZHU et al. (US 2014/0248543).
Regarding claims 25 and 26,
JIN teaches forming silicon particles on the graphite particles but does not expressly teach including a catalyst. However, ZHU teaches a method of depositing silicon onto graphite powder substrates abstract. The reference further teaches that catalyzed growth can be done with gold [0008] and [0072]. At the time of filing the invention it would have been prima facie obvious to use gold to catalyze the silicon growth on graphite particles because a catalytic deposition is faster by definition.
Regarding claim 27,
Modified JIN teaches the deposition of silicon particles and nanoparticles on the graphite material. The reference does not expressly teach the formation of nanowires or nanofibers. However, ZHU teaches that when making silicon nanostructures, many different morphologies can be achieved including nanoparticles, nanowires and nanowhiskers [0051]. At the time of filing the invention it would have been prima facie obvious to deposit the silicon on the graphite as nanofibers or nanowhiskers as a simple substitution of known equivalent nanostructures formed on graphite for use in anode active material.
Claim(s) 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JIN (US 2021/0013499) in view of KALYAKINA et al. (US 2023/0278877).
Regarding claim 30,
JIN teaches depositing silicon onto graphite using a precursor but does not expressly teach what reactor is used. KALYAKINA generally teaches that when making silicon-carbon composite particles the reactants can be provided into fluidized bed, fixed bed or rotary tube reactors [0071]. At the time of filing the invention it would have been prima facie obvious to use known reactor types, including fixed bed reactors, to make the silicon carbon composite particles.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AUSTIN MURATA whose telephone number is (571)270-5596. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5.
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, MICHAEL CLEVELAND can be reached at 571272-1418. 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.
/AUSTIN MURATA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights