DETAILED ACTION
Notice to Applicant
Claims 1-6 are pending and are examined herein. This is the first action on the merits.
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.
Claims 1 and 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Obrovac (US 2011/0215280 to Obrovac et al.) in view of Uchiyama (US 2020/0350563 to Uchiyama et al.) and Ham (US 2008/0113258 to Ham et al.).
Regarding Claim 1, Obrovac teaches:
an anode material for a non-aqueous battery comprising composite particles, of an active metal phase comprising, e.g., silicon, an insulating phase, and a conducting phase (abstract)
wherein the insulating phase comprises borates or oxides (¶ 0033), with specific examples comprising silicon active phase regions with lithium aluminate insulating phase (Table 2, examples)
wherein the insulating phase is the plurality or majority of the volume in the composite particles, larger than the active Si phase volume (Table 2)
Obrovac does not explicitly teach:
that the silicon phase regions are “dispersed” in the lithium aluminate phase, nor does it teach that the lithium aluminate contains boron, with an Al/B weight ratio of between 1-30
Uchiyama, however, from the same field of invention, regarding a composite particle of silicon active phase and an oxide phase, teaches that the active phase is dispersed in the oxide phase in a “sea-island structure” (¶ 0010), wherein the oxide phase can include aluminum and boron, including a matrix comprising both (¶ 0013 and 0115). Uchiyama’s example 1 provides a weight ratio for Al/B of around 3.8 (¶ 0108). Examples 8-9 also appear to fall within the claimed range.
Ham, also from the same field of invention, regarding an oxide matrix for an electrochemical device, teaches that a lithium aluminate matrix can be hardened with the addition of B2O3 (¶ 0016, etc.). Ham further teaches that the borate is up to 15 wt% of the matrix (¶ 0021) with specific examples of 5 wt% borate in a mixture with lithium aluminate, and a feed ratio of Al/B wt% of around 25 (¶ 0048-0050). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05 [R-5]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to produce sea-island type composite particles, as taught in Uchiyama, at least because Obrovac does not explicitly discuss particle morphology, but does teach providing an insulating phase that buffers and strengthens the composite, and wherein the active phase regions are a minority of the particle volume. Use of a known technique to improve similar devices, methods, or products in the same way, and applying a known technique to a known device, method, or product ready for improvement to yield predictable results has been found to be obvious. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). It further would have been obvious to provide boron to strengthen the lithium aluminate matrix, in order to improve the strength of the insulating matrix during cycling, and to provide boron as a minority component relative to aluminum within the claimed Al/B wt% ratio, as taught in Ham.
Regarding Claim 3, Obrovac teaches:
silicon grain sizes of less than 14.5 nm (¶ 0056)
Regarding Claim 4, Ham renders obvious:
borate is up to 15 wt% of the matrix (¶ 0021) with specific examples of 5 wt% borate in a mixture with lithium aluminate, and a feed ratio of Al/B wt% of around 25 (¶ 0048-0050)
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05 [R-5]).
Regarding Claim 5, Obrovac teaches:
a conductive coating layer (¶ 0039)
Regarding Claim 6, Obrovac teaches:
a battery with cathode, anode, and non-aqueous electrolyte (¶ 0047)
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Obrovac (US 2011/0215280 to Obrovac et al.) in view of Uchiyama (US 2020/0350563 to Uchiyama et al.) and Ham (US 2008/0113258 to Ham et al.), in further view of Minami (US 2017/0331108 to Minami et al.).
Regarding Claim 2, Obrovac does not teach:
porosity
Minami, however, from the same field of invention, regarding a composite particle with a silicon active phase dispersed in an oxide phase, teaches a porosity of 25% or less (¶ 0039). It would have been obvious to minimize the porosity, as taught in Minami, absent a specific teaching in Obrovac, in order to increase the energy density of the particles, while preventing excessive electrolyte infiltration of the particles that might reduce cycling capacity.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
WO 2017/199606 — teaches a composite particle with silicon active phase regions
Ham et al. “Development of reinforced matrix for molten carbonate fuel cells by using sintering aids.” ECS Transactions, 5(1) 445-449 (2007)
Zuo et al. “Low-dielectric-constant LiAlO2 ceramics combined with LBSCA glass for LTCC applications.” Ceramics International 43 (2017) 8951-8955.
Qu et al. “Remarkably Improved Cycling Stability of Boron-Strengthened Multicomponent Layer Protected Micron-Si Composite Anode.” ACS Sustainable Chem. Eng. 2019, 7, 19167-19175.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Dignan, whose telephone number is (571) 272-6425. The examiner can normally be reached from Monday to Friday between 10 AM and 6:30 PM. If any attempt to reach the examiner by telephone is unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tiffany Legette, can be reached at (571)270-7078. Another resource that is available to applicants is the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR). Information regarding the status of an application can be obtained from the (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAX. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, please feel free to contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). Applicants are invited to contact the Office to schedule an in-person interview to discuss and resolve the issues set forth in this Office Action. Although an interview is not required, the Office believes that an interview can be of use to resolve any issues related to a patent application in an efficient and prompt manner.
/MICHAEL L DIGNAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights