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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-5 and 8-19 have been fully considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection now addresses the newly-amended claims, as set forth below.
Drawings
On reconsideration, objections to the drawings are withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Objections to claim 1 are withdrawn in view of the amended claims.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 8-13, 16, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Jiang et al. (CN 114026713, as read via English equivalent, US 2023/0343937) in view of Zafiropoulos et al. (US 2024/0128455).
As to Claim 1, Jiang et al. discloses a silicon composite material, comprising a silicon-based material (see e.g. silicon-carbon composite particle) and a flexible material (see e.g. graphite, which reads on the claimed flexible material as per pg. 14, line 15 of the Instant Specification. See paras [0004]-[0005], [0008], and Fig. 1 of Jiang et al.), wherein hardness of the flexible material is less than a hardness of the silicon-based material (i.e., graphite has a lower hardness than elemental silicon) and the flexible material is located on at least part of a surface of the silicon-based material (see e.g. Fig. 1, the graphite flexible material abuts the silicon-based particles).
Jiang et al.’s silicon-based material is a silicon particle used as an active material (see e.g., [0042]). However, Jiang et al. does not disclose a silicon-based material that material comprises at least a silicon-carbon composite, wherein the silicon-carbon composite comprises a porous carbon material and elemental silicon located in pores of the porous carbon material. Further, Jiang et al. does not disclose a specific surface area of said porous carbon material is 500 m2/g-1800 m2/g.
Zafiropoulos et al., also working in the field of active materials for battery systems, teaches a silicon-based active material for a lithium-ion battery that comprises a silicon-carbon composite, wherein the silicon-carbon composite comprises a porous carbon material (see e.g. nanoporous carbon-based scaffold, including a carbon aerogel, [0012]-[0013]) and elemental located in pores of the porous carbon material silicon (see e.g. silicon in elemental form within the pore structure, [0011], [0040]-[0041]). Additionally, Zafiropoulos et al.’s porous carbon material has a specific surface area of 629.9 m2/g, which lies within and thereby anticipates the claimed range of 500 m2/g-1800 m2/g (see e.g. carbon aerogel, [0203]). Zafiropoulos et al. teaches that this silicon-carbon composite is suitable for use as an electrode material, and allows for increasing the amount of electrochemically active species while reducing swelling/shrinkage that reduces life cycle and power (see e.g., [0001], [0004]-[0006]).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the silicon composite material of Jiang et al. by substituting Zafiropoulos et al.’s silicon-based active material for Jiang et al.’s silicon-based active material. Said artisan would have found such a modification to be obvious because Zafiropoulos et al. teaches a silicon-based material that performs the equivalent function of working as an active material, and further because Zafiropoulos et al. teaches that this silicon-based material allows for increasing the amount of electrochemically active species while reducing swelling/shrinkage that reduces life cycle and power.
As to Claim 2, Jiang et al. in view of Zafiropoulos et al. teaches the silicon composite material according to claim 1, wherein the flexible material comprises a flexible conductive material, and the flexible conductive material comprises at least one of graphite and soft carbon (see e.g. graphite, [0005], Fig. 1).
As to Claim 3, Jiang et al. in view of Zafiropoulos et al. teaches the silicon composite material according to claim 1, wherein the Dv50 of the flexible material is less than the Dv50 of the silicon-based material (see e.g. paras [0015]-[0016] of Jiang et al.), the Dv50 of the flexible material is 1 mm-5 mm, and the Dv50 of the silicon-based material is 2 mm-7 mm (see e.g. para [0016] of Jiang et al., N is the Dv50 of the silicon-based particles, which ranges from 2 mm-10 mm, which overlaps and thereby renders obvious the claimed range of 2 mm-7 mm. The Dv50 of Jiang et al.’s graphite flexible material, M, is <10 mm, which overlaps the claimed range of 1 mm-5 mm).
As to Claim 4, Jiang et al. in view of Zafiropoulos et al. teaches the silicon composite material according to claim 1, wherein the silicon-based material and the flexible material are both granular materials (that is, particulate, see e.g. Jiang et al.: [0005] and Fig. 1), and the flexible material is distributed in a granular form on at least part of the surface of the silicon-based material (see e.g., Jiang et al.: Fig. 1).
As to Claim 5, Jiang et al. in view of Zafiropoulos et al. teaches the silicon composite material according to claim 1, wherein a mass ratio of the flexible material to the silicon-based material is (1-9):1 (see e.g. para [0020] of Jiang et al., stating that the graphite flexible material is present in an amount of 32% to 67% by weight and the silicon-based material is present in an amount of 25%-50% by weight, amounting to a mass ratio of (0.64-2.68):1, which overlaps and thereby renders obvious the claimed range of (1-9):1).
As to Claim 8, Jiang et al. in view of Zafiropoulos et al. teaches the silicon composite material according to claim 1, wherein a pore size of the pores of the porous carbon material is between about 2 nm and about 50 nm, which anticipates the instantly-claimed range of 2 nm-50 nm (see e.g. Zafiropoulos et al.: [0045]).
As to Claim 9, Jiang et al. in view of Zafiropoulos et al. teaches the silicon composite material according to claim 1, wherein a mass percentage of the elemental silicon in the silicon-carbon composite ranges from 5% to 95%, which substantially overlaps and thereby renders obvious the claimed range of 20%-60% (see e.g. Zafiropoulos et al.: [0189]).
As to Claim 10, Jiang et al. in view of Zafiropoulos et al. teaches a silicon composite material that comprises a covering layer that contains a metal oxide and carbon and partially covers the silicon-based material and the flexible material (see e.g. MeOy layer, which contains a metal oxide, a first carbon material, and coats a portion of the silicon-carbon composite particle. Jiang et al.: [0012]).
As to Claim 11, Jiang et al. in view of Zafiropoulos et al. teaches a silicon composite material according to claim 10, wherein the metal oxide comprises at least one of alumina and titanium dioxide (see e.g. metal covering layer given by the formula MeOy, where Me may include Al or Ti and y may range from 0.5-3, which encompasses AlO3 and TiO2. Jiang et al.: [0012]).
As to Claim 12, Jiang et al. in view of Zafiropoulos et al. teaches the silicon composite material according to claim 10, wherein a thickness of the covering layer is 0.5 nm to 100 nm, which overlaps and thereby renders obvious the claimed range of 5 nm-60 nm (see e.g. Jiang et al.: [0012]).
As to Claim 13, Jiang et al. in view of Zafiropoulos et al. teaches the silicon composite material according to claim 1, wherein Dv50 of the silicon composite material is less than or equal to 30 mm, which overlaps and thereby renders obvious the claimed range of 8 mm-40 mm (see e.g. Jiang et al.: [0009]).
As to Claim 16, Jiang et al. in view of Zafiropoulos et al. teaches a negative electrode plate, comprising a negative electrode current collector and a negative electrode film layer located on at least one surface of the negative electrode current collector (see e.g. negative electrode current collector coated with negative electrode active material, Jiang et al.: [0116]); wherein the negative electrode film layer contains a silicon composite material according to claim 1, as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above.
As to Claim 18, Jiang et al. in view of Zafiropoulos et al. teaches a secondary battery comprising the negative electrode plate according to claim 16 (see e.g. lithium-ion battery/electrochemical apparatus, Jiang et al.: [0061]-[0065]).
As to Claim 19, Jiang et al. in view of Zafiropoulos et al. teaches an electrical apparatus comprising the secondary battery according to claim 18 (see e.g. electronic apparatus, Jiang et al.: [0080]-[0082]).
Claim(s) 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang et al. (CN 114026713, as read via English equivalent, US 2023/0343937) in view of Zafiropoulos et al. (US 2024/0128455) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cai et al. (CN 113659125, as read via machine translation).
As to Claim 14, Jiang et al. in view of Zafiropoulos et al. teaches the silicon composite material according to claim 1.
However, Jiang et al. in view of Zafiropoulos et al. is silent as to the tap density of the silicon composite material, and does not explicitly disclose a silicon composite material wherein a tap density of the silicon composite material is 0.9 g/cm3-1.2 g/cm3.
Cai et al., also working in the field of active materials for lithium-ion batteries, teaches an analogous silicon composite material comprising a silicon-carbon composite (see e.g. Cai et al.: [0005]). Cai et al. teaches that silicon-carbon materials having a high tap density of >0.8 g/cm3 are desirable (see e.g. Cai et al.: [0004]-[0005] and [0007]). Additionally, Cai et al. discloses a silicon-carbon active material having tap densities ranging from 0.93 g/cm3 to 1.05 g/cm3, which lies within the instantly-claimed range, and which have high first Coulombic efficiency and high capacity retention (see e.g. Cai et al.: [0036] and Table 1).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to design the silicon composite material of Jiang et al. in view of Zafiropoulos et al. with a tap density in the range of 0.9 g/cm3-1.2 g/cm3, because Cai et al. teaches that tap densities in this range yield active materials with a first Coulombic efficiency and a high capacity retention.
Claim(s) 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang et al. (CN 114026713, as read via English equivalent, US 2023/0343937) in view of Zafiropoulos et al. (US 2024/0128455) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Youm et al. (US 2016/0211514).
As to Claim 15, Jiang et al. in view of Zafiropoulos et al. teaches the silicon composite material according to claim 1.
However, Jiang et al. in view of Zafiropoulos et al. is silent as to the specific surface area of the silicon composite material and does not explicitly disclose that the specific surface area of the silicon composite material is 0.8 m2/g-1.5 m2/g.
Youm et al., also working in the field of negative active materials, teaches an analogous silicon composite material comprising silicon and graphite (see e.g. Youm et al.: [0042], Fig. 1A). Youm et al. further teaches that this silicon composite material preferably has a specific surface area from 1 m2/g—10 m2/g, which overlaps and thereby renders obvious the claimed range of 0.8 m2/g—1.5 m2/g (see e.g. Youm et al.: [0063]). Youm et al. also teaches that when the silicon composite material has a specific surface area in this range, the resulting negative active material leads to excellent cycle-life characteristics when used in a secondary battery (see e.g. Youm et al.: [0063]).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to produce Jiang et al. in view of Zafiropoulos et al.’s silicon composite material with a specific surface area of 0.8 m2/g—1.5 m2/g as taught by Youm et al.. Said artisan would have been motivated to select this range because Youm et al. teaches that silicon composite materials having this range of specific surface areas yield negative active materials that offer excellent cycle-life characteristics.
Claim(s) 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang et al. (CN 114026713, as read via English equivalent, US 2023/0343937) in view of Zafiropoulos et al. (US 2024/0128455) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Li et al. (EP 3916845).
As to Claim 17, Jiang et al. in view of Zafiropoulos et al. teaches the negative electrode plate according to claim 16.
However, Jiang et al. in view of Zafiropoulos et al. is silent as to the compacted density of the negative electrode plate, and does not explicitly disclose a compacted density of the negative electrode plate of 1.3 g/cm3-1.75 g/cm3.
Li et al., also working on the problem of negative electrode plates for lithium battery systems, teaches that, in order to obtain a lithium-ion battery with higher quality energy density and volumetric energy density, it is desirable to have a negative electrode plate with a high compacted density (see e.g. Li et al.: [0004]). Li et al. further teaches an example negative electrode plate having a compacted density of 1.6 g/cm3, which lies within and thereby anticipates the claimed range of 1.3 g/cm3-1.75 g/cm3 (see e.g. Li: [0193]). Still further, Li et al. teaches that this negative electrode plate yields a battery having good cycle life (see e.g. Li et al.: [0204]).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to design the negative electrode plate of Jiang et al. in view of Zafiropoulos et al. with a compacted density in the range of 1.3 g/cm3-1.75 g/cm3, as taught by Li et al.. This is because Li et al. teaches that a negative electrode plate having a compacted density in this range yields a battery having a good cycle life.
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 ALBERT HILTON whose telephone number is (571)272-4068. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM EST.
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, Tong Guo can be reached at (571)-272-3066. 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.
/A.M.H./Examiner, Art Unit 1723
/TONG GUO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1723