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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/04/2026 has been entered.
Claim Status
Claim 1 is amended.
Claims 12-20 are new.
Claims 1-20 have been considered on the merits.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-11 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7, 10, 12-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (CN 109244386 A) hereinafter "Liu", cited in the IDS filed 05/15/2025 - reference is made to the enclosed machine translation, in view of Hayashi et al. (US 20200058941 A1) hereinafter "Hayashi", cited in Office Action dated 11/04/2025 and the IDS filed 9/30/2024.
Regarding claim 1, Liu teaches a negative electrode for a secondary battery comprising a negative electrode mixture including a negative electrode active material capable of electrochemically storing and releasing lithium ions ([0014]-[0015]; [0030] “silicon-containing lithium batteries”; [0042]; [0075]), a carbon nanotube, and an acrylic resin, wherein the negative electrode active material includes a silicon-containing material ([0014]-[0015] “acrylic acid and PMMA”, “single walled carbon nanotubes”; [0019]; [0080]), a surface of the silicon-containing material is covered with a conductive layer containing conductive carbon, and wherein the conductive carbon is different from the carbon nanotube and the conductive layer is free of the acrylic resin ([0014]; [0035]; [0019] “carbon is deposited on the surface by CVD”; [0051]-[0054]; [0071]-[0074]; carbon deposited by chemical vapor deposition, i.e. CVD, yields a conductive carbon layer different from the carbon nanotube element), and in the negative electrode mixture, a carbon nanotube content relative to the negative electrode active material as a whole is 0.02 wt% or more and 0.08 wt% or less ([0041]-[0042]; [0050]; [0014]; [0080]; range of content of single walled carbon nanotubes is completely encompassed by the claimed range).
Liu is silent as to the diameter of the single walled carbon nanotubes (SWCNT) and the electrolyte composition.
However, Hayashi teaches a negative electrode for a nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery (abstract) comprising a negative electrode mixture including a silicon-containing active material ([0009]; [0049]-[0054]; [0067]-[0068]), a carbon nanotube, and an acrylic resin ([0009];[0081]-[0083]; [0114]-[0118]). Hayashi teaches the use of SWCNT having an average diameter of 0.1-10 nm or less ([0114]-[0118]; [0181]; [0093]). Hayashi teaches a non-aqueous electrolyte solvent for excellent battery capacity, cycle characteristics, and storage characteristics ([0217]-[0220]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the negative electrode taught by Liu by using SWCNT with a diameter of 0.1-10nm as taught by Hayashi.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have modify the negative electrode taught by Liu by using SWCNT with a diameter of 0.1-10nm as taught by Hayashi with a reasonable expectation of making a working electrode because SWCNT with a diameter of 0.1-10nm are known in the art for use in silicon-containing negative electrodes ([0114]-[0118]). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the secondary battery taught by Liu by using a non-aqueous electrolyte as taught by Hayashi.
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify the secondary battery taught by Liu by using a non-aqueous electrolyte as taught by Hayashi to achieve excellent battery capacity, cycle characteristics, and storage characteristics ([0217]-[0220]).
Regarding claims 2-3, modified Liu teaches the negative electrode for a nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery of claim 1. Liu further teaches wherein in the negative electrode mixture, a mass ratio of the acrylic resin to the carbon nanotube is, for example, ~24 ([0080]1).
Regarding claim 4, modified Liu teaches the negative electrode for a nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery of claim 1. Liu further teaches wherein in the negative electrode mixture, a carbon nanotube content relative to the negative electrode active material as a carbon nanotube content relative to the negative electrode active material as a whole is 0.02 wt% or more and 0.08 wt% or less ([0041]-[0042]; [0050]; [0080]2; [0014]). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP §2144.05).
Regarding claim 5, modified Liu teaches the negative electrode for a nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery of claim 1. Liu further teaches wherein in the negative electrode mixture, an acrylic resin content relative to the negative electrode active material as a whole is 0.7 wt% ([0080]3).
Regarding claim 6, modified Liu teaches the negative electrode for a nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery of claim 1. Modified Liu further teaches wherein the carbon nanotube has an average diameter of 0.1-10nm (Hayashi ([0114]-[0118]; [0181]; [0093]). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Regarding claim 7, modified Liu teaches the negative electrode for a nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery of claim 1. Liu further teaches wherein the carbon nanotube includes a single-wall carbon nanotube ([0014]; [0041]; [0080]).
Regarding claim 10, modified Liu teaches the negative electrode for a nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery of claim 1. Modified Liu further teaches a secondary battery comprising a positive electrode, a negative electrode, and a nonaqueous electrolyte (Liu [0086]-[0090]; Hayashi [0217]-[0220]).
Regarding claim 12, Liu teaches a negative electrode for a secondary battery comprising a negative electrode mixture including a negative electrode active material capable of electrochemically storing and releasing lithium ions ([0014]-[0015]; [0030] “silicon-containing lithium batteries”; [0042]; [0075]), a carbon nanotube, and an acrylic resin, wherein the negative electrode active material includes a silicon-containing material ([0014]-[0015] “acrylic acid and PMMA”, “single walled carbon nanotubes”; [0019]; [0080]), and a surface of the silicon-containing material is covered with a conductive layer consisting of conductive carbon, and wherein the conductive carbon is different from the carbon nanotube ([0014]; [0035]; [0019] “carbon is deposited on the surface by CVD”; [0051]-[0054]; [0071]-[0074]; “place it in a CVD reaction chamber, introduce argon and gaseous toluene, and deposit it until the carbon content is 15wt%”; carbon is deposited on the silicon containing active material, yielding a conductive layer consisting of carbon that is different from the carbon nanotube element), and in the negative electrode mixture, a carbon nanotube content relative to the negative electrode active material as a whole is 0.02 wt% or more and 0.08 wt% or less ([0041]-[0042]; [0050]; [0014]; [0080]; range of content of single walled carbon nanotubes is completely encompassed by the claimed range).
Liu is silent as to the diameter of the single walled carbon nanotubes (SWCNT) and the electrolyte composition.
However, Hayashi teaches a negative electrode for a nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery (abstract) comprising a negative electrode mixture including a silicon-containing active material ([0009]; [0049]-[0054]; [0067]-[0068]), a carbon nanotube, and an acrylic resin ([0009];[0081]-[0083]; [0114]-[0118]). Hayashi teaches the use of SWCNT having an average diameter of 0.1-10 nm or less ([0114]-[0118]; [0181]; [0093]). Hayashi teaches a non-aqueous electrolyte solvent for excellent battery capacity, cycle characteristics, and storage characteristics ([0217]-[0220]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the negative electrode taught by Liu by using SWCNT with a diameter of 0.1-10nm as taught by Hayashi.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have modify the negative electrode taught by Liu by using SWCNT with a diameter of 0.1-10nm as taught by Hayashi with a reasonable expectation of making a working electrode because SWCNT with a diameter of 0.1-10nm are known in the art for use in silicon-containing negative electrodes ([0114]-[0118]). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the secondary battery taught by Liu by using a non-aqueous electrolyte as taught by Hayashi.
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify the secondary battery taught by Liu by using a non-aqueous electrolyte as taught by Hayashi to achieve excellent battery capacity, cycle characteristics, and storage characteristics ([0217]-[0220]).
Regarding claims 13-14, modified Liu teaches the negative electrode for a nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery of claim 12. Liu further teaches wherein in the negative electrode mixture, a mass ratio of the acrylic resin to the carbon nanotube is, for example, ~24 ([0080]4).
Regarding claim 15, modified Liu teaches the negative electrode for a nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery of claim 12. Liu further teaches wherein in the negative electrode mixture, a carbon nanotube content relative to the negative electrode active material as a carbon nanotube content relative to the negative electrode active material as a whole is 0.02 wt% or more and 0.08 wt% or less ([0041]-[0042]; [0050]; [0080]5; [0014]). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP §2144.05).
Regarding claim 16, modified Liu teaches the negative electrode for a nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery of claim 12. Liu further teaches wherein in the negative electrode mixture, an acrylic resin content relative to the negative electrode active material as a whole is approximately 0.7 wt% ([0080]6).
Regarding claim 17, modified Liu teaches the negative electrode for a nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery of claim 12. Modified Liu further teaches wherein the carbon nanotube has an average diameter of 0.1-10nm (Hayashi ([0114]-[0118]; [0181]; [0093]). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Regarding claim 18, modified Liu teaches the negative electrode for a nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery of claim 12. Liu further teaches wherein the carbon nanotube includes a single-wall carbon nanotube ([0014]; [0041]; [0080]).
Claim(s) 8-9, 11, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Liu (CN 109244386 A in view of US 20200058941 A1), as applied above, in further view of Shin et al. (US 20200235383 A1) hereinafter "Shin".
Regarding claims 8-9, modified Liu teaches the negative electrode for a nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery of claim 1. Liu teaches that the negative electrode active material is a porous carbon silicon/oxygen silicon composite material, which is prepared by ball milling SiO and then co-milling it with Mg powder, followed by acid etching and drying with dilute hydrochloric acid, and then carbon deposition on the surface by CVD ([0019]; [0071]-[0073] Example 5).
Liu does not explicitly teach wherein the silicon-containing material includes a composite material including a lithium-ion conductive phase and silicon particles dispersed in the lithium-ion conductive phase and wherein the lithium-ion conductive phase includes at least one selected from the group consisting of a SiO2 phase, a silicate phase, and a carbon phase.
However, Shin teaches a negative electrode for a secondary battery comprising a silicon-containing negative electrode active material (Abstract; [0007]), wherein the silicon-containing material includes a composite material including a lithium-ion conductive phase and silicon particles dispersed in the lithium-ion conductive phase and wherein the lithium-ion conductive phase includes a silicon oxide and silicate phase ([0007]; [0028]-[0030] “a silicon oxide composite containing magnesium silicate containing Si and Mg as a nano-sized domain”; [0035]; [0038] “he deposited silicon oxide composite may include a crystalline silicon phase and a matrix in which the silicon phase is dispersed, wherein the matrix includes Mg-silicate and silicon-oxide”). Shin teaches that the silicon-containing active material may be coated with carbon ([0017]; [0040]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the silicon composite material taught by modified Liu with the silicon composite material taught by Shin.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have substitute the silicon composite material taught by modified Liu with the silicon composite material taught by Shin with a reasonable expectation of successfully producing a negative electrode active material because the materials are similar in composition and both Liu and Shin teach coating the materials with a carbon coating via CVD and using them in a negative electrode (Liu [0019], [0071]-[0073]; Shin [0038], [0040]-[0043]).
Regarding claim 11, modified Liu in view of Shin teaches the negative electrode for a nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery of claim 9. Shin further teaches wherein the lithium-ion conductive phase includes the silicate phase, and the silicate phase includes at least one selected from the group consisting of an alkali metal element and a Group 2 element ([0038]; Mg is a group 2 element).
Regarding claims 19-20, modified Liu teaches the negative electrode for a nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery of claim 12. Liu teaches that the negative electrode active material is a porous carbon silicon/oxygen silicon composite material, which is prepared by ball milling SiO and then co-milling it with Mg powder, followed by acid etching and drying with dilute hydrochloric acid, and then carbon deposition on the surface by CVD ([0019]; [0071]-[0073] Example 5).
Liu does not explicitly teach wherein the silicon-containing material includes a composite material including a lithium-ion conductive phase and silicon particles dispersed in the lithium-ion conductive phase and wherein the lithium-ion conductive phase includes at least one selected from the group consisting of a SiO2 phase, a silicate phase, and a carbon phase.
However, Shin teaches a negative electrode for a secondary battery comprising a silicon-containing negative electrode active material (Abstract; [0007]), wherein the silicon-containing material includes a composite material including a lithium-ion conductive phase and silicon particles dispersed in the lithium-ion conductive phase and wherein the lithium-ion conductive phase includes a silicon oxide and silicate phase ([0007]; [0028]-[0030] “a silicon oxide composite containing magnesium silicate containing Si and Mg as a nano-sized domain”; [0035]; [0038] “he deposited silicon oxide composite may include a crystalline silicon phase and a matrix in which the silicon phase is dispersed, wherein the matrix includes Mg-silicate and silicon-oxide”). Shin teaches that the silicon-containing active material may be coated with carbon ([0017]; [0040]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the silicon composite material taught by modified Liu with the silicon composite material taught by Shin.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have substitute the silicon composite material taught by modified Liu with the silicon composite material taught by Shin with a reasonable expectation of successfully producing a negative electrode active material because the materials are similar in composition and both Liu and Shin teach coating the materials with a carbon coating via CVD and using them in a negative electrode (Liu [0019], [0071]-[0073]; Shin [0038], [0040]-[0043]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FELICITY B. ALBAN whose telephone number is (703)756-5398. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-5:00.
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, Matthew Martin can be reached at 571-270-7871. 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.
/F.B.A./Examiner, Art Unit 1728
/MATTHEW T MARTIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1728
1 Based on 100g of negative electrode: 96g active material; 0.6g conductive carbon black; 0.03g single-walled carbon nanotubes; 1.6g CMC; and 1.77g of a binder composed of styrene-butadiene rubber (SBR), acrylic acid, and PMMA in a weight ratio of 6:1:3. Binder has approximately 0.71g acrylic resin (40%) and 1.06g SBR (60%).
0.71g Acrylic resin/0.03 SWCNT = 23.6
2 Based on 100g of negative electrode: 0.03g single-walled carbon nanotubes/96g active material x 100 = 0.031%
3 Based on 100g of negative electrode: 96g active material; 1.77g of a binder. Binder has approximately 0.71g acrylic resin (40%) and 1.06g SBR (60%). 0.71g Acrylic resin/ 96g active material x 100 = 0.739%
4 Based on 100g of negative electrode: 96g active material; 0.6g conductive carbon black; 0.03g single-walled carbon nanotubes; 1.6g CMC; and 1.77g of a binder composed of styrene-butadiene rubber (SBR), acrylic acid, and PMMA in a weight ratio of 6:1:3. Binder has approximately 0.71g acrylic resin (40%) and 1.06g SBR (60%).
0.71g Acrylic resin/0.03 SWCNT = 23.6
5 Based on 100g of negative electrode: 0.03g single-walled carbon nanotubes/96g active material x 100 = 0.031%
6 Based on 100g of negative electrode: 96g active material; 1.77g of a binder. Binder has approximately 0.7g acrylic resin (40%) and 1.06g SBR (60%). 0.71g Acrylic resin/ 96g active material x 100= 0.739%
Prosecution Insights