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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 09/26/2025 has been entered.
Priority
Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e).
Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application.
Status of Application
Claims 1-2, 5-6, 9-10, 12-14, 16-17, 20-22 are currently amended. Claims 13-14, 16-17, 20-21 are withdrawn. Claim 22 is new. Claim 1 is currently amended. Claims 3-4, 7-8, 11, 15, 18-19 are cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to amended claim 1 have been considered but are not found persuasive. Oh discloses wherein the silicon/silicon oxide-carbon composite comprises MgSiO3 crystals and Mg2SiO4 crystals, wherein a ratio of Mg2SiO4 intensity in a range of 2θ = 22.3° to 23.3° (IF) to MgSiO3 intensity appearing at 2θ = 30.5° to 31.5° (IE) appears to be slightly more than 1.
However, Oh further discloses that the composite comprising MgSiO3 crystals has high initial charge/discharge capacity, initial charge/discharge efficiency, and capacity maintaining rate (see Embodiment 1 and Embodiment 2 in Table 1) and the composite comprising MgSiO3 crystal has a low initial charge/discharge capacity, initial charge/discharge efficiency, and low capacity maintaining rate (see Comparison 2). Thus, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to have controlled the amount of MgSiO3 crystal and Mg2SiO4 crystal in the silicon/silicon oxide-carbon composite of Embodiment 2 to control the initial charge/discharge capacity, initial charge/discharge efficiency, and capacity maintaining rate of the battery cell. See the rejection for claim 1 below.
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) 1-2,5-6,9-10,12 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh (JP6306767B1, US equivalent/IDS cited US20180269475A1 was used for citation, IDS 03/24/2023).
Regarding claims 1-2, 22, Oh discloses a silicon/silicon oxide-carbon composite (i.e., Si—MgSiO3—MgSiO4—SiOx-C Series Silicon Oxide Composite; Embodiment 2 [0066]) for use in negative electrode active materials for lithium secondary batteries (title).
Oh discloses that the composite is manufactured in the same manner with Embodiment 1, except that a natural cooling was used instead of water-cooling.
Oh further discloses:
said silicon/silicon oxide-carbon composite having a core-shell structure (“silicon oxide composite clad with carbon”; Embodiment 2 [0049], Fig 1)
wherein a core of the core-shell structure comprises:
a silicon fine particle [0072],
a silicon oxide compound represented by SiOx (0 <x< 2) (“amorphous silicon oxide” [0073]), and
magnesium silicate (i.e., MgSiO3 and Mg2SiO4 [0072]);
a shell of the core-shell structure is formed of a carbon film (i.e., “carbon layer” clad with graphene [0056]) (claim 2).
Oh does not explicitly disclose an electric conductivity of the silicon/silicon oxide-carbon composite.
However, Oh discloses wherein a silicon/silicon oxide-carbon composite is made with the following steps (i.e., same steps as Embodiment 1 [0049]):
8kg of a silicon powder with an average particle size of 20μm, and 16 kg of a silicon dioxide powder with an average particle size is 20 nm, are placed into 50 kg of water and uniformly mixing them by agitation for 12 hours, a raw material powder mixture was formed through drying for 24 hours at 200° C.
2 kg of metallic magnesium and the raw material powder mixture were each respectively put into crucible A and crucible B of a vacuum reactor, which are heated up to 1500° C and 900° C respectively for 5 hours
A silicon oxide composite lump was cooled down to room temperature and milled through a mechanical process for controlling its particle size and an average particle size became 6 μm.
50g of the milled silicon oxide composite powder is placed into a tube-type electric furnace with flowing argon and methane gas by 1L/min for one hour at 900° C
The instant application also discloses wherein the Silicon/silicon oxide-carbon composite is made with the following steps (PG Pub Example 9; [0157-0162, 0176]):
8 kg of a silicon powder having an average particle diameter of 20μm and 16 kg of a silicon dioxide powder having an average particle diameter of 20 nm were added to 50 kg of water, which was homogeneously mixed for 12 hours and then dried at 200° C. for 24 hours [0158]
The silicon-silicon oxide mixture and 2 kg of metallic magnesium were put into a vacuum reactor, and the temperature was raised to 1,400° C. to evaporate and deposit them for 5 hours [0159]
The silicon-silicon oxide composite was rapidly cooled to room temperature [0160]
The cooled silicon-silicon oxide composite was pulverized and classified by a mechanical method for particle size control to obtain a silicon-silicon oxide composite A (a core) having an average particle diameter of 6 μm [0161]
50 g of the silicon-silicon oxide composite was put into a tube-type electric furnace and reacted at 1050° C. for 2 hours with methane gas and carbon dioxide gas flowing at 1 liter/minute [0162]
Since the silicon oxide composite of the instant application and Oh are made using substantially similar steps with similar components, a person having ordinary skill in the art would envisage the silicon oxide of Oh to have an electric conductivity of 0.5 S/cm to 10 S/cm, as claimed.
Oh further discloses wherein the magnesium silicate comprises MgSiO3 crystals and Mg2SiO4 crystals (see Fig 3 below), wherein
a ratio of intensity (IF) to intensity (IE), wherein IF is an intensity of X-ray diffraction peak corresponding to the Mg2SiO4 crystals appearing in a range of 2θ = 22.3° to 23.3° in X-ray diffraction analysis and IE is an intensity of X- ray diffraction peak corresponding to the MgSiO3 crystals appearing in a range of 2θ = 30.5° to 31.5°, appears to be greater than 1, which does not fall within the claimed range of “more than 0 and less than 1” (see Mg2SiO4 crystal peak appearing at 2θ=31° and MgSiO3 crystals appearing at 2θ = 22.9°; see the annotated Fig 3 below and [0072]).
PNG
media_image1.png
703
860
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Oh recognizes that the silicon oxide comprising both Mg2SiO4 crystal and MgSiO3 crystal (see Embodiment 2 in the Table below) has high initial charge capacity (710 mAh/g) and discharge capacity (630mAh/g), initial charge/discharge efficiency (89%) and capacity maintaining rate (87%), and further recognizes that having more MgSiO3 than Mg2SiO4, wherein MgSiO3 and Mg2SiO4 are non-reversible materials of silicon oxide that may be efficiently removed, improves capacity per unit weight of the composite [0104].
Oh further recognizes that the silicon composite comprising MgSiO3 crystal only (see Embodiment 1 in Table 1 below) has high initial charge/discharge efficiency (91%) with high capacity maintaining rate after 50 cycles (92%), wherein the initial charge/discharge efficiency is improved by removing non-reversible factors (i.e., MgSiO3) while maintaining high discharge capacity of the silicon oxide (see Embodiment 1; [0099]).
PNG
media_image2.png
349
518
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Oh further recognizes that the Mg2SiO4 crystal in the silicon oxide composite reduces the discharge capacity and initial charge/discharge efficiency, with respect to MgSiO3 of the silicon composite manufactured through Embodiment 1 or 2 ([0101]; also see Comparison 2 in the Table above).
Thus, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to have optimized the amount of MgSiO3 (IE) and Mg2SiO4 (IF) in the silicon composite of Embodiment 2, by way of routine experimentation, such that the composite comprises greater amount of MgSiO3 (IE) than Mg2SiO4 (IF), to arrive at the claimed ratio of “IF/IE is more than 0 and less than 1” in order to achieve the desired effect of increasing capacity per unit weight of the composite at the expense of reduction in the initial charge/discharge efficiency and capacity maintaining rate. {claim 22}
Regarding claim 5, Oh discloses the silicon/silicon oxide-carbon composite of claim 1, wherein a content of magnesium is 10 wt% by weight based on a total weight of the silicon/silicon oxide-carbon composite [Oh 0069], which falls within the claimed range of 3% by weight to 20%.
Regarding claim 6, Oh discloses the silicon/silicon oxide-carbon composite of claim 1, wherein the carbon film may further comprise a carbon nanotube [Oh 0056],
wherein a content of carbon in the carbon film is 5 wt % [0058], which falls within the claimed range of “2% by weight to 20% by weight based on a total weight of the silicon/silicon oxide-carbon composite”, and
wherein the carbon film has a thickness of “several tens of nanometers” [0056], which a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize as between 10-99 nm, which falls within the claimed range of “5 nm to 200 nm”. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to have selected such thickness range with a reasonable expectation to form a carbon layer that controls volume expansion of the silicon composite [Oh 0006].
Regarding claim 9, Oh discloses the silicon/silicon oxide-carbon composite of claim 1, wherein the silicon fine particle has a crystal size of 10nm [0074] which falls within the claimed range of “1nm to 20nm”.
Regarding claim 10, Oh discloses the silicon/silicon oxide-carbon composite of claim 1. However, Oh does not explicitly disclose a content of silicon in the core based on a total weight of the silicon/silicon oxide-carbon composite.
However, as discussed in the rejection for claim 1 above, Oh and the instant application disclose wherein the core is formed by mixing the same amount of silicon powder, silicon dioxide powder, and metallic magnesium in the same amount of water, and drying and heating at substantially similar temperatures. Thus, a person having ordinary skill in the art would envisage a content of silicon in the core to be 30% by weight to 80% by weight based on a total weight of the silicon/silicon oxide-carbon composite, as claimed.
Oh further discloses wherein the core has an average particle diameter of 6µm (i.e., particle size before cladding with carbon [Oh 0054]), which falls within the claimed range of 2.0 µm to 10 µm.
Regarding claim 12, Oh discloses the silicon/silicon oxide-carbon composite of claim 1, which has a specific gravity of 2.6 [0069], which falls within the claimed range of “1.8 g/cm3 to 3.2 g/cm3” and a specific surface area preferably from 3-30m2/g [0028], which encompasses the claimed range of “3 m2/g to 20 m2/g”. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to have selected the disclosed specific surface area with a reasonable expectation to provide a silicon oxide composite having good charge/discharge capacity [0017].
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 3/30/2026
Prosecution Insights