DETAILED ACTION
Introductory Notes
Any paragraph citation of the instant is in reference to the U.S. published patent application.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/6/2025 has been entered.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5, 9-15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by UONO (Hiroyuki Uono et al 2006 J. Electrochem. Soc. 153 A1708. July 11, 2006.).
Regarding claims 1, 10, and 15, UONO discloses an active material for negative electrode (Title) comprising:
porous silicon-based particles (“Si powders” pg. A1708 col. 1, par. 4; regarding porous, the silicon powder will be in some manner porous; the porosity disclosed in the instant is a measured property of the silicon-based particles and there is notably no disclosure of any methodology or example imparting or adjusting the porosity of the silicon-based particle); and
carbon particles (“pitch cokes, and graphite powders” pg. A1708 col. 1, par. 4),
wherein the carbon particles comprise fine carbon particles (graphite powders) and coarse carbon particles (pitch cokes) respectively having different average particle diameters,
wherein an average particle diameter (D50) of the fine carbon particles is in a range of 1 µm to 5 µm (three different graphite powders including SFG6 with mean size “4 µm” pg. A1708 col. 2, par. 1),
wherein an average particle diameter (D50) of the coarse carbon particles is in a range of 10 µm to 30 µm (“mean particle size 20 µm” pg. A1708 col. 2, par. 1),
wherein the coarse carbon particles are included in an amount of 70 wt% to 99 wt% based on the total weight of all of the fine carbon particles and coarse carbon particles (“composition of Si:pitch cokes:graphite = 1:3:1, in terms of mass ratio” pg. A1708 col. 2, par. 2; as such the amount of coarse particles relative to fine and coarse is 75%), and
wherein the shape of the fine carbon particles is spherical, point-like, scaly, or a mixture thereof (graphite powder reading on spherical, scaly and/or mixture thereof and it matches the graphite used in instant example 1 [0079]).
Regarding claim 2, UONO discloses a mixing ratio of the porous silicon-based particles to the carbon particles is in a range of 1:1 to 1:20 as a weight ratio (“composition of Si:pitch cokes:graphite = 1:3:1, in terms of mass ratio” pg. A1708 col. 2, par. 2; as such the amount of Si is 1:4 relative to the sum of carbon particles).
Regarding claim 3, UONO discloses the fine carbon particles are included in an amount of 1 wt% to 30 wt% based on a total weight of the carbon particles (“composition of Si:pitch cokes:graphite = 1:3:1, in terms of mass ratio” pg. A1708 col. 2, par. 2; as such the amount of fine particles relative to fine and coarse is 25%).
Regarding claims 5 and 9, UONO discloses an average particle diameter (D50) of the porous silicon-based particles is in a range of 1 µm to 20 µm, and the porous silicon-based particles are porous silicon (“prepared from micrometer Si powders … mean particle size 6 µm” pg. A1708 col. 1, par. 4 as well as samples C-F in Table 1).
Regarding claim 11, UONO discloses a shape of the coarse carbon particles is irregular, scaly, planar, fibrous, spherical, or a mixed shape thereof (pitch coke powder having a shape reading on irregular, scaly, spherical and/or a mixed shape thereof).
Regarding claim 12, UONO discloses the porous silicon-based particles and the carbon particles are mixed together or composited by mechanical milling (“milled lightly by an agate mortar” pg. A1708 col. 2, par. 1).
Regarding claims 13 and 14, UONO discloses a negative electrode comprising the active material for negative electrode and a lithium secondary battery (as disclosed in the experimental section including the fabrication of coin-type cells, see at least pg. A1709 col. 1, par. 1).
Regarding claim 17, UONO discloses the fine carbon particles are disposed between the porous silicon-based particles and the coarse carbon particles (“mixture of Si powders, pitch cokes powders, and graphite powders” pg. A1708 col. 2, par. 1; wherein via mixing there are numerous instances of fine carbon particles between silicon-based particles and coarse carbon particles throughout the mixture).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 3-5, and 8-17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FUJIWARA (JP 2004095306 A, listed on an IDS, machine translation used for citations) in view of TOSHIRO (JP 2013030355 A, machine translation used for citations).
Regarding claims 1, 10, and 15-16, FUJIWARA discloses an active material for negative electrode (Abstract) comprising:
porous silicon-based particles (“Si-containing particles” [0026]; regarding porous, the Si-containing particles will be in some manner porous; the porosity disclosed in the instant is a measured property of the silicon-based particles and there is notably no disclosure of any methodology or example imparting or adjusting the porosity of the silicon-based particle); and
carbon particles, wherein the carbon particles comprise fine carbon particles and coarse carbon particles respectively having different average particle diameters (“first graphite particles” and “second graphite particles” [0009]),
wherein an average particle diameter (D50) of the fine carbon particles is in a range of 1 µm to 5 µm (“second graphite particles having a 50% particle size D50 of 2 to 10 μm” [0056] as well as example 5 in Table 1 with a second graphite particles D50 of 4 µm),
wherein an average particle diameter (D50) of the coarse carbon particles is in a range of 10 µm to 30 µm (“first graphite particles having a 50% particle size D50 of 5 to 20 μm” [0056] as well as example 5 in Table with a first graphite particles D50 of 10 µm),
wherein the shape of the fine carbon particles is spherical, point-like, scaly, or a mixture thereof (graphite reading on spherical, scaly and/or mixture thereof and it matches the graphite used in instant example 1 [0079]).
FUJIWARA discloses a 2:1 ratio of first to second, or coarse to fine, graphite particles in paragraph [0063]. FUJIWARA does not expressly teach the coarse carbon particles are included in an amount of 70 wt% to 99 wt% based on the total weight of all of the fine carbon particles and coarse carbon particles.
TOSHIRO is directed to negative electrode of a lithium-ion secondary battery like FUJIWARA. TOSHIRO discloses second graphitic carbon material B has a particle size smaller than the first graphitic carbon material A (Abstract), again like FUJIWARA. TOSHIRO discloses “the active material B is more preferably 20% to 30% by weight of the active material A” [0036] as well as example 2 with “active material A and negative electrode active material B in a mixing ratio of 80/20” [0050] thereby reading on the ranges of claims 1, 3, and 4)
TOSHIRO teaches when the weight ratio of active material B (fine) is above the minimum “the voids can be filled” [0036] and when the weight ratio of active material B (fine) is below the maximum “it can suppress a decrease in capacity” [0036].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to balance the weights of coarse and fine particles in FUJIWARA to the 80:20 ratio of TOSHIRO in order to fill voids and retain capacity.
Therefore, modified FUJIWARA discloses the coarse carbon particles are included in an amount of 70 wt% to 99 wt% based on the total weight of all of the fine carbon particles and coarse carbon particles, as well as associated limitations of dependent claims (as taught by TOSHIRO)
Regarding claim 5, modified FUJIWARA discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above and FUJIWARA further discloses an average particle diameter (D50) of the porous silicon-based particles is in a range of 1 µm to 20 µm (“Si powder having an average particle diameter of 1 μm” [0060] as well as a D50 for the composite Si-containing particles of “20 to 35 μm” [0029]).
Regarding claim 8, modified FUJIWARA discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above and FUJIWARA further discloses the porous silicon-based particles comprise porous SiOx (where 0<x<2) (“silicon oxide” [0026]).
Regarding claim 9, modified FUJIWARA discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above and FUJIWARA further discloses the porous silicon-based particles are porous silicon (Si) particles (“Si alone” [0026]).
Regarding claim 11, modified FUJIWARA discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above and FUJIWARA further discloses a shape of the coarse carbon particles is irregular, scaly, planar, fibrous, spherical, or a mixed shape thereof (graphite reading on irregular, scaly, planar, spherical and/or a mixed shape thereof and it matches the graphite used in instant example 1 [0079]).
Regarding claim 12, modified FUJIWARA discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above and FUJIWARA further discloses the porous silicon-based particles and the carbon particles are mixed together or composited by mechanical milling (“mixing” [0063]).
Regarding claims 13 and 14, modified FUJIWARA discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above and FUJIWARA further discloses a negative electrode comprising the active material ([0063]) and a lithium secondary battery ([0067]).
Regarding claim 17, modified FUJIWARA discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above and FUJIWARA further discloses the fine carbon particles are disposed between the porous silicon-based particles and the coarse carbon particles (via mixing there are numerous instances of fine carbon particles between silicon-based particles and coarse carbon particles throughout the mixture).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FUJIWARA in view of TOSHIRO in view of KONISHI (US 20130164618 A1).
Regarding claim 2, modified FUJIWARA does not expressly teach a mixing ratio of the porous silicon-based particles to the carbon particles is in a range of 1:1 to 1:20 as a weight ratio.
KONISHI is directed to negative electrode active material, like modified FUJIWARA. KONISHI also similarly discloses the use of two carbon materials of differing sizes (first active material with D50 15 μm to 20 μm [0031] and second active material with D50 10 μm or less [0019]) as well a third active material which contains silicon [0020], like FUJIWARA.
KONISHI discloses the “third active material is 1 wt % to 10 wt % of the total weight of the negative electrode active material” [0022] as well as example 1 [0092] with a 10:90 ratio of silicon containing material to total carbon materials. Regarding the amount of silicon containing material, KONISHI teaches being above a minimum “to adequately ensure the effect of increasing the capacity” [0050] and being below a maximum “to successfully avoid the problem due to the volume change” [0050].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the ratio of silicon containing material to total carbon materials of KONISHI in the mixture of FUJIWARA to increase the capacity while avoiding problems due to volume change.
Therefore, modified FUJIWARA discloses a mixing ratio of the porous silicon-based particles to the carbon particles is in a range of 1:1 to 1:20 as a weight ratio (as taught by KONISHI).
a mixing ratio of the porous silicon-based particles to the carbon particles is in a range of 1:1 to 1:20 as a weight ratio.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FUJIWARA in view of TOSHIRO in view of BISWAL (US 20060251562 A1).
Regarding claim 6, modified FUJIWARA does not expressly teach the pore diameter of the silicon-based particles.
BISWAL is directed to porous silicon particles for a lithium-ion battery such as that of modified FUJIWARA. BISWAL discloses “the methods of the present disclosure can allow users to control the thickness, pore diameter and porosity of the pores” [0075] as well as “the porous silicon films of the present disclosure may also be split into small porous silicon particles” [0064]. BISWAL discloses “porous silicon particles of the present disclosure may have pores with diameters of less than about 2 nm (i.e., micropores), between 2 nm and 50 nm (i.e., mesopores), more than about 50 nm (macropores), or combinations of such pore diameters” [0067] and a range of “1 nanometer to about 5 micrometers” [0067]. BISWAL also discloses Fig. 8C which “shows weak absorption at low pressures, corresponding to few micropores, and a steep adsorption curve at higher pressures, suggesting the presence of macropores” [0105]. BISWAL teaches particles meeting the above characteristics as having “at least 3 times the capacity of the currently used anode materials” [0077].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to source or control the pore diameter of the silicon-based particles of modified FUJIWARA to within the range taught by BISWAL to increase capacity.
Therefore, modified FUJIWARA discloses an average pore diameter of the porous silicon-based particles is in a range of 30 nm to 500 nm (as taught by BISWAL).
Regarding claim 7, modified FUJIWARA does not expressly teach the surface area of the silicon-based particles.
BISWAL is directed to porous silicon particles for a lithium-ion battery such as that of modified FUJIWARA. BISWAL discloses “the methods of the present disclosure can allow users to control the thickness, pore diameter and porosity of the pores” [0075] as well as “the porous silicon films of the present disclosure may also be split into small porous silicon particles” [0064]. In comparing the macroporous silicon micro-particulates of BISWAL’s invention and commercial silicon nanoparticles BISWAL states “BET surface area for macroporous silicon micro-particulates was 46.84 m2/g, whereas for silicon nanoparticles is 34.86 m2/g” [0123] as such notably both the macroporous silicon micro-particulates and the commercial silicon nanoparticles have surface areas falling within the claimed range. BISWAL teaches particles meeting the above characteristics as having “at least 3 times the capacity of the currently used anode materials” [0077].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to source or control the surface area of the silicon-based particles of modified FUJIWARA to within the range taught by BISWAL to increase capacity.
Therefore, modified FUJIWARA discloses a specific surface area (Brunauer-Emmett-Teller (BET)-SSA) of the porous silicon-based particles is in a range of 5 m2/g to 50 m2/g (as taught by BISWAL).
Response to Arguments
Regarding art-based rejections, applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any interpretation applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Tanino (US 20120129033 A1) directed to electrode active material powder (which may include silicon) and two or more types of graphite powder wherein the average particle diameters of the two or more types of the graphite powder are different from each other.
Zaghib (US 20060147790 A1) directed to coating graphite with a multilayer of materials such as a ceramic and/or another smaller graphite
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRAVIS L MARTIN whose telephone number is (703)756-5449. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8am-5pm 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, Allison Bourke can be reached at (303)297-4684. 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.
/T.L.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1721
/ALLISON BOURKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1721