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 1-4, 6-11 are pending. Claims 5 is cancelled. Claim 1 is currently amended. Claims 9-11 are withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 1 currently recites “SiOx” which should read “SiOx”. Appropriate correction is required.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant’s argument/remarks, filed 06/17/2026, with respect to amended claim 1 has been fully considered, but is not found persuasive.
Applicant argues that Qien does not disclose “a silicon-based active material which is represented by SiOx (0≤x≤2)” as amended. Examiner respectfully disagrees as Qien discloses wherein a negative electrode active material layer comprises a silicon-carbon anode material comprising a silicon active material and a carbon active material, wherein the silicon active material is one or more selected from the list comprising silicon oxide and silicon suboxide [0014]. Thus, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have selected silicon oxide or silicon suboxide as the silicon-based active material with a reasonable expectation to provide an anode material having high specific capacity [0007]. Thus, Qien meets the claim limitation of “wherein the negative electrode active material layer includes a silicon-based active material which is represented by SiOx (0≤x≤2)”.
Applicant further argues that Yang teaches MWCNT having an inner diameter of 0.5-5nm, thus Yang does not teach the outer diameter range claimed in the present invention. Examiner respectfully disagrees as the argument is not commensurate with the scope of claim 1. Claim 1 currently does not require the thin-walled carbon nanotube to have an outer diameter of 4 to 9nm, thus the argument is not found persuasive.
Applicant further argues that Zhao in [0075] teaches a multidimensional conductive network formed by 3 components: graphene, CNTs, and carbon black, and it is improper to arbitrarily exclude graphene from among the three components and citing only the CNTs and carbon black. In this regard, Examiner notes that Zhao in [0012] teaches general weight percentages of the conductive agents in the conductive network, i.e., 0-15% graphene conductive agent, 0-15% CNT conductive agent, and 0-15% carbon black conductive agent [0012]. Thus, a skilled artisan would reasonably envisage the multidimensional conductive network to form even when the graphene conductive agent is not included (i.e., 0% graphene).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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) 1,2,4,8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qien (CN110444746A, translation attached for citation, previously cited), in view of Yang (US20180277837A1, IDS cited 12/29/2022)
Regarding claims 1-2, Qien discloses a negative electrode for a secondary battery comprising:
a negative electrode current collector (porous copper foil; Example 5; [0112]); and
a negative electrode active material layer formed on the negative electrode current collector [0112],
wherein the negative electrode active material layer includes:
a silicon-based active material (i.e., silicon-carbon anode material [0110] comprising silicon active material and silicon active material [0045]), wherein the silicon active material may be one or more selected from the list comprising silicon oxide and silicon suboxide [0014], wherein such silicon-based active material has higher specific capacity than traditional graphite-based carbon materials [0007]. Thus, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have selected silicon oxide and/or silicon suboxide as the silicon-based active material with a reasonable expectation to improve the specific capacity of the negative electrode [0007].
Qien further discloses wherein the negative electrode active material layer includes:
a conductive material (muti-walled CNTs and single-walled CNTs [0109]),
the conductive material includes thin-walled carbon nanotubes (i.e., multi-walled CNTs [0109]) and single-walled carbon nanotubes (single-walled CNTs [0109])
Qien further discloses the lengths of the carbon nanotubes [0016] but does not disclose wherein the thin-walled carbon nanotubes have a diameter of 4 to 9 nm and 3 to 7 walls, as claimed.
In this regard, Yang teaches an electrode comprising a silicon-containing material [Yang 0029] and a conductive shell material preferably selected from the group consisting of single-walled carbon nanotube, double-walled carbon nanotube, and multi-walled carbon nanotube having 3-6 walls [Yang 0022-0023], which is wholly within the claimed range of “3 to 7 walls”. Yang further teaches that the carbon nanotube has an inner diameter of 0.5-5nm, which overlaps with the claimed “diameter of 4 to 9nm”. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the MWCNT of Qien such that it has the overlapping diameter and number of walls, with a reasonable expectation to provide a conductive additive that enhances electrical conductivity [Yang 0004].
Qien further discloses in Example 5, wherein a silicon-carbon anode slurry comprises 94.25 wt% silicon-carbon negative electrode material (20% Si active material + 80% Carbon active material; i.e., 18.85wt% Si active material based on a 100wt% of the slurry), 0.25 wt% SWCNT, 1.5 wt% MWCNT, 2wt% CMC, and 2wt% SBR (see Example 5 in Table 1), which a person having ordinary skill in the art would calculate and recognize that the MWCNTs are included in an amount of about 8 wt% with respect to a total of 100wt% of the silicon-based active material, which falls within the claimed range of “3 wt% to 9 wt%”.
A person having ordinary skill would further calculate and recognize that a weight ratio between the thin-walled carbon nanotubes and the single-walled carbon nanotubes is 1.5:0.25 (i.e., 1:0.17), which falls within the claimed range of “1:0.05 to 0.25”.
Regarding claim 4, modified Qien discloses the negative electrode for a secondary battery of claim 1, comprising 18.85wt% Si active material, 1.5 wt% MWCNT, 0.25 wt% SWCNT (see rejection for claim 1). When recalculated based on a total 100wt% of the silicon-based active material, the SWCNT content corresponds to 1.3 wt%, which is close but does not fall within the claimed range of “0.15 wt% or more and 1 wt% or less with respect to a total of 100 wt% of the silicon-based active material”. Qien further does not explicitly disclose a SWCNT wt% range.
However, Qien recognizes that using SWCNT alone provides high energy density (See comparative Examples 1, 3, 4 in the Table) and using both SWCNT and MWCNT improves the negative electrode sheet expansion rate and cycle performance of lithium ion batteries [0133]. Thus, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to have optimized the amount of SWCNT in the negative electrode active material layer, by way of routine experimentation, to arrive at a desired balance between energy density and electrode expansion rate [0113].
Regarding claim 8, modified Qien discloses the negative electrode for a secondary battery of claim 1, wherein the negative electrode active material layer further includes a binder (i.e., SBR in Example 5 [0111]).
Claim(s) 3,6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over unpatentable over Qien (CN110444746A, translation attached for citation, previously cited), in view of Yang (US20180277837A1, IDS cited 12/29/2022) and Zhao (CN105576185A, translation attached, previously cited)
Regarding claim 3, modified Qien discloses the negative electrode for a secondary battery of claim 1. However, Qien does not disclose “wherein the conductive material further includes one or more selected multi-walled carbon nanotubes having 8 or more walls and carbon black” as claimed.
In this regard, Zhao also teaches a negative electrode material comprising 80-99.5% silicon-carbon composite material, 0-15% carbon nanotube conductive agent, 0-15% carbon black conductive agent [0047], wherein the carbon nanotube is at least one of single-walled carbon nanotubes, multi-walled carbon nanotubes, and modified carbon nanotubes [0050].
A person having ordinary skill in the art would reasonably add carbon black to the conductive materials (MWCNT and SWCNT) of Qien, as Zhao teaches that the point-line-surface multidimensional conductive network formed by carbon nanotubes and carbon black conductive agent establishes good conductive channels between the silicon-carbon anode particles, resulting in a silicon-carbon composite anode sheet with low surface resistivity. It further reduces the charge transfer impedance of lithium-ion batteries and improves the cycle stability of lithium-ion batteries [Zhao 0075].
Regarding claim 6, modified Qien discloses the negative electrode for a secondary battery of claim 1. However, Qien does not disclose:
wherein the conductive material further includes carbon black, and the carbon black is included in an amount of 6 wt% or more and 15 wt% or less with respect to a total of 100 wt% of the silicon-based active material
In this regard, Zhao also teaches a negative electrode material comprising 80-99.5% silicon-carbon composite material, 0-15% carbon nanotube conductive agent, 0-15% carbon black conductive agent [0047], wherein the carbon nanotube is at least one of single-walled carbon nanotubes, multi-walled carbon nanotubes, and modified carbon nanotubes [Zhao 0050].
A person having ordinary skill in the art would calculate and recognize that 0-15 wt% of carbon black relative to 80-99.5wt% of silicon-carbon composite material is equivalent to 0-18.8 wt% carbon black with respect to 100 wt% of the silicon-based active material, which encompasses the claimed range of “6 wt% or more and 15 wt% or less”. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to have added the encompassed amount of carbon black, with a reasonable expectation to form a multidimensional conductive network that establishes good conductive channels between the silicon-carbon anode particles [Zhao 0075].
Regarding claim 7, modified Qien discloses the negative electrode for a secondary battery of claim 6, comprising thin-walled carbon nanotubes having a diameter of 4 to 9nm and 3 to 7 walls (see rejection for claim 1).
However, Qien does not disclose wherein a weight ratio between the thin-walled carbon nanotubes and the carbon black is 1:2 to 4, as claimed.
In this regard, Zhao also teaches a negative electrode material comprising 80-99.5% silicon-carbon composite material, 0-15% carbon nanotube conductive agent, 0-15% carbon black conductive agent [0047], wherein the carbon nanotube is at least one of single-walled carbon nanotubes, multi-walled carbon nanotubes, and modified carbon nanotubes [0050] (i.e., CNT:carbon black ratio is 0-15wt% : 0-15 wt%), which encompasses the claimed weight ratio between the thin-walled carbon nanotubes and the carbon black of 1:2-4. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to have selected the encompassed ratio of thin-walled carbon nanotubes and the carbon black, with a reasonable expectation to form a multidimensional conductive network that establishes good conductive channels between the silicon-carbon anode particles [Zhao 0075]. Alternatively, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have optimized the amount of carbon black and
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 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 8/25/2026
Prosecution Insights