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 .
Claims 1-14 remain in the application for prosecution thereof.
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.
Claims 1-12 are 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.
Regarding claims 1-12, the term “high” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1,3-9 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taniguchi et al. (2013/0334468) in combination with Mao et al. (7,618,678) further in combination with CN112713262.
Taniguchi et al. (2013/0334468) teaches a negative electrode material for non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery and method of manufacturing the same (abstract). Taniguchi et al. (2013/0334468) teaches preparing a silicon nanoparticle and coating the silicon nanoparticle with a carbonaceous material [0011],[0031]. Taniguchi et al. (2013/0334468) teaches the silicon nanoparticles to be formed by spray drying [0039],[0042]. Taniguchi et al. (2013/0334468) teaches the silicon nanoparticles being formed with a binder (claimed organic resin) and a solvent [0042] along with a flake graphite (claimed conductive material) [0074].
Taniguchi et al. (2013/0334468) fails to teach the carbon coating of the silicon particles to be by a solution of pitch in a solvent and carbonizing.
Mao et al. (7,618,678) teaches a similar carbon coated silicon particles for anode materials in a lithium battery whereby the carbonaceous material is formed from pitches and petroleum and is followed by carbonization (abstract and col. 4, lines 23-52). Mao et al. (7,618,678) teaches forming the carbonaceous material using a solvent (col. 5, lines 1-46). Mao et al. (7,618,678) teaches drying after coating with the carbonaceous material and teaches deposition at temperatures of up to 400C (claimed curing step).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Taniguchi et al. (2013/0334468) carbon coated silicon particle process by using a pitch coating solution with a solvent as evidenced by Mao et al. (7,618,678) with the expectation of producing the carbon coated silicon particles for forming anode materials for use in secondary batteries.
Taniguchi et al. (2013/0334468) in combination with Mao et al. (7,618,678) fails to teach a curing step after forming the silicon/carbon composite by spray drying.
CN112713262 teaches forming silicon oxide composite materials as a negative electrode material in a lithium battery whereby after spray drying a slurry to form precursor A of the particles are heat treated to form the precursor B which would meet the claimed curing at a temperature of 130C (abstract and pg. 5, 2nd to last paragraph).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Taniguchi et al. (2013/0334468) in combination with Mao et al. (7,618,678) process for manufacturing of silicon/carbon particles to include curing step after spray drying as evidenced by CN112713262 with the expectation of producing a dried silicon/carbon composite particle for anode material in battery production.
Regarding claim 3, Taniguchi et al. (2013/0334468) teaches the solvent used in forming the anode material by spray drying is water or alcohols including methanol or ethanol [0042].
Regarding claim 4, Taniguchi et al. (2013/0334468) teaches the binder to include polyimides [0042].
Regarding claim 5, Taniguchi et al. (2013/0334468) teaches adding graphite in forming the electrode material instead of carbon black [0074]. The Examiner takes the position that one skilled in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of achieving similar success with other known carbon conductive materials such as the claimed carbon black absent a showing of criticality thereof. Furthermore, carbon black is a known conductive material utilized in forming anode materials and would be expected to produce similar success.
Regarding claim 6, Taniguchi et al. (2013/0334468) teaches the silicon nanoparticles to be formed by spray drying [0039],[0042].
Regarding claim 7, Taniguchi et al. (2013/0334468) teaches the spray dried silicon nanoparticles to have a particle size of 2 microns – 200 microns [0048].
Regarding claim 8, Mao et al. (7,618,678) teaches the solvent utilized in forming the carbonaceous coating material to include toluene, xylene, quinoline, tetrahydrofuran (THF), etc. (col. 5, lines 29-35).
Regarding claim 9, CN112713262 teaches forming silicon oxide composite materials as a negative electrode material in a lithium battery whereby after spray drying a slurry the particles are curing at a temperature of 130C (abstract and pg. 5, 2nd to last paragraph). The reference is silent with respect to the time of curing, with regards to this, the Examiner takes the position that the curing time would be a matter of design choice by one practicing in the art absent a showing of criticality thereof as well as the curing time is a result effective variable which would have been optimized by one skilled in the art to produce the cured coating and would be dependent upon various criteria such as amounts of coating, thickness of coating, temperature of curing, etc.
Regarding claim 12, Mao et al. (7,618,678) teaches carbonization of 400C-1500C and preferably 900C-1200C which would be inclusive of the claimed 1000C-1100C (col. 7, lines 58-65).
Regarding claims 13 and 14, Taniguchi et al. (2013/0334468) teaches forming a negative electrode material for a secondary battery (abstract).
Claims 2,10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taniguchi et al. (2013/0334468) in combination with Mao et al. (7,618,678) further in combination with CN112713262 still further in combination with CN111312996.
Features detailed above concerning the teachings of Taniguchi et al. (2013/0334468) in combination with Mao et al. (7,618,678) further in combination with CN112713262 are incorporated here.
Taniguchi et al. (2013/0334468) in combination with Mao et al. (7,618,678) further in combination with CN112713262 fails to teach the addition of a curing agent in forming the silicon nanoparticles for spray drying.
CN111312996 teaches forming silicon carbon composite materials whereby a curing agent including an anhydride curing agent, amide curing agent or amine curing agent is utilized (pg. 5, 2nd to last paragraph – pg. 6, 1st paragraph).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of he claimed invention to have modified Taniguchi et al. (2013/0334468) in combination with Mao et al. (7,618,678) further in combination with CN112713262 process for manufacturing of silicon/carbon particles to include curing agent in the process as evidenced by CN111312996 with the expectation of excellent stability, high initial reversible capacity, Coulomb efficiency and charge-discharge performance.
Regarding claim 10, CN111312996 teaches forming silicon carbon composite materials whereby a curing agent including an anhydride curing agent, amide curing agent or amine curing agent is utilized (pg. 5, 2nd to last paragraph – pg. 6, 1st paragraph). (abstract).
Regarding claim 11, CN111312996 teaches curing the silicon carbo composite at 50C-100C for 1-6 hrs. While this is higher than that claimed of 10-27C, the Examiner takes the position that the claimed curing temperatures or parameters are a matter of design choice by one practicing in the art and would be expected to produce similar results, a cured silicon carbon composite absent a showing of criticality thereof.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN K TALBOT whose telephone number is (571)272-1428. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday 7-4PM.
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 571-272-1418. 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.
/BRIAN K TALBOT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712