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 Dec 18, 2025 has been entered but does not place the application in condition for allowance. Claims 1-15 are pending in the present application, with claims 9-14 withdrawn from consideration as being drawn to a non-elected invention. The prior art reference Matsuno used in the previous 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) rejections of claims 1-6, 8-9, and 15 anticipates amended claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6, 8-9, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Matsuno et al., US 2021/0376311 A1 (hereinafter “Matsuno”). Matsuno qualifies as prior art under 35 USC § 102(a)(2) with its effectively filed date of 07 Nov. 2018.
Regarding claim 1, Matsuno discloses a negative electrode active material for a lithium secondary battery (i.e., negative electrode active material or a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery) [abstract] comprising:
a silicon oxide (i.e., silicon compound SiOx wherein 0.5 ≤ x ≤ 1.6) [¶ 0016] composite including an alkali metal or alkaline earth metal-containing phosphate (i.e., lithium phosphate) [¶ 0021] and an aluminum-containing phosphate (i.e., aluminum phosphate tribasic; note that this is a common name for AlPO4) [¶ 0024].
Additionally, Matsuno teaches a carbon material on a surface layer portion of each of the negative electrode active material particles which is desired to have a covering rate as high as possible and which would suppress contact between the silicon compound particles containing SiOx and water in an aqueous negative electrode slurry to suppress lithium compound elution ([¶ 0078]-[¶ 0081]). A covering rate of such completeness as taught by Matsuno would result in a structure of the carbon material of the surface layer portion corresponding to a shell. The silicon compound particle within the negative electrode active material particle that is shielded by the carbon material on the surface layer portion (i.e., shell) would correspond to the core of the claimed core-shell structure.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Matsuno discloses the negative electrode active material of claim 1.
Matsuno discloses in Example 1 that the electrode active material has 0.3 mass% AlPO4 (about 25.4% P by mass and about 22.1% Al by mass in the formula) in the negative electrode active material prepared from a blend of AlPO4 with the negative electrode active material particles and also discloses a molar quantity of phosphorus element in the negative electrode active material particles as 2.2 x 10-5 mol/g [¶ 00168] - [¶ 0169]. Therefore, a Al/P mass ratio is (0.3% × 0.221) ÷ (0.3% × 0.254 + 2.2×10-5 × 30.97) = 0.460.
The value of 0.460 is lesser than 0.8 (as required by claim 2) and between 0.1 to 0.6 (as required by claim 3). A specific example in the prior art which is within the claimed range anticipates the range; see MPEP § 2131.03 (I).
Regarding claim 4, Matsuno discloses the negative electrode active material of claim 1. Matsuno further discloses lithium phosphate [¶ 0021], which has an unambiguous formula of Li3PO4. This formula meets the limitations of Chemical Formula 1 in the instant claim when x = 3, y = 1, and z = 7.
Regarding claim 5, Matsuno discloses the negative electrode active material of claim 1. Matsuno further discloses aluminum phosphate tribasic [¶ 0024], which is the common name for AlPO4.
Regarding claim 5, Matsuno discloses the negative electrode active material of claim 1. Matsuno further discloses the use of one or more lithium silicates, including Li2SO3 or Li2Si2O5 [¶ 0059].
Regarding claim 8, Matsuno discloses the negative electrode active material of claim 1. Matsuno further discloses the disposition of a carbon material as part of the active layer [¶ 0036], [¶ 0089].
Regarding claim 9, Matsuno discloses the negative active material of claim 1. Matsuno further discloses the use of graphite [¶ 0103], [¶ 0171].
Regarding claim 15, Matsuno discloses the negative active material claim 1. Matsuno further discloses a lithium secondary battery (i.e., lithium-ion secondary battery) [¶ 0012] comprising:
a negative electrode (i.e., negative electrode) [¶ 0083] including the active material of claim 1; and
a positive electrode (i.e., positive electrode) [¶ 0135].
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 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuno et al., US 2021/0376311 A1.
Regarding claim 7, Matsuno discloses the negative electrode active material of claim 1 but is silent regarding specific compositions of silicates. However, Matsuno does include an example wherein the ratio of silicate relative to SiOx is varied [see Table 8]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the amount of silicate via routine experimentation with the composition of the electrode active material in order to optimize the material for the battery device. Therefore, the skilled artisan would have arrived at the claimed range of 10-95 parts per hundred by weight of silicate while performing routine experimentation with the composition of the electrode active material in order to optimize the material for the battery device. See MPEP § 2144.05 (II) (A).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed Dec 18, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Claim 1 recites “the composite has a core-shell structure” in line 6, which does not specify the composition of the core or the shell. Matsuno teaches a carbon material on a surface layer portion of each of the negative electrode active material particles which is desired to have a covering rate as high as possible and which would suppress contact between the silicon compound particles containing SiOx and water in an aqueous negative electrode slurry to suppress lithium compound elution ([¶ 0078]-[¶ 0081]). A covering rate of such completeness as taught by Matsuno would result in a structure of the carbon material of the surface layer portion corresponding to a shell. The silicon compound particle within the negative electrode active material particle that is shielded by the carbon material on the surface layer portion (i.e., shell) would correspond to the core of the claimed core-shell structure.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 GIGI LIN whose telephone number is (571)272-2017. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:30 - 6.
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, Jeffrey T Barton can be reached at (571) 272-1307. 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.
/G.L.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1726
/JEFFREY T BARTON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1726 20 March 2026