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 .
Claim Objections
It is recommended that Applicant amend claim 60 as follows: in lines 3 and 4, “or combination thereof” should read “or a combination thereof” for proper grammar. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 58–64, 72–74, 76, and 77 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakshaug et al. (EP 3836261 A1, from 04/01/24 IDS) (Sakshaug).
Regarding claims 58, 59, 72, and 73, Sakshaug discloses a composite material for use in an electrical energy storage system (Abstract, exs.), the composite material comprising
a. a carbon-based core having a porous exterior surface (porous carbon scaffold (where pores extend throughout and, thus, are on surface), e.g., Abstract, ¶ 0048/0049; see also exs. in, e.g., Table 27); and
b. a carbon-based coating on at least a portion of the porous exterior surface of the carbon-based core (carbonized polyacrylonitrile (PAN) coating, e.g., Table 27, Sample 34-1 and ¶ 0432/0433).
Sakshaug generally discloses that there are many ways to form the porous carbon substrate, including via aerogel (e.g., ¶ 0065), but appears to fail to explicitly embody the carbon-based core comprising a carbon-based aerogel in the above example.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to routinely select a carbon-based aerogel as Sakshaug’s scaffold/core with the reasonable expectation of achieving a successful porous core.
Sakshaug further discloses that the coating is (i) substantially permeable to at least one type of metal ions (see Li+-conductive carbon surface layer, ¶ 0159).
Additionally, Sakshaug discloses that the coating forms a solid-electrolyte interphase (SEI) layer (¶ 0159), which is understood to impart electrolyte-liquid impermeability by preventing further electrolyte decomposition. Further, Sakshaug’s coating, being of carbonized PAN (¶ 0432/0433, further reading on claims 72 and 73) and of substantially similar thickness (see nanometer thickness range (e.g., ¶ 0196, 0203) encompassing instant specification’s thickness (¶ 0019)), is substantially similar to the instant coating and, thus, absent evidence otherwise, would reasonably be (ii) substantially impermeable to liquids comprising an electrolyte solvent (MPEP 2112.01 (I)).
Regarding claim 60, Sakshaug discloses the composite material of claim 59.
The limitations further defining the solvent reflects functional language not imparting further structure to the composite material beyond the material’s being configured to be substantially impermeable to at least one of the recited solvents. Nonetheless, Sakshaug discloses that the electrolyte solvent is, e.g., EC, DEC, and FEC (e.g., ¶ 0223).
Regarding claim 61, Sakshaug discloses the composite material of claim 59, wherein at least one type of metal ions are lithium ions (Sakshaug, ¶ 0159).
The limitation “at least one type of metal atoms are lithium atoms” appears to be an optional limitation not positively required given parent claim 58 recites “at least one type of metal ions or metal atoms” (emphasis added), where Sakshaug instead discloses Li-ion permeability.
Regarding claims 62–64, Sakshaug discloses the composite material of claim 59.
Sakshaug further discloses that the coating may be 1 nm to 1 μm thick (¶ 0203), i.e., 1–1000 nm, but fails to specify the thickness in the above example and, thus, that the coating has a thickness ≤ about 2500 nm (claim 62), between about 100 nm and about 2000 nm (claim 63), or about 200 nm to 500 nm (claim 64).
Sakshaug discloses, however, that the coating’s thickness can affect the composite’s performance and may be directly linked to the coating’s physical properties (¶ 0203). To this end, the skilled artisan would recognize that the coating must be thick enough to perform the desired SEI formation for protection and Li-ion conductivity (as in ¶ 0159) but that making the coating too thick would necessarily increase ionic resistance by excessively increasing ion-diffusion distance into/out of the bulk carbon-based scaffold (as in Sakshaug, e.g, ¶ 0003, 0014). To balance these effects, then, it would have been obvious to arrive at the recited ranges by routinely optimizing the thickness, including within the above overlap (MPEP 2144.05 (II)).
Regarding claim 74, Sakshaug discloses the composite material of claim 58.
The limitation “the carbon-based coating derives from pitch” is a product-by-process limitation (MPEP 2113), where the implied structure is merely the coating (as seen in spec.’s exs.), which Sakshaug discloses.
Regarding claim 76, Sakshaug discloses the composite material of claim 58.
Sakshaug discloses that the carbon-based core has a bulk density of about 1 g/cc to about 3 g/cc (see skeletal density without electrochemical modifier—and, thus, reasonably bulk density—¶ 0143), which overlaps the instant about 0.25 g/cc to about 1.0 g/cc such that the skilled artisan could have routinely selected within the overlap with a reasonable expectation of forming a successful carbon core (MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Sakshaug further discloses that the carbon-based core has a pore volume > 0.5 cc/g (¶ 0129), falling within ≥ 0.3 cc/g.
Sakshaug further discloses that the composite includes broad possible distributions of macropores, mesopores, and micropores (e.g., ¶ 0132–0136) but appears to fail to specify the core’s porosity and, thus, 10–90%.
Sakshaug discloses, however, that the high-porosity carbons allow Si deposition for ion conductivity as well as controlled Si expansion/contraction while remaining in the pores (¶ 0146). The skilled artisan would recognize, then, that the core’s porosity must be high enough to achieve these effects but that making the core too porous would necessarily risk weakening the scaffold’s mechanical integrity in supporting the Si given that the pores entail the absence of carbon material. To balance these effects, then, it would have been obvious to arrive at the recited range by routinely optimizing the core’s porosity (MPEP 2144.05 (II)).
Regarding claim 77, Sakshaug discloses the composite material of claim 58, wherein the carbon-based core comprises a skeletal framework (carbon scaffold, Abstract and Sample 34-1 of Sakshaug), the skeletal framework comprising an array of interconnected pores (see ability for pores to be continuous, connected network throughout in Sakshaug’s ¶ 0048).
Claim(s) 58–77 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakshaug et al. (EP 3836261 A1) (Sakshaug) in view of Gigler et al. (US 20190393493 A1) (Gigler).
NOTE: the following is an alternative rejection further rendering obvious the liquid-impervious coating (as well as remaining dependent claims).
Regarding claims 58, 59, 72, and 73, Sakshaug discloses a composite material for use in an electrical energy storage system (Abstract, exs.), the composite material comprising
a. a carbon-based core having a porous exterior surface (porous carbon scaffold (where pores extend throughout and, thus, are on surface), e.g., Abstract, ¶ 0048/0049; see also exs. in, e.g., Table 27); and
b. a carbon-based coating on at least a portion of the porous exterior surface of the carbon-based core (carbonized polyacrylonitrile (PAN) coating, e.g., Table 27, Sample 34-1 and ¶ 0432/0433).
Sakshaug generally discloses that there are many ways to form the porous carbon substrate, including via aerogel (e.g., ¶ 0065), but appears to fail to explicitly embody the carbon-based core comprising a carbon-based aerogel in the above example.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to routinely select a carbon-based aerogel as Sakshaug’s scaffold/core with the reasonable expectation of achieving a successful porous core.
Sakshaug further discloses that the coating is (i) substantially permeable to at least one type of metal ions (see Li+-conductive carbon surface layer, ¶ 0159).
Additionally, Sakshaug discloses that the coating forms a solid-electrolyte interphase (SEI) layer (¶ 0159), which is understood to impart electrolyte-liquid impermeability by preventing further electrolyte decomposition. Further, Sakshaug’s coating, being of carbonized PAN (¶ 0432/0433, further reading on claims 72 and 73) and of substantially similar thickness (see nanometer thickness range (e.g., ¶ 0196, 0203) encompassing instant specification’s thickness (¶ 0019)), is substantially similar to the instant coating and, thus, absent evidence otherwise, would reasonably be (ii) substantially impermeable to liquids comprising an electrolyte solvent (MPEP 2112.01 (I)).
Nonetheless, assuming, arguendo, that Sakshaug’s coating were not necessarily liquid-impermeable, Gigler teaches an analogous core-shell composite anode particle with a carbon matrix and carbonized shell (Abstract), where the carbonized precursor may be PAN (¶ 0062). Gigler notes that silicon is known to react with electrolyte constituents with continual formation of passivating layers such as SEIs, which consumes lithium and reduces capacity (¶ 0004). Therefore, Gigler teaches the carbonized coating to allow Li+ permeation while blocking electrolyte liquid/organic solvent to prevent capacity loss and maintain cycle stability (¶ 0057, 0058, 0120, 0147, Table 2).
As Sakshaug additionally desires to reduce silicon exposure to electrolyte solvent within the carbon scaffold as part of forming the SEI (¶ 0387), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to configure Sakshaug’s PAN coating to be substantially impermeable to liquids such as electrolyte solvent with the reasonable expectation of preventing capacity loss and maintaining cycle stability, as taught by Gigler.
Regarding claim 60, modified Sakshaug discloses the composite material of claim 59.
The limitations further defining the solvent reflects functional language not imparting further structure to the composite material beyond the material’s being configured to be substantially impermeable to at least one of the recited solvents. Nonetheless, Sakshaug discloses that the electrolyte solvent is, e.g., EC, DEC, and FEC (e.g., ¶ 0223), which is corroborated by Gigler, who teaches that the electrolyte solvent includes EC and DEC (¶ 0170).
Regarding claim 61, modified Sakshaug discloses the composite material of claim 59, wherein at least one type of metal ions are lithium ions (Sakshaug, ¶ 0159).
The limitation “at least one type of metal atoms are lithium atoms” appears to be an optional limitation not positively required given parent claim 58 recites “at least one type of metal ions or metal atoms” (emphasis added), where Sakshaug instead discloses Li-ion permeability.
Regarding claims 62–64, modified Sakshaug discloses the composite material of claim 59.
Sakshaug further discloses that the coating may be 1 nm to 1 μm thick (¶ 0203), i.e., 1–1000 nm, but fails to specify the thickness in the above example and, thus, that the coating has a thickness ≤ about 2500 nm (claim 62), between about 100 nm and about 2000 nm (claim 63), or about 200 nm to 500 nm (claim 64).
Sakshaug discloses, however, that the coating’s thickness can affect the composite’s performance and may be directly linked to the coating’s physical properties (¶ 0203). To this end, the skilled artisan would recognize that the coating must be thick enough to perform the desired SEI formation for protection and Li-ion conductivity (as in ¶ 0159) but that making the coating too thick would necessarily increase ionic resistance by excessively increasing ion-diffusion distance into/out of the bulk carbon-based scaffold (as in Sakshaug, e.g, ¶ 0003, 0014). To balance these effects, then, it would have been obvious to arrive at the recited ranges by routinely optimizing the thickness, including within the above overlap (MPEP 2144.05 (II)).
Regarding claims 65–67 and 75, modified Sakshaug discloses the composite material of claim 58 but, in appearing unconcerned with the specifics of the coating’s arrangement, fails to explicitly disclose that the coating extends into the porous exterior surface for less than or equal to about 2,500 nm (claim 65), between about 100 nm and about 2,000 nm (claim 66), or about 200 nm to about 500 nm (claim 67), as well as that the coating penetrates into the pores of the carbon-based core (claim 75).
Gigler further teaches that the shell may fill/impregnate pore entrances close to the core’s surface (¶ 0056) and, thus, slightly penetrate into the core.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to configure Sakshaug’s coating to extend slightly into the porous exterior surface and penetrate the pores of the carbon-based core with the reasonable expectation of achieving a successful coating configuration, as suggested by Gigler.
Regarding the respectively recited extending depths of claims 65–67, the skilled artisan would understand that conforming to Gigler’s teachings would require allowing the coating to penetrate to some depth but would further recognize that the coating should not penetrate too deeply because 1) Gigler only teaches infiltrating pores near the surface. Further, 2) allowing the coating to penetrate too far would necessarily risk detracting from Sakshaug’s bulk C/Si core responsible for ion intercalation and, thus, capacity and energy density (i.e., making the coating larger than necessary by allowing it to extend too far would necessarily reduce relative active-material content and, thus, energy density given the bulk of ion intercalation occurs in the C/Si core, as alluded to in Sakshaug, e.g., ¶ 0003 and 0014). To balance these effects, then, it would have been obvious to arrive at the recited ranges by routinely optimizing the coating’s extension depth (MPEP 2144.05 (II)).
Regarding claims 68–71, modified Sakshaug discloses the composite material of claim 58 but, in being unconcerned with the specific coverage of the coating, fails to explicitly disclose that the coating is continuous on at least a portion of the porous exterior surface of the core (claim 68), on at least 70% of the porous exterior surface (claim 69), on at least 90% of the porous exterior surface (claim 70), or on at least 95% of the porous exterior surface (claim 71).
Gigler further teaches that the shell preferably completely envelops the core (¶ 0056).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the claimed invention's effective filing date, that Sakshaug’s coating must necessarily be incorporated with some degree of coverage, and, as demonstrated by Gigler, the skilled artisan would find it obvious to incorporate the coating at full/100% coverage, which would further necessarily be continuous in completely covering the core.
Such full, continuous coverage renders obvious that the coating is continuous on at least a portion of the porous exterior surface of the core (claim 68) and falls within claims 69–71’s respective ranges of at least 70%, at least 90%, and at least 95%.
Regarding claim 74, modified Sakshaug discloses the composite material of claim 58.
The limitation “the carbon-based coating derives from pitch” is a product-by-process limitation (MPEP 2113), where the implied structure is merely the coating (as seen in spec.’s exs.), which Sakshaug discloses.
Regarding claim 76, modified Sakshaug discloses the composite material of claim 58.
Sakshaug discloses that the carbon-based core has a bulk density of about 1 g/cc to about 3 g/cc (see skeletal density without electrochemical modifier—and, thus, reasonably bulk density—¶ 0143), which overlaps the instant about 0.25 g/cc to about 1.0 g/cc such that the skilled artisan could have routinely selected within the overlap with a reasonable expectation of forming a successful carbon core (MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Sakshaug further discloses that the carbon-based core has a pore volume > 0.5 cc/g (¶ 0129), falling within ≥ 0.3 cc/g.
Sakshaug further discloses that the composite includes broad possible distributions of macropores, mesopores, and micropores (e.g., ¶ 0132–0136) but appears to fail to specify the core’s porosity and, thus, 10–90%.
Sakshaug discloses, however, that the high-porosity carbons allow Si deposition for ion conductivity as well as controlled Si expansion/contraction while remaining in the pores (¶ 0146). The skilled artisan would recognize, then, that the core’s porosity must be high enough to achieve these effects but that making the core too porous would necessarily risk weakening the scaffold’s mechanical integrity in supporting the Si given that the pores are the absence of carbon material. To balance these effects, then, it would have been obvious to arrive at the recited range by routinely optimizing the core’s porosity (MPEP 2144.05 (II)).
Regarding claim 77, modified Sakshaug discloses the composite material of claim 58, wherein the carbon-based core comprises a skeletal framework (carbon scaffold, Abstract and Sample 34-1 of Sakshaug), the skeletal framework comprising an array of interconnected pores (see ability for pores to be continuous, connected network throughout in Sakshaug’s ¶ 0048).
Conclusion
The cited art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20090311604 A1: carbon matrix that may be aerogel or xerogel and that may be coated with PAN.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN S MEDLEY whose telephone number is (703)756-4600. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00–5:00 EST M–Th and 8:00–12:00 EST F.
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, Jonathan Leong, can be reached on 571-270-192. 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.
/J.S.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 7/26/2026
Prosecution Insights