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 and 6-7 are amended and claims 3 and 5 are cancelled, submitted on August 27, 2025. Claims 1-2, 4, 6-7, and 13 are presented for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
1. 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.
2. The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
3. Claims 1-2, 4, 6-7, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shinozaki (JP 2010170943 A, see machine translation for citation).
Regarding claim 1, Shinozaki discloses a silicon-based material (negative electrode material [0010]), wherein in an X-ray diffraction pattern ([0017] and FIGs. 3 and 5) obtained by using Cu Ka rays the silicon-based material comprises the following characteristic peaks: (A) a characteristic peak at 2θ = 23° ± 1° with an intensity IA (SiO2 peak, [0017] and first peak from left in FIG. 5 and buried in the wide peak around 22° in FIG. 3); (B) a characteristic peak at 2θ = 28° ± 0.5° with an intensity IB (the first crystalline Si peak, the highest peak in FIGs. 3 and 5); (C) a characteristic peak at 2θ = 48° ± 1° with an intensity IC (the second crystalline Si peak from left in FIGs. 3 and 5); and (D) a characteristic peak at 2θ = 56° ± 1° with an intensity ID (the third crystalline Si peak from left in FIGs. 3 and 5), and wherein: 1.2 ≤ IB/IA≤1.7; 1.8 ≤ IB/IC≤2.3; and 1.6 ≤ IB/ID≤3.0 (ratios of the respective areas under foregoing peaks in FIGs. 3 and 5); the silicon-based material contains crystalline Si, amorphous SiO2, crystalline Mg2SiO4, and a carbonaceous material ([0010]), which reads on the silicon-based material comprises a silicon compound particles (amorphous SiO2), a carbon material and a metal element (Mg); and is free of lithium silicate.
While Shinozaki does not explicitly disclose based on the total weight of the silicon-based material taken as 100 wt%, a content of the carbon material is 1 wt% to 30 wt%, Shinozaki further discloses in the negative electrode material, the content of the carbonaceous material is preferably 5 to 75 mass % ([0023]), which encompasses the carbon material content range of 1 wt% to 30 wt% as claimed “wherein based on the total weight of the silicon-based material taken as 100 wt%, a content of the carbon material is 1 wt% to 30 wt%”.
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose a content of the carbon material based on the total weight of the silicon-based material taken as 100 wt%, to be a value that falls within the overlapping portion (5-30 wt%) between the Shinozaki’s taught range and the claimed range, thus renders obvious the claimed “wherein based on the total weight of the silicon-based material taken as 100 wt%, a content of the carbon material is 1 wt% to 30 wt%”.
{Examiner notes: The amended claim 1 further recites limitations of “wherein the carbon material is obtained by carbonizing a carbon source compound comprising citric acid, malic acid, tartaric acid, polyacrylic acid, maleic acid, or any combination thereof” and “wherein the silicon-based material is prepared by an aqueous phase method”, which is considered as a product-by-process claim. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. [MPEP 2113 (I)]. }
Therefore, claim 1 is rendered obvious over Shinozaki as set forth above.
For purpose of compact prosecution, Examiner further notes that Shinozaki discloses the carbon precursor to be mixed with the Mg-Si composite powder is not particularly limited as long as it can be converted into carbon by heat treatment ([0041]), which encompasses the claimed “wherein the carbon material is obtained by carbonizing a carbon source compound comprising citric acid, malic acid, tartaric acid, polyacrylic acid, maleic acid, or any combination thereof”; and the silicon-based material is prepared by an aqueous phase method (mixed in water, [0057] and [0059]).
Regarding claim 2, modified Shinozaki discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Modified Shinozaki further discloses the silicon-based material is in powder form ([0009]) and has an average particle diameter is 10 to 50 µm ([0026]), sharing a value of 10 µm for an average particle size, which falls within the range as claimed “an average particle size (D50) of 2 µm to 10 µm”.
Regarding claim 4, modified Shinozaki discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Modified Shinozaki does not explicitly disclose based on the total weight of the silicon-based material taken as 100 wt%, a content of the silicon compound particles is 69 wt% to 98 wt%.
However, modified Shinozaki further discloses in Example 1, preparation of Mg-Si composite 20 g of SiO and 14.5 g of magnesium nitrate hexahydrate with the atomic ratio of Mg to Si being 1:8 ([0059]), which translates to the SiO2 is about 76 mass % in the obtained Mg-Si composite because about 0.27 mol of SiO2 produced in the reaction [calculation: (1/2) x (20/44.08) = 0.27 mol] and the total weight of the obtained Mg-Si composite would be 21.37 g [calculation: 20 + (14.5/256.41) x 24.3 =21.37 g], therefore the mass % of SiO2 in the obtained Mg-Si composite is 76 mass% [calculation: 0.27 x 60.08/21.37 x100% = 76 mass%].
Further, as set forth above, modified Shinozaki has the content of the carbonaceous material preferably 5 to 30 mass % in the negative electrode material ([0023]), which translates to the obtained Mg-Si composite (crystalline Si, amorphous SiO2, and crystalline Mg2SiO4) constituents about 70 to 95 mass% in the negative electrode material, therefore, the content of the silicon compound particle (amorphous SiO2) would be 53 to 72 mass% based on the total weight of the negative electrode material (silicon-based material) taken as 100 wt%, which overlapping the range of 69 wt% to 98 wt% as claimed.
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrive at a value for a content of the silicon compound particles that falls within the overlapping portion (69 wt% to 72 wt%) between the modified Shinozaki taught range and the claimed range, thus arriving at the claimed “based on the total weight of the silicon-based material taken as 100 wt%, a content of the silicon compound particles is 69 wt% to 98 wt%” without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 6, modified Shinozaki discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Modified Shinozaki does not explicitly disclose based on the total weight of the silicon-based material taken as 100 wt%, a content of the metal element is 0.1 wt% to 1 wt%.
However, modified Shinozaki further discloses in Example 1, preparation of Mg-Si composite 20 g of SiO and 14.5 g of magnesium nitrate hexahydrate with the atomic ratio of Mg to Si being 1:8 ([0059]), which translates to 1.37 g of Mg metal [calculation: (14.5/256.41) x 24.3=1.37 g ] in the total weight of the obtained Mg-Si composite of about 21.37 g [calculation: 20 + (14.5/256.41) x 24.3 =21.37 g], thus the metal content of Mg metal based on the total weight of the Mg-Si composite is 6.4 mass% based on the atomic ratio of Mg to Si being 1:8 in Example 1 of modified Shinozaki. Further since as set forth above, modified Shinozaki has the content of the carbonaceous material preferably 5 to 30 mass % in the negative electrode material ([0023]), which translates to the total weight of the Mg-Si composite (crystalline Si, amorphous SiO2, and crystalline Mg2SiO4) constituent about 70 to 95 mass% in the negative electrode material. Therefore, the metal content of Mg metal based on the total weight of the silicon-based material taken as 100 wt% is 4.48 wt% to 6.1 wt% in the Example 1 based on the atomic ratio of Mg to Si being 1:8.
Modified Shinozaki further discloses the ratio of Mg atoms to Si atoms is more preferably 1:2 to 1:40 ([0022]), which translates to the metal content of Mg metal based on the total weight of the silicon-based material taken as 100 wt% being about 0.90 wt% to 24.4 wt%, overlapping the range of 0.1 wt% to 1 wt% as claimed.
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrive at a value for a content of the metal element that falls within the overlapping portion (0.90 wt% to 1 wt%) between the modified Shinozaki taught range and the claimed range, thus arriving at the claimed “based on the total weight of the silicon-based material taken as 100 wt%, a content of the metal element is 0.1 wt% to 1 wt%”, without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 7, modified Shinozaki discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Modified Shinozaki has the silicon compound particle of SiO2, and the metal element of Mg ([0019]), which reads on the claimed “the silicon compound particle comprises a silicon compound SiOx wherein 0 ≤x≤2, and the metal element comprises an alkali metal or an alkaline earth metal.”
Regarding claim 13, modified Shinozaki discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Modified Shinozaki has a battery negative electrode ([0010]) comprising the silicon-based material of claim 1.
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant’s arguments regarding the amended claim 1 filed on 8/27/2025 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Conclusion
5. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Ok (KR 101721332 B1, see machine translation for citation) teaches calcining the precursor solution containing silica particles, a lithium-based compound, a manganese-based compound, and a carbon -based material to form manganese-containing lithium silicate particles containing carbon ([0008]); and the carbonaceous material may be citric acid among other choices ([0023]).
6. 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAN LUO whose telephone number is (571)270-5753. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:00AM -5:00PM ET.
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.
/K. L./Examiner, Art Unit 1751 11/24/2025
/JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 11/26/2025