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 .
Status of Claims
This is a final office action for application 17/850,540 in response to the amendment(s) filed on 04/03/2026. Claims 1-9, 11-15 and 18 are under examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/02/2026 is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 04/03/2026 have been fully considered but were not found persuasive over the prior art rejection of record for the reasons set forth below. See claims 1-9, 11-15 and 18 rejections below.
Applicant argues that “amended claim 1 recites additional patentable features including a cathode comprising lithium metal oxide particles having a concentration gradient in a single particle form, an anode comprising 1 wt% to 25 wt% of a silicon-based active material, a silicon content of 1 wt% to 40 wt%, and a carbon-based active material where artificial graphite is the majority component” (see e.g. pages 7-10 of applicant’s argument).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As set forth in the rejection of claim 1, Hwang discloses a lithium secondary battery including lithium metal oxide particles having a concentration gradient region in which a concentration of a metal contained in the lithium metal oxide particle is changed between a surface part and a core part of the lithium metal oxide particle. Lee further discloses lithium metal oxide particles in a single particle or low-aggregation form and discloses an anode active material including a silicon-based active material and a carbon-based active material within ratios overlapping the claimed ranges. Lee also discloses metallic silicon as the silicon-based active material and artificial graphite as the carbon-based active material. Therefore, the amended limitations are taught or suggested by the combination of Hwang and Lee. For the above reason, applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “Hwang lacks recognition of the critical structural necessity of utilizing artificial graphite as a majority component to provide a robust mechanical matrix for silicon expansion, and that Hwang’s examples use natural graphite, which applicant alleges has lower strength and hardness than artificial graphite” (see e.g. pages 10-11 of applicant’s argument).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Hwang is not relied upon for teaching the artificial graphite majority limitation. Lee discloses that the carbon-based negative electrode active material may include artificial graphite, and Lee’s example uses artificial graphite as the negative electrode active material. When artificial graphite is selected as the carbon-based active material, the artificial graphite content is greater than 50 wt% based on a total weight of the carbon-based active material. Further, Lee expressly teaches that using a mixture of silicon-based and carbon-based negative electrode active materials within the disclosed ratio suppresses volume expansion of the silicon-based negative electrode active material while improving capacity characteristics and securing excellent cycle performance. Thus, Lee provides the relevant teaching and motivation for the claimed silicon/carbon anode composition. For the above reason, applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “Lee does not cure the deficiencies of Hwang because Lee discloses a single particle form for high-voltage stability but lacks any teaching regarding internal concentration gradients” (see e.g. page 14 of applicant’s argument).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The rejection does not rely on Lee for teaching the concentration gradient region. Hwang is relied upon for teaching lithium metal oxide particles having a concentration gradient region. Lee is relied upon for teaching the single particle or low-aggregation form and the claimed anode active material composition. A proper obviousness rejection may rely on different references for different claim limitations, and each reference need not individually disclose every claimed feature. For the above reason, applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “Lee’s high-temperature calcination process for forming single particles would inherently destroy Hwang’s concentration gradient by atomic diffusion, and therefore Hwang and Lee are fundamentally incompatible” (see e.g. page 14 of applicant’s argument).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 1 is directed to a lithium secondary battery product, not to a particular method of making the lithium metal oxide particles. The rejection does not require bodily incorporation of Lee’s entire manufacturing process into Hwang’s process. Rather, Hwang is relied upon for teaching the concentration-gradient lithium metal oxide particle structure, and Lee is relied upon for teaching the desirability of a single particle or low-aggregation lithium nickel cobalt manganese-based oxide form. Applicant’s assertion that Lee’s process would inherently destroy Hwang’s concentration gradient is unsupported and does not overcome the structural teachings of the applied references. For the above reason, applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues that” Lee utilizes artificial graphite only as a conventional active material to evaluate chemical stability at high voltages and fails to recognize artificial graphite as a mechanical support matrix for silicon expansion” (see e.g. pages 14-15 of applicant’s argument).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Lee is not limited to the particular purpose identified by applicant. Lee teaches artificial graphite as a suitable carbon-based negative electrode active material and further teaches that a silicon-based negative electrode active material may be mixed with a carbon-based negative electrode active material in a ratio that suppresses volume expansion of the silicon-based active material while improving capacity characteristics and securing excellent cycle performance. The fact that Lee may also address high-voltage stability does not negate its express teaching of artificial graphite and silicon/carbon anode ratios overlapping the claimed ranges. For the above reason, applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “Lee fails to provide guidance or motivation regarding the specific synergistic combination of: (i) a restricted elemental silicon range of 1 wt% to 40 wt%, (ii) a majority content of artificial graphite, and (iii) a concentration-gradient single-particle cathode” (see e.g. page 15 of applicant’s argument).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Lee discloses metallic silicon as a silicon-based negative electrode active material and discloses a silicon-based active material to carbon-based active material ratio of 1:99 to 50:50, including 5:95 to 30:70. When metallic silicon is selected, the silicon content corresponds to the content of the silicon-based active material, and Lee’s disclosed ratios teach or suggest silicon content and carbon content ranges overlapping the claimed ranges. Lee also teaches artificial graphite as the carbon-based active material and teaches single-particle or low-aggregation lithium nickel cobalt manganese-based oxide particles. Hwang teaches the concentration-gradient cathode structure. The combination is supported by Lee’s express teachings of suppressing silicon volume expansion, improving capacity characteristics, securing excellent cycle performance, minimizing side reactions, suppressing degradation and swelling, and improving energy density. For the above reason, applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “amended claim 1 is directed to a specific integrated electrode system, rather than individual elements in isolation, and that neither Hwang nor Lee recognizes or suggests the coordinated structural design” (see e.g. page 15 of applicant’s argument).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The rejection is based on the combined teachings of Hwang and Lee, not on the individual elements in isolation. Hwang teaches the concentration-gradient lithium metal oxide cathode particles. Lee teaches single-particle or low-aggregation lithium metal oxide particles and teaches an anode active material composition including silicon-based and carbon-based active materials in overlapping ratios, including artificial graphite. The cited references are in the same field of lithium secondary batteries and address related battery performance issues, including cycle performance, degradation, swelling, and energy density. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to combine the teachings to obtain predictable improvements in lithium secondary battery performance. For the above reason, applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “Hwang and Lee address different technical problems using incompatible structural approaches, and that the Examiner’s combination relies on impermissible hindsight reconstruction” (see e.g. page 15 of applicant’s argument).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The references need not address identical problems to be properly combined. Hwang and Lee are both directed to lithium secondary batteries and electrode active materials for improving battery performance. Lee provides express reasons for using a silicon/carbon negative electrode active material mixture and for using single-particle or low-aggregation lithium nickel cobalt manganese-based oxide particles, including suppressing silicon volume expansion, improving capacity characteristics, securing excellent cycle performance, minimizing side reactions, suppressing degradation and swelling, and improving energy density. These teachings provide articulated reasoning with rational underpinning for the proposed combination. The rejection is therefore based on the teachings of the references, not impermissible hindsight. For the above reason, applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “the claimed configuration provides unexpected synergistic performance based on Table 2, including alleged improvements from the claimed anode composition, the concentration gradient, the single-particle form, and the 1 wt% to 40 wt% silicon content range” (see e.g. pages 15-16 of applicant’s argument).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s evidence is not commensurate in scope with the breadth of claim 1. Claim 1 broadly encompasses numerous lithium metal oxide compositions, silicon-based active materials, carbon-based active materials, artificial graphite types, electrode formulations, particle sizes, electrolyte systems, and operating conditions. The claim does not require the particular examples, electrolyte additives, cathode composition, anode formulation, graphite grade, or testing conditions relied upon by applicant. Further, Lee already teaches using a mixture of silicon-based and carbon-based negative electrode active materials within overlapping ratios to suppress volume expansion of the silicon-based negative electrode active material while improving capacity characteristics and securing excellent cycle performance. Lee also teaches single-particle or low-aggregation lithium nickel cobalt manganese-based oxide particles for minimizing side reactions, suppressing degradation and swelling, and improving energy density. Therefore, applicant has not established unexpected results reasonably commensurate with the scope of the claim or sufficient to overcome the prima facie case of obviousness. For the above reason, applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “a PHOSITA could not have easily derived amended claim 1, and that the Examiner’s assertion of obviousness constitutes impermissible hindsight bias” (see e.g. page 16 of applicant’s argument).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Hwang and Lee provide express teachings supporting the claimed structure and composition. Hwang teaches the concentration-gradient lithium metal oxide cathode particles. Lee teaches single-particle or low-aggregation lithium nickel cobalt manganese-based oxide particles, silicon-based negative electrode active materials including metallic silicon, carbon-based negative electrode active materials including artificial graphite, and silicon/carbon mixing ratios overlapping the claimed ranges. Lee further provides reasons for the combination, including suppressing silicon volume expansion, improving capacity characteristics, securing excellent cycle performance, minimizing side reactions, suppressing degradation and swelling, and improving energy density. Therefore, the conclusion of obviousness is based on the express teachings and suggestions of the applied prior art. For the above reason, applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
In conclusion, the arguments and amendments filed were not found persuasive over the prior art rejection of record. The rejections of the claims have been updated to reflect the amendments where appropriate. See claims 1-9, 11-15 and 18 rejections below.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-9, 11-15 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang et al. (US-20170200944-A1) and further in view of Lee et al. (WO-2020180160-A1), US-20220029152-A1 is being used as an equivalent translation and referenced below.
Regarding Claim 1, Hwang discloses a lithium secondary battery (see e.g. " a lithium secondary battery" in paragraph [0017]), comprising:
a cathode (see e.g. "cathode" in paragraph [0034]) comprising lithium metal oxide particles that contain lithium and further metal elements (see e.g. " cathode contains a lithium-metal oxide particle" in paragraph [0034]), the lithium metal oxide particles respectively having a concentration gradient region formed in at least one region between a center and a surface of the respective lithium metal oxide particle, wherein a concentration of at least one of the further metal elements is changed in the concentration gradient region (see e.g. "the cathode contains a cathode active material containing a lithium-metal oxide particle, the cathode active material having a concentration gradient layer in which a concentration of a metal contained in the lithium-metal oxide particle is changed between a surface part and a core part of the lithium-metal oxide particle" in paragraph [0017]); and
an anode (see e.g. "anode" in paragraph [0034]) comprising an anode active material (see e.g. "anode active material" in paragraph [0052]) that contains a silicon-based active material (see e.g. " the anode active material may be at least one material selected from… silicon, Si alloy, Si oxide… and be a composite of at least two materials selected from the anode active material group." in paragraph [0052]) and a carbon-based active material (see e.g. " the anode active material may be at least one material selected from… easily graphitizable carbon, hardly graphitizable carbon, graphite… and be a composite of at least two materials selected from the anode active material group." in paragraph [0052]).
Hwang does not disclose that a content of the carbon-based active material in the anode active material is greater than a content of the silicon-based active material, and the lithium metal oxide particles have a single particle form, and the single particle form excludes a secondary particle form in which 50 or more primary particles are assembled or aggregated, a content of the silicon-based active material is in a range from 1 wt% to 25 wt% based on a total weight of the anode active material, and a silicon content in the silicon- based active material is in a range from 1 wt% to 40 wt% based on a total weight of the anode active material, a content of the carbon-based active material is in a range from 75 wt% to 99 wt% based on a total weight of the anode active material, and the carbon-based active material comprises artificial graphite, and a content of the artificial graphite is greater than 50 wt% based on a total weight of the carbon-based active material.
Lee, however, in the same field of endeavor, lithium secondary batteries containing lithium metal oxide particles, silicon based active materials and carbon based active materials, discloses that the content of the carbon-based active material in the anode active material is greater than a content of the silicon-based active material (see e.g. “the negative electrode active material may be a mixture of the silicon-based negative electrode active material and the carbon-based negative electrode active material” and “a mixing ratio of the silicon-based negative electrode active material:the carbon-based negative electrode active material may be in a range of 1:99 to 50:50, for example, 5:95 to 30:70, as a weight ratio” in paragraph [0082] of Lee).
Lee further discloses a cathode active material that is a lithium metal oxide (see e.g. “the positive electrode active material layer according to the present invention includes a lithium nickel cobalt manganese-based oxide” in paragraph [0030] of Lee), and that the lithium metal oxide particles have a single particle form, and the single particle form excludes a secondary particle form in which 50 or more primary particles are assembled or aggregated (see e.g. “The lithium nickel cobalt manganese-based oxide in the form of a single particle” in paragraph [0043] and “monolithic structure composed of the primary particles or may be in the form of a secondary particle in which 30 or less, preferably 10 or less, of the primary particles are aggregated” in paragraph [0046] and “single particles in the form of primary particles and secondary particles, in which the number of the primary particles aggregated was 10 or less” in paragraph [0116] of Lee).
Lee further discloses that a content of the silicon-based active material is in a range of 1 wt% to 50 wt% based on a total weight of the anode active material (see e.g. “a mixing ratio of the silicon-based negative electrode active material:the carbon-based negative electrode active material may be in a range of 1:99 to 50:50, for example, 5:95 to 30:70, as a weight ratio” in paragraph [0082] of Lee). Lee also discloses that the silicon-based active material may include metallic silicon (see e.g. “The silicon-based negative electrode active material may include at least one selected from the group consisting of metallic silicon (Si)” in paragraph [0080] of Lee). Thus, when metallic silicon is selected as the silicon-based active material, the silicon content corresponds to the content of the silicon-based active material. Therefore, Lee teaches or suggests a silicon content in the silicon-based active material is in a range of 1 wt% to 50 wt% based on a total weight of the anode active material (see e.g. “a mixing ratio of the silicon-based negative electrode active material:the carbon-based negative electrode active material may be in a range of 1:99 to 50:50, for example, 5:95 to 30:70, as a weight ratio” in paragraph [0082] of Lee).
Lee further discloses that a content of the carbon-based active material is in a range of 50 wt% to 99 wt% based on a total weight of the anode active material (see e.g. “a mixing ratio of the silicon-based negative electrode active material:the carbon-based negative electrode active material may be in a range of 1:99 to 50:50” in paragraph [0082] of Lee). Lee also teaches that the carbon-based active material comprises artificial graphite (see e.g. “artificial graphite … was used as the negative electrode active material” in paragraph [0125] of Lee). Thus, when artificial graphite is selected as the carbon-based active material, the content of the artificial graphite is greater than 50 wt% based on a total weight of the carbon-based active material as taught by Lee above.
Lee discloses ranges that overlap or encompass the claimed ranges. In the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Lee also teaches that using a mixture of silicon-based and carbon-based negative electrode active materials within the disclosed ratio suppresses volume expansion of the silicon-based negative electrode active material while improving capacity characteristics and securing excellent cycle performance (see e.g. paragraph [0082] of Lee). Lee also teaches that use of lithium nickel cobalt manganese-based oxide in single-particle or low-aggregation form minimizes side reactions with electrolyte solution, suppresses degradation and swelling, and improves energy density (see e.g. paragraphs [0011]-[0013], [0041]-[0046] of Lee). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the lithium secondary battery of Hwang et al. such that the anode active material composition and single-particle lithium metal oxide form taught by Lee et al. in order to improve capacity characteristics, suppress silicon-based active material volume expansion, secure excellent cycle performance, minimize side reactions with electrolyte solution, suppress degradation and swelling, and improve energy density as suggested by Lee.
Neither Hwang nor Lee explicitly disclose that the anode is disposed to face the cathode, however, both Hwang and Lee disclose that a lithium secondary battery that is fabricated by putting the cathode and the anode together (see e.g. "A battery was configured by notching and stacking the cathode and the anode" in paragraph [0075] of Hwang and "A separator was disposed between the positive electrode and negative electrode prepared as described above and an electrolyte solution was injected to prepare a lithium secondary battery." in paragraph [0128] of Lee). As such, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that, to modify the assembled lithium secondary batteries of Hwang in view of Lee so that the anode is disposed to face the cathode as taught by Hwang and Lee so that a current can be formed for the lithium secondary battery structure.
Regarding Claim 2, Hwang in view of Lee discloses the lithium secondary battery of claim 1 (see e.g. claim 1 rejection above).
Hwang further discloses that the lithium-metal oxide particles (see e.g. "the lithium-metal oxide particles... represented by... LixM1aM2bM3cOy" in paragraph [0023] of Hwang) comprise a first metal different from lithium (see e.g., "first... metal M1" in paragraph [0026] of Hwang) and a second metal different from lithium (see e.g. "third metal... M3" in paragraph [0026] of Hwang),
wherein a concentration of the first metal continuously decreases in a direction from the center to the surface in the concentration gradient region (see e.g. "a concentration gradient layer of the metal M1 in which a concentration of the metal M1 is decreased in a surface direction between the surface part and the core part” in paragraph [0027] of Hwang), and
wherein a concentration of the second metal continuously increases in a direction from the center to the surface in the concentration gradient region (see e.g. "a concentration gradient layer of the metal M3 in which a concentration of the metal M3 is increased in the surface direction between the surface part and the core part." in paragraph [0027] of Hwang).
Regarding Claim 3, Hwang in view of Lee discloses the lithium secondary battery of claim 2 (see e.g. claim 2 rejection above).
Hwang further discloses that the lithium-metal oxide particles further comprise a third metal different from lithium (see e.g. "a second metal M2" in paragraph [0026] of Hwang), and a concentration of the third metal is constant from the center to the surface (see e.g. "contain a constant concentration of the metal M2 between surface part and the core part" in paragraph [0027] of Hwang).
Regarding Claim 4, Hwang in view of Lee discloses the lithium secondary battery of claim 1 (see e.g. claim 1 rejection above).
Hwang further discloses that a slope of a concentration gradient is constant in the concentration gradient region (see e.g. FIGs. 3A and 3B of Hwang).
Regarding Claim 5, Hwang in view of Lee discloses the lithium secondary battery of claim 1 (see e.g. claim 1 rejection above).
Hwang further discloses that the lithium-metal oxide particles have a core region occupying a radial extension from the center towards the surface of the lithium-metal oxide particles (see e.g. FIG. 2A of Hwang and annotated figure below), in which concentrations of the metal elements are constant (see e.g. "the core part may mean a region from the real center of the lithium-metal oxide particle to a portion thereof having a radius, in which the concentration or composition of the metal contained in the lithium-metal oxide particle is constant" in paragraph [0018] of Hwang), and
the radial extension is 50% or more of a radius of the lithium-metal oxide particles from the center towards the surface of the lithium-metal oxide particles (see e.g. FIG. 2A of Hwang and annotated figure below).
PNG
media_image1.png
461
788
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Hwang, figure 2A, annotated for illustration)
Regarding Claim 6, Hwang in view of Lee discloses the lithium secondary battery of claim 5 (see e.g. claim 5 rejection above).
Hwang further discloses that the lithium-metal oxide particles have a shell region (see e.g. annotated figure below) in which the concentrations of the further metal elements are constant (see e.g. "the surface part may mean a region from an outermost portion of the lithium-metal oxide particle to an inner portion thereof, in which the concentration or composition of the metal contained in the lithium-metal oxide particle is constant" in paragraph [0018] of Hwang), and
wherein the shell region extends from the surface of the lithium-metal oxide particles in a direction toward the center of the lithium-metal oxide particles (see e.g. annotated figure below).
PNG
media_image2.png
492
637
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(Hwang, figure 2A, annotated for illustration)
Regarding Claim 7, Hwang in view of Lee discloses the lithium secondary battery of claim 6 (see e.g. claim 6 rejection above).
Hwang further discloses that the concentration gradient region extends from the surface of the lithium-metal oxide particles to a surface of the core region of the lithium-metal oxide particles (see e.g. "The concentration gradient is formed between the core part and the surface part of the cathode active material." in paragraph [0018] of Hwang), and
that the concentration gradient region extends from a surface of the shell region to a surface of the core region of the lithium-metal oxide particles (see e.g. annotated figure below).
PNG
media_image3.png
440
582
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(Hwang, figure 2A, annotated for illustration)
Regarding Claim 8, Hwang in view of Lee discloses the lithium secondary battery of claim 6 (see e.g. claim 6 rejection above).
Hwang further discloses that a radial extension of the shell region from the surface of the lithium metal oxide particles in a direction toward the center (see e.g. annotated figure below). In regards to the claim limitation “wherein a radial extension of the shell region from the surface of the lithium metal oxide particles in a direction toward the center is from 1% to 20% of a radius of the lithium metal oxide particles.” Hwang discloses that there are 13 equal sections divided between the core part and the outermost shell. These parts are denoted by numbers 1 to 13 between the core part of the cathode active material and the outermost portion thereof in FIG. 2. The center of the section denoted by number 1 is a real center, and the section denoted by number 13 contacts the outermost portion (see e.g. paragraph [0019] of Hwang). Thus the radial extension of the shell region is equivalent of 1/13 of the total radius as illustrated in FIG. 2 and the annotated figure below. 1/13=7.69% which lies within the claimed range of 1% to 20%.
Hwang discloses a point that lies within the range claimed by the instant application. In the case where the prior art discloses a point within the claimed range, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
PNG
media_image4.png
441
745
media_image4.png
Greyscale
(Hwang, figure 2A, annotated for illustration)
Regarding Claim 9, Hwang in view of Lee discloses the lithium secondary battery of claim 1 (see e.g. claim 1 rejection above).
Hwang further discloses that a distance between an outer surface of the concentration gradient region and the surface of the particles is shorter than a distance between an inner surface of the concentration gradient region and the center of the particles (see e.g. FIG. 2A of Hwang).
Regarding Claim 11, Hwang in view of Lee discloses the lithium secondary battery of claim 1 (see e.g. claim 1 rejection above).
Hwang further discloses that an average composition of the lithium-metal oxide particles is represented by LixM1aM2bM3cOy
wherein M1, M2, and M3 are each independently different metals selected from the group consisting of Ni, Co, Mn, Na, Mg, Ca, Ti, V, Cr, Cu, Zn, Ge, Sr, Ag, Ba, Zr, Nb, Mo, Al, Ga, B and x, y, a, b, and c satisfy 0 < x ≤ 1.1, 2 ≤ y ≤ 2.02, 0 ≤ a ≤ 1, 0 ≤ b ≤ 1, 0 ≤ c ≤ 1 (see e.g. paragraph [0023] and [0024] of Hwang). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the range of b + c would be from 0 ≤ b + c ≤ 2.
Hwang discloses ranges that overlap with or lie inside the ranges claimed by the instant application. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding Claim 12, Hwang in view of Lee discloses the lithium secondary battery of claim 11 (see e.g. claim 11 rejection above).
Hwang further discloses that M1, M2 and M3 include Ni, Mn and Co, respectively (see e.g. "LixNiaCobMncOy" in paragraph [0028] of Hwang).
Regarding Claim 13, Hwang in view of Lee discloses the lithium secondary battery of claim 1 (see e.g. claim 1 rejection above).
Hwang further discloses that the silicon-based active material comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of silicon and a silicon oxide (see e.g. "silicon... Si oxide" in paragraph [0052] of Hwang).
Regarding Claim 14, Hwang in view of Lee discloses the lithium secondary battery of claim 13 (see e.g. claim 13 rejection above).
Hwang does not disclose that the silicon-based active material further comprises a metal or a metalloid, and the metal or metalloid includes at least one selected from the group consisting of Li, Mg, Ge, Sn, Pb, Al, Ti, Cu, Fe, Ni, Co, Cr, Zr, Zn, W, Ga, Ba, B, As, Se, Sb, Te, Po and At.
Lee, however, discloses that the silicon-based active material further comprises a metal or a metalloid (see e.g. "The silicon-based negative electrode active material may include... a Si—Y alloy (where Y is an element selected from the group consisting of alkali metal, alkaline earth metal, a Group 13 element, a Group 14 element, transition metal, a rare earth element, and a combination thereof, and is not Si" in paragraph [0080] of Lee), and
the metal or metalloid includes at least one selected from the group consisting of Mg, Ge, Sn, Pb, Al, Ti, Cu, Fe, Cr, Zr, Zn, W, Ga, Ba, B, As, Se, Sb, Te and Po (see e.g. paragraph [0080] of Lee).
Lee also teaches that a lithium secondary battery that utilizes the disclosed cathode and anode can have a wide operating voltage range and as a result a high energy density and high capacity characteristics may be achieved (see e.g. paragraph [0011] of Lee). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the silicon-based active material of Hwang et al. with the silicon-based active material comprising a metal or metalloid as taught by Lee et al. in order to have a lithium secondary battery that has a high energy density and high capacity characteristics as suggested by Lee.
Regarding Claim 15, Hwang in view of Lee discloses the lithium secondary battery of claim 13 (see e.g. claim 13 rejection above).
Hwang does not disclose that the silicon oxide is represented as SiOz (0 < z ≤ 2).
Lee, however, discloses that the silicon oxide is represented as SiOx (0 < x < 2) (see e.g. "silicon oxide (SiOx, where 0<x<2)" in paragraph [0080] of Lee).
Lee also teaches that a lithium secondary battery that utilizes the disclosed cathode and anode can have a wide operating voltage range and as a result a high energy density and high capacity characteristics may be achieved (see e.g. paragraph [0011] of Lee). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to the silicon-based active material of Hwang et al. with the silicon-based active material including silicon oxide represented as SiOx (0 < x < 2) as taught by Lee et al. in order to have a lithium secondary battery that has a high energy density and high capacity characteristics as suggested by Lee.
Regarding Claim 18, Hwang in view of Lee discloses the lithium secondary battery of claim 1 (see e.g. claim 1 rejection above).
Hwang further discloses that the carbon-based active material is selected from the group consisting of artificial graphite, soft carbon, and hard carbon (see e.g. "easily graphitizable carbon, hardly graphitizable carbon, graphite" in paragraph [0052] of Hwang).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's
disclosure:
Kim et al. (US-20190221829-A1)
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 JESSE EFYMOW whose telephone number is (571)270-0795. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 10:30 am - 8:30 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, 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.
/J.J.E./ Examiner, Art Unit 1723
/NICHOLAS P D'ANIELLO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights