DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
Applicant’s amendment filed 4 March 2026 is acknowledged. Claim 39 has been amended, claims 56-58 remain withdrawn, and claims 39-45, 49, and 52-58 remain pending.
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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 4 March 2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 39-45, 49, and 52-55 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 39 now requires “wherein the composite oxide coating layer comprises LixNyPzOw, Lix1Py1Oz1 and Nx2Py2Oz2, LixNyPzOw, Lix1Py1Oz1, or Lix1Py1Oz1 and Nx2Py2Oz2”. This appears to allow for only Lix1Py1Oz1 as the coating layer, which is new matter as it does not have a non-lithium metal. As claims 40-45, 49, and 52-55 depend either directly or indirectly from claim 39, they are rejected for the same reason.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 39-45, 49, and 52-55 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claim 39, it is unclear what the groupings for the composite oxide coating layer should be in lines 7-8 because of the use of only commas to separate the materials. Based on how lines 7-8 are interpreted, it can appear to be a redundant listing of materials. The current claim language appears to also allow for the coating layer to be Lix1Py1Oz1 by itself, or Lix1Py1Oz1 and Nx2Py2Oz2, which does not appear to be commensurate with the scope of Applicant’s specification. The Examiner will be using the following interpretation: Applicant’s specification appears to only allow for four combinations (see [0052] of US PGPub): (a) LixNyPzOw, (b) LixNyPzOw and Lix1Py1Oz1, (c) LixNyPzOw and Nx2Py2Oz2, or (d) LixNyPzOw, Lix1Py1Oz1, and Nx2Py2Oz2.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
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) 39, 40, 45, 49-53, and 55 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (CN 111326727 A, hereinafter “Chen”; using the attached English machine translation for citations; listed in the IDS filed 27 May 2022), in view of Sha et al. (WO 2020/103914 A1, using US PGPub 2021/0288316 for the English translation and citations; hereinafter “Sha”) and Hayashi et al. (WO 2012/144177 A1; hereinafter “Hayashi”; using the attached English machine translation).
Regarding claim 39, Chen teaches an anode active material for batteries (see [0011]), comprising: anode active substance particles, wherein the anode active substance particles comprise silicon oxide compound particles including lithium (see [0033] and [0037]), and a composite oxide coating layer partially or entirely covering the silicon oxide compound particles and containing a composite oxide of a metal M and phosphorus, wherein the metal M comprises lithium and a non- lithium metal (see [0038]),
wherein a mass ratio of the composite oxide coating layer is less than 10wt% of the anode active substance particles (see Example 1, [0052] – 3 g of material for composite oxide coating (1 g of lithium dihydrogen phosphate, 1 g of aluminum hydroxide and 1 g of zirconium hydrogen phosphate) to the 103 g total of the anode active substance particles (3 g of aforementioned particles added to 100g of base powder) results in a mass ratio of 3/103 = 0.0291, or 2.91%), and a mass ratio of the non-lithium metal is less than 3wt% of the anode active substance particles (see Example 1, [0052] – 2 g of non-lithium metal (1 g of aluminum hydroxide and 1 g of zirconium hydrogen phosphate) to the 103 g total of the anode active substance particles (3 g of aforementioned particles added to 100g of base powder) results in a mass ratio of 2/103 = 0.0194, or 1.94%).
Chen is silent to wherein the silicon oxide compound particles include nano-silicon grains, and wherein the composite oxide coating layer comprises LixNyPzOW, Lix1Py1Oz1 and Nx2Py2Oz2, LixNyPzOw, Lix1Py1Oz1, or Lix1Py1Oz1 and Nx2Py2Oz2 wherein N is a non-lithium metal, and x>0, y>0, z>0,w>0,x1>0,y1>0,z1>0,x2>0,y2>0,z2>0, and the non-lithium metal comprises one or more of magnesium, calcium and zinc.
Sha teaches silicon oxide compound particles which include nano-silicon grains (see [0033]). Sha teaches that a content of the nano-silicon and the silicate in the kernel 1 progressively decreases from outside to inside, and content of the silicon oxide in the kernel 1 progressively increases from outside to inside. A kernel structure distributed in the gradient manner can prevent excessive content of the nano-silicon generated in a material kernel due to doping reaction, effectively reduce stress borne by the kernel in a charging and discharging process, and avoid breaking the kernel due to a long cycle (see [0038]).
In view of Sha’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the anode active material of Chen to include nano-silicon grains in the silicon oxide compound particles, as taught by Sha, because it can effectively reduce stress borne by the kernel in a charging and discharging process, and avoid breaking the kernel due to a long cycle.
The combination of Chen and Sha is silent to wherein the composite oxide coating layer comprises LixNyPzOW, Lix1Py1Oz1 and Nx2Py2Oz2, LixNyPzOw, Lix1Py1Oz1, or Lix1Py1Oz1 and Nx2Py2Oz2 wherein N is a non-lithium metal, and x>0, y>0, z>0,w>0,x1>0,y1>0,z1>0,x2>0,y2>0,z2>0, and the non-lithium metal comprises one or more of magnesium, calcium and zinc.
Hayashi teaches particles of LiMgPO4 partially coating anode active SiOx particles (see Figs. 4, 5, and 7; [0047]-[0059]). Hayashi teaches that due to the presence of the LiMgPO4 particles, a change in the volume during the charging and discharging can be reduced and excessive reaction with the electrolyte solution can be suppressed. As a result, the cycle characteristics are improved (see abstract).
In view of Hayashi’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the anode active material of the combination of Chen and Sha to include wherein the composite oxide coating layer comprises LiMgPO4, as taught by Hayashi, because a change in the volume during the charging and discharging can be reduced and excessive reaction with the electrolyte solution can be suppressed.
The combination of Chen, Sha, Hayashi teaches wherein a mass ratio of the composite oxide coating layer is less than 10wt% of the anode active substance particles (Hayashi: content of the LiMgPO4 powder is in the range of 5-10% by mass; see [0059]). Regarding a mass ratio of the non-lithium metal being less than 3wt% of the anode active substance particles, Hayashi teaches an example wherein 95 parts by mass of the obtained SiOx powder and 5 parts by mass of the LiMgPO4 powder is used to prepare the particles (see [0047]). Hayashi is silent to a total mass of the combination of powder, so for the purposes of calculation,100g will be used. Then, dividing the molar mass of magnesium (24.3 g/mol) by the molar mass of SiOx + LiMgPO4 (using x = 1 for simplicity (see [0018]), is 44.1g/mol + 126.2 g/mol) is 24.3/126.2 = 0.193. Multiplying this by the total amount of LiMgPO4 (5 g) results in 0.965 g of Mg. Lastly, 0.965 g out of 100 g of combined powder is 0.965/100 = 0.00965 or 0.965 mass% of Mg). Thus the combination of Chen, Sha, and Hayashi teaches a mass ratio of the non-lithium metal being less than 3wt% of the anode active substance particles. Applicant is also reminded that 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. See MPEP §2144.05(II)(A).
Regarding claim 40, Applicant is reminded that the patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production.
Regarding claim 45, the combination of Chen, Sha, and Hayashi teaches wherein a content of silicon in the anode active substance particles is 30-80wt% (Chen: see Example 3, and [0050]-[0056] – 100g of base powders in line 1 of [0056] are included with 6 g of additional material for a total of 106 g of material. Rough worst case scenario would be all 20g of Li3N powder being included in the 100g of base powders, so 100g of base powder, minus the 20g of Li3N powder and 7.7g of carbon results in 72.3 g of SiO. Then dividing the molar mass of silicon (28.1 g/mol) by the molar mass of SiO is (44.1 g/mol) gives the weight percent of Si within the SiO (28.1/44.1 = 0.637). Multiplying this by the total amount of SiO gives us (0.637*72.3 = 46.0551g of Si). Lastly, 46.0551g of Si out of a total of 106g of material results in 46.0551/106 = 0.4344 or 43.4 wt% of Si). Thus, the combination of Chen and Sha teaches at least 43.4 wt% of silicon in the anode active substance particles.
Regarding claim 49, the combination of Chen, Sha, and Hayashi teaches wherein a mass ratio of the composite oxide coating layer is less than 5wt% of the anode active substance particles (Chen: see Example 1, [0052] – 3 g of material for composite oxide coating (1 g of lithium dihydrogen phosphate, 1 g of aluminum hydroxide and 1 g of zirconium hydrogen phosphate) to the 103 g total of the anode active substance particles (3 g of aforementioned particles added to 100g of a base powder) results in a mass ratio of 3/103 = 0.0291, or 2.91%)
Regarding claim 52, the combination of Chen, Sha, and Hayashi teaches wherein a mass ratio of the non- lithium metal is less than 1.5wt% of the anode active substance particles (Chen: see Example 1, [0052] – 2 g of non-lithium metal (1 g of aluminum hydroxide and 1 g of zirconium hydrogen phosphate) to the 103 g total of the anode active substance particles. The weight percent of aluminum is calculated by the molar mass of aluminum (26.98 g/mol) divided by the molar mass of aluminum hydroxide (78.003 g/mol), which equals 0.345 or 34.5 wt%. Thus, 34.5% of the 1g of aluminum hydroxide is aluminum, so there are 0.345g of aluminum. Even if the entire 1g of zirconium hydrogen phosphate was taken as the total amount of zirconium (it is clearly less than 1 g), this would result in 0.345 g of aluminum, plus 1 g of zirconium, equaling 1.345 g of non-lithium metal. This amount (1.345 g) divided by the total of the anode active substance particles (103 g) results in 0.013, or 1.3 wt% of the anode active material is non-lithium metal. Since the actual amount is less than 1.3 wt%, the combination of Chen and Sha teaches wherein a mass ratio of the non- lithium metal is less than 1.5wt% of the anode active substance particles.
Regarding claim 53, the combination of Chen, Sha, and Hayashi teaches wherein the anode active substance particles further comprise a carbon film layer located between the silicon oxide compound particles and the composite oxide coating layer, and partially or entirely covering the silicon oxide compound particles (Chen: see [0037]).
Regarding claim 55, the combination of Chen, Sha, and Hayashi teaches wherein a mass ratio of the carbon film layer is 0.01-20wt% of the anode active substance particles (Chen: see [0050] – powders for the base are prepared with carbon contents of 2.4%, 5.1%, and 7.7%. Chen’s Example 1 (see [0052]) uses 2.4 g of carbon out of 103 g total, so at 2.4%, the mass ratio of the carbon film to the anode active substance particles is 2.4/103 = 0.0233 or 2.33 wt%. Chen’s Example 2 (see [0054]) uses 5.1 g of carbon out of 103 g total, so at 5.1%, the mass ratio of the carbon film to the anode active substance particles is 5.1/103 = 0.0495 or 4.95 wt%. Chen’s Example 3 (see [0056]) uses 7.7 g of carbon out of 106 g total, so at 7.7%, the mass ratio of the carbon film to the anode active substance particles is 7.7/106 = 0.0726 or 7.26 wt%).
Claim(s) 41-43, and 54 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Chen, Sha, and Hayashi as applied to claims 39, 41, 39, and 53, respectively, and further in view of Hu et al. (CN 111342030 A, hereinafter “Hu”; using the attached English machine translation for citations).
Regarding claim 41, the combination of Chen, Sha, and Hayashi is silent to wherein a content of the lithium in the silicon oxide compound particles is 0.1-20wt%.
Hu teaches that taking the total mass of the silicon compound and the conductive layers as 100%, the mass percentage of the lithium silicate and the magnesium silicate is 3-83%. If it is lower than 3%, the buffer material volume expansion effect is not good, the first coulombic efficiency is low, and the cycle stability is poor. If it is higher than 83%, the capacity is significantly reduced and the material processing performance is poor (see [0017]). Hu further teaches that the molar ratio of the lithium atoms to magnesium atoms can be within a wide range (see [0037]), but includes 1:1 (see [0037] and Example 1 in [0046]). Therefore, it can be said that the mass percentage of the lithium silicate is 1.5% - 41.5% at a 1:1 ratio.
In view of Hu’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the particles of the combination of Chen, Sha, and Hayashi to include wherein a content of the lithium in the silicon oxide compound particles is 0.1-20wt%, as taught by Hu, because it helps to increase material processing performance and increase cycle stability. Furthermore, as Hu teaches that the content of the lithium in the silicon oxide compound particles is a result effective variable (see [0017]), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to discover the optimum value through routine experimentation. See MPEP §2144.05(II).
Regarding claim 42, the combination of Chen, Sha, and Hayashi is silent to wherein the silicon oxide compound particles comprise at least one compound selected from the group consisting of: Li4SiO4, Li2SiO3, Li6Si2O7, Li8SiO6 and Li2Si2O5.
Hu teaches silicon oxide compound particles comprise at least one compound consisting of: Li2SiO3 and Li2Si2O5 (see Fig. 2 and [0040]). Hu teaches that this helps to greatly improve the first coulombic efficiency and cycle performance of the material (see [0029]).
In view of Hu’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the particles of the combination of Chen, Sha, and Hayashi to include at least one compound consisting of Li2SiO3 and Li2Si2O5, as taught by Hu, because it helps to greatly improve the first coulombic efficiency and cycle performance of the material.
Regarding claim 43, the combination of Chen, Sha, and Hayashi is silent to wherein a median size of the silicon oxide compound particles is 0.2-20µm.
Hu teaches that the particle size of the silicon compound particles is 1-20µm (see [0018]), and has examples where the median diameter is 5 µm (see [0045]). Too small a grain size will result in too low a packing density thereby reducing the charge and discharge capacity per unit volume. On the other hand, too large a grain size will lead to an aggravated volume expansion effect and reduce the cyclability (see [0018]).
In view of Hu’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the particles of the combination of Chen, Sha, and Hayashi to include wherein a median size of the silicon oxide compound particles is 5 µm, as taught by Hu, because it helps to improve the charge and discharge capacity per unit volume and improve cyclability. Furthermore, as Hu teaches that the median size of the silicon oxide particles is a result effective variable (see [0018]), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to discover the optimum value through routine experimentation. See MPEP §2144.05(II).
Regarding claim 54, the combination of Chen, Sha, and Hayashi is silent to wherein a thickness of the carbon film layer is 0.001-5µm.
Hu teaches a thickness of the carbon film layer is between 2 to 1000 nm (equivalent to 0.002-1µm) - see [0046]). Furthermore, Hu teaches that if the thickness of the carbon layer is too small, the buffering volume expansion effect is not obvious and the conductivity is not greatly improved, resulting in poor cycle performance. If the thickness of the carbon layer is too large, indicating that the carbon content is too high, the negative electrode capacity will be reduced and the stacking density will be too low, thereby reducing the charge and discharge capacity per unit volume (see [0019]).
In view of Hu’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the thickness of the carbon film layer of the combination of Chen, Sha, and Hayashi to be between 2 to 1000 nm, as taught by Hu, because it improves cycle performance and increases the charge and discharge capacity per unit volume. Furthermore, as Hu teaches that the thickness of the carbon film layer is a result effective variable (see [0019]), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to discover the optimum value through routine experimentation. See MPEP §2144.05(II).
Claim(s) 44 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Chen, Sha, and Hayashi as applied to claim 53 above, and further in view of Kang et al. (CN 108963208 A, hereinafter “Kang”; using the attached English machine translation for citations).
Regarding claim 44, the combination of Chen, Sha, and Hayashi is silent to wherein a median size of the nano-silicon grains is 0.1-35nm.
Kang teaches that the median particle size D50 of said nano-silica is 10 to 120nm; nano silicon particle size if less than 10nm, the surface energy is large, in the sintering process is easy to cause agglomeration of the nano silicon, if silicon nano grain diameter is more than 120nm, the cause of which cannot be closely attached on the graphite surface (see [0033]). Therefore, the media size of the nano-silicon grains is a result effective variable.
In view of Kang’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the anode active material of the combination of Chen, Sha, and Hayashi to include wherein a median size of the nano-silicon grains is 0.1 to 35nm, as taught by Kang, because the media size of the nano-silicon grains is a result effective variable, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to discover its optimum range through routine experimentation. See MPEP §2144.05(II).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4 March 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 6-8 of the remarks, Applicant argues that the prior art fails to teach or suggest claim 39 as amended.
The Examiner finds these arguments moot as the new combination of Chen, Sha, and Hayashi teaches a composite oxide coating layer comprising LiMgPO4 (Hayashi: see [0047]-[0059] and abstract).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN HA whose telephone number is (571)270-5934. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00 EST.
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, Keith Walker can be reached at 571-272-3458 . 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.
/S.S.H/Examiner, Art Unit 1735 21 March 2026
/KEITH WALKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1735
Prosecution Insights