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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 10/27/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-24 remain pending in this application in which claims 20-22 remain withdrawn. The examiner acknowledges no new matter has been added.
Applicant’s amendment to the claims and specification has overcome the objections to the specification and claims 1, 5, and 16 previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 5/29/2025. Applicant’s amendment to the claims has overcome the 112(b) rejections to claims 4, 5, 16 and 17 previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 5/29/2025.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The 112(b) rejection remains for “the total weight” of claims 8 and 9 because, as related to the claim interpretation below, a total weight of the active material was not defined previously in the claims. As detailed below, a total weight of the active material may be viewed as the total weight of the active material particles or the total weight of the active material layer. A sphere has one surface. As shown by the applicant’s different uses of the “total weight of the active material” and the examiner’s interpretation supported by the instant specification, “total weight” does not have only a singular inherent meaning, it may have multiple, and therefore lacks antecedent basis because of the use of “the” before it was ever defined.
Applicant’s amendment and arguments regarding “the surfaces of the core particles” in claim 4 has overcome the 112(b) rejection.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 8, 9, 16, and 17 all recite based on the total weight of the active material. Upon further inspection, Par. 67 of the instant specification appears to refer to the same components as claim 8 which refers to the wt.% in reference to the encapsulated particles while claim 16 appears similar to the values in Par. 96-100 of which refers to the wt.% in reference to the electrode material as a whole. For compact prosecution, the examiner will interpret the “active material” in claims 8 and 9 as the active material particles and the “active material” in claims 16 and 17 as the active material layer.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 8 and 9 recites the limitation "the total weight” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Line 1 of claim 8 claims “from about 90 wt.% to about 99 wt.% of the core particles.” Line 4 of claim 9 of which is dependent upon claim 8 recites the limitation “from about 95 wt.% to about 99.9 wt.% of the core particles.” Due to the limitation of 99.9 wt.% in dependent upon claim 9, claim 9 fails to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends because 99.9 wt.% is broader than 99 wt.%. The examiner recommends either amending claim 8 to recite the limitation “99.9 wt.%” or amending claim 9 to recite “99 wt.%.” Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1, 6, 7, 10-16, 18, 19, 23, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burshtain et al. (US 2017/0294643 A1) in view of Nakayama et al. (US 2022/0231282 A1) and Huang et al. (CN 112864357 A).
Regarding claim 1 Burshtain et al. teaches an active material for a lithium-ion secondary battery (see e.g. the active material particles 110 in Par. 42 for a battery involving lithium ions in Par. 52-53). comprising:
core particles (see e.g. the anode material particles 110 in Par. 64 and Fig. 4A) comprising a silicon material in (see e.g. Par. 64)
Burshtain et al. fails to explicitly teach comprising an SiO material or an M-SiOx material, wherein 0 < x < 1.2, and M is selected from Al, Ca, Cu, Fe, K, Li, Mg, Na, Ni, Sn, Ti, Zn, Zr, or any combination thereof.
However, Nakayama et al. teaches negative electrode active material 30 with core particle 31 in Par. 26 with SiO or lithium silicate in Par. 28-30.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the silicon core of Burshtain to comprise the SiO or lithium silicate core of Nakayama et al. as it would have obvious to substitute one known element for another for the same purpose of negative active material core particles to yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Burshtain et al. teaches a chemical stability structure (CCS) disposed on the core particles and comprising a boron material selected from a lithium borate, a borosilicate, a lithium borosilicate, or any combination thereof (see e.g. the coating 120 that may comprise boron atoms i.e. boron material within borates of lithium in Par. 150, 152, and 158 such as LiBOB or LiB4O7. Burshtain et al. teaches in Par. 53 that coating 120 helps support mechanical stability).
Burshtain et al. fails or does not explicitly teach the chemical stability structure is an amorphous CSS.
However, Huang et al. teaches an amorphous lithium borate coating shell that may be used for lithium-ion battery anode material and supports high conductivity and limits side reactions in Par. 4 and 58-60.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the lithium borate coating layer of Burshtain et al. to be amorphous, as taught by Huang et al., to promote high conductivity and limit side reactions as noted in Par. 4 and 58-60 of Huang et al..
Regarding claim 6, Burshtain et al. fails to teach the chemical stability structure is at least 50 atomic% amorphous.
However, Huang et al. teaches an amorphous lithium borate coating shell that may be used for lithium-ion battery anode material and supports high conductivity and limits side reactions in Par. 4 and 58-60.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the lithium borate coating layer for an anode of a lithium-ion battery of Burshtain et al. to be amorphous, taught by Huang et al., to promote high conductivity and limit side reactions as noted in Par. 4 and 58-60. It is understood that by “a shell layer that is an amorphous metal boron oxide” in Par. 60 it is a completely amorphous material.
Burshtain et al. teaches carbide containing nanoparticles may optionally be included in Par. 89-91, 136, and 148. By the use of “optionally” in Par. 89 it is understood that it is not required and therefore the carbide material may make up 0 atomic% of the active material.
Regarding claim 7, Burshtain et al. wherein the CSS further comprises a phosphorous material selected from a lithium phosphate, a silicate phosphate, a phosphorus oxide, a lithium silicate phosphate, or a combination thereof (see e.g. by the coating 120 may include both borates such as lithium borate and phosphates such as lithium phosphate in Par. 150-153 in the same coating of which supports stability in Par. 53 thus making up the CSS layer).
Regarding claim 10, Burshtain et al. teaches wherein: the core particles have an average particle size ranging from about 500 nanometers to about 20 microns (see e.g. the diameter of the anode active material particles 110 may be 20-500 nm in Par. 154);
the CSS is coated at a thickness ranging from about 0.5 nm to about 500 nm (see e.g. by how the thickness layer 120 of borate and phosphate salts may be 2-200 nm in Par. 154).
This overlaps the claimed range in a manner which provides a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 11, Burshtain et al. fails to explicitly teach wherein: the core particles comprise M-SiO; M comprises Li; and the M-SiO comprises at least one of crystalline or amorphous silicon domains, lithiated silicon species domains, and silicon oxide domains comprising SiOy, where y ranges from 0.8 to 1.2.
However, Nakayama et al. teaches negative electrode active material 30 with core particle 31 in Par. 26 with SiO in Par. 28-30. Nakayama et al. teaches it may include amorphous silicon oxide matrix or lithium silicate phases i.e. a lithiated silicon material LSX, and Si particles represented by SiOx where 0.5≤x≤1.6.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the silicon core of Burshtain to comprise the SiO or LSX core of Nakayama et al. as it would have obvious to substitute one known element for another for the same purpose of negative active material core particles to yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
The SiO compound overlaps the claimed range in a manner which provides a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 12, Burshtain et al. teaches wherein boron material is selected from boron material is selected from LiBO2, Li2B4O7, Li3BO3, B2O3-SiO2-Li2Si2O5, B2O3-SiO2-Li2O, B2O3-SiO2-Li2SiO3, B2O3-SiO2-Li4SiO4, or B2O3-SiO2-Li2Si2O5, B2O3-SiO2, or any combination thereof (see Li2B4O7 in Par. 158).
Burshtain et al. fails to explicitly teach the M-SiO comprises lithiated silicon species domains comprising Li2Si2O5, Li2SiO3, Li4SiO4, or a combination thereof.
However, Nakayama et al. teaches negative electrode active material 30 with core particle 31 in Par. 26 with SiO in Par. 28-30. Nakayama et al. teaches it may include a lithium silicate phase i.e. a lithiated silicon material such as Li2SiO(2+z) where 0<z<2.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the silicon core of Burshtain to comprise the LSX core of Nakayama et al. as it would have obvious to substitute one known element for another for the same purpose of negative active material core particles to yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. The result would overlap with the claimed compound Li2SiO3 in a manner which provides a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 13, Burshtain et al. teaches wherein: the CSS further comprises a lithium phosphate, a silicate phosphate, a phosphorus oxide, a lithium silicate phosphate, or a combination thereof (see e.g. Burshtain et al. teaches the coating 120 may include both borates such as lithium borate and phosphates such as lithium phosphate in Par. 150-153 in the same coating of which supports stability in Par. 53, thus making up the CSS layer).
Burshtain et al. teaches core particles (see e.g. by the anode material particles 110 in Par. 64 and Fig. 4A) comprising a silicon material in (see e.g. Par. 64).
Burshtain fails to teach the core particles comprise M-SiO comprising lithiated silicon species domains comprising Li2Si2O5, Li2SiO3, Li4SiO4, or a combination thereof.
However, Nakayama et al. teaches negative electrode active material 30 with core particle 31 in Par. 26 with SiO in Par. 28-30. Nakayama et al. teaches it may include a lithium silicate phase i.e. a lithiated silicon material such as Li2SiO(2+z) where 0<z<2.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the silicon core of Burshtain to comprise the LSX core of Nakayama et al. as it would have obvious to substitute one known element for another for the same purpose of negative active material core particles to yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. The result overlaps the claimed compound Li2SiO3 in a manner which provides a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 14, Burshtain et al. fails to explicitly teach wherein: the core particles comprise at least one of crystalline or amorphous silicon domains, and silicon oxide domains comprising SiOy, where y ranges from 0.8 to 1.2.
However, Nakayama et al. teaches negative electrode active material 30 with core particle 31 in Par. 26 with SiO in Par. 28-30. Nakayama et al. teaches it may include amorphous silicon oxide matrix or Si particles represented by SiOx where 0.5≤x≤1.6.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the silicon core of Burshtain to comprise the SiO of Nakayama et al. as it would have obvious to substitute one known element for another for the same purpose of negative active material core particles to yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
The lithium silicate overlaps the claimed range in a manner which provides a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 15, Burshtain et al. teaches a lithium-ion secondary battery (see e.g. the active material particles 110 in Par. 42 for a battery involving lithium ions in Par. 52-53), comprising:
an anode (see e.g. the anode 100 in Fig. 9A-9C) comprising an electrode material comprising the active material of claim 1 (see e.g. anode 100 is noted in Par. 188 to comprise anode material particles 115 which may be configured as core shell particles 110, sometimes noted as active material particles 110, and coatings 120) and a binder (see e.g. the binder material in the anode 100 in Par. 186);
a separator (see e.g. the cell separators 152 or 86 in Fig. 9A-9C);
a cathode (see e.g. the cathode 87 in Fig. 9A-9C); and
an electrolyte disposed between the anode and cathode (see e.g. the electrolyte 160 between the anode 100 and cathode 87 in Fig. 9A-9C).
Regarding claim 16, Burshtain et al. teaches wherein the electrode material comprises, based on a total weight of the active material: from about 0.3 wt.% to about 30 wt.% of the binder (see e.g. the anode may comprise 1-40 wt.% of the binder in Par. 186);
from about 0.01 wt.% to about 20 wt.% of a conductive additive (see e.g. by the anode may comprise 1-40 wt.% of the conductive fibers);
Burshtain et al. teaches graphite may be in the active material particles layer 120 (see Par. 159 and 175), however it not the only option and may therefore by 0 wt.%.
Burshtain et al. teaches from about 3 wt.% to about 100 wt.% of the active material particles (see e.g. by the active material may comprise 50-95 wt.% of the active material in Par. 186).
The wt.% of Burshtain et al. the claimed range in a manner which provides a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 18, Burshtain et al. teaches wherein the binder comprises polyvinylidene difluoride (PVDF), Na-carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC), styrene butadiene rubber (SBR), polyacrylic acid (PAA), lithium polyacrylate (LiPAA), polyimide (PI), or a combination thereof (see e.g. by the binder may comprise PVDF or SBR in in Par. 42 in the anode additives).
Regarding claim 19, Burshtain et al. teaches wherein the lithium-ion battery (see e.g. by the battery involving lithium ions in Par. 52-53) comprises a solid-state electrolyte (see e.g. by the solid electrolyte interface in Par. 144 and solid electrolyte in Par. 238). The battery is therefore considered a solid-state lithium battery comprising a solid-state anode, a solid-state cathode, because of the solid electrolyte (see Par. 144 and 238).
Regarding claim 23, Burshtain et al. teaches an active material for a lithium-ion secondary battery (see e.g. by the active material particles 110 in Par. 42 for a battery involving lithium ions in Par. 52-53).
Burshtain et al. teaches comprising core particles (see e.g. by the anode material particles 110 in Par. 64 and Fig. 4A comprising a silicon material in Par. 64).
Burshtain et al. fails to explicitly teach comprising an SiO material or an M-SiOx material.
However, Nakayama et al. teaches negative electrode active material 30 with core particle 31 in Par. 26 with SiO or lithium silicate in Par. 29-30.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the silicon core of Burshtain to comprise the SiO or lithium silicate core of Nakayama et al. as it would have obvious to substitute one known element for another for the same purpose of negative active material core particles to yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Burshtain et al. teaches a chemical stability structure (CCS) disposed on the core particles (see e.g. coating 120 in Par. 150-153. Burshtain et al. teaches see Par. 53 that coating 120 helps support mechanical stability) and comprising:
a boron material selected from a boron material selected from a lithium borate, a borosilicate, a lithium borosilicate, or any combination thereof (see e.g. a lithium borate by the coating 120 that may comprise borates of lithium in Par. 150-153 such as LiBOB or LiB4O7. Burshtain et al. teaches see Par. 53 that coating 120 helps support mechanical stability).
Burshtain et al. teaches a phosphorous material selected from a lithium phosphate, a silicate phosphate, a phosphorus oxide, a lithium silicate phosphate, or a combination thereof (see e.g. Burshtain et al. teaches the coating 120 may include both borates such as lithium borate and phosphates such as lithium phosphate in Par. 150-153 in the same coating of which supports stability in Par. 53, thus making up the CSS layer).
Burshtain et al. fails to explicitly teach an amorphous chemical stability structure.
However, Huang et al. teaches an amorphous lithium borate coating shell that may be used for lithium-ion battery anode material and supports high conductivity and limits side reactions (see Par. 4 and 58-60).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the lithium borate coating layer for an anode of a lithium-ion battery of Burshtain et al. to be amorphous, taught by Huang et al., to promote high conductivity and limit side reactions as noted in Par. 4 and 58-60.
Regarding claim 24, Burshtain et al. wherein the boron material is selected from LiBO2, Li2B4O7, Li3BO3, B2O3-SiO2-Li2Si2O5, B2O3-SiO2-Li2O, B2O3-SiO2-Li2SiO3, B2O3-SiO2-Li4SiO4, or B2O3-SiO2-Li2Si2O5, B2O3-SiO2, or any combination thereof (see Li2B4O7 in Par. 158).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burshtain et al. (US 2017/0294643 A1) in view of Nakayama et al. (US 2022/0231282 A1) and Huang et al. (CN 112864357 A). as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gulas et al. (US 2017/0200950 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Burshtain et al. teaches wherein each active material particle further comprises a shell that encapsulates the core particle and comprises carbon (see e.g. how Burshtain notes that the composite anode particles 115 may fully coat the surface of anode active material particles 110 in multiple coating layers of which any of the disclosed coatings 120 may be applied to one or more coating layers and may build multiple shells in Par. 110-112. The coating 120 may comprise carbon in Par. 104. Based on this description, it is understood that another coating of any of the disclosed materials, such as carbon, may be applied the anode active material particle in a shell form).
Burshtain et al. fails to explicitly teach comprises turbostratic carbon having a Raman spectrum having: a D band having a peak intensity (ID) at wave number between 1330 cm-1 and 1360 cm-1;a G band having a peak intensity (IG) at wave number between 1580 cm-1 and 1600 cm-1;and a 2D band having a peak intensity (I2D) at wave number between 2650 cm-1 and 2750 cm-1,wherein:a ratio of ID/IG ranges from greater than zero to about 1.1; and a ratio of I2D/IG ranges from about 0.4 to about 2.
However, Gulas et al. teaches anode core particles that may comprise silicon (see Par. 48) of which may comprise a hydrophilic carbon coating that may be turbostratic (see Par. 49). Gulas et al. points out the hydrophilic nature is desirable in active materials of negative electrodes in lithium-ion batteries in the abstract and improves electrochemical properties (see Par. 16).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the negative electrode active material carbon coating for a lithium-ion battery of Burshtain et al. to be turbostratic, taught by Gulas et al., to improve electrochemical properties of a battery as noted in Par. 16 of Gulas et al.
Given that the prior art, Gulas et al., discloses the same structure and composition of a turbostratic carbon coating (see turbostratic carbon coating in Para. 48-49) as recited thus far by the claimed invention (see turbostratic carbon shell in line 2 of claim 2), a person having ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect it to have the claimed property of “a Raman spectrum having: a D band having a peak intensity (ID) at wave number between 1330 cm-1 and 1360 cm-1;a G band having a peak intensity (IG) at wave number between 1580 cm-1 and 1600 cm-1;and a 2D band having a peak intensity (I2D) at wave number between 2650 cm-1 and 2750 cm-1,wherein:a ratio of ID/IG ranges from greater than zero to about 1.1; and a ratio of I2D/IG ranges from about 0.4 to about 2” lacking any distinction or anything to the contrary. See MPEP 2112.01.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burshtain et al. (US 2017/0294643 A1) in view of Nakayama et al. (US 2022/0231282 A1) and Huang et al. (CN 112864357 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Akira et al. (US 2016/0329562 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Burshtain et al. teaches further comprising a carbon layer disposed between the CSS and the core particles (see e.g. how Burshtain explains the composite anode particles 115 may fully coat the surface of anode active material particles 110 in multiple coating layers of which any of the disclosed coatings 120 may be applied to one or more coating layers and may build multiple shells in Par. 110-112. The coating 120 may comprise carbon in Par. 104. The coating 120 may comprise the lithium borate of the CSS layer in Par. 150, 152, and 158. Based on this description, it is understood that any of the disclosed coatings may build multiple layers or shells in any order and thus it would be obvious and within the disclosed parameters of the teaching to include the carbon coating 120 with the lithium borate coating 120 overtop).
Burshtain fails to explicitly teach the carbon layer comprising pyrolyzed carbon, activated carbon, or carbon black.
However, Akira et al. teaches a silicon negative electrode active material core mother particle 14 that may comprise a carbon coating layer 15 such as carbon black to improve electronic conductivity as noted (see Par. 29 and 34).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the negative electrode active material carbon coating for a lithium-ion battery of Burshtain et al. to be carbon black, taught by Akira et al., as Akira et al. notes a carbon coating, such as one of carbon black, may improve electronic conductivity in Par. 29 and 34.
Regarding claim 4, Burshtain et al. teaches wherein the CSS covers at least 60% of the surfaces of the core particles (see e.g. the coatings 120 may be applied as a full coating to the surface of anode active material particles Par. 110 or a shell in Par. 112. The coating 120 may comprising the lithium borate of the CSS layer in Par. 150, 152, and 158. By “full coating” and shell, and the coating 120 in Fig. 4A, it is understood that approximately all or 100% of the surface of the core particle may be covered by the lithium borate CSS layer).
Claims 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burshtain et al. (US 2017/0294643 A1), Nakayama et al. (US 2022/0231282 A1), and Huang et al. (CN 112864357 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cho et al. (US 2018/0083263 A1). Cho et al. was cited in the Non-Final Rejection filed 5/29/2025.
Regarding claim 5, Burshtain et al. teaches a chemical stability structure (CCS) disposed on the core particles and comprising a boron material selected from a lithium borate (see e.g. the coating 120 that may comprise boron atoms i.e. boron material within borates of lithium in Par. 150, 152, and 158 such as LiBOB or LiB4O7. Burshtain et al. teaches in Par. 53 that coating 120 helps support mechanical stability).
The combined teachings of Burshtain et al. and Nakayama et al. teach silicon oxide or lithium silicate core particles.
Burshtain et al. fails to explicitly teach wherein: from about 0.1 atomic% to about 5 atomic% of the CSS is diffused into the core particles; and from about 95 atomic% to about 99 atomic% of the CSS remains on the surfaces of the core particles.
However, Cho et al. teaches particles of silicon covered in a silicon oxide in which phosphorus may be diffused into cores of the silicon through the shell of the silicon oxide and doped in cores of the silicon via heat treatment (see Par. 45). The phosphorus may also react with the silicon oxide to form phosphorus silicate (see Par. 45). Cho et al. explains this supports improved service life and exhibits high capacity, high charging/discharging efficiency and excellent rate performance of battery simultaneously (see Par. 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the particles of Burshtain et al. and Nakayama et al. to heat the silicon oxide coated in a lithium phosphate and lithium borate coating in order to diffuse and dope the silicon oxide and form phosphorus silicate layer, taught by Cho et al. in Par. 45. This is also because Cho et al. explains this supports improved service life and exhibits high capacity, high charging/discharging efficiency and excellent rate performance of battery simultaneously in Par. 6. This will lead to the expected result of some degree of diffusion of the phosphorus in the silicon oxide beneath it.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burshtain et al. (US 2017/0294643 A1) in view of Nakayama et al. (US 2022/0231282 A1) and Huang et al. (CN 112864357 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cho et al. (US 2014/0234714 A1). Cho et al. was cited in the IDS filed 1/11/2023.
Regarding claim 8, Burshtain et al. fails to explicitly teach wherein, based on the total weight of the active material, the active material comprises: from about 90 wt.% to about 99 wt.% of the core particles. Burshtain et al. fails to explicitly teach a specific wt.% of the coating layers 120.
However, Cho et al. teaches a negative active material with a core particle 31, a first layer 32, and a second layer 33 (see Par. 26). The core may be SiO (see Par. 28-30) and the first layer 32 may be carbon (see Par. 31). Cho et al teaches the first layer 32 may be 0.1 to 5% by mass based on the mass of the core particle 31 (see Par. 33). Cho et al. teaches the second layer 33 may be a metal borate (see Par. 37) and may be 0.1 to 5% by mass based on the mass of the core particle 31. Cho et al. teaches the embodiment inhibits heat generation and lowers resistance (see Par. 26 and 31). The result, as seen by the calculations below, is a core particle 31 mass that ranges from 90.9 to 99.8 mass % of the anode active particle. Each layer would range from 0.0998 mass % to 4.545 mass %.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the core and coatings of Burshtain et al., taught by Cho et al., to inhibit heat generation and lower resistance, as noted in Par. 26 and 31 of Cho et al.. This results overlap the claimed range in a manner which provides a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05).
Burshtain et al. teaches from about 0.1 wt.% to about 10 wt.% of the
Burshtain et al. teaches from about 0 wt.% to about 5 wt.% of a graphene material encapsulating the core particles (see e.g. by graphene is not required in every embodiment of coating 120 and therefore may be 0); and
Burshtain et al. teaches from 0 to about 3 wt.% of a conductive additive (see e.g. by graphene is not required in every embodiment of coating 120 or 130 and therefore may be 0).
The wt.% of Burshtain et al. overlaps the claimed range in a manner which provides a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05).
Calculations:
C
o
r
e
31
+
f
i
r
s
t
l
a
y
e
r
32
+
s
e
c
o
n
d
l
a
y
e
r
33
=
t
o
t
a
l
m
a
s
s
0.1
-
5
%
o
f
c
o
r
e
m
a
s
s
31
i
s
f
i
r
s
t
l
a
y
e
r
32
m
a
s
s
0.1
-
5
%
o
f
c
o
r
e
m
a
s
s
31
i
s
s
e
c
o
n
d
l
a
y
e
r
33
m
a
s
s
If a is the core mass, b is the first layer mass, and c is the second layer mass and if for example there is 100 g:
a
+
b
+
c
=
100
Based on the low end of the coating ranges:
b
=
0.1
100
a
c
=
0.1
100
a
a
+
0.1
100
a
+
0.1
100
a
=
100
100.2
100
a
=
100
a
=
99.8
g
o
r
99.8
m
a
s
s
%
Based on the high end of the coating ranges:
b
=
5
100
a
c
=
5
100
a
a
+
5
100
a
+
5
100
a
=
100
110
100
a
=
100
a
=
90.9
g
o
r
90.9
m
a
s
s
%
Therefore, both b and c range from 0.0998 mass % to 4.545 mass %.
Regarding claim 9, Burshtain et al. teaches the B may be 2-20 wt.% of the total weight of the anode material (see Par. 65). Par. 69 notes the B may be with respect to just the composite anode particles 115 by the “or” of the list of the ways in which the wt.% may be considered with respect to (see Par. 69).
Burshtain et al. fails to explicitly teach; from about 95 wt.% to about 99.9 wt.% of the core particles.
However, Cho et al. teaches a negative active material with a core particle 31, a first layer 32, and a second layer 33 in Par. 26. The core may be SiO in Par. 28-30 and the first layer 32 may be carbon in Par. 31. Cho et al teaches the first layer 32 may be 0.1 to 5% by mass based on the mass of the core particle 31 in Par. 33. Cho et al. teaches the second layer 33 may be a metal borate in Par. 37 and may be 0.1 to 5% by mass based on the mass of the core particle 31. Cho et al. teaches the embodiment inhibits heat generation and lowers resistance in Par. 26 and 31. The result, as seen by the calculations below, is a core particle 31 mass that ranges from 90.9 to 99.8 mass % of the anode active particle. Each layer would range from 0.0998 mass % to 4.545 mass %.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the core and coatings of Burshtain et al., taught by Cho et al., to inhibit heat generation and lower resistance, as noted in Par. 26 and 31 of Cho et al.. The results overlap the claimed range in a manner which provides a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05).
Burshtain et al. teaches from about 0.1 wt.% to about 10 wt.% of the
Burshtain et al. teaches from about 0 wt.% to about 5 wt.% of a graphene material encapsulating the core particles (see e.g. by graphene is not required in every embodiment of coating 120 and therefore may be 0); and
Burshtain et al. teaches from 0 to about 3 wt.% of a conductive additive (see e.g. by conductive additives are not required in every embodiment of coating 120 or 130 and therefore may be 0).
The wt.% of Burshtain et al. overlaps the claimed range in a manner which provides a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05).
Calculations:
C
o
r
e
31
+
f
i
r
s
t
l
a
y
e
r
32
+
s
e
c
o
n
d
l
a
y
e
r
33
=
t
o
t
a
l
m
a
s
s
0.1
-
5
%
o
f
c
o
r
e
m
a
s
s
31
i
s
f
i
r
s
t
l
a
y
e
r
32
m
a
s
s
0.1
-
5
%
o
f
c
o
r
e
m
a
s
s
31
i
s
s
e
c
o
n
d
l
a
y
e
r
33
m
a
s
s
If a is the core mass, b is the first layer mass, and c is the second layer mass and if for example there is 100 g:
a
+
b
+
c
=
100
Based on the low end of the coating ranges:
b
=
0.1
100
a
c
=
0.1
100
a
a
+
0.1
100
a
+
0.1
100
a
=
100
100.2
100
a
=
100
a
=
99.8
g
o
r
99.8
m
a
s
s
%
Based on the high end of the coating ranges:
b
=
5
100
a
c
=
5
100
a
a
+
5
100
a
+
5
100
a
=
100
110
100
a
=
100
a
=
90.9
g
o
r
90.9
m
a
s
s
%
Therefore, both b and c range from 0.0998 mass % to 4.545 mass %.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burshtain et al. (US 2017/0294643 A1) in view of Nakayama et al. (US 2022/0231282 A1) and Huang et al. (CN 112864357 A) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Ohsawa et al. (US 2019/0312302 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Burshtain et al. teaches from about 5 wt.% to about 50 wt.% of the active material particles (see e.g. by the active material may comprise by the active material may be 50-95 wt.% of the active material at least partly as core-shell particles 115 in Par. 186).
Burshtain et al. fails to explicitly teach wherein the active material comprises from about 50 wt.% to about 95 wt.% of the graphite particles; and
However, Ohsawa et al. teaches additional negative electrode active material including graphite particles in Par. 62 compared to the active materials in 95:5 and 70:30. Ohsawa et al. teaches a Si layer 22 and a C layer 23 covering a SiOx particle 21 in Par. 52 that forms the negative electrode active material particle in Par. 55 and 57. Par. 61 explains the negative electrode active material may comprise the negative electrode active material particles 20, the additional negative electrode active material particles, a conductive material, and a binder. Ohsawa et al. teaches in Par. 19 improvement in cycle capacity retention and in post-high-temperature-storage capacity retention is expected to be obtained.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the wt.% of active material and conductive additives, to comprise graphite as a conductive additive to the negative electrode as a whole, and for it to be greater than the active material with respect to the wt.% of the total anode material. Ohsawa et al. teaches in Par. 19 improvement in cycle capacity retention and in post-high-temperature-storage capacity retention is expected to be obtained.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s argues, of Applicant’s Remarks, filed 10/27/2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 1 and 23 under Choi ‘989 have been fully considered and are not found persuasive. This is because applicant’s arguments center on an amendment to claim 1 requiring a limitation previously written as an optional species. The Non-Final Rejection filed 5/29/2025 had never asserted the optional species as being taught by Choi ‘989.
However, the rejection has been withdrawn because the Non-Final Rejection filed 5/29/205 relies on Hayner et al. (US 2018/0151873 A1) to reject claims 2-4, which was not proper.
Upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Burshtain et al. (US 2017/0294643 A1) in view of Nakayama et al. (US 2022/0231282 A1) and Huang et al. (CN 112864357 A).
Applicant argues in paragraphs 2-6 of page 12 of Applicant’s remarks that Matsuno fails to disclose the amended claim 1 limitation “boron material selected from a lithium borate, a borosilicate, a lithium borosilicate, or any combination thereof.”
Examiner agrees as the examiner previously wrote Matsuno fails to teach this limitation previously in the rejection of claim 7 in the Non-Final rejection filed 5/29/2025.
Applicant argues in paragraph 7 of page 12 to paragraph 5 of page 13 of Applicant’s remarks that Choi ‘989 claims priority to Korean Patent Application No. 10-2022-0055522 and Korean Patent Application No. 10-2021-0107524, however a translated KR’524 fails to disclose or suggest that the surface layer includes any boron compounds and thus Choi ‘989’ is not entitled to the September 15, 2021, priority date of KR ‘524.
Upon reviewing a translation of KR ‘524, the examiner agrees that Choi ‘989 is not entitled to the September 15, 2021 priority date with regards to the amended limitation of an amorphous CSS comprising a boron material. However, the Non-Final Rejection filed 5/29/2025 never asserted that a lithium borate or a boron material is taught by Choi ‘989. The examiner argued that Choi ‘989 teaches, and is supported by the translation of KR ‘524, that an amorphous group 13 or group 15 surface layer is taught that may comprise a phosphorous oxide. The claim limitations within 1, 7, 23, and 24 filed 8/29/2022 do not contain a limitation requiring a boron material must be included. The claims list species of which include a boron material, however other species, such as a phosphorous material or a phosphorous oxide are taught in the claims and was taught by Choi ‘989. The examiner respectfully disagrees that for this reason the Non-Final Rejection filed 5/29/2025 should be withdrawn and notes this argument is therefore found to not be persuasive because it is based on the arts failing to teach an amendment, not the arts failing to teach a claim limitation that the examiner had previously argued was taught in a previous office action.
Applicant argues in paragraph 2-5 of page 14 of Applicant’s remarks that Cho ‘714 fails to disclose or suggest a CSS “comprising a boron material selected from lithium borate, a borosilicate, or a combination thereof” and therefore fails to remedy the identified deficits of Matsuno and Choi ‘989.
The examiner agrees Cho ‘714 fails to explicitly teach this limitation, however this was never asserted in the Non-Final Rejection filed 5/29/2025 and is based upon an amended limitation of claim 1 to now require a boron material, rather than as an optional species. The new ground of rejection made in view of Burshtain et al. (US 2017/0294643 A1) in view of Nakayama et al. (US 2022/0231282 A1) and Huang et al. (CN 112864357 A) teaches this limitation (see rejection of claim 1 below). Therefore, the examiner respectfully disagrees with this line of reasoning to withdraw the Non-Final Rejection filed 5/29/2025.
Applicant argues in paragraph 3 of page 15 of Applicant’s remarks that cited art, of which include Burshtain et al. (US 10367191 B2), fails to disclose or suggest lithium borate such as Li2B4O7.
While the examiner agrees that the cited art fails to disclose the amended limitation, the examiner does note Burshtain et al. (US 2017/0294643 A1), that was cited as relevant art in the Non-Final Rejection filed 5/29/2025, does teach this in Par. 167. The examiner respectfully disagrees that for this reason the Non-Final Rejection filed 5/29/2025 should be withdrawn and notes this argument is therefore found to not be persuasive because it is based on the arts failing to teach an amendment of claim 1 to include a boron material rather than an optional species, not the arts failing to teach a claim limitation that the examiner had previously argued was taught in a previous office action.
Additionally, while not argued, the examiner notes claims 2-4 were rejected based upon a 103 rejection in view of Hayner et al. (US 2018/0151873 A1), which was not proper. This is the reason the previous office action was withdrawn.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20170352883 A1 teaches boron doped silicon active material.
US 20180366724 A1 teaches turbostratic carbon in a negative electrode.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHERINE J METZGER whose telephone number is (571)272-0170. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday (1st week) or Monday - Friday (2nd week) 7:30am-5:00am - 9-day biweekly schedule.
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, Tong Guo can be reached at (571)272-3066. 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.
/KATHERINE J METZGER/Examiner, Art Unit 1723
/TONG GUO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1723