DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
Applicant’s amendment filed 25 June 2026 is acknowledged. Claim 39 and 53 have been amended, claims 56-58 remain withdrawn, and claims 39-45, 49, and 52-58 remain pending.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 .
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 Ito et al. (CN 110121803 A, listed in the IDS filed 27 May 2022, hereinafter “Ito”; using US PGPub 2020/0020933 for the English translation and citations).
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 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 the composite oxide coating layer entirely covering the silicon oxide compound particles, wherein the silicon oxide compound particles include nano-silicon grains, and wherein the composite oxide coating layer comprises a) LixNyPzOW,, Lix1Py1Oz1, and Nx2Py2Oz2, b) LixNyPzOw and Lix1Py1Oz1, or c) 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 the composite oxide coating layer entirely covering the silicon oxide compound particles and wherein the composite oxide coating layer comprises a) LixNyPzOW,, Lix1Py1Oz1, and Nx2Py2Oz2, b) LixNyPzOw and Lix1Py1Oz1, or c) 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.
Ito teaches a core portion 1 and a covering portion 2 (see Fig. 1; [0030]). The core portion 1 may contain silicon oxide (see [0031]) and the covering portion may partially or entirely cover the core portion 1, but it is preferable to cover the entire surface of the core portion 1 from the viewpoint of improving the cycle characteristics (see [0035]). Ito teaches wherein covering portion 2 contains a compound containing phosphoric acid (PxOy) (see [0030]) represented by the following Formula (1):
MzPxOy:XX (1)
(Provided that M represents at least one of metal elements and XX represents at least one of a group 15 element, a group 16 element, or a group 17 element. z is 0.1 ≤ z ≤ 3, x is 0.5 ≤ x ≤ 2, and y is 1 ≤ y ≤ 5.). Here, the notation “MzPxOy:XX” in Formula (1) above means a state in which XX is contained in MzPxOy, and XX may form a bond with MzPxOy or may not form a bond. M is, for example, at least one of Li, Mg, Al, B, Na, K, Ca, Mn, Fe, Co, Ni, Cu, Ag, Zn, Ga, In, Pb, Mo, W, Zr, or Hf. M may be, for example, at least one of Mg, Al, B, Na, K, Ca, Mn, Fe, Co, Ni, Cu, Ag, Zn, Ga, In, Pb, Mo, W, Zr, or Hf. XX is, for example, at least one of N, F, S, Cl, As, Se, Br, or I (see [0035]-[0039]). Ito teaches that this combination makes it possible to suppress the electrolyte decomposition on the surface of the negative electrode active material particles. Consequently, it is possible to ameliorate the cycle characteristics of battery (see [0043]) and it is also possible to maintain the load characteristics (see [0044]). Ito individually teaches wherein its compound represented by MzPxOy:XX overlaps with each of the claimed compounds claimed in “b) LixNyPzOw and Lix1Py1Oz1, 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” (ses [0035]-[0039]), and so “it is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art." See MPEP §2144.06(I).
In view of Ito’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 entirely covering the silicon oxide compound particles and wherein the composite oxide coating layer comprises b) LixNyPzOw and Lix1Py1Oz1, 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, as taught by Ito, because it makes it possible to suppress the electrolyte decomposition on the surface of the negative electrode active material particles. Consequently, it is possible to ameliorate the cycle characteristics of battery, and it is also possible to maintain the load characteristics.
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 Ito 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, Sha, and Ito teaches at least 43.4 wt% of silicon in the anode active substance particles.
Regarding claim 49, the combination of Chen, Sha, and Ito 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 Ito 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 Ito teaches wherein the anode active substance particles further comprise a carbon film layer (Ito: first covering portion 3, see Fig. 3A, contain at least one of carbon; [0046]) located between the silicon oxide compound particles (Ito: core portion 1, see Fig. 3A; [0046]) and the composite oxide coating layer (Ito: covering portion 2, see Fig. 3A; [0046]), and entirely covering the silicon oxide compound particles (Ito: see Fig. 3A; [0035] and [0046]).
Regarding claim 55, the combination of Chen, Sha, and Ito 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 Ito 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 Ito 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 Ito 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 Ito 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 Ito 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 Ito 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 Ito 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 Ito 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 Ito 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 Ito 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 Ito 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 Ito 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 25 June 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 7-9 of the remarks, Applicant argues that the prior art fails to teach or suggest claim 39 as amended. More specifically, Applicant argues the prior art, either taken alone or in combination, fails to teach the composite oxide coating layer entirely covering the silicon oxide compound particles and wherein the composite oxide coating layer comprises a) LixNyPzOW,, Lix1Py1Oz1, and Nx2Py2Oz2, b) LixNyPzOw and Lix1Py1Oz1, or c) 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.
The Examiner finds these arguments moot as the new combination of Chen, Sha, and Ito teaches a composite oxide coating layer entirely covering the silicon oxide compound particles and wherein the composite oxide coating layer is b) LixNyPzOw and Lix1Py1Oz1, 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. Ito teaches a core portion 1 and a covering portion 2 (see Fig. 1; [0030]). The core portion 1 may contain silicon oxide (see [0031]) and the covering portion may partially or entirely cover the core portion 1, but it is preferable to cover the entire surface of the core porion1 from the viewpoint of improving the cycle characteristics (see [0035]). Ito teaches wherein covering portion 2 contains a compound containing phosphoric acid (PxOy) (see [0030]) represented by the following Formula (1):
MzPxOy:XX (1)
(Provided that M represents at least one of metal elements and XX represents at least one of a group 15 element, a group 16 element, or a group 17 element. z is 0.1 ≤ z ≤ 3, x is 0.5 ≤ x ≤ 2, and y is 1 ≤ y ≤ 5.). Here, the notation “MzPxOy:XX” in Formula (1) above means a state in which XX is contained in MzPxOy, and XX may form a bond with MzPxOy or may not form a bond. M is, for example, at least one of Li, Mg, Al, B, Na, K, Ca, Mn, Fe, Co, Ni, Cu, Ag, Zn, Ga, In, Pb, Mo, W, Zr, or Hf. M may be, for example, at least one of Mg, Al, B, Na, K, Ca, Mn, Fe, Co, Ni, Cu, Ag, Zn, Ga, In, Pb, Mo, W, Zr, or Hf. XX is, for example, at least one of N, F, S, Cl, As, Se, Br, or I (see [0035]-[0039]). Ito teaches that this combination makes it possible to suppress the electrolyte decomposition on the surface of the negative electrode active material particles. Consequently, it is possible to ameliorate the cycle characteristics of battery (see [0043]) and it is also possible to maintain the load characteristics (see [0044]). Ito individually teaches wherein its compound represented by MzPxOy:XX overlaps with each of the claimed compounds claimed in “b) LixNyPzOw and Lix1Py1Oz1, 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” (ses [0035]-[0039]), and so “it is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art." See MPEP §2144.06(I).
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 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 14 September 2026
/KEITH WALKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1735
Prosecution Insights