DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is responsive to the December 14th, 2025 arguments and remarks (“Remarks”). The
text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior
Office 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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 December 14th, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendments received on December 14th, 2025:
Claims 1, 3-14, and 16-18 are pending in the current application. Claim 1 is amended. Claims 2 and 15 are cancelled. Claims 8-12 are withdrawn. Claims 17-18 are newly added.
Claim 1 is amended to further limit the scope of the claim by utilizing the closed transition phrase “consists of” and identifying a specific group of alloy-based elements.
Claim 17 is newly added to specify components of the first composite particle utilizing the closed transition phrase “consists of.”
Claim 18 is newly added to include limitations from cancelled Claim 15 and address the previous objection to Claim 15. Said amendment has overcome the objection to Claim 15.
Applicant’s amendment finds support in the disclosure including the original claims and specification. No new matter has been added.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 3-7, and 13-16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as described below:
Claims 1, 5, 7, and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato et al. (C.N. Pat. No. 109980193 A) in view of Kurita et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20190334162 A1) (Cited in the IDS) and further in view of Ueda et al. (W.O. Pat. No. 2014046144 A1). The rejections are withdrawn in view of the amendment.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato et al. (C.N. Pat. No. 109980193 A) in view of Kurita et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20190334162 A1) and Ueda et al. (W.O. Pat. No. 2014046144 A1) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of (Tsutomu et al. (E.P. Pat. No. 1265307 B1). The rejection is withdrawn in view of the amendment.
Claims 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato et al. (C.N. Pat. No. 109980193 A) in view of Kurita et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20190334162 A1) and Ueda et al. (W.O. Pat. No. 2014046144 A1) as applied to Claim 1 and 5 above, and further in view of Kaoru et al. (J.P. Pat. No. 2007227138 A). The rejections are withdrawn in view of the amendment.
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato et al. (C.N. Pat. No. 109980193 A) in view of Kurita et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20190334162 A1) and Ueda et al. (W.O. Pat. No. 2014046144 A1) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Tsuchiya et al. (W.O. Pat. No. 2006115272 A1). The rejections are withdrawn in view of the amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed December 14th, 2025 have been fully considered as further described below:
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Cited Prior Art
Previously Cited Tsutomu et al. (E.P. Pat. No. 1265307 B1) (“Tsutomu et al.”)
Previously Cited Kaoru et al. (J.P. Pat. No. 2007227138 A) (“Kaoru et al.”)
Previously Cited Kurita et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20190334162 A1) (Cited in the IDS) (“Kurita et al.”)
Previously Cited Tsuchiya et al. (W.O. Pat. No. 2006115272 A1) (“Tsuchiya et al.”)
Tamaki et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20160006020 A1) (“Tamaki et al.”)
Zhamu et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20190379039 A1) (“Zhamu et al.”)
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, 3-7, 13-14, and 16-18 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 limitations “the first composite particles” and "the first active material particles" in Lines 16 and 18 respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Claim 1 recites “a first composite particle” (Line 3) and “a first active material particle” (line 4) in which are singular rather than plural. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 3-7, 13-14, and 16-18 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
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 16 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 16 is improperly dependent on Claim 15 as Claim 15 was previously cancelled and rewritten as Claim 18. 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. Appropriate correction is required. For the purposes of examination, the claim will be interpreted to depend from Claim 18.
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.
All figures included in previous office actions have been omitted.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tamaki et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20160006020 A1) as further evidenced by Zhamu et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20190379039 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Tamaki et al. teaches a negative electrode active material for a lithium-ion battery (composite active material for a negative electrode of a lithium secondary battery [0039], [0180]) comprising:
a first composite particle (analogous to a single flat particle of the plurality of flat particles constituting the composite active material [0017]), wherein
the first composite particle includes a first active material particle (battery active material [0018]), a second active material particle (graphite [0021]), an electronic conductor (hard or soft carbon, formed by subjecting a carbon precursor, such as pitch, to a heat treatment and mixing with alloy [0234]-[0235], it is well known in the field of endeavor that the hard or soft carbon can function as an electronic conductor as further evidenced by Zhamu et al. in which teaches pitch-derived soft carbon and pitch-derived hard carbon as suitable conductive additives for an electrode active material providing improved electrical conductivity [0015], [0076]), and a solid electrolyte film (an inorganic solid electrolyte covering the surface of the battery active material [0209]),
the first active material particle (battery active material) consists of an alloy-based negative electrode active material such as silicon alloy ([0092]),
the second active material particle includes graphite ([0021]),
the solid electrolyte film (inorganic solid electrolyte coating) covers the first active material particle (battery active material) ([0209]),
the second active material particle (graphite) supports the first active material particle (battery active material), the solid electrolyte film (additive), and the electronic conductor (carbide such as pitch derived hard carbon; note that despite the common definition of a carbide (carbon and a metal), Tamaki et al. defines a carbide as a carbon material derived from a carbon precursor throughout the disclosure) (Tamaki et al. teaches that since graphite exhibits a large surface area, the battery active material (first active material particle), additive (solid electrolyte film), and electronic conductor (carbide) are adhered to the graphite surface and sandwiched by the graphite [0209]),
a plurality of first composite particles (flat particles) are aggregated (stacked at close intervals) to form the second composite particle (composite active material) in which a plurality of the first active material particles (battery active material, silicon) are dispersed inside the second composite particle (composite active material) in a spheroidization step ([0084], [0161]-[0162]),
the second active material particle is graphite flake, and the graphite flake is folded and aggregated (stacked close together, spheroidized) to form the second composite particle (composite active material), and the first active material particle (battery active material) is enclosed within the folded graphite flake ([0270]).
Tamaki et al does not explicitly disclose that the electronic conductor is placed on a surface of the first active material particle.
"[I]n considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom." In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968) (see MPEP 2144.01),
Note: despite the common definition of a carbide (carbon and a metal), Tamaki et al. defines a carbide as a carbon material derived from a carbon precursor throughout the disclosure; Tamaki et al. teaches carbide as a carbon material such as hard or soft carbon derived from a carbon precursor [0235], the carbon precursor can include pitch [0113]. Tamaki et al. further teaches that the carbide (pitch-derived hard carbon in which can function as an electronic conductor as described above) functions to promote adhesion between the battery active material (first active material particle) and graphite (second active material particle) [0204]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the pitch-derived hard carbon (electronic conductor) to be in contact with a surface of the first active material particle and a surface of the second active material particle to ensure sufficient contact to promote adhesion there between.
Tamaki does not explicitly disclose that at least part of the electronic conductor is embedded in the solid electrolyte film.
[AltContent: textbox (Figure A)]
PNG
media_image1.png
530
680
media_image1.png
Greyscale
"[I]n considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom." In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968) (see MPEP 2144.01),
Tamaki et al. implicates contact between the pitch-derived hard carbon (electronic conductor) and the first and second active material particles as described above and further teaches the solid electrolyte film covering the surface of the battery active material (first active material particle) [0209]. It would be obvious for the pitch-derived hard carbon (electronic conductor) to be embedded in the film in order for the carbon to effectively function as an adhesive and provide sufficient contact between the first active material particle and second active material particle [0204], rather than solely between the solid electrolyte film and second active material particle (see Figure A, note that Figure A is not included in the prior art but is constructed to show a particle structure implicated by the teachings of Tamaki et al. as reasonably understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, size/shape of the particles are not to scale).
Tamaki et al. does not explicitly disclose that “the graphite flake is folded while being aggregated” (emphasis added). Tamaki et al. does not disclose the graphite flake folded and aggregated simultaneously. However, this is considered product-by-process claim language.
"[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP 2113(I)).
The period of time in which the graphite flake is folded such as prior to, while, or after being aggregated does not change the end product (a second composite particle comprising folded and aggregated graphite flakes). The process limitation “folded while being aggregated” imparts a folded and aggregated graphite structure in which is taught by the prior art.
Regarding Claim 3, Tamaki et al. teaches all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. Tamaki et al. further teaches the negative electrode active material including an amorphous carbon coating or film covering the surface of the second composite particle (composite active material) ([0107]). Therefore, all claim limitations are met.
Regarding Claim 5, Tamaki et al. teaches all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. Tamaki et al. teaches the electronic conductor (such as pitch-derived hard carbon) including a fibrous shape forming fibrous carbon ([0238]).
Regarding Claim 7, Tamaki et al. teaches all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. Tamaki et al. teaches a lithium-ion (lithium secondary) battery comprising the negative electrode active material ([0336]-[0338]).
Regarding Claim 17, Tamaki et al. teaches all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. Tamaki et al. teaches that the first composite particle (flat particles) consists of the first active material particle (battery active material), the second active material particle (graphite), the electronic conductor (pitch-derived hard carbon, [0318]), and the solid electrolyte film (additive) covering the surface of the first active material particle ([0209], [0321]).
Claims 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tamaki et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20160006020 A1) as further evidenced by Zhamu et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20190379039 A1) as applied to Claims 1 and 5, respectively, and further in view of Kaoru et al. (J.P. Pat. No. 2007227138 A).
Regarding Claim 4, Tamaki et al. teaches all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above.
Tamaki et al. does not teach a part of the electronic conductor being exposed from the solid electrolyte film.
Kaoru et al. teaches carbon nanofibers (36A) (electronic conductor) attached to the surface of the negative electrode active material and exposed from the negative electrode active material particle (34A) (Fig. 3). Kaoru et al. teaches utilizing a composite negative electrode active material in which carbon nanofibers are attached thereto to improve cycle characteristics of a nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery (Kaoru et al., para. 111).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the negative electrode active material of Tamaki et al. to include the electronic conductor being exposed from the negative electrode active material particle and extending from the surface as taught by Kaoru et al. Therefore, as the surface of the negative electrode active material of Tamaki et al. is covered by a solid electrolyte film, the electronic conductor will also be exposed or extended from the solid electrolyte film. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to perform the described modification to improve cycle characteristics of a nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery as taught by Kaoru et al.
Regarding Claim 6, Tamaki et al. teaches all claim limitations as applied to Claim 5 above.
Tamaki et al. does not teach the electronic conductor further including a metal nanoparticle placed on a surface of the first active material particle with the fibrous carbon starting from the metal nanoparticle and extending in a direction away from the metal nanoparticle.
Kaoru et al. teaches a catalyst element in the state of metal particles with a particle diameter of 1 nm to 1000 nm (metal nanoparticles) formed on the surface of the active material nuclei in which the carbon nanofibers are adhered thereto (Fig. 3, para. 40-41). The catalyst element (metal nanoparticles) provides an activation point for the growing carbon nanofibers (fibrous carbon) (para. 44). Therefore, the fibrous carbon (36A) extends from the metal nanoparticle in a direction away from the metal nanoparticle as further shown in Figure 3 above.
Kaoru et al. teaches metal particles comprising the catalyst element within the described particle size allows uniform dispersion of the metal particles on the surface of the active material nuclei and improved growth of the carbon nanofibers (Kaoru et al., para. 45-46).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the negative electrode active material of Tamaki et al. in which the electronic conductor includes a metal nanoparticle placed on the surface of the first active material particle and the fibrous carbon starts from the metal nanoparticle and extends in a direction away from the metal nanoparticle as taught by Kaoru et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to perform the described modification as described above to allow uniform dispersion of the metal particles on the surface of the active material nuclei and improved growth of the carbon nanofibers as taught by Kaoru et al.
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tamaki et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20160006020 A1) in view of Kurita et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20190334162 A1) (Cited in the IDS) as further evidenced by Zhamu et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20190379039 A1).
Regarding Claim 13, Tamaki et al. teaches all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. Although Tamaki et al. teaches an inorganic solid electrolyte ([0039]), Tamaki et al. does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the use of alternatives such as organic solid electrolytes (see MPEP 2143.01(I)).
Tamaki et al. does not teach the solid electrolyte film including a polymer Li-ion conductor.
Kurita et al. teaches a solid electrolyte including a polymer Li-ion conductor (polyethylene oxide exhibiting high ionic conductivity [0123]); Kurita et al. teaches a film formed by the solid electrolyte ([0057]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the solid electrolyte film of Tamaki et al. to include a polymer Li-ion conductor such as polyethylene oxide as taught by Kurita et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to perform the described modification to provide a solid electrolyte film in which exhibits high ionic conductivity as taught by Kurita et al.
Regarding Claim 14, Tamaki et al. teaches all claim limitations as applied to Claim 13 above. As applied to Claim 13, the solid electrolyte film of Tamaki et al. is modified by Kurita et al. to include a polymer Li-ion conductor such as polyethylene oxide. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to perform the described modification to provide a solid electrolyte film in which exhibits high ionic conductivity as taught by Kurita et al. Therefore, all claim limitations are met.
Claims 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tamaki et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20160006020 A1) in view of Tsuchiya et al. (W.O. Pat. No. 2006115272 A1) as further evidenced by Zhamu et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20190379039 A1).
Claim 16 is improperly dependent on Claim 15 as Claim 15 was cancelled and rewritten as new Claim 18. Therefore, Claim 16 is interpreted as dependent on Claim 18 for examination purposes. Appropriate correction is required (see rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) above).
Regarding Claim 16, Tamaki et al. is modified by Tsuchiya et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 18 below. As applied to Claim 18, the second composite particle of Tamaki et al. is modified by Tsuchiya et al. to include the central region comprising particles of a relatively large particle size.
Tamaki et al. does not teach a ratio of the cross-sectional area of the central region in relation to the total area of the second composite particle. While the reference does not explicitly disclose the specific area of the central region with respect to the area of second composite particle, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to adjust the area, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size (or dimension) of a component.
A change in size/proportion (dimension) is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). “Where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and the device having the claimed dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device,” Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984) (see MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)).
It is well known in the art that the area of the particles can affect the performance of the negative electrode active material in which can be adjust based on the figures and particle characteristics disclosed by the prior art. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to apply a ratio (size of a central region and surface region) in which achieves the advantageous effects of Tsuchiya et al. such as providing the electrode active material with improved particle distribution, ion mobility, and increased capacity (Tsuchiya et al., para. 31).
Regarding Claim 18, Tamaki et al. teaches all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. As applied to Claim 1, Tamaki et al. teaches a second composite particle formed of a plurality of aggregated first composite particles.
Tamaki et al. does not teach the second composite particle including a surface region and a central region, first active material particles of a relatively small particle size placed in the surface region, and the first active material particles of a relatively large particle size placed in the central region.
Tsuchiya et al. teaches a composite particle comprising an outer layer portion (surface region) comprising active material particles of a relatively small particle size and a core portion (central region) comprising active material particles of a relatively large particle size (Fig. 3, para. 30). Tsuchiya et al. further teaches the weight average particle diameter of the electrode active material of the surface region smaller than a weight average particle diameter of the electrode active material of the central region (para. 30). Tsuchiya et al. teaches the electrode active material as described provides improved particle distribution, ion mobility, and increased capacity (Tsuchiya et al., para. 31).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the second composite particle of Tamaki et al. to include a surface region and a central region in which [first] active material particles of a relatively small particle size are placed in the surface region and the [first] active material particles of a relatively large particle size are placed in the central region as taught by Tsuchiya et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to perform the described modification to provide the electrode active material with improved particle distribution, ion mobility, and increased capacity as taught by Tsuchiya et al.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINA RENEE DAULTON whose telephone number is (703)756-5413. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 AM - 5:00 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, ULA RUDDOCK can be reached at (571) 272-1481. 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.
/C.R.D./Examiner, Art Unit 1729
/ULA C RUDDOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729