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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in REPUBLIC OF KOREA on 04/05/2024. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the KR10-2024-0017188 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the mixture" in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 2-12 are also rejected based on their dependency on claim 1.
Claim 2 includes the limitation “wherein the step a-3) comprises further adding conductive metal-expanded graphite composite particles and then milling the mixture.” It is unclear if the addition of the conductive metal-expanded graphite composite particles is added at the same time as the surface-treated carbon nanostructure and the binder of step a-3) and then all components are milled together in one milling step such that the “milling the mixture” limitation of claim 2 is the same “milling the mixture” limitation of claim 1, or if the ”milling the mixture” of claim 2 is a separate step than the “milling the mixture” of step a-3) in claim 1, such that the addition of the “conductive metal-expanded graphite composite particles” takes place after the initial “milling the mixture” step of claim 1. For the sake of examination, either interpretation can be used.
Regarding claim 5, claim 5 limits “wherein the conductive additive includes polyacrylic acid, graphite, and water.” It is unclear to the examiner how, for example, water is considered a conductive additive. Further, the instant specification only defines the polyacrylic acid as the conductive additive and not the graphite nor water (see Summary pg. 3, lines 19-21). Further, a person of ordinary skill in the art typically interprets a “conductive additive” as electrically conductive, and it is unclear how polyacrylic acid can be considered a conductive additive. If the “conductive additive” is in reference to an ionically conductive additive, the limitation should be clarified as such.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the conductive metal" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as claim 6 is dependent on claim 3, not claim 2. For the sake of examination, the conductive metal is interpreted as the conductive metal of the limitation “conductive metal-expanded graphite composite particles” of claim 2.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “a coating liquid prepared by the method according to claim 7.” However, claim 7 does not recite a method, but a coating liquid. It is unclear what “method” claim 12 is referring to.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 12 fails to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 7, upon which claim 12 depends, limits “a coating liquid prepared by the method according to claim 1” while claim 12 limits “a coating liquid prepared by the method according to claim 7”, which is not further limiting. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 1, 3-5, 7-10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong et al. (US-20150311504-A1), hereinafter Hong.
Regarding claim 1, Hong teaches a method for preparing a coating liquid for a negative electrode of a secondary battery, the method comprising steps of:
a) preparing a carbon-based nanocomposite ([0152] example 3 a first suspension of carbon single wall nanotubes with silicon using a surfactant; alternatively [0036] graphene as the carbon nanoparticle such as specific example 2 in [0151]);
b) preparing a composite dispersion including a carbon nanotube and a conductive additive ([0152] the carbon nanocomposite was further mixed with PAA and water solution considered a conductive additive; carbon nanotube is already included in the carbon-based nanocomposite); and
c) mixing the carbon-based nanocomposite in the composite dispersion to prepare a composite coating liquid ([0152] slurry was mixed by mechanical stirring),
wherein the step a) includes steps of:
a-1) preparing silicon nanoparticles ([0152] silicon nanoparticles);
a-2) adding a surface treatment agent to a carbon-based nanomaterial to prepare a surface-treated carbon nanostructure ([0152] single wall carbon nanotubes added to a solution containing a surfactant and sonicated; [0108] surfactant is adsorbed on the nanoparticles’ surface); and
a-3) adding the surface-treated carbon nanostructure and a binder to the silicon nanoparticle and then milling the mixture ([0152] silicon nanoparticles are added to the solution contain the surfactant and single wall carbon nanotubes, sonicated, left in a vacuum oven, and then ground).
In specific example 3 of paragraph [0152], Hong fails to explicitly teach that in step a-3 a binder is also added with the surface-treated carbon nanostructure to the silicon nanoparticles. However, Hong does teach that the electrode compositions can include one or more binders as an optional ingredient to provide other desired chemical and physical properties and characteristics such as improved adhesion to the substrate (Hong [0081]). Hong also teaches that the slurry including the metal particles and carbon nanoparticle may contain a binder ([0145]). Therefore, it would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added the optional binder/adhesion promoter in step a-3 as Hong discloses it as a possibility in paragraphs [0145] and [0146] and doing so improves the adhesion to the substrate (Hong [0081]) and facilitates forming the compositions into films and/or membranes (Hong [0076]).
Regarding claim 3, Hong teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Hong also teaches wherein the silicon nanoparticles in the step a-1) have a particle size ranging from 0.1 to 150 nm ([0152] 50-70 nm). 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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 4, Hong teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Hong also teaches wherein the carbon nanotube is at least one selected from single-walled carbon nanotube (SWNT), double-walled carbon nanotube (DWNT), thin multi-walled carbon nanotube, and multi-walled carbon nanotube (MWNT).
Regarding claim 5, Hong teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Hong also teaches wherein the conductive additive includes polyacrylic acid and water ([0152] water and polyacrylic acid (PAA) are utilized).
The embodiment of specific example 3 of Hong fails to explicitly teach that the conductive additive includes graphite.
Hong does teach that additional agents to enhance electrical conductivity may be included such as graphite particles, and that the conductive agents may be introduced with the binder (Hong [0106]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hong and added a conductive aid as conductive aids are disclosed as being a possible addition in order to enhance electrical conductivity (Hong [0106]).
Regarding claim 7, Hong teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Hong also teaches a coating liquid prepared by the method according to claim 1 ([0152] formed a slurry to be applied to a current collector).
Regarding claim 8, Hong teaches all of the limitations of claim 3. Hong also teaches a coating liquid prepared by the method according to claim 3 ([0152] formed a slurry to be applied to a current collector).
Regarding claim 9, Hong teaches all of the limitations of claim 4. Hong also teaches a coating liquid prepared by the method according to claim 4 ([0152] formed a slurry to be applied to a current collector).
Regarding claim 10, Hong teaches all of the limitations of claim 5. Hong also teaches a coating liquid prepared by the method according to claim 5 ([0152] formed a slurry to be applied to a current collector).
Regarding claim 12, Hong teaches all of the limitations of claim 7. Hong also teaches a coating liquid prepared by the method according to claim 7 ([0152] formed a slurry to be applied to a current collector).
Claims 2, 6, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong as applied to claims 1 and 3 above, and further in view of Myabayashi et al. (JP-2886296-B2), hereinafter Myabayashi.
Regarding claim 2, Hong teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Hong also teaches that a conductive additive may be optionally added, and that the conductive aids may be added with the first suspension, second suspension, and/or the resulting mixture (Hong [0106]; [0146]). Hong fails to teach wherein the step a-3) comprises further adding conductive metal-expanded graphite composite particles and then milling the mixture.
Myabayashi is considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of batteries (pg. 1, paragraph 1). Myabayashi teaches that conductive metal-expanded graphite composite particles are a conductive agent (Myabayashi pg. 7, paragraph 13 a conductive agent such as a metal powder such as expanded graphite and aluminum is added).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hong and added a conductive aid such as conductive metal-expanded graphite such as in Myabayashi. Conductive metal-expanded graphite is a known conductive aid, and conductive aids are disclosed as being a possible addition into the mixture of the surface treated carbon nanomaterials and silicon nanoparticles of Hong in order to enhance electrical conductivity (Hong [0106]).
Regarding claim 6, Hong teaches all of the limitations of claim 3. Hong also teaches that a conductive additive may be optionally added, and that the conductive aids may be added wit the first suspension, second suspension, and/or the resulting mixture (Hong [0106]; [0146]), Hong fails to teach wherein the conductive metal is aluminum.
Myabayashi is considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of batteries (pg. 1, paragraph 1). Myabayashi teaches that conductive metal-expanded graphite composite particles are a conductive agent (Myabayashi pg. 7, paragraph 13 a conductive agent such as a metal powder such as expanded graphite and aluminum is added).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hong and added a conductive aid such as conductive metal-expanded graphite such as in Myabayashi. Conductive metal-expanded graphite is a known conductive aid, and conductive aids are disclosed as being a possible addition into the mixture of the surface treated carbon nanomaterials and silicon nanoparticles of Hong in order to enhance electrical conductivity (Hong [0106]).
Regarding claim 11, modified Hong teaches all of the limitations of claim 6. Modified Hong also teaches a coating liquid prepared by the method according to claim 6 ([0152] formed a slurry to be applied to a current collector).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20260196468 A1 teaches mixing SiO-C, artificial graphite, polyacrylic acid, carboxymethylcellulose, single wall carbon nanotubes, and multiwall carbon nanotubes in a water/ethanol solvent to from a slurry for an anode ([0118]);
CN 104425806 B teaches mixing aluminum powder, silicone oxide, natural graphite and expanded graphite to form a negative electrode material (pg. 8 example 8);
CN 105047925 A teaches that when expansion graphite is inserted into metal aluminum there is improvement in the heat conducting performance of the negative electrode material (pg. 4).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MADISON L KYLE whose telephone number is (571)272-0164. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9 AM - 5 PM ET.
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, Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at (571) 272-3433. 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.
/M.L.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1722
/ANCA EOFF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722
