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 .
Response to Arguments
The examiner is maintaining the rejections in the previous Office Action because
The Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. Accordingly, This Action Is Made Final.
The Applicant has argued that Claim 1 is not obvious over Park for the above-cited reasons. Further analysis is provided as follows: First, even on the basis of Park, a person skilled in the art would have difficulty conceiving of adopting the above distinguishing technical feature 1) to solve the technical problem addressed by the present application. 1. The technical problem solved by Park differs from that solved by the present application…2) Further defined are the ranges of 0.01<F<500, 0.1<Mo<20, and 0.1< Mi<50….First, even on the basis of Park, a person skilled in the art would have difficulty conceiving of adopting the above distinguishing technical feature 1) to solve the technical problem addressed by the present application… 2) Park does not disclose the specific heat treatment conditions of "heating to 1000°C at 5°C/min… Park does not disclose the particle size Mi (5-50 nm) after heat treatment and cooling”
The arguments above are not persuasive because there is no requirement that the prior art provide the same reason as the applicant to make the claimed invention (MPEP 2144 [R-5]). Furthermore, Park’s teaching of the anode material is heated to 10000C at a heating rate of 5°C/min (In some embodiments, the mixture is heated to about 900° C. to about 1350° C….the heat up rate and/or cool down rate of the mixture is about 10° C/min [0033]) is obviously close enough to be a optimized by a person having ordinary skill in the art.
More importantly, the Applicant is reminded that the all instant claims are directed to a product rather than a method of making or method of use. In addition, the arguments above are not persuasive because, the claimed “crystallization instability degree of the anode material a crystallization instability degree of the anode material is F, wherein F=(M1-Mo)/Mo, M1 >Mo, and 0.01<F<500” is property of the anode material, and chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, since Park as prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present (MPEP 2112.01).
The Applicant has argued that “The present application proposes an entirely new performance dimension: the thermal stability of the silicon grains, i.e., the ratio of their growth at elevated temperatures. This is an intrinsic thermodynamic/kinetic property of the material, rather than a mere structural size relationship…As set forth above, the entire text of Park contains no mention whatsoever of the concept of crystallization instability degree, nor does it contain any description that points to the technical approach of evaluating material performance by calculating the rate of change in the particle size of silicon grains before and after heat treatment”.
The argument above is not persuasive because the limitation “crystallization instability degree” is previously unappreciated property of Park, and as a result, “[T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer." MPEP 2112.
The Applicant has also argued “The objects are completely different. The 10-75 nm/10-50 nm dimensions in Park refer to the morphological size of nano-protrusions on the surface of micron-sized silicon particles, whereas M1 of the present application is the overall average particle size of intact silicon grains. The two differ entirely in terms of measurement object and structural hierarchy, and thus cannot be equated…The specific analysis of the above factual errors is as follows:
1) Park does not disclose the initial particle size Mo at 25°C (0.1-20 nm):
The entire text of Park does not define the parameter "average initial particle size Mo of the silicon grains measured at 25°C", nor does it disclose the specific range of "MO being 0.1-20 nm". Park does not disclose "primary particles/silicon grains" as a basic structural unit…The effects achieved within the scope of the present application represent a "qualitative change" rather than a "quantitative change":
The argument above about “silicon grains measured at 25°C” is not persuasive because particle size measurements are conventionally measured at room temperature which is 25°C, so a person have ordinary skill in the art would have measured Park’s particle size at room temperature. In addition, Park teaches an average particle size of the silicon grains of the anode material measured at 25°C is Mo nm, wherein 0.1≤Mo≤20 (A reduction in the initial size of the silicon particles can prevent further pulverization of the silicon powder as well as minimizing the loss of surface electrical conductivity [0036]; For example, in some embodiments, the silicon particles can have an average particle size…between about 10 nm and about 50 nm [0041]. Furthermore, the argument about “qualitative change” is not persuasive because the Applicant is arguing about is not claimed.
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 of this title, 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.
1. Claims 1, 3-6, 9, 15, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 20200303717).
2. Regarding claim 1, Park teaches an anode material, comprising secondary particles (The electrodes described herein can be used as an anode in lithium ion batteries [0021]), wherein the secondary particles comprise carbon materials and primary particles that are dispersed with each other, and the primary particles comprise at least one silicon grain (Providing the mixture can comprise providing the silicon particles…In some instances, providing the mixture can comprise providing graphite in the mixture [0010]), an average particle size of the silicon grains of the anode material measured at 25°C is Mo nm, wherein 0.1≤Mo≤20 (A reduction in the initial size of the silicon particles can prevent further pulverization of the silicon powder as well as minimizing the loss of surface electrical conductivity [0036]; For example, in some embodiments, the silicon particles can have an average particle size…between about 10 nm and about 50 nm [0041]); after the anode material is heated to 10000C at a heating rate of 5°C/min (In some embodiments, the mixture is heated to about 900° C. to about 1350° C….the heat up rate and/or cool down rate of the mixture is about 10° C/min [0033]) under nitrogen protection and then subjected to temperature holding for 1 h (For example, an inert atmosphere, a vacuum and/or flowing argon, nitrogen, or helium gas can be used…For example, polyimide formed from polyamic acid can be carbonized…for about one hour. [0033]), the average particle size of the silicon grains of the anode material measured at a temperature naturally cooled to 25°C is M1 nm, wherein 5≤M1≤50 (the silicon particles described herein generally have a larger average particle size….For example, in some embodiments, the silicon particles can have an average particle size between…about 10 nm and about 75 nm [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 (MPEP 2144.05).
3. Park obviously teaches the claimed crystallization instability degree since the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. (MPEP 2112.01).
4. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Park with optimized ranges for the benefit of an anode rolled into a sheet that is sufficiently deformable or flexible to be rolled without failures, such as cracks, brakes, mechanical failures [0003].
5. Regarding claim 3, Park teaches wherein the anode material meets at least one of the following features:(an average particle size of the primary particles is 1 nm-100 nm (less than about 100 nm, and about 100 nm [0038])
6. Regarding claim 4, Park teaches comprising a secondary particle, wherein the secondary particle comprises a matrix and the primary particle dispersed in the matrix (The one or more types of carbon phases can be a substantially continuous phase with the silicon particles distributed throughout the composite material [0004]; The hard carbon phase can be a matrix phase in the composite material [0048]).
7. Regarding claim 5, Park teaches wherein the primary particle has pores (The composite material may also include porosity [0053]), and at least part of the matrix is distributed in the pores of the primary particle (The one or more types of carbon phases can be a substantially continuous phase with the silicon particles distributed throughout the composite material [0004])
8. Regarding claim 6, Park teaches wherein the matrix comprises a carbon material (The hard carbon phase can be a matrix phase in the composite material [0048]), and the carbon material comprises at least one of amorphous carbon and graphitized carbon (In certain embodiments, the hard carbon phase is substantially amorphous [0048]).
9. Regarding claim 9, Park teaches the anode material meets at least one of the following features: meeting at least one of the following features:(1) a mass content of carbon in the anode material is 5%-80 (For example, in some embodiments, the amount of hard carbon in the composite material can have a value within a range of about 10% to about 25% by weight [0048]).
10. Regarding claim 15, Park teaches battery, comprising the anode material according to claim 1 (The electrodes described herein can be used as an anode in lithium ion batteries [0021]).
11. Regarding claim 16, Park teaches wherein pores are formed on surfaces of the silicon grains through etching treatment (The dried mixture can be rinsed to remove any solvents or etchants that may remain [0031]).
12. Claims 7, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 20200303717) in view of Pan et al. (US 20190280301)
13. Regarding claims 7, 17, and 18, the complete discussion of Park as applied to claim 1 is incorporated herein.
14. Park teaches wherein a thickness of a coating layer formed by the coating material is 5 nm-500 nm (The thickness of the polymer coating in various embodiments can be in the range of about 200 nanometers to about 5 microns (for example, about 200 nm, about 250 nm, about 300 nm, about 400 nm [0025]).
15. Park teaches wherein the polymer include at least one of diblock copolymer, triblock copolymer, and multiblock copolymer (For example, the precursor can include polyamideimide, polyamic acid, polyimide, etc (as copolymers) [0029]).
16. However, they are silent about the limitations of claim 7.
17. Pan teaches comprising a coating material located on at least partial surface of the secondary particle, wherein the anode material meets at least one of the following features: the coating material comprises at least one of an amorphous carbon material (Some Si nanowires were coated with a layer of amorphous carbon [0185]) for the purpose of improving the electrical conductivity of the anode material [0013].
18. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Park with Pan for the purpose of improving the electrical conductivity of the anode material.
Conclusion
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLATUNJI GODO whose telephone number is (571)272-3104. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 am - 5:30 pm.
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 Smith can be reached on 571-272-8760. 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.
/OLATUNJI A GODO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752
Prosecution Insights