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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on June 18, 2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments filed June 24, 2026 have been entered. Claim 1 has been amended; support for the amendments can be found at least in paragraph [0067] and Examples 1-8 in the Instant Specification. Claims 1-20 remain pending with claims 4-12 and 14-20 remaining withdrawn. Claims 1-3 and 13 have been examined on their merits in this office action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed June 24, 2026 have been fully considered. Applicant argues a) the preparation method of the negative active material of Pang is similar to Applicant’s preparation method of Comparative Example 2, which produces a grain size larger than 20 nm and unfavorable cycle characteristics; therefore, Applicant argues that the grain size of the lithium-silicate of Pang is not within the claimed range because Pang does not explicitly teach an initial heat treatment on the silicon monoxide carbon coating layer as taught by Applicant’s Example 1. Applicant argues this grain size of range is critical to the improvement of cycling performance as the negative electrode active material.
Regarding Applicant’s argument A, Pang is silent to the grain size of the lithium-silicate and an initial heat treatment in the preparation method described by Applicant’s method. However, Pang does teach an SEM image of the compound (see e.g., Figure 3), wherein the grain sizes of the islands (lithium-containing compound with nano-silicon) are on the scale of the recited range in the claimed invention. Even so, in view of the amendment to further limit the grain size of the Li2Si2O5 to be within 6 nm to 20 nm, a new grounds of rejection is provided below with a secondary reference of Kamo, who teaches a negative electrode active material comprising a silicon compound and a lithium silicate compound, wherein the lithium silicate compound has a grain size of 7.5 mm or less in order to facilitate the occlusion and emission of lithium ions and inhibit the breakage of the silicon-based active material particles at charging and discharging, thereby improving the capacity retention rate (see e.g., Kamo paragraph [0052]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claims 1-3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pang et al. (CN 106816594 A, citations from corresponding patent application US 2020/0058924 A1) in view of Kamo et al. (Published U.S. Patent US 20160315310 A1), hereinafter referred to as Kamo.
Regarding claim 1, Pang teaches a negative electrode material (see e.g., Abstract, an electrode material), wherein the negative electrode material comprises nano-silicon (see e.g., paragraph [0011], said composite comprising nano silicon), silicon oxide (see e.g., paragraph [0011], said composite further comprises silicon oxide), and crystalline Li2Si2O5 (see e.g., paragraph [0025], the silicon compound comprises Li2Si2O5).
Pang does not explicitly teach wherein the Li2Si2O5 crystalline grains have an average grain size of 6 nm to 20 nm.
However, Pang teaches an SEM image of the compound (see e.g., Figure 3) in which it can been that dark regions formed by a nano-silicon inlaid lithium-containing compound were uniformly distributed in the particle, which formed a sea-island structure in which the lithium-containing compound inlaid with nano-silicon was served as islands, and silicon oxide was served as the sea (see e.g., paragraph [0082]). In the SEM image of the compound, Pang teaches the grain sizes of the islands (lithium-containing compound with nano-silicon) are on the scale of the recited range in the claimed invention.
However, Kamo teaches a negative electrode active material containing a silicon compound expressed by SiOx and a silicon compound containing a lithium compound (see e.g., Abstract). Kamo teaches the silicon compound containing the lithium compound comprises a crystallite size of 7.5 nm or less (see e.g., paragraph [0049]) because the size facilitates the occlusion and emission of lithium ions and inhibits the breakage of the silicon-based active material particles at charging and discharging, thereby improving the capacity retention rate (see e.g., paragraph [0052]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill would have the grain size of the Li2Si2O5 of Pang to be 7.5 nm or less, as taught by Kamo, in order to facilitate the occlusion and emission of lithium ions and inhibit the breakage of the silicon-based active material particles at charging and discharging, thereby improving the capacity retention rate (see e.g., paragraph [0052]).
It has been held in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” and because grain size of 7.5 nm or less overlaps with the recited range, a “prima facie” case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05(l)).
Regarding claim 2, Pang, as modified by Kamo, teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 1, as previously described.
Pang teaches the negative electrode material, satisfying at least one of following conditions a-c:
a chemical formula of the silicon oxide is SiOx, where 0 < x ≤ 1 (see e.g., paragraph [0012], the chemical composition of the silicon oxide is SiOx, x is more than 0 and less than < 2, wherein x can be 0.1, 0.2, 0.5, 0.6, 0.8, 1, 1.2, 1.5, 1.75 or 1.8); and
the silicon oxide and the Li2Si2O5 have the nano-silicon dispersed therein (see e.g., Figure 2 and paragraph [0078], reference number 2 represents a lithium-containing compound, reference number 3 represents nano-silicon, and reference number 4 represents a silicon oxide and Figure 2 shows the silicon oxide and the Li2Si2O5 have the nano-silicon dispersed therein);
the Li2Si2O5 covers at least part of the nano-silicon (see e.g., Figure 2 and paragraph [0078], reference number 2 represents a lithium-containing compound, reference number 3 represents nano-silicon, and reference number 4 represents a silicon oxide and Figure 2 shows the Li2Si2O5 covers at least part of the nano-silicon)
Pang teaches the negative electrode material, satisfying at least one of following conditions f: the negative electrode material has an average grain size of 1 µm to 50 µm (see e.g., Figure 3, in the SEM image, the grain sizes of the composite appear to have an average grain size of less than 10 µm); it has been held in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” and because the average grain size of less than 10 µm overlap with the recited range, a “primia facie” case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05(l)).
Regarding claim 3, Pang, as modified by Kamo, teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 1, as previously described.
Pang teaches the negative electrode material, satisfying at least one of following conditions a:
a carbon coating layer is formed on a surface of the negative electrode material (see e.g., paragraph [0073], a carbon coating coated on the surface of the composite comprising nano-silicon, a silicon oxide, a lithium-containing compound).
a carbon coating layer is formed on a surface of the negative electrode material, and the carbon coating layer has a thickness of 10 nm to 2000 nm (see e.g., paragraph [0073], a carbon coating coated on the surface of the composite comprising nano-silicon, a silicon oxide, a lithium-containing compound; see e.g., paragraph [0045], the carbon coating has a thickness of 3-800 nm); it has been held in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” and because thickness of 3-800 nm overlap with the recited range, a “primia facie” case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05(l)); and
a carbon coating layer is formed on a surface of the negative electrode material, and a mass fraction of the carbon coating layer in the negative electrode material is 1 wt% to 10 wt% (see e.g., paragraph [0073], a carbon coating coated on the surface of the composite comprising nano-silicon, a silicon oxide, a lithium-containing compound; see e.g., paragraph [0055], he mass ratio of the carbon-coated silicon oxide to the lithium source in step (1) is 1:(0.01-0.3)); it has been held in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” and because thickness of 0.01-0.3 overlap with the recited range, a “primia facie” case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05(l)).
Regarding claim 13, Pang, as modified by Kamo, teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 2, as previously described.
Pang teaches the negative electrode material, satisfying at least one of following conditions a:
a carbon coating layer is formed on a surface of the negative electrode material (see e.g., paragraph [0073], a carbon coating coated on the surface of the composite comprising nano-silicon, a silicon oxide, a lithium-containing compound).
a carbon coating layer is formed on a surface of the negative electrode material, and the carbon coating layer has a thickness of 10 nm to 2000 nm (see e.g., paragraph [0073], a carbon coating coated on the surface of the composite comprising nano-silicon, a silicon oxide, a lithium-containing compound; see e.g., paragraph [0045], the carbon coating has a thickness of 3-800 nm); it has been held in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” and because thickness of 3-800 nm overlap with the recited range, a “primia facie” case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05(l)); and
a carbon coating layer is formed on a surface of the negative electrode material, and a mass fraction of the carbon coating layer in the negative electrode material is 1 wt% to 10 wt% (see e.g., paragraph [0073], a carbon coating coated on the surface of the composite comprising nano-silicon, a silicon oxide, a lithium-containing compound; see e.g., paragraph [0055], he mass ratio of the carbon-coated silicon oxide to the lithium source in step (1) is 1:(0.01-0.3)); it has been held in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” and because thickness of 0.01-0.3 overlap with the recited range, a “primia facie” case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05(l)).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Katherine N Higgins whose telephone number is (703)756-1196. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays - Thursdays 7:30-4:30 EST, Fridays 7:30 - 11:30 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, Matthew T Martin can be reached at (571) 270-7871. 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.
/KATHERINE N HIGGINS/Examiner, Art Unit 1728
/MATTHEW T MARTIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Prosecution Insights