DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/19/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 2, 5-9, and 19-22 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.
A new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Liu (US-20200161635-A1). Qu does not explicitly disclose the coating layer having a thickness of ≤30 nm. However, Liu is newly applied to teach a carbon coating layer of 2 nm to 5 nm, which overlaps with the claimed range of ≤30nm. Liu is further analogous art because Liu discloses the coating layer is also carbon material (see e.g., Liu; [0045]), the particle being coated is also a silicon-based material (see e.g., Liu; [0007]), and the particle is used in lithium-ion batteries (see e.g., Liu; [0003]). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the thickness of the carbon coating layer disclosed by Qu to be 2nm to 5nm as disclosed by Liu. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to seal the surface of the particle (see e.g., Liu; [0045]), increase the overall conductivity, improve mechanical strength, and makes high pressure electrode calendaring viable (see e.g., Liu; [0038]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-6, 9, 19, 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qu (CN-111710845-A) (see translation), and in further view of Akira (US-20170331102-A1) and Liu (US-20200161635-A1).
Regarding claim 1, Qu discloses a silicon-based material, comprising a core structure and a coating layer provided on at least partial surface of the core structure (see e.g., Qu; [0015], regarding the silicon-oxygen composite corresponding to the core structure and a carbon layer formed on the surface corresponding to a coating layer), wherein the core structure comprises both a silicon phase and a lithium metasilicate phase (see e.g., Qu; [0009]-[0010], regarding lithium composite particle comprising of lithium silicate and a non-metallic silicon-containing material such as nano-silicon, [0011]-[0012] regarding the lithium silicate as Li4SiO4 so that the electrode material can still have a high capacity after pre-lithiation),
Qu disclose a crystal grain size of 60 nm or less, for example, 60 nm, 50 nm, 40 nm, 30 nm, 20 nm or 10 nm. (see e.g., Qu; [0014]). Qu does not explicitly disclose a particle size P of the lithium metasilicate phase is 40nm < P < 500nm. However, Akira similarly discloses a composite particle comprising of a lithium silicate phase and silicon particles (see e.g., Akira; [0009]), the lithium silicate phase having an overlapping crystallite size of 40 nm or less (see e.g., Akira; [0038]), and Akira discloses that the lithium silicate phase may be composed of a single crystallite or a plurality of crystallites (see e.g., Akira; [0037]). Applying the concept of using a single crystallite for a lithium silicate particle disclosed by Akira to the lithium silicate particle disclosed by Qu may provide a lithium silicate phase particle of size 60 nm or 50 nm or 40nm, which overlaps with the claimed range of 40nm < P < 500nm. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a single crystallite disclosed by Akira as the lithium silicate phase particle disclosed by Qu so the silicon particles can more easily withstand the expansion and contraction of silicon due to charging and discharging and cycle characteristics are improved (see e.g., Akira; [0037]). Qu also discloses wherein the coating layer is made of carbon (see e.g., Qu; [0015]), which overlaps with the claimed choices of at least one of carbon-based material, metal, and metal oxide.
Qu does not explicitly disclose a particle size Q of the silicon phase is 50nm < Q < 300nm. However, Akira discloses that silicon particles may have an average particle size of 500 nm or less, preferably 200 nm or less, more preferably 50 nm or less (see e.g., Akira; [0053]), which overlaps with the claimed range of 50nm < Q < 300nm. Akira further discloses that after charging and discharging, 400 nm or less is preferred, and 100 nm or less is more preferred (see e.g., Akira; [0053]). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the silicon particles disclosed by Qu with the silicon particles with a particle size of 500 nm or less disclosed by Akira because the small silicon particles results in a smaller volume change during charging and discharging which makes it easier to suppress the disintegration of the electrode structure (see e.g., Akira; [0053).
Modified Qu therefore discloses a particle size P of the lithium silicate particles may be 60 nm or less and a particle size Q of the silicon particles may be preferably 200 nm or less. Additionally, Akira discloses that the lithium silicate phase particles may be composed of particles finer than the silicon particles such that the silicon particles can more easily withstand the expansion and contraction of silicon due to charging and discharging, and the cycle characteristics are further improved (see e.g., Akira; [0037]). Using these preferred ranges and reasoning, a ratio Q/P may be 0 < Q/P 3.33 which overlaps with the claimed range of 1.2 < Q/P < 3.3.
Qu does not explicitly disclose a thickness of the coating layer is ≤ 30nm. However, Liu discloses a coating layer having a thickness of 2 nm to 5 nm, and particularly 2 nm to 3nm (see e.g., Liu; [0017], [0045]), which overlaps with the claimed range of ≤30nm. Liu is further analogous art because Liu discloses the coating layer is also carbon material (see e.g., Liu; [0045]), the particle being coated is also a silicon-based material (see e.g., Liu; [0007]), and the particle is used in lithium-ion batteries (see e.g., Liu; [0003]). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the thickness of the carbon coating layer disclosed by Qu to be 2nm to 5nm as disclosed by Liu. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to seal the surface of the particle (see e.g., Liu; [0045]), increase the overall conductivity, improve mechanical strength, and makes high pressure electrode calendaring viable (see e.g., Liu; [0038]).
Regarding claim 2, modified Qu discloses the silicon-based material according to claim 1. Qu disclose a crystal grain size of 60 nm or less, for example, 60 nm, 50 nm, 40 nm, 30 nm, 20 nm or 10 nm. (see e.g., Qu; [0014]). Qu does not explicitly disclose a particle size P of the lithium metasilicate phase is 40nm < P < 100nm. However, Akira similarly discloses a composite particle comprising of a lithium silicate phase and silicon particles (see e.g., Akira; [0009]), the lithium silicate phase having an overlapping crystallite size of 40 nm or less (see e.g., Akira; [0038]), and Akira discloses that the lithium silicate phase may be composed of a single crystallite or a plurality of crystallites (see e.g., Akira; [0037]). Applying the concept of using a single crystallite for a lithium silicate particle disclosed by Akira to the lithium silicate particle disclosed by Qu may provide a lithium silicate phase particle of size 60 nm or 50 nm or 40nm, which overlaps with the claimed range of 40nm < P < 100nm. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a single crystallite disclosed by Akira as the lithium silicate phase particle disclosed by Qu so the silicon particles can more easily withstand the expansion and contraction of silicon due to charging and discharging and cycle characteristics are improved (see e.g., Akira; [0037]).
Regarding claim 5, modified Qu teaches the silicon-based material according to claim 1. Qu does not explicitly disclose a molar ratio m of element silicon to element lithium satisfies 1 ≤ m ≤ 5. However, Akira discloses lithium silicate phase such as Li2Si2O5 (see e.g., Akira; [0036]) in addition to the silicon particles within the silicon-based material, which provides a molar ratio m that overlaps with the claimed 1 ≤ m ≤ 5 range. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the silicon-based material disclosed by Qu by providing a lithium silicate phase such as Li2Si2O5 disclosed by Akira to provide stability, manufacturability, and lithium ion conductivity (see e.g., Akira; [0036]).
Regarding claim 6, modified Qu teaches the silicon-based material according to claim 1. Qu does not explicitly disclose a median particle size by volume Dv50 of the silicon-based material is < 10 μm. However, Akira teaches wherein a median particle size by volume Dv50 of the silicon-based material is < 10 um (see e.g., Akira; [0066] regarding an average particle size range of 1 to 15 μm, and more preferably 4 to 10 μm which overlaps with the claimed range of < 10 μm). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the median particle size of the silicon-based material disclosed by Qu to be 4 to 10 μm disclosed by Akira to achieve higher capacity and improved cycle characteristics (see e.g., Akira; [0066]).
Regarding claim 9, modified Qu discloses the silicon-based material according to claim 1, wherein the lithium metasilicate phase comprises Li4SiO4 (see e.g., Qu; [0009]), which overlaps with the claimed lithium silicate options.
Regarding claim 19, modified Qu discloses a secondary battery (see e.g., Qu; [0057], regarding lithium-ion battery), comprising the silicon-based material according to claim 1.
Regarding claim 22, modified Qu discloses the silicon-based material according to claim 9, wherein the lithium metasilicate phase comprises Li4SiO4 (see e.g., Qu; [0009]).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qu (CN-111710845-A) (see translation), Akira (US-20170331102-A1), and Liu (US-20200161635-A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Aramata (JP-2004327190-A) (see translation).
Regarding claim 7, modified Qu teaches the silicon-based material according to claim 1. Qu does not explicitly disclose wherein a specific surface area of the silicon-based material is 0.5 m2/g – 3 m2/g. However, Aramata teaches that the silicon-based material has a BET specific surface area of 0.1 m2/g — 30 m2/g (see e.g., page 5), with a further preferred narrower range of 0.2 m2/g – 20 m2/g (see e.g., page 10) which overlaps with the claimed range of 0.5 m2/g — 3 m2/g. Aramata is equivalent analogous art because Aramata discloses the silicon-based compound with a lithium silicate and silicon particles dispersed within (see e.g., page 4). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a silicon-based material disclosed by Akira with a specific surface area of 0.2 m2/g — 20 m2/g disclosed by Aramata. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to prevent disproportionate reaction during heat treatment and to prevent a decrease in charge and discharge capacity in the lithium ion secondary battery (see e.g., Aramata; page 10).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qu (CN-111710845-A) (see translation), Akira (US-20170331102-A1), and Liu (US-20200161635-A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Behan (US-20170033353-A1).
Regarding claim 8, modified Qu teaches the elements of claim 1 as described above. Qu does not explicitly disclose a powder tap density of the silicon-based material is 0.6g/cm3- 1.2g/cm3, or, a powder press density of the silicon-based material is 1.0g/cm3-1.5g/cm3. However, Behan discloses a tap density of a silicon-based material of greater than 0.07 g/mL, which may be about 0.07 g/mL to 1.0 g/mL (see e.g., claim 11, [0053]) which overlaps with the claimed range of 0.6g/cm3-1.2g/cm3. Behan is equivalent analogous art because Behan similarly teaches the hybrid material comprises a crystalline silicon with the formula MxSiO2+x wherein M is a metal (see e.g., Behan; [0008], claim 11) with an overlapping particle size of less than 45 um, or 1 um to 10 um, or a bimodal distribution with particles of size 10nm to 500 nm (see e.g., Behan; [0008]), and to be provided in a lithium ion secondary battery. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the silicon-based material disclosed by Qu by providing a powder tap density of greater than 0.07 g/mL, which may be about 0.07 g/mL to 1.0 g/mL, as disclosed by Behan. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to structurally stabilize silicon against multiple volume expansions (see e.g., Behan; [0006]), and to achieve the desired packing of the particles during coating and handling (see e.g., Behan; [0053]).
Claim(s) 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qu (CN-111710845-A) (see translation), Akira (US-20170331102-A1), and Liu (US-20200161635-A1) as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view Koh (US-20190058218-A1).
Regarding claim 20, modified Qu teaches the elements of claim 19 as described above. Qu does not explicitly disclose a battery module. However, Koh discloses a battery module (see e.g., Koh; [0133]). Koh is equivalent analogous art because Koh similarly teaches a lithium ion secondary battery in which the negative active material may include silicon, such as silicon particles and silicon oxide or a combination thereof (see e.g., Koh; [0107]). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the secondary battery disclosed by Qu by providing them within a battery module disclosed by Koh. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide a battery module to be included into a battery pack for applications such as a power tool or an electric vehicle (see e.g., Koh; [0134]).
Regarding claim 21, modified Qu teaches the elements of claim 20 as described above. Qu does not explicitly disclose a battery pack. However, Koh discloses a battery pack (see e.g., Koh; [0133]-[0144]). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the secondary battery module disclosed by modified Qu by further providing them within a battery pack disclosed by Koh. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide a battery pack for applications such as a power tool or an electric vehicle (see e.g., Koh; [0134]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN SONG whose telephone number is (571)270-7337. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 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, Matthew Martin can be reached at (571) 270-7871. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KEVIN SONG/Examiner, Art Unit 1728
/MATTHEW T MARTIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1728