DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Claims 1, 3, 5, 7-11, 13, and 14 are currently pending. Claims 2, 4, 6, and 12 are cancelled. The previously stated 112, 1st and 2nd paragraph rejections are withdrawn. 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), Sun et al (US 2021/0367228), 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 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 at the time the invention was made 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 at the time the invention was made 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 ≤x≤4, and M comprises at least one of Li, Mg, Ti, and Al.
Liang et al discloses an anode material comprising a SiOy and an M compound such as Mg and Al, wherein 0.2<y<0.9 ([0011],[0013]).
Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made because the disclosure of Liang et al indicates that MgSiOy or AlSiOy is a suitable material for use as anode active material. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use has generally been held to be prima facie obvious (MPEP §2144.07). As such, it would be obvious to use MgSiOy or AlSiOy.
However, Miyuki et al as modified by Liang et al does not expressly teach a silicon-based material that further comprises a coating, and the coating comprising a polymer material and a carbon material (claim 1); the carbon material comprising at least one of amorphous carbon, carbon nanotubes, carbon nanoparticles, vapor grown carbon fiber, and graphene (claim 9); the polymer material comprises 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).
Sun et al discloses a negative electrode active material that is a silicon compound coated with a carbon material that is amorphous carbon ([0027],[0031]).
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 coating comprising amorphous carbon and polyacrylic acid in order to provide a coating layer that exhibits a stabilizing effect against the change in shape of the negative electrode active material as well as high adhesiveness and high followability to the negative electrode active material against volume expansion and contraction during charge and discharge ([0031],Sun); and 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],Jeong).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyuki et al in view of Liang et al, Sun 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, Sun 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/Sun/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), Sun et al (US 2021/0367228), 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 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≤x≤4, and M comprises at least one of Li, Mg, Ti, and Al.
Liang et al discloses an anode material comprising a SiOy and an M compound such as Mg and Al, wherein 0.2<y<0.9 ([0011],[0013]).
Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made because the disclosure of Liang et al indicates that MgSiOy or AlSiOy is a suitable material for use as anode active material. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use has generally been held to be prima facie obvious (MPEP §2144.07). As such, it would be obvious to use MgSiOy or AlSiOy.
However, Kawanaka et al as modified by Liang et al does not expressly teach a silicon-based material that further comprises a coating, and the coating comprising a polymer material and a carbon material (claim 1); the carbon material comprising at least one of amorphous carbon, carbon nanotubes, carbon nanoparticles, vapor grown carbon fiber, and graphene (claim 9); the polymer material comprises 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).
Sun et al discloses a negative electrode active material that is a silicon compound coated with a carbon material that is amorphous carbon ([0027],[0031]).
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 coating comprising amorphous carbon and polyacrylic acid in order to provide a coating layer that exhibits a stabilizing effect against the change in shape of the negative electrode active material as well as high adhesiveness and high followability to the negative electrode active material against volume expansion and contraction during charge and discharge ([0031],Sun); and 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],Jeong).
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, Sun 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, Sun 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/Sun/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 12/22/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that “Miyuki's R = 0.8 and Kawanaka's R = 0.77, both well outside the claimed fraction range of R = 0.01-0.20, and on σ values (>7,000 N/m and 2,800-2,900 N/m) far outside the amended σ range of 1000-1,800 N/m. This corresponds to a breaking load of ≥7,000 N/m, far above the currently claimed range
(greater than 1000-1800 N/m). This is not a "close enough" difference under the standard discussed in In re Woodruff 16 USPQ 2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) where a claimed process (40-80 °C, 25-70% acid) was deemed prima facie obvious over a reference differing only slightly (100 °C, 10% acid). Here, the disparity is substantial, not slight. Moreover, Miyuki expressly emphasizes that "the negative electrode current collector is also required to have a high tensile strength". Reducing the tensile strength to the claimed range would directly contradict Miyuki's explicit teaching and render its current collector material unsatisfactory for their intended purpose of preventing deformation and delamination caused by silicon expansion. Thus, Miyuki provides no motivation to modify σ in the manner proposed by the Office Action. Kawanaka likewise teaches that "to solve the problem of expansion, volume expansion is suppressed by using a negative electrode current collector having high tensile strength" and further describes maintaining this high strength (e.g., 2.9 to 8.5 N/mm, corresponding to 2,900 to 8,500 N/m) through controlled production conditions. This tensile strength range is significantly higher than the claimed greater than 1000-1800 N/m and is therefore not "close enough" under In re Woodruff. Reducing the absolute strength to the claimed greater than 1,000-1,800 N/m range would undermine Kawanaka's stated purpose and render its current collector unsatisfactory for its intended purpose of suppressing volume expansion. Thus, Kawanaka also fails to supply any motivation to modify σ as proposed by the Office Action.”.
In response, the Office takes the position that there is no evidence of criticality of the claimed absolute strength of the negative current collector that is greater than 1000 N/m and less than or equal to 1,800 N/m and weight fraction of silicon-based material that is 0.01 to 0.2 because the claims are not commensurate in scope with the Embodiments shown in Table 1. Specifically, the scope of Embodiment 1 includes a silicon oxide SiOx, (0.5≤x≤1.6) and Embodiments 24-27 includes a weight percent of the dopant metal elements in the negative electrode material that ranges from 1.17% to 2%. The improvements in cycle performance, cycle expansion rate, and discharge rate all depend on the specific characteristics of the negative electrode described in Embodiments 1-5 and 24-27.
The Applicant further argues that “There is No Motivation to Modify the Prior Art to Achieve the Claimed R, σ, and K Relationship”.
In response, as stated above, there is no evidence of unexpected results of the claimed R and σ. Therefore, the discovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art and based upon this optimization, the relation coefficient K would necessarily be present in the Miyuki/Liang/Sun/Jeong negative electrode or Kawanaka/Liang/Sun/Jeong negative electrode.
The Applicant further argues that “neither Sun nor Jeong teaches or suggests a dual-component coating comprising both a carbon material and a polymer material. Accordingly, the cited references neither disclose nor provide any motivation for the claimed feature that the silicon-based material further comprises a coating, and the coating comprises a polymer material and a carbon material”.
In response, the Office takes the position that Sun and Jeong provide motivation for a dual-component coating comprising both a carbon material and a polymer material which is to provide a coating layer that exhibits a stabilizing effect against the change in shape of the negative electrode active material as well as high adhesiveness and high followability to the negative electrode active material against volume expansion and contraction during charge and discharge; and 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.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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 3/17/2026