DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 5/19/26 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1, 3, 5, 7-11, 13, and 14 are currently pending. Claims 2, 4, 6, and 12 are cancelled. The amended claims do overcome the previously stated 103 rejections. However, upon further consideration, claims 1, 3, 5, 7-11, 13, and 14 are rejected under the following new 103 rejections.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 7-11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyuki et al (JP 2013101919 A, machine translation) in view of Liang et al (US 2021/0226202), and further in view of Jeong et al (US 2019/0006679).
Regarding claims 1, 3, 7-11, and 13, Miyuki et al discloses a lithium secondary battery (electrochemical device) comprising: a positive electrode; a separator; and a negative electrode;
wherein the negative electrode comprises a negative current collector; and
a negative electrode mixture (negative active material layer), wherein the negative active material layer comprises a negative active material; wherein the negative active material comprises SiO (silicon-based material / negative electrode active material);
wherein a weight ratio of SiO to a total weight of the negative electrode mixture is 0.8 (R) ([0128]) and a breaking load (absolute strength σ) of the negative current collector having a width of 10 mm is 70 N which is 7 N/mm or 7000 N/m which corresponds to a relation coefficient K of 7000/(1.4 x 0.8 + 0.1) = 5737 N/m ([0059]); wherein a thickness of the negative current collector is 15 um ([0059]);
wherein the negative electrode mixture further comprises a polyimide resin binder and KB (Ketjen black) (conductive agent) ([0128]);
wherein the negative current collector is a stainless steel foil ([0120]).
However, Miyuki et al does not expressly teach an absolute strength of the negative current collector that is greater than 1000 N/m and less than or equal to 1,800 N/m (claim 1).
However, 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 Miyuki negative current collector to include an absolute strength of the negative current collector that is greater than 1000 N/m and less than or equal to 1,800 N/m because even if the range of prior art and the claimed range do not overlap, obviousness may still exist if the ranges are close enough that one of ordinary skill in the art would not expect a difference in properties (In re Woodruff 16 USPQ 2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)). There is no evidence of criticality of the claimed absolute strength of the negative current collector. Based upon the data presented in Table 1 of the present application, one of ordinary skill in the art would not expect a difference in cycle characteristics (“400-cycle capacity retention rate”, “200-cycle capacity retention rate”, and “discharge rate”) between the present invention (1000 to 1,800 N/m) and Miyuki (7,000 N/m) because these cycle characteristics appear to level off when the absolute strength of the negative current collector approaches 1,800 N/m.
However, Miyuki et al does not expressly teach a weight fraction R of the silicon-based material to the total weight of the negative active material layer, R that is 0.01 to 0.2.
However, 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 Miyuki negative electrode to include a weight fraction of the silicon-based material to the total weight of the negative active material layer that is 0.01 to 0.2 because it has been held that the discovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454. 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)). There is no evidence of criticality of the claimed weight ratio of the silicon-based material.
Examiner’s note: the Office further points out that the Miyuki negative electrode modified to include a weight ratio of the silicon-based material that is 0.01 to 0.20 would necessarily result in a K, relation coefficient, that is greater than 4,000 N/m.
However, Miyuki et al does not expressly teach the silicon-based material comprising one or more silicon oxide materials whose component is represented by a general formula MySiOX, wherein 0 ≤ y ≤ 4, 0.5 ≤ x ≤ 1.6, and M comprises at least one of Li, Mg, Ti, and Al, wherein a weight percentage of M in the negative active material 1.17% - 2%, wherein the silicon-based material further comprises a coating and the coating comprising a carbon material (claims 1 and 11); wherein the carbon material comprises at least one of amorphous carbon, carbon nanotubes, carbon nanoparticles, vapor grown carbon fiber, and graphene (claim 9).
Liang et al discloses an anode material comprising a SiOy, wherein y is, for example, 0.5, 0.55, 0.6, 0.65, 0.7, 0.8, or 0.85, and an M that is an active material selected from Mg and Al, wherein the M compound (M) is contained in an amount of 1%-60%, wherein the raw material comprising the SiOx contains an additive such as amorphous carbon coating, carbon nanotubes, or graphene; wherein examples of MySiOx include y that is 1, 2, or 4 ([0011],[0013],[0015]-[0018],[0022],[0038]).
Therefore, 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 Miyuki negative electrode active material to include MySiOx, wherein x is 0.5, 0.55, 0.6, 0.65, 0.7, 0.8, or 0.85 and 0 < y ≤ 4, and M is an active metal such as Mg and Al, wherein M is contained in an amount of 1%-60%, wherein the raw material comprising the SiOx contains an additive such as amorphous carbon coating, carbon nanotubes, or graphene in order to provide an anode material having high first capacity, high first coulombic efficiency, good cycle performance and small volume effect ([0010]). In addition, 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 Miyuki/Liang anode material to include a weight percentage of M in the negative active material that is 1.17% - 2% because it has been held that the discovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). The weight percentage of M is a result effective variable of optimizing the first coulombic efficiency of the prepared SiOy and the characteristic of low expansion of the silicon monoxide material ([0018]). Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454. 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)). There is no evidence of criticality of the claimed weight percentage of M.
However, Miyuki et al as modified by Liang et al does not expressly teach a coating comprising a polymer material (claims 1 and 11); wherein the polymer material comprising at least one of polyvinylidene fluoride or a derivative thereof, carboxymethyl cellulose or a derivative thereof, sodium carboxymethyl cellulose or a derivative thereof, polyvinylpyrrolidone or a derivative thereof, polyacrylic acid or a derivative thereof, and polystyrene butadiene rubber (claim 10).
Jeong et al discloses an anode active material comprising a silicon-carbon composite core coated with polyacrylic acid ([0089]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the Miyuki/Liang negative electrode active material to include a coating comprising polyacrylic acid in order to provide a coating layer that may suppress the side effects that could occur due to a volumetric change during charging/discharging, thereby enhancing lifespan characteristics of the battery ([0027]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyuki et al in view of Liang et al and Jeong et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee et al (US 2013/0280614).
However, Miyuki et al as modified by Liang et al and Jeong et al does not expressly teach in a diffraction pattern of primary particles of the silicon oxide material in an X-ray diffraction test, a first peak intensity attributed to a range of 20.5° - 21.5° is I1, a second peak intensity attributed to a range of 28.0° - 29.0° is I2, and 0 <I2/I1< 10.
Lee et al discloses a silicon-based anode active material having an X-ray diffraction spectra, where an intensity ratio of a second peak to a range of 28.0°-29.0° / a first peak to a range of 20.5°-21.5° (I2/I1) is greater than 0 and less than 1 ([0084] and Fig. 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the Miyuki/Liang/Jeong negative electrode active material to include a silicon oxide material in an X-ray diffraction test, a first peak intensity attributed to a range of 20.5° - 21.5° that is I1, a second peak intensity attributed to a range of 28.0° - 29.0° that is I2, and 0 <I2/I1< 1 in order to utilize an anode active material which can improve the initial charge/discharge efficiency of the secondary battery ([0011]).
Claims 1, 3, 7-11, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawanaka et al (US 2013/0260242) in view of Liang et al (US 2021/0226202), and further in view of Jeong et al (US 2019/0006679).
Regarding claims 1, 3, 7-11, and 13, Kawanaka et al discloses a battery (electrochemical device) comprising: a positive electrode; a separator; and a negative electrode;
wherein the negative electrode comprises a negative current collector; and
a negative electrode mixture (negative active material layer), wherein the negative active material layer comprises a negative active material; wherein the negative active material comprises Si and SiO (silicon-based material / negative electrode active material);
wherein a weight ratio of Si and SiO to a total weight of the negative electrode mixture is 0.77 (R) ([0037],[0050]) and a product of tensile strength and thickness of current collector (absolute strength σ) ranges from 2.9 to 8.5 N/mm (2,900 to 8,500 N/m) with an example of 5.3 N/mm (5300 N/m) which corresponds to a relation coefficient K of 5300/(1.4 x 0.77 + 0.1) = 4499 N/m;
wherein a thickness of the negative current collector is 12 um (Table 1, Example 13);
wherein the negative electrode mixture further comprises a binder such as polyvinylidene fluoride, cellulose, styrene-butadiene rubber, polyimide and a well known conductive auxiliary agent ([0026],[0028]); wherein the negative current collector is a copper foil ([0056]).
However, Kawanaka et al does not expressly teach an absolute strength of the negative current collector that is greater than or equal to 500 N/m and less than or equal to 1,800 N/m.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the Kawanaka negative current collector to include an absolute strength of the negative current collector that is greater than 1000 N/m and less than or equal to 1,800 N/m because even if the range of prior art and the claimed range do not overlap, obviousness may still exist if the ranges are close enough that one of ordinary skill in the art would not expect a difference in properties (In re Woodruff 16 USPQ 2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)). There is no evidence of criticality of the claimed absolute strength of the negative current collector. Based upon the data presented in Table 1 of the present application, one of ordinary skill in the art would not expect a difference in cycle characteristics (“400-cycle capacity retention rate”, “200-cycle capacity retention rate”, and “discharge rate”) between the present invention (1000 to 1,800 N/m) and Kawanaka (2,900 to 8,500 N/m) because these cycle characteristics appear to level off when the absolute strength of the negative current collector approaches 1,800 N/m.
However, Kawanaka et al does not expressly teach a weight ratio of the silicon-based material relative to the total weight of the negative active material layer that is 0.01 to 0.2.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the Kawanaka negative electrode to include a weight fraction of the silicon-based material to the total weight of the negative active material layer that is 0.01 to 0.2 because it has been held that the discovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454. 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)). There is no evidence of criticality of the claimed weight ratio of the silicon-based material.
Examiner’s note: the Office further points out that the Kawanaka negative electrode modified to include a weight ratio of the silicon-based material that is 0.01 to 0.20 would necessarily result in a K, relation coefficient, that is greater than 4,000 N/m.
However, Kawanaka et al does not expressly teach the silicon-based material comprising one or more silicon oxide materials whose component is represented by a general formula MySiOX, wherein 0 ≤ y ≤ 4, 0.5 ≤ x ≤ 1.6, and M comprises at least one of Li, Mg, Ti, and Al, wherein a weight percentage of M in the negative active material 1.17% - 2%, wherein the silicon-based material further comprises a coating and the coating comprising a carbon material (claims 1 and 11); wherein the carbon material comprises at least one of amorphous carbon, carbon nanotubes, carbon nanoparticles, vapor grown carbon fiber, and graphene (claim 9).
Liang et al discloses an anode material comprising a SiOy, wherein y is, for example, 0.5, 0.55, 0.6, 0.65, 0.7, 0.8, or 0.85, and an M that is an active material selected from Mg and Al, wherein the M compound (M) is contained in an amount of 1%-60%, wherein the raw material comprising the SiOx contains an additive such as amorphous carbon coating, carbon nanotubes, or graphene; wherein examples of MySiOx include y that is 1, 2, or 4 ([0011],[0013],[0015]-[0018],[0022],[0038]).
Therefore, 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 Kawanaka negative electrode active material to include MySiOx, wherein x is 0.5, 0.55, 0.6, 0.65, 0.7, 0.8, or 0.85 and 0 < y ≤ 4, and M is an active metal such as Mg and Al, wherein M is contained in an amount of 1%-60%, wherein the raw material comprising the SiOx contains an additive such as amorphous carbon coating, carbon nanotubes, or graphene in order to provide an anode material having high first capacity, high first coulombic efficiency, good cycle performance and small volume effect ([0010]). In addition, 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 Kawanaka/Liang anode material to include a weight percentage of M in the negative active material that is 1.17% - 2% because it has been held that the discovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). The weight percentage of M is a result effective variable of optimizing the first coulombic efficiency of the prepared SiOy and the characteristic of low expansion of the silicon monoxide material ([0018]). Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454. 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)). There is no evidence of criticality of the claimed weight percentage of M.
However, Kawanaka et al as modified by Liang et al does not expressly teach a coating comprising a polymer material (claims 1 and 11); wherein the polymer material comprising at least one of polyvinylidene fluoride or a derivative thereof, carboxymethyl cellulose or a derivative thereof, sodium carboxymethyl cellulose or a derivative thereof, polyvinylpyrrolidone or a derivative thereof, polyacrylic acid or a derivative thereof, and polystyrene butadiene rubber (claim 10).
Jeong et al discloses an anode active material comprising a silicon-carbon composite core coated with polyacrylic acid ([0089]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the Kawanaka/Liang negative electrode active material to include a coating comprising polyacrylic acid in order to provide a coating layer that may suppress the side effects that could occur due to a volumetric change during charging/discharging, thereby enhancing lifespan characteristics of the battery ([0027]).
Regarding claim 14, Kawanaka et al also discloses portable electronic device comprising lithium-ion secondary battery ([0004]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawanaka et al in view of Liang et al and Jeong et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee et al (US 2013/0280614).
However, Kawanaka et al as modified by Liang et al and Jeong et al does not expressly teach in a diffraction pattern of primary particles of the silicon oxide material in an X-ray diffraction test, a first peak intensity attributed to a range of 20.5° - 21.5° is I1, a second peak intensity attributed to a range of 28.0° - 29.0° is I2, and 0 <I2/I1< 10.
Lee et al discloses a silicon-based anode active material having an X-ray diffraction spectra, where an intensity ratio of a second peak to a range of 28.0°-29.0° / a first peak to a range of 20.5°-21.5° (I2/I1) is greater than 0 and less than 1 ([0084] and Fig. 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the Kawanaka/Liang/Jeong negative electrode active material to include a silicon oxide material in an X-ray diffraction test, a first peak intensity attributed to a range of 20.5° - 21.5° that is I1, a second peak intensity attributed to a range of 28.0° - 29.0° that is I2, and 0 <I2/I1< 1 in order to utilize an anode active material which can improve the initial charge/discharge efficiency of the secondary battery ([0011]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/19/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that “The cited references do not teach or suggest the newly incorporated limitations relating to the narrowed range of X and the weight percent of M, in combination with the other limitations of the claims as now recited, nor do they provide any teaching or motivation to arrive at such a combination. The present amendments further define the claimed invention in a manner consistent with Embodiment 1 and Embodiments 24-27”.
In response, upon further consideration, Liang also teaches SiOy anode material, wherein y ranges from 0.5 to 0.85 which is within the range of 0.5 ≤ x ≤ 1.6 recited in the amended claim 1. In addition, Liang also discloses M that is contained in an amount of 1%-60% by mass percentage and provides motivation to optimize the amount of M based upon the increase in first coulombic efficiency of the prepared SiOy. Since there is no evidence of criticality of the claimed weight percentage of M that is 1.17% - 2% based on Embodiments 24-27, the Office takes the position that one of ordinary skill would have been able to optimize the weight percentage of M in the negative active material by routine experimentation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TONY S CHUO whose telephone number is (571)272-0717. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00am - 5:30pm.
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 on 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.C/Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 9/28/2026
