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
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.
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) 1, 3, and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (CN1903793A) in view of Zettsu et al (US20210313559A1, hereinafter Zettsu)
Regarding claim 1, Li discloses a silicon-carbon composite material (Li, [0002]) for use as a negative electrode material for lithium-ion batteries (Li, [0044]). The composite material comprising a silicon matrix and carbon nanotubes grown thereon (Li, [0008]). Li discloses a wide range of lengths for said carbon nanotubes of between 10 nanometers and 100 micrometers (Li, [0008]), however Li does not disclose them as being either “fluffy” or “filamentary”. The examiner notes that the specification does not detail what differs between these populations other than different lengths [0054], therefore the examiner is taking the instant claim to mean two separate populations of carbon nanotubes differing in length. Zettsu discloses a conductive material including a first and second elongated carbon material having different lengths, with the first elongated material connecting a plurality of primary particles in the active material while the second elongated material is used to straddle between primary particles and connect secondary particles (Zettsu, [0053]). Specifically, Zettsu discloses the importance of both short and long carbon nanotube populations where short CNTs form a network structure connecting active material particles while long CNTs form continuous electron conduction paths overall improving electrical conductivity and adhesion between active material particles (Zettsu, [0012]). Although Zettsu discloses this material for a positive active material not a negative active material since both Li and Zettsu are solving the same problem of retaining conduction in the material (Li, Background) (Zettsu, [0012]) they are pertinent since the instant specification discloses the same problem being solved [0007].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to use the composite silicon/carbon material of Li with the two distinct CNT populations as described in Zettsu to gain the benefit of increased connection and conductivity between active particles of the active material.
Regarding claim 3, Zettsu discloses a length of the first elongated carbon material (fluffy) of between 0.2 to 1.0 micrometers. Zettsu also discloses a length of the second elongated carbon material (filamentary) of between 2.0 and 10 micrometers. Both of these overlap or lie within the claimed ranges. 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).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to use the carbon nanotube lengths given by Zettsu with the silicon/carbon composite of Li and Zettsu.
Regarding claim 7, Li discloses the silicon particles as elemental silicon (Li, [0016]).
Claim(s) 2 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (CN1903793A) in view of Zettsu et al (US20210313559A1, hereinafter Zettsu) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yang et al (CN102185128A, hereinafter Yang).
Regarding claim 2, Li discloses that the carbon nanotubes can be grown perpendicular to the surface of the silicon particles (Li, [0010]). Li and Zettsu do not disclose defects in the outer surface of the silicon containing catalyst particles. Yang discloses a silicon-carbon composite material for negative electrodes (Yang, [0031]). Yang also discloses a catalyst precursor existing in the pores of the silicon (Yang, [0020]), this catalyst precursor is then eventually made into a catalyst (Yang, [0032]). Yang further discloses this method of in-situ reduction eliminates the need for step-by-step processes, improves production efficiency, and reduces preparation costs (Yang, [0032]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to combine the silicon/carbon composite of Li and Zettsu with the implantation of catalyst into surface pores of the silicon as described by Yang to improve production efficiency and reduce preparation costs.
Regarding claim 8, Li discloses the use of elemental iron, cobalt, and nickel as a catalyst (Li, [0031]).
Claim(s) 4 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (CN1903793A) in view of Zettsu et al (US20210313559A1, hereinafter Zettsu) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Liao (CN111146421A).
Regarding claim 4, Li and Zettsu do not disclose the carbon nanotube content based on total weight of the silicon negative electrode material. Liao discloses a negative electrode material comprising silicon-based particles with a silicon containing matrix and a polymer layer comprising carbon nanotubes (Liao, [0007]). Liao discloses the wt% of the carbon nanotubes based on the total weight of the silicon-based particles of between 1-8 wt% (Liao, [0035]). Liao also discloses the problem of silicon as an active material of volumetric expansion and contraction during lithium insertion and extraction, this causing connection between the particles to fail (Liao, [0071]). Liao discloses that the described silicon-based particles can be used to address this issue (Liao, [0072]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to use the weight % of Liao with the silicon/carbon composite of Li and Zettsu to help further mitigate the volumetric expansion and contraction of the silicon particles.
This now overlaps or lies within the claimed ranges. 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).
Regarding claim 6, Liao also discloses a specified surface area of the silicon-based particles of being approximately 5-10 square meters per gram (Liao, [0041]). 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).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (CN1903793A) in view of Zettsu et al (US20210313559A1, hereinafter Zettsu) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yang et al (CN102185128A, hereinafter Yang) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Liao (CN111146421A).
Regarding claim 5, the combination described in claim 2 does not disclose a wt% of catalyst particles based on the total weight of the silicon negative electrode material. Liao discloses a negative electrode material comprising silicon-based particles with a silicon containing matrix and a polymer layer comprising carbon nanotubes and a transition metal (Liao, [0007]). The transition metal has a content based on weight of the silicon-based particles of 0.1-4 wt% (Liao, [0034]). Liao also discloses the problem of silicon as an active material of volumetric expansion and contraction during lithium insertion and extraction, this causing connection between the particles to fail (Liao, [0071]). Liao discloses that the described silicon-based particles can be used to address this issue (Liao, [0072]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to use the weight % of Liao with the silicon/carbon composite of Li, Zettsu, and Yang to help further mitigate the volumetric expansion and contraction of the silicon particles.
This now overlaps or lies within the claimed ranges. 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).
Claim(s) 9-12, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (CN1903793A) in view of Yuan (CN103985848A).
Regarding claim 9, Yuan discloses a method for preparing nonporous silicon using doped silicon particles. Yuan discloses a step 3 in this process as silicon particles placed in a solution including hydrofluoric acid (Yuan, [0012]) this solution being referred to as an etching solution and is heated (Yuan, [0021]). Subsequently, a step 4 is disclosed following step 3 of centrifugal washing (Yuan, [0013]), thus all together reading on the claimed step 1. Li discloses a step of mixing the matrix material with the catalyst solution (Li, [0016]) which can include iron nitrate (Li, [0014]), the mixture is then stirred and further dried reading on claimed step 2. Li then discloses a step following that of placing this dried mixture into a furnace under a argon and hydrogen atmosphere, once brought to temperature the gas can be changed to a carbon source gas mixed with argon and hydrogen (Li, [0019]). This high temperature also decomposes the iron nitrate into elemental iron.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to combine the etching and drying step of Yuan with the further steps of Li because the combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. (see MPEP § 2143, A.)
Also, since the claimed and prior art are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). Therefore, this also reads on the claimed end composition after step 4.
Regarding claim 10, Li discloses the gaseous carbon sourced being mixed with hydrogen and argon, reading on step 4 (Li, [0019]).
Regarding claim 11, Yuan discloses the etching step where the concentration of hydrofluoric acid is 2-8 mol/L, the temperature is 40-80 degrees Celsius, and the reaction time is 0.5-6 hours (Yuan, [0021]).
These now overlap or lie within the claimed ranges. 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).
Regarding claim 12, Li discloses a solution of iron nitrate as the precursor (Li, [0013], [0014]).
Regarding claim 14, Li discloses a temperature of 500-1200 degrees Celsius, a time of 20 minutes to 48 hours, and a gaseous carbon source of acetylene and methane (Li, [0019]).
These now overlap or lie within the claimed ranges. 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).
Claim(s) 13, 15-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (CN1903793A) in view of Yuan (CN103985848A) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Yue et al (CN102496701A, hereinafter Yue), Xie et al (CN111799448A, hereinafter, Xie), and Yang et al (CN102185128A, hereinafter Yang).
Regarding claim 13, Yuan and Li disclose the claimed step 2, however they do not disclose using spray drying and drying with stirring. They also do not disclose drying until the moisture content of the powder if less than 1wt% based on the total weight of the powder. Yue discloses a silicon-carbon alloy anode material for lithium-ion batteries and its preparation (Yue, [0007]). Yue disclose that its invention is used to suppress the volumetric expansion and contraction of silicon particles during battery charging and discharging by coating carbon on the surface of the silicon particles (Yue, [0054]), this is equivalent to the problem and solution of the instant application. Yue discloses during their method of production a drying step after mixing silicon powder, an additive, and a catalyst precursor wherein the drying step dries the slurry to a water content of less than 0.01% (Yue, [0009]). Yue does not disclose drying use spray drying and drying with stirring. Xie discloses a method for in-situ growth of carbon nanotubes on silicon (Xie, [0010]). Xie discloses a spray drying step before heating in an oven under inert atmosphere to uniformly coat the metal catalyst (Xie, [0015]). Xie does not disclose drying with stirring, Yang however discloses a silicon carbon composite material for lithium-ion anodes (Yang, [0012]). Yang discloses that this composite is composed of a porous silicon matrix and one-dimensional carbon nanomaterials grown on the matrix (Yang, [0014]). During the drying step before heating in a high-temperature furnace under inert atmosphere the mixture of matrix and a catalyst precursor is stirred and dried at 50 to 150 degrees Celsius to remove solvent and allow the catalyst precursor to exist on the surface or in the pores of the matrix (Yang, [0020]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to dry the mixture of Yuan and Li to the given moisture amount of Yue with both the spray drying technique of Xie and the drying with stirring of Yang to help spread the catalyst over and inside the silicon matrix as well as solve the problem of the volumetric expansion and contraction of silicon during charging and discharging of the battery.
Regarding claim 15, Yue discloses a lithium-ion battery including a silicon-carbon alloy anode material with particularly beneficial effects of suppressing volumetric effects during charge and discharge cycles (Yue, [0028]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to use the silicon negative electrode material prepared by the steps of Yuan and Li in a battery as mentioned in Yue to suppress volumetric effects during charge and discharge
Regarding claims 16-18, Yue discloses that these lithium-ion batteries can be used in things such as electric vehicles (Yue, [0004]). This inherently reads on these claims, as electric vehicles must have battery modules and battery packs, they are also electrical apparatuses.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA P BISTANY-RIEBMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-9591. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 7:30am-5pm.
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, Nicholas A Smith can be reached at 5712728760. 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.
/JOSHUA P BISTANY-RIEBMAN/ Examiner, Art Unit 1752
/NICHOLAS A SMITH/ Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752
Prosecution Insights