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 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.
Claims 21-25 and 27-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jo et al. (PG Pub. 2018/0097229) in view of Van Raalten et al. (PG Pub. 2019/0127588) as evidenced by PG Pub. 2010/0173376.
Regarding claims 21-22, Jo et al. teach a lithium or sodium battery anode and/or cathode comprising a conducting agent additive of carbonaceous material (including carbon black) which is taught as being crystalline carbon and also provides porosity to the primary silicon-carbon primary particles. Jo et al. teaches the porosity of less than 500 nm improves the initial capacity efficiency and lifespan characteristics of a lithium secondary battery. Jo et al. teach the pore diameter of the primary particles being 500nm or less with the pore diameter being 100nm-450 nm in an embodiment. Given, the teachings of Jo et al., it would have therefore been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the carbonaceous conducting material with porosity in the claimed range in order to improve the initial capacity efficiency and lifespan characteristics of a lithium secondary battery.
Jo et al. are silent regarding the specifics of the carbonaceous conducting agent and carbon networks. However, Van Raalten et al. teaches carbon black that has porous chemically interconnected carbon nanofibers comprising carbon networks in order to provide improved electrical, thermal and mechanical properties. The carbon nanofibers are in the carbon networks are covalently bonded and the carbon networks form an intraparticle porous network where the carbon nanofibers are interconnected to other carbon nanofibers in the network by chemical bonds via junctions. Van Raalten et al. teach the chemical interconnection and covalent bonding with the intraparticle porous network by chemical bonds via junctions [0078]. Van Raalten et al teach how to tune the porosity and motivation to meet the needs and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed pore diameter size in order to tailor the properties. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the carbon nanofibers comprising carbon networks of Van Raalten et al.in Jo et al. in order to improve electrical, mechanical and thermal properties and arrive at the claimed invention.
It is noted that although, the previous combination does not disclose the method of measuring the pore diameter, it is noted that “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process”, In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) . Further, “although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product”, In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir.1983). See MPEP 2113. Therefore, absent evidence of criticality regarding the presently claimed method of measuring the pore diameter and given that Jo et al. meets the requirements of the claimed battery, Jo et al. clearly meet the requirements of present claims battery. Further, the previous combination would possess the claimed pore diameter measured by the claimed method given the previous combination teaches such a similar battery made of such similar materials by such a similar method. The previous combination is silent regarding the claimed aspect ratio, However, it is known in the art carbon nanotubes have an aspect ratio greater than 2 as evidenced by PG Pub. 2010/0173376 in 0040 which teaches carbon nanotubes typically have very high aspect ratios.
Jo et al. teaches “An amount of the conducting agent may be appropriately controlled. For example, a weight ratio of the negative active material to the conducting agent may be about 99:1 to about 90:10.” Therefore, the carbon fiber-carbon networks are in the claimed wt. % of the anode.
Regarding claim 23, the previous combination is silent regarding the claimed d-spacing. However, given Van Raalten et al. teaches such a similar method of making the carbon nanofibers the claimed d-spacing is necessarily inherent to the carbon nanofibers of the cited art.
Regarding claim 24, the anode has the claimed wt % of binder [0117].
Regarding claim 25, Jo et al. teach mixture of conducting agents may be used and acetylene black and carbon black are taught [0118]. The amount of the additional conducting agent is taught in the claimed range given Jo et al. teaches “An amount of the conducting agent may be appropriately controlled. For example, a weight ratio of the negative active material to the conducting agent may be about 99:1 to about 90:10.”.
Regarding claims 27-28, the battery is a lithium battery, wherein the anode comprises 90 - 99.9 wt.% of an additional active material (silicon-carbon particles), wherein the additional active material is graphite, silicon, a silicon-based compound or a combination thereof [0054 and 0148].
Regarding claim 29-30, Jo et al. teaches a rechargeable lithium-ion or sodium battery comprising the anode and/or cathode according to claim 21 [Title].
Regarding claim 31, Jo et al. are silent regarding the process of obtaining the carbon networks. However, Van Raalten et al. teaches the carbon networks are obtainable by a process for producing crystalline carbon networks in a reactor which contains a reaction zone and a termination zone, by injecting a water-in-oil or bicontinuous micro-emulsion comprising metal catalyst nanoparticles, into the reaction zone which is at a temperature of above 600 °C, to produce crystalline carbon networks, transferring these networks to the termination zone, and quenching or stopping the formation of crystalline carbon networks in the termination zone by spraying in water in order to improve electrical, mechanical and thermal properties. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the method of making carbon nanofibers comprising carbon networks of Van Raalten et al.in Jo et al. in order to improve electrical, mechanical and thermal properties and arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 32-33, Jo et al. teaches a battery-powered device (which is a smartphone, a laptop, a digital camera, a camcorder, a medical and communication system, an Uninterruptible Power Supply (UPS), a power plant energy storage device or an electric and/or hybrid vehicle) comprising the lithium or sodium battery anode and/or cathode according to claim 21, the lithium or sodium battery being a lithium-ion or sodium-ion battery [0142].
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jo et al. (PG Pub. 2018/0097229) in view of Van Raalten et al. (PG Pub. 2019/0127588) in view of Zhao et al. (CN 103915621).
Regarding claim 26, Jo et al. teaches a cathode comprising a positive active material, a conducting agent, a binder, and a solvent [0123 and 0126]. The cathode comprises the conductive material is as set forth in the rejection of claim 21 above and fully incorporated herein by reference. Jo et al. does mention the inclusion of sulfur, but in a list of items. However, Zhao et al. teach sulfur composite in the positive active agent in order to improve cycle characteristics. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the sulfur composite of Zhao et al. in Jo et al. in order to improve cycle characteristics and arrive at the claimed invention.
Prior Art Not Used but Relevant
CN 103682361 teaches a lithium-sulfur battery.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAWN MCKINNON whose telephone number is (571)272-6116. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday generally 8:00am-5:00pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Marla McConnell can be reached at 571-270-7692. 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.
/Shawn Mckinnon/Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights