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 .
Examiner’s Comments
Applicants’ response filed on 8/15/2025 has been fully considered. Claims 7-9 are withdrawn and claims 1-9 are pending.
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.
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.
Claims 1-2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasuda et al (JP 2016-219408 A1) in view of Minami et al (US 2017/0331108 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Yasuda discloses a negative electrode active material for a secondary battery (pg. 1 of Yasuda translation) comprising silicate composite particles (composite particles; pg. 4 of Yasuda translation) including silicon particles (pg. 9 of Yasuda translation) and a lithium silicate phase (pg. 9 of translation), wherein
the silicon particles are dispersed in the lithium silicate phase (pg. 9 of translation),
in a diffraction pattern by XRD, a peak derived from Li2SIO5-- as the lithium silicate phase appearing in the range of 2ϴ of 23° to 25°C (Fig. 3; pg. 4 of Yasuda translation); and
in the diffraction pattern by XRD, a ratio I2/I1 is 0.3 or less (Fig. 3; pg. 4 of Yasuda translation), the ratio I2/I1 being a ratio of an integrated intensity I2 of the peak derived from the lithium silicate phase that appears in a range of 2ϴ of 23° to 25°C relative to an integrated intensity I1 of a peak derived from Si(111) plane of the silicon particles that appears in a range of 2ϴ of 27° to 30°C (Fig. 3; pg. 4 of Yasuda translation).
The peak derived from Li2SIO5--- in the range of 2ϴ of 23° to 25°C of I2 in Fig. 3 of Yasuda is 300. The peak derived from Si in a range of 2ϴ of 27° to 30°C of I1 in Fig. 3 of Yasuda is 2600. This result in I2/I1 being 0.12 (300/2600) which falls within the claimed range of 0.3 or less
Yasuda does not disclose the negative electrode active material comprising the silicate composite particles having a porosity of 2% or less.
However, Minami discloses a negative electrode active material comprising base particles having silicon particles dispersed in a lithium silicate phase (paragraph [0029]) and wherein the base particles have a porosity of 15% or less (8% or less in paragraph [0041]).
The porosity of the base particles overlaps the claimed range for the porosity of the silicate composite particles. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, including 2% or less, because doing so results in less disintegration of the particle structure originating from a void during charging and discharging (paragraph [0040] of Minami ‘108). It has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” Please see MPEP 2144.05, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); and In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the negative electrode active material of Yasuda to include the porosity of Minami for the composite particles of Yasuda because having the required porosity results in less disintegration of the particle structure originating from a void during charging and discharging (paragraph [0040] of Minami).
Regarding claim 2, Yasuda and Minami disclose the negative electrode active material of claim 1 as noted above.
Yasuda does not disclose the negative electrode active material comprising the silicate composite particles having a BET specific surface area of 0.8 m2/g or less.
However, Minami discloses a negative electrode active material comprising base particles having silicon particles dispersed in a lithium silicate phase (paragraph [0029]) and wherein the base particles have a porosity of 15% or less (paragraph [0041]).
Since the porosity of Minami ‘108 overlaps the claimed range for the porosity of the claimed silicate composite particles as claimed in claim 1, the porosity would inherently result in a BET specific surface area of 0.8 m2/g or less as paragraph [0017] of Applicant’s Specification states that a porosity of 2% or less suppresses the surface area.
Regarding claim 4, Yasuda and Minami disclose the negative electrode active material of claim 1 as noted above and Yasuda discloses the negative electrode active material comprising the content of the silicon particles with respect to the total mass of the base particles being 45% by mass to 95% by mass (pg. 4 of Yasuda translation).
Claims 3 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasuda et al (JP 2016-219408 A1) in view of Minami et al (US 2017/0331108 A1) in further view of Ishikawa et al (JP 2013-251097 A).
Regarding claim 3, Yasuda and Minami disclose the negative electrode active material of claim 1 as noted above.
Yasuda and Minami do not disclose the negative electrode active material comprising the silicate composite particles having a Vickers hardness of 800 HV or more.
However, Ishikawa discloses the negative electrode active material comprising the lithium metasilicate compound comprising a part of Li substituted with another alkali metal element such as Ca (paragraph [0032]).
Since Ishikawa discloses part of the Li substituted with Ca, the negative electrode active material of Ishikawa would inherently have a Vickers hardness of 800 HV or more as paragraph [0032] of Applicant’s Specification states that Ca in the lithium silicate phase improves the Vickers hardness and improves cycle characteristics.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the negative electrode active material of Yasuda and Minami to substitute a part of Li in the lithium silicate phase of Yasuda with Ca of Ishikawa because doing provides improved cycle characteristics and prevents electrochemical reactions with Li that causes irreversible capacity (paragraphs [0030] and [0032] of Ishikawa).
Regarding claim 5, Yasuda and Minami disclose the negative electrode active material of claim 1 as noted above.
Yasuda and Minami do not disclose the negative electrode active material comprising the lithium silicate phase including at least one element selected from alkali metal elements excluding Li and Group II elements.
However, Ishikawa discloses the negative electrode active material comprising the lithium metasilicate compound comprising a part of Li substituted with another alkali metal element such as Ca (Group II element; paragraph [0032]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the negative electrode active material of Yasuda and Minami to substitute a part of Li in the lithium silicate phase of Yasuda with Ca Of Ishikawa because doing so provides improved cycle characteristics and prevents electrochemical reactions with Li that causes irreversible capacity (paragraphs [0030] and [0032] of Ishikawa).
Regarding claim 6, Yasuda and Minami disclose the negative electrode active material of claim 1 as noted above.
Yasuda and Minami do not disclose the negative electrode active material comprising the lithium silicate phase further including an element M selected from B, Al, Zr, Nb, Ta, La, V, Y, Ti, P, Bi, Zn, Sn, Pb, Sb, Co, Er, F and W.
However, Ishikawa discloses the negative electrode active material comprising the lithium metasilicate compound comprising a part of Li substituted with another alkali metal element such as P, Ge, Sn, Al, Mg and Ca (paragraph [0032]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the negative electrode active material of Yasuda and Minami to substitute a part of Li in the lithium silicate phase of Yasuda with one of P, Ge, Sn, Al, Mg and Ca of Ishikawa because doing so provides improved cycle characteristics and prevents electrochemical reactions with Li that causes irreversible capacity (paragraphs [0030] and [0032] of Ishikawa).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicants argue that Minami ‘041 does not disclose a peak derived from Li2Si2O5 as the lithium silicate phase in the range of 2ϴ of 23° to 25°.
This argument is moot as Minami ‘041 does not disclose a peak derived from Li2Si2O5 as the lithium silicate phase in the range of 2ϴ of 23° to 25°. Therefore, the previous rejections have been withdrawn. However, new grounds of rejection have been noted above.
Applicant's arguments filed 8/15/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants argue that Minami ‘108 would not provide the claimed porosity.
This argument is not persuasive as Minami ‘108 discloses a negative electrode active material comprising base particles having silicon particles dispersed in a lithium silicate phase and having a porosity of 15% or less (paragraph [0041]).
The porosity of the base particles overlaps the claimed range for the porosity of the silicate composite particles.
Applicants argue that a skilled artisan would not have arrived as the claimed negative electrode active material because the cited references fail to teach the production process that allows the negative electrode active material to satisfy all the features recited in claim 1.
This argument is not persuasive as the rejections noted above would satisfy all the features recited in claim 1.
Applicants argue that Ishikawa does not cure the deficiencies of Minami ‘041 and Minami ‘108.
This argument is not persuasive as Ishikawa is a teaching reference used to teach a lithium metasilicate compound comprising a part of Li substituted with another alkali metal element such as Ca.
However, note that while Ishikawa does not disclose all the features of the present claimed invention, Ishikawa is a teaching reference, and therefore, it is not necessary for this secondary reference to contain all the features of the presently claimed invention, In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 179 USPQ 224, 226 (CCPA 1973), In re Keller 624 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). Rather this reference teaches certain concepts, namely a lithium metasilicate compound comprising a part of Li substituted with another alkali metal element such as Ca, and in combination with the primary reference, discloses the presently claimed invention.
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 SATHAVARAM I REDDY whose telephone number is (571)270-7061. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 AM-6:00 PM 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, 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.
/SATHAVARAM I REDDY/Examiner, Art Unit 1785