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 .
Status of Application
Claims 1-5, 7 are currently pending. Claims 1,3 are currently amended. Claim 6 is cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1,2,3,4,5,7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR20130107892A).
Regarding claims 1,2, Lee discloses a negative-electrode active material for a secondary battery, comprising:
a core particle including a material that intercalates and releases a metal ion (i.e., hard carbon Example 1 [0114]; see core particle (2) in Fig 1) {claim 2}
a first layer including consisting of amorphous carbon (i.e., petroleum-based pitch [0114] in Example 1; see amorphous or semicrystalline carbon (5) in Fig 1) and formed directly on a surface including a basal surface of the core particle (see Fig 1; “basal surface” is interpreted as any surface of the particle based on PG Pub [0012] of the instant application);
Lee in Example 1 discloses wherein a second layer includes a silicon microparticles, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the second layer includes at least one inorganic compound, as claimed.
In this regard, Lee further discloses that the silicon microparticles may have a Si phase within the particle and a compound phase comprising at least one element selected from the list comprising O [0018]. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select Si-O (i.e., claimed inorganic compound) as the silicon microparticles with a reasonable expectation to improve battery output characteristics [0044]. Lee in Fig 1 further discloses wherein the second layer is “formed on the first layer and directly on the surface of the core particle” as claimed.
PNG
media_image1.png
686
802
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Lee in Example 1 further discloses wherein 35 wt% of hard carbon (D50=9μm) is mixed with 20 wt % silicon microparticles (D50 = 30-40nm) and 30 wt% of petroleum-based pitch [0114], and further shows wherein the first layer covers the core particle, the second layer covers the surface of the core particle as wells as the first layer, but does not explicitly disclose a coverage of the surface of the core particle with the first layer, a coverage of the surface of the core particle with the second layer, and a coverage of the first layer with the second layer.
In this regard, Lee recognizes that:
when the core particle is coated with the silicon alloy microparticle and the amorphous carbon, the lithium storage capacity is large, the capacity retention rate is high, the initial efficiency is improved, and the movement of lithium ions during charging and discharging is easy, resulting in excellent output characteristics and high charge/discharge capacity [0047, 0067, 0086]
Amorphous carbons bind the silicon alloy microparticle 4 (i.e., inorganic compound) and the core particle together [0042]
Silicon alloy microparticles (i.e., inorganic particles) improves the initial reversible capacity and initial efficiency [0167] and high charging capacity during high-rate charging [0175]
Thus, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to have optimized the coverage amount of the first coating comprising amorphous carbon and the second coating comprising inorganic compound, by way of routine experimentation, to arrive at a desired balance between improving high charging capacity during high-rate charging while also bonding the core and the inorganic compound
Regarding claim 3, Lee discloses the negative-electrode active material for a secondary battery according to claim 1. However, Lee in Example 1 does not disclose the thickness of the first layer.
In this regard, Lee discloses wherein the ratio of the average particle size (D50) of the core particles to the thickness of the shell layer may be 17-99.5 : 0.5-83 [0023], wherein Example 1 has a core having D50 of 9μm. A person having ordinary skill in the art would use the disclosed ratio and recognize that the shell thickness may range from 0.05 μm to about 38 μm, which overlaps with the claimed range of “1 μm or less”. A person having ordinary skill in the art would select the overlapping range with a reasonable expectation to provide a shell layer that improves the capacity [0086].
Regarding claim 4, Lee discloses the negative-electrode active material for a secondary battery according to claim 1, wherein the inorganic compound constituting the second layer (i.e., silicon oxide as modified above) is a compound having no lithium ion conductivity.
Regarding claim 5, Lee discloses the negative-electrode active material for a secondary battery according to claim 1, wherein the inorganic compound constituting the second layer is Si-O compound (as modified above). Lee further discloses that the silicon alloy microparticles may have Si phase and a compound phase comprising at least one element selected from the list comprising titanium, aluminum zirconium, and O [0018]. Thus, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to have added other elements such as the claimed titanium, aluminum, and zirconium, with a reasonable expectation to provide silicon alloy microparticles that improve battery output characteristics [0044].
Regarding claim 7, Lee discloses a secondary battery, comprising: a negative electrode including the negative-electrode active material according to claim 1 [0161]; a positive electrode [0159-0160]; and an electrolyte [0161].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAEYOUNG SON whose telephone number is (703)756-1427. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5pm.
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, Jonathan Leong can be reached at (571) 270-1292. 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.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 3/23/2026