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 on 02/06/2026 does not place the application in condition for allowance.
In view of the amendment to claims 1, 2, 19, and 20, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 of claims 1-5, 8-11 and 19-22 is withdrawn.
In view of the cancellation of claim 7 the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 of claim 7 is withdrawn.
The addition of claims 21 and 22 is acknowledged.
New analysis follows.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/06/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments with respect to Aramata as a primary reference 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.
Applicant argues Wang does not teach two different areas which contain a silicon-based matrix and silicon containing particles within the matrix, however, “two different areas” is not claimed and Wang clearly points to a silicon dioxide matrix and silicon particles within this matrix as seen in the rejections of claim 1 which are each required by the claim. The examiner agrees Wang does not teach the newly added limitation of a limiting layer in addition to the conducting layer, therefore new analysis follows.
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.
Claims 1-2, 8-10, 19, 21-22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et. al. (CN108183199, as cited in IDS dated 1/25/23, reference made to English translation) in view if Wu et al. (US20060147797A1).
Regarding claim 1, Wang discloses a silicon-based negative electrode material (¶[0030]), comprising a silicon-based matrix with a low silicon-oxygen ratio; and silicon-based particles with a high silicon-oxygen ratio dispersed in the silicon-based matrix with the low silicon-oxygen ratio, wherein
a silicon-oxygen ratio of the silicon-based matrix with the low silicon-oxygen ratio is 1:2, a silicon-oxygen ratio of the silicon-based particle with the high silicon-oxygen ratio is 1:0, the silicon-based matrix with the low silicon-oxygen ratio is silicon dioxide (¶[0030] see silicon dioxide in final composite material), and
the silicon-based particles with the high silicon-oxygen ratio are silicon particles (¶[0030] see nano-silicon cores, Fig. 1)
wherein the silicon particles are dispersed uniformly within the silicon dioxide matrix(Fig. 1)
wherein a conducting layer is disposed on a surface of the silicon-based particle with the high silicon-oxygen ratio (¶[0031] see conductive carbon black distributed around the nano silicon cores)
but does not disclose a limiting layer disposed on the surface of the silicon particles within the matrix.
Wu, related to anode materials, teaches a silicon particles with a coating layer of TiO2 or ZrO2 in addition to a carbon layer(¶[0028]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized adding the coating layer taught by Wu would improve capacity by limiting silicon volume expansion (¶[0050], Fig. 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to have added the coating/limiting layer taught by Wu to the electrode particle of Wang to improve capacity by limiting silicon volume expansion.
Regarding claim 2, modified Wang discloses a silicon-based negative electrode material according to claim 1, and further discloses wherein the silicon-based matrix with the low silicon-oxygen ratio is obtained through growth in-situ on a surface of the silicon-based particle with the high silicon-oxygen ratio (¶[0034]-[0035] see starting with silicon cores and forming silicon dioxide matrix of example 1).
Furthermore claim 2 is considered product-by-process claim. The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus or product. The determination of patentability is based upon the apparatus structure itself. The patentability of a product or apparatus does not depend on its method of production or formation. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. See In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP § 2113).
Regarding claim 3, modified Wang discloses a silicon-based negative electrode material according to claim 1, and the limitation of wherein the silicon-containing crystal particles are crystalline silicon and/or lithium-containing silicate, does not exclude the selection of the silicon-based matrix with the low silicon-oxygen ratio is silicon dioxide and the silicon-based particles with the high silicon-oxygen ratio are silicon particles, therefore claim 3 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 1.
Regarding claim 8, modified Wang discloses a silicon-based negative electrode material according to claim 1, and the limitation of wherein a material of the ion-conducting layer is selected from one or more of LiPO4, LiLaTiO4,Li7La3Zr2O12, LiAlO2, LiAlF4, LiAlS, Li2MgTiO4, or Li6La3Zr1.5W0.5O12, does not exclude the selection of a conducting layer instead of an ion-conducting layer, therefore claim 8 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 1.
Regarding claim 9, modified Wang discloses a silicon-based negative electrode material according to claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose a thickness of the conducting layer.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized optimizing the thickness of the conducting layer would improve electronic and ionic conductivity of the negative electrode material (¶[0022])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the thickness of the carbon layer to between 2 nm and 150 nm.
“[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Regarding claim 10, modified Wang discloses a silicon-based negative electrode material according to claim 1 and further discloses wherein the silicon-based negative electrode material further comprises a carbon coating layer coated on a surface of the silicon-based matrix with the low silicon-oxygen ratio (¶0030], Fig. 1, see carbon coating layer 4).
Regarding claim 19, Wang discloses a battery(i.e. CR2016 coin cell, ¶[0036]) which one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize as containing a positive electrode plate , a negative electrode p[late and a separator, and the battery contains a silicon-based negative electrode material (¶[0030]), comprising a silicon-based matrix with a low silicon-oxygen ratio; and silicon-based particles with a high silicon-oxygen ratio dispersed in the silicon-based matrix with the low silicon-oxygen ratio, wherein
a silicon-oxygen ratio of the silicon-based matrix with the low silicon-oxygen ratio is 1:2, a silicon-oxygen ratio of the silicon-based particle with the high silicon-oxygen ratio is 1:0, the silicon-based matrix with the low silicon-oxygen ratio is silicon dioxide (¶[0030] see silicon dioxide in final composite material), and
the silicon-based particles with the high silicon-oxygen ratio are silicon particles (¶[0030] see nano-silicon cores, Fig. 1)
wherein the silicon particles are dispersed uniformly within the silicon dioxide matrix(Fig. 1)
wherein a conducting layer is disposed on a surface of the silicon-based particle with the high silicon-oxygen ratio (¶[0031] see conductive carbon black distributed around the nano silicon cores)
but does not disclose a limiting layer disposed on the surface of the silicon particles within the matrix.
Wu, related to anode materials, teaches a silicon particles with a coating layer of TiO2 or ZrO2 in addition to a carbon layer(¶[0028]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized adding the coating layer taught by Wu would improve capacity by limiting silicon volume expansion (¶[0050], Fig. 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to have added the coating layer taught by Wu to improve capacity by limiting silicon volume expansion.
Regarding claims 21 and 22, the limitations wherein the conducting polymer is selected from polyacetylene, polythiophene, polypyrrole, polyaniline, polyhenylene, poly-phenylenevinylene, and/or polydiacetylene does not exclude the selection of a carbon conducting layer therefore claims 21 and 22 is rejected for the same reasons as claims 1 and 19 respectively.
Claims 3-5, and 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et. al. (CN108183199, as cited in IDS dated 1/25/23, reference made to English translation) in view if Wu et al. (US20060147797A1) and further in view of over Aramata et. al. (US20030215711).
Regarding claim 4, modified Wang discloses a silicon-based negative electrode material according to claim 1, but does not disclose the particle size of the silicon-based particle with the high silicon-oxygen ratio is 20 nm to 1000 nm.
Aramata, related to negative electrode materials, teaches a silicon-based negative electrode material (¶[0005]), comprising a silicon-based matrix with the low silicon-oxygen ratio of silicon dioxide (¶[0059] see silicon dioxide in final composite), and silicon particles dispersed in the matrix(¶[0059] see micro-crystals of silicon in final composite material), wherein a particle size of the silicon particles is 60 nm in example 3 (¶[0070]) and 20 nm in example 4 (¶[0072]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized using the particles size as taught by Aramata in the negative electrode material of Wang would have improved capacity and cycle performance(¶[0027]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to have used the particles size as taught by Aramata in the negative electrode material of Wang would have improved capacity and cycle performance.
Regarding claim 5, modified Wang discloses a silicon-based negative electrode material according to claim 1, but does not disclose wherein a particle size of the silicon-containing crystal particle is 2 nm to 15 nm..
Aramata, related to negative electrode materials, teaches a silicon-based negative electrode material (¶[0005]), comprising a silicon-based matrix with the low silicon-oxygen ratio of silicon dioxide (¶[0059] see silicon dioxide in final composite), and silicon particles dispersed in the matrix(¶[0059] see micro-crystals of silicon in final composite material), wherein the silicon-containing crystal particles with the high silicon-oxygen ratio particle is 11 nm (¶[0059]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized using the particles size as taught by Aramata in the negative electrode material of Wang would have improved capacity and cycle performance(¶[0027]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to have used the particle size as taught by Aramata in the negative electrode material of Wang would have improved capacity and cycle performance.
Regarding claim 11, modified Wang discloses a silicon-based negative electrode material according to claim 1, but does not disclose wherein a particle size of the silicon-based negative electrode material is 3 μm to 8 μm.
Aramata, related to negative electrode materials, teaches a silicon-based negative electrode material (¶[0005]), comprising a silicon-based matrix with the low silicon-oxygen ratio of silicon dioxide (¶[0059] see silicon dioxide in final composite), and silicon particles dispersed in the matrix(¶[0059] see micro-crystals of silicon in final composite material), wherein a particle size of the silicon-based negative electrode material is 3.1 µm in Example 4 (¶[0072]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized using the particles size as taught by Aramata in the negative electrode material of Wang would have improved capacity and cycle performance(¶[0032]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to have used the particles size as taught by Aramata in the negative electrode material of Wang would have improved capacity and cycle performance.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et. al. (CN108183199, as cited in IDS dated 1/25/23, reference made to English translation) in view if Wu et al. (US20060147797A1) and Aramata et. al. (US20030215711) and further in view of Kim et. al. (US20090123829).
Regarding claim 20, Wang discloses a battery(i.e. CR2016 coin cell, ¶[0036]) which one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize as containing a positive electrode plate , a negative electrode p[late and a separator, and the battery contains a silicon-based negative electrode material (¶[0030]), comprising a silicon-based matrix with a low silicon-oxygen ratio; and silicon-based particles with a high silicon-oxygen ratio dispersed in the silicon-based matrix with the low silicon-oxygen ratio, wherein
a silicon-oxygen ratio of the silicon-based matrix with the low silicon-oxygen ratio is 1:2, a silicon-oxygen ratio of the silicon-based particle with the high silicon-oxygen ratio is 1:0, the silicon-based matrix with the low silicon-oxygen ratio is silicon dioxide (¶[0030] see silicon dioxide in final composite material), and
the silicon-based particles with the high silicon-oxygen ratio are silicon particles (¶[0030] see nano-silicon cores, Fig. 1)
wherein the silicon particles are dispersed uniformly within the silicon dioxide matrix(Fig. 1)
wherein a conducting layer is disposed on a surface of the silicon-based particle with the high silicon-oxygen ratio (¶[0031] see conductive carbon black distributed around the nano silicon cores)
but does not disclose a limiting layer disposed on the surface of the silicon particles within the matrix.
Wu, related to anode materials, teaches a silicon particles with a coating layer of TiO2 or ZrO2 in addition to a carbon layer(¶[0028]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized adding the coating layer taught by Wu would improve capacity by limiting silicon volume expansion (¶[0050], Fig. 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to have added the coating layer taught by Wu to improve capacity by limiting silicon volume expansion.
Wang does not explicitly disclose a terminal comprising the battery
Kim, related to lithium-ion batteries, teaches an electronic device as a terminal, using a battery pack (¶[0068]), in which the battery pack may have a lithium-ion cell (10), a circuit board (40) and cases (80 and 90) as a housing and that the electronic device may be a portable electronic (¶[0069]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the lithium-ion battery of modified Wang may be used in the terminal of Kim as a simple substitution of one lithium-ion battery for another. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
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 KAREN J. ARMSTRONG whose telephone number is (703)756-1243. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10 am-6 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, Jeffrey 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.
/K.J.A./Examiner, Art Unit 1726 /RYAN S CANNON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726
