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 .
Summary
The Applicant’s arguments and claim amendments received August 1, 2025 have been entered into the file. Currently, claims 1, 3, and 16 are amended; and claims 4-14 and 17-20 are withdrawn; resulting in claims 1-3 and 15-16 pending for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on July 30, 2025 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Oh, et al. (US 2020/0112019 A1), as evidenced by Chen, et al. (Recent advancement of SiOx based anodes for lithium-ion batteries, Journal of Power Sources, Vol. 363 (Sep. 30, 2017), pp. 126-144).
Regarding claim 1, Oh teaches a negative electrode active material including a core, an intermediate layer, and a shell layer, wherein the core includes a silicon oxide, the intermediate layer is a lithium silicate-containing layer, and the shell layer is a LiF coating layer (¶ [0011], Ln. 1-7). In this case, the intermediate layer and shell layer make up the claimed shell structure of the particle. Specifically, in example 1, the core contains SiO and the lithium silicate-containing layer contains Li2SiO3 (¶ [0086], Ln. 1-5). Oh teaches that the Si contained in silicon oxide may be crystalline, with a crystal size of 0.05-20 nm (nano-silicon) (¶ [0028], Ln. 1-7). Although Oh does not expressly recite that the nano-silicon contained in the silicon oxide is in the form of aggregates, this limitation is inherent to the silicon monoxide-based anode as evidenced by Chen.
Chen teaches the effects and characteristics of an SiOx anode for lithium ion batteries. Chen teaches that it is established that amorphous SiO contains clusters of Si and SiO2 (aggregates of nano-silicon) (pp. 127, Col. 2, Ln. 3-6), further teaching that SiOx consists of crystalline Si, amorphous SiO, and SiO2 (pp. 127, Col. 2, Ln. 14-16). Chen teaches that SiOx materials are promising for anodes of lithium ion batteries as the nanocrystalline Si clusters, which are uniformly dispersed through the SiO2 matrix, provide high capacity (pp. 141, Col. 2, Ln. 31-36).
Regarding claim 2, Oh teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above and further teaches that the negative electrode active material particles may include a carbon coating layer on the LiF coating layer to impart conductivity (shell further comprises a conductive substance dispersed on a surface of the shell; condition a) (¶ [0038], Ln. 1-4). In example 2, pitch was used to form the carbon coating layer (conductive substance comprising inorganic carbon material comprising carbon fiber; conditions c and d) (¶ [0087], Ln. 1-7).
Regarding claims 3 and 16, Oh teaches all of the limitations of claims 1 and 2 above and further teaches that the thickness of the lithium silicate-containing layer is preferably 50-500 nm, which falls within the claimed range of 50-2000 nm (condition d) (¶ [0034], Ln. 1-3). Additionally, Oh teaches that the negative electrode active material particles have an average particle diameter of 3-7 µm, which falls within the claimed range of 1-50 µm (condition f) (¶ [0037], Ln. 1-4).
Regarding claim 15, Oh teaches a negative electrode including the negative electrode active material meeting the limitations of claim 1 (¶ [0061], Ln. 1-3), and a lithium secondary battery including the negative electrode, a positive electrode, and a separator (¶ [0081], Ln. 1-4).
Response to Arguments
Response-Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. 102
Applicant's arguments filed August 1, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In light of the Applicant’s amendment to claim 1, the previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 over Oh, et al. (US 2020/0112019 A1) has been modified above. Any arguments with respect to the reference that are still deemed valid will be addressed herein.
The Applicant argues, see page 9 of the remarks, that Oh fails to disclose that the shell comprises Li2SiO3 as defined in claim 1. This argument is not persuasive. Oh teaches a negative electrode active material including a core, an intermediate layer, and a shell layer, wherein the core includes a silicon oxide, the intermediate layer is a lithium silicate-containing layer, and the shell layer is a LiF coating layer (¶ [0011], Ln. 1-7), specifically teaching that the lithium silicate of example 1 is Li2SiO3. In this case, the intermediate layer and shell layer together are interpreted as the claimed shell structure of the particle. Therefore, the shell includes Li2SiO3 as defined in claim 1. The transitional term "comprising", which is synonymous with "including," "containing," or "characterized by," is inclusive or open-ended and does not exclude additional, unrecited elements or method steps (MPEP (2111.03 (I)).
The Applicant argues, see pages 9-10 of the remarks, that Oh fails to disclose that the nano-silicon is dispersed inside the SiOx in the form of nano-silicon aggregates. This argument is not persuasive. Although Oh does not expressly recite that the nano-silicon contained in the silicon oxide is in the form of aggregates, this limitation is inherent to the silicon monoxide-based anode as evidenced by Chen, et al. in the rejection above.
The Applicant argues, see pages 11-12 of the remarks, that Oh does not teach the technical problem of suppressing gas production in the processing of the pre-lithiation material. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., suppression of production of gas) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Arguments that the alleged anticipatory prior art is not recognized as solving the problem solved by the claimed invention, are not ‘germane’ to a rejection under section 102 (MPEP 2131.05).
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 SARAH J JACOBSON whose telephone number is (703)756-1647. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at (571) 272-1291. 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.
/SARAH J JACOBSON/Examiner, Art Unit 1785
/MARK RUTHKOSKY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1785
Prosecution Insights