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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 06/01/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Applicant’s amendment and arguments filed 04/24/2026 have been fully considered. Claim(s) 11, 13, and 17 is/are amended; claim(s) 1-10 remain withdrawn; and claim(s) 12 has/have been canceled. Examiner affirms that the original disclosure provides adequate support for the amendment.
Upon considering said amendment and arguments, the previous rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103 set forth in the Office action mailed 03/03/2026 has/have been withdrawn.
New grounds of rejection are presented hereinbelow.
Claim Objections
Claims 11 and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 11 and 17 were amended to recite a Markush grouping of the at least one element as “selected from the group consisting of potassium (K) or sodium (Na)”. Per MPEP 2173.05(h), the conjunction “or” should be “and”. Claims 11 and 17 are interpreted as reading as such.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 11 and 13-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang et al. (KR101676405B1; cited in 08/14/2025 IDS cited with machine translation and paragraphs [0093-0101] human translation, see 09/30/2025 Office action) in view of Lan (US20240128446A1, foreign priority date of 10/14/2022)
Regarding claims 11, 15, Kang discloses a negative electrode for an electrochemical cell that cycles lithium ions (Machine translation Kang [0001]), the negative electrode comprising an electroactive material particle exhibiting a core-shell structure defining a core and a shell surrounding the core ([0009]). The core is exemplified as comprising SiO alloyed with lithium (i.e., comprising a lithiated silicon-based material) (Human translation Kang [0093-0094]). The shell is a bi-layer structure including a first carbon coating layer (“primary carbon coating”) disposed on the core and a second carbon coating layer (“secondary carbon coating”) disposed on the first carbon coating layer over the core ([0009]), overlapping in scope with portions of the limitations of claim 11.
However, although Kang’s lithiated silicon-based material would appear to compatible with the inclusion of at least one element selected from the group consisting of potassium (K) or sodium (Na), as Kang manufactures the electroactive material particles using a step of alloying the silicon-based core material with Li (i.e., lithiating the silicon-based core) ([0017]), where Li is chemically analogous to K and Na as an alkali metal, Kang fails to expressly include at least one of K or Na as elements recited in claim 11.
Lan is directed to a process of doping alkali metals into negative electrode electroactive material particles; as a specific example, lithiating electroactive material particle complexes including a core comprising a silicon-based material (silicon oxide particles) and a first carbon coating layer by heat-treatment (Lan [0018], [0038]). Kang uses the same lithiation process of heat-treating lithium material with complexes of a silicon-based core portion with the first carbon coating layer to lithiate the silicon-based core (Kang [0060], [0075-0079]). Moreover, Lan teaches in addition to performing the lithium doping (i.e., lithiation) that further doping alkali metals such as sodium and potassium into silicon-based material (silicon oxide particles) can help improve the cyclic performance and initial coulombic efficiency of batteries made from silicon oxide particles, as exemplified with an embodiment lithiated with 5 wt% lithium and further doped with 6 wt% sodium during this heat treatment step (Lan [0016, 0057]).
Thus, in seeking to improve the cyclic performance and initial coulombic efficiency in Kang’s negative electrode, it would be obvious before the effective filing date of the instant application for one having ordinary skill in the art to provide at least one element selected from the group consisting of sodium and potassium into Kang’s lithiated silicon-based material as taught by Lan, thus reading on claim 11. Such a modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success, as Lan teaches that Kang’s manufacturing step of lithiating (i.e, lithium alloying) the silicon-based material may be suitably modified to dope sodium and/or potassium in addition to the lithiation process in producing the electroactive material particle (MPEP 2144.06 I, II)
Modified Kang does not explicitly describe the first carbon coating layer as a discontinuous layer and the second carbon coating layer as a continuous layer as claimed in claim 11. However, Kang performs Li alloying (i.e., lithium doping) with a core/first carbon coating precursor of the electroactive material particle (Kang [0009]), this process indicated in paragraph [0048] of the instant specification as introducing discontinuities into the structure of the first carbon coating layer. As such, Kang’s first carbon coating layer is inherently a discontinuous layer as claimed in claim 11.
Modified Kang does not explicitly describe the second carbon coating layer as a continuous layer as claimed in claim 11; however, Kang’s second carbon coating functions to prevent exposure of Li byproducts on the lithiated core/first carbon coating composite when forming a negative electrode slurry (Kang [0009-0010], [0029]). A skilled artisan would recognize that layer discontinuities would render Kang’s second carbon coating layer unsuitable by exposing Li byproducts on the core/first carbon coating; it follows that Kang’s second carbon coating layer is necessarily a continuous layer as claimed in claim 11.
Modified Kang discloses forming the first carbon coating from crystalline (i.e., graphitic) carbon, amorphous carbon, or a mixture thereof ([0037]) to suppress a rapid reaction between lithium and the silicon-based material (“(semi-)metal oxide”) while forming the lithiated silicon-based material ([0036]). While this disclosure would appear to provide sufficient specificity to envision a first carbon coating layer comprising a combination of graphitic carbon and amorphous carbon as claimed in claim 15, assuming arguendo that Kang’s disclosure lacks this specificity, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to explore selecting a combination of graphitic/amorphous carbon from the finite set of first carbon coating layer materials disclosed by Kang to prevent rapid lithium reaction, reading on claim 15 (MPEP 2143 I. E).
Modified Kang further discloses that the secondary carbon coating layer consists essentially of amorphous carbon ([0012]) as claimed in claim 15.
While Kang does not explicitly disclose an electrical conductivity of the first or second carbon coating layer, inst. spec. [0076] indicates that the first carbon coating layer comprising a higher concentration of graphitic carbon exhibits higher electrical conductivity relative to the amorphous second carbon coating layer, such that an electrical conductivity of Kang’s first amorphous/graphitic carbon coating layer is inherently greater than that of the amorphous second carbon coating layer as a material property of the layers as claimed in claim 11.
Regarding claim 13, modified Kang discloses the negative electrode of Claim 11, wherein Lan is relied upon to teach the lithiated silicon-based material of the core comprising at least one of potassium (K) or sodium (Na) in order to improve the cyclic performance and initial efficiency of a battery comprising the negative electrode (Lan [0016]). Lan does not explicitly specify a preferable range of weight composition; however, Lan provides exemplary embodiments of electroactive material particles demonstrating operability of a doping range of 3-9% sodium ([0044]); while Lan’s teaching is not necessarily limited to the range of the examples, these exemplary embodiments would reasonably suggest doping the alkali metals within a range of 3-9 wt% of the electroactive material particle to a skilled artisan.
Furthermore, Lan notes that the alkali metal doping process may cause a degree of electrical conductivity degradation in the silicon-based material ([0038]), such that a skilled artisan would avoid excessive doping to prevent the conductivity degradation. On the other hand, at least some minimum amount of K or Na doping would be necessary to sufficiently improve the cyclic performance and initial efficiency (Lan [0016]).
Thus, in seeking to improve the cyclic performance and initial efficiency of modified Kang’s battery without degrading the electrical conductivity, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to optimize a weight composition of the element Na or K within a range of 3-9% in Kang’s electroactive material particle as taught by Lan. This range overlaps with a portion of the range of 5-20% claimed in claim 13 between 5-9% such that a skilled artisan would have selected within the overlap through routine optimization under Kang and Lan’s disclosure (MPEP 2144.05 II). Such an optimization would be done with a reasonable expectation of success, as Lan demonstrates a suitability of using this doping range with Na (Lan [0044]), and demonstrates another embodiment doping both 5% lithium and 6 wt% sodium which falls within the claimed range of 5-20% ([0057]) in analogous silicon-based core-shell electroactive material particles with carbon coating layers.
Regarding claims 14, 16, modified Kang discloses the negative electrode of claim 11. While Kang does not explicitly disclose the amount of lithium by weight in the electroactive material particle, Kang teaches mixing at least 2 parts Li metal powder to 98 parts by weight of the core and first carbon coating layer when lithiating the core material to increase the initial efficiency (Kang [0076]), and mixing less than 30 parts Li metal to 70 parts by weight of the core and first layer to prevent excessive generation of reaction byproducts ([0076]).
As such, in balancing considerations of initial efficiency and byproduct generation, it would be obvious before the effective filing date of the instant application for one having ordinary skill in the art to optimize the amount of Li metal powder used to lithiate Kang’s negative electrode material; see MPEP 2144.05 II. In doing so, one would also optimize a weight of lithium in the electroactive material particle; while Kang does not disclose an exact weight, given that a weight percentage of lithium as a raw material ranges from 2-30 wt%, one having ordinary skill in the art could reasonably have utilized the similar claimed range of 5-15 wt% as claimed in claim 16.
Kang discloses that the electroactive material particle comprises 0.05-20 wt% first carbon coating layer ([0037]) and 1-15 wt% second carbon coating layer ([0035]), a total weight of the carbon of the two carbon coating layers equating to 1.05%-35 wt% and overlapping with a portion of the claimed range of carbon between 1.05-10 wt% in the electroactive material particle as claimed in claim 16 (MPEP 2144.05,I)
Furthermore, Kang discloses at least 0.05 wt% of first carbon coating layer is provided to control a reaction between Li metal powder and the silicon-based core during manufacture ([0037-0038]), and at least 1 wt% secondary carbon coating material is provided to prevent side reactions with an aqueous binder ([0035]). Additionally, unlike the silicon-based core material ([0083]), Kang does not indicate the carbon coatings contribute significantly to lithium storage, such that a skilled artisan would avoid excessive amounts of the carbon coatings in the interest of maximizing energy density.
Thus, in seeking to balance providing sufficient protection with the first/second carbon coatings while maximizing energy density, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to optimize the total coating weight between 1.05%-35 wt%, this range approximately encompassing the claimed range of 1-10% as claimed in claim 16; see MPEP 2144.05 II
Kang also provides an example embodiment with a 40 nm thick first carbon coating layer which comprises 5.3% by weight of the core (Human translation Kang [0093]), which falls within the claimed range of 5 to 300 nm as claimed in claim 14.
Kang fails to explicitly disclose a second carbon coating layer having a thickness of 1 nm to 50 nn. However, as the total weight of each carbon coating corresponds to the density and thickness of the coating, a skilled artisan optimizing a weight of the second carbon coating material within a range of 1-15 wt% to balance protection ability and energy density ([0035], [0083]) would reasonably consider varying the thickness to achieve a different coating weight. Given that a 40nm thick first carbon coating layer is about 5 wt% of Kang’s example of the electroactive material particle (Human translation Kang [0093]), a skilled artisan performing this optimization between 1-15 wt% would reasonably use a range of second carbon coating layer thickness overlapping with at least a portion of the claimed range of 1-50 nm as claimed in claim 14 (MPEP 2144.05 II)
Kang does not explicitly indicate a thickness of the second coating layer as being less than the first coating layer. However, a skilled artisan would need to select at least some relation of the second coating layer thickness relative to the first coating layer, with the only possible configurations being a second coating layer thickness less than, equal to, or greater than the first coating layer.
It would therefore have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to routinely explore the selection of a second coating layer thickness less than the first coating layer thickness from the finite number of possible thickness configurations with a reasonable expectation of successfully forming the carbon coating layers as claimed in claim 14 (MPEP 2143 I. E).
Regarding claim 17, Kang discloses a negative electrode for an electrochemical cell that cycles lithium ions (Machine translation Kang [0001]), the negative electrode comprising a mixture of electroactive material particles (“electrode active material”), electrically conductive particles (“conductive agent”), and a polymer binder ([0046-0047]),
wherein each of the electroactive material particles exhibits a core-shell structure defining a core and a shell surrounding the core ([0009]). The core is exemplified as comprising SiO alloyed with lithium (i.e., comprising a lithiated silicon-based material) (Human translation Kang [0093-0094]). The shell is a bi-layer structure including a first carbon coating layer (“primary carbon coating”) disposed on the core and a second carbon coating layer (“secondary carbon coating”) disposed on the first carbon coating layer over the core ([0009]), overlapping in scope with portions of the limitations of claim 17.
However, although Kang’s lithiated silicon-based material would appear to compatible with the inclusion of at least one element selected from the group consisting of potassium (K) or sodium (Na), as Kang manufactures the electroactive material particles using a step of alloying the silicon-based core material with Li (i.e., lithiating the silicon-based core) ([0017]), where Li is known in the art to be chemically analogous to K and Na as an alkali metal, Kang fails to expressly include at least one of K or Na as elements recited in claim 17.
Lan is directed to a process of doping alkali metals into negative electrode electroactive material particles; as a specific example, lithiating electroactive material particle complexes including a core comprising a silicon-based material (silicon oxide particles) and a first carbon coating layer by heat-treatment (Lan [0018], [0038]). Kang uses the same lithiation process of heat-treating lithium material with complexes of a silicon-based core portion with the first carbon coating layer to lithiate the silicon-based core (Kang [0060], [0075-0079]). Moreover, Lan teaches in addition to performing the lithium doping (i.e., lithiation) that further doping alkali metals such as sodium and potassium into silicon-based material (silicon oxide particles) can help improve the cyclic performance and initial coulombic efficiency of batteries made from silicon oxide particles, as exemplified with an embodiment lithiated with 5 wt% lithium and further doped with 6 wt% sodium during this heat treatment step (Lan [0016, 0057]).
Thus, in seeking to improve the cyclic performance and initial coulombic efficiency in Kang’s negative electrode, it would be obvious before the effective filing date of the instant application for one having ordinary skill in the art to provide at least one element selected from the group consisting of sodium and potassium into Kang’s lithiated silicon-based material as taught by Lan, thus reading on claim 17. Such a modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success, as Lan teaches that Kang’s manufacturing step of lithiating (i.e, lithium alloying) the silicon-based material may be suitably modified to dope sodium and/or potassium in addition to the lithiation process in producing the electroactive material particle (MPEP 2144.06 I, II).
Modified Kang does not explicitly describe the first carbon coating layer as a discontinuous layer and the second carbon coating layer as a continuous layer as claimed in claim 17. However, Kang performs Li alloying (i.e., lithium doping) with a core/first carbon coating precursor of the electroactive material particle (Kang [0009]), this process indicated in paragraph [0048] of the instant specification as introducing discontinuities into the structure of the first carbon coating layer. As such, Kang’s first carbon coating layer is inherently a discontinuous layer as claimed in claim 17.
Modified Kang does not explicitly describe the second carbon coating layer as a continuous layer that completely encapsulates the first carbon coating layer and the core on which it is disposed as claimed in claim 17; however, Kang’s second carbon coating functions to prevent exposure of Li byproducts on the lithiated core/first carbon coating composite when forming a negative electrode slurry (Kang [0009-0010], [0029]). A skilled artisan would recognize that layer discontinuities or incomplete encapsulation would render Kang’s second carbon coating layer unsuitable by exposing Li byproducts on the core/first carbon coating; it follows that Kang’s second carbon coating layer is necessarily a continuous layer as claimed in claim 17.
Modified Kang discloses forming the first carbon coating from crystalline (i.e., graphitic) carbon, amorphous carbon, or a mixture thereof ([0037]) to suppress a rapid reaction between lithium and the silicon-based material (“(semi-)metal oxide”) while forming the lithiated silicon-based material ([0036]). While this disclosure would appear to provide sufficient specificity to envision a first carbon coating layer comprising a combination of graphitic carbon and amorphous carbon as claimed in claim 18, assuming arguendo that Kang’s disclosure lacks this specificity, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to explore selecting a combination of graphitic/amorphous carbon from the finite set of first carbon coating layer materials disclosed by Kang to prevent rapid lithium reaction, reading on claim 18 (MPEP 2143 I. E).
Modified Kang further discloses that the secondary carbon coating layer consists essentially of amorphous carbon ([0012]) as claimed in claim 18.
Kang does not explicitly indicate a thickness of the second coating layer as being less than the first coating layer as claimed in claim 17, but a skilled artisan would need to select at least some relation of the second coating layer thickness relative to the first coating layer, with the only possible configurations being a second coating layer thickness less than, equal to, or greater than the first coating layer.
It would therefore have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to routinely explore the selection of a second coating layer thickness less than the first coating layer thickness from the finite number of possible thickness configurations with a reasonable expectation of successfully forming the carbon coating layers as claimed in claim 17 (MPEP 2143 I. E).
Furthermore, While Kang does not explicitly disclose an electrical conductivity of the first or second carbon coating layer, inst. spec. [0076] indicates that the first carbon coating layer comprising a higher concentration of graphitic carbon exhibits higher electrical conductivity relative to the amorphous second carbon coating layer, such that an electrical conductivity of Kang’s first amorphous/graphitic carbon coating layer is inherently greater than that of the amorphous second carbon coating layer as a material property of the layers as claimed in claim 17.
Regarding claim 19, modified Kang discloses the negative electrode of Claim 17. While Kang does not explicitly disclose the amount of lithium by weight in the electroactive material particle, Kang teaches mixing at least 2 parts Li metal powder to 98 parts by weight of the core and first carbon coating layer when lithiating the core material to increase the initial efficiency ([0076]), and mixing less than 30 parts Li metal to 70 parts by weight of the core and first layer to prevent excessive generation of reaction byproducts ([0076]).
As such, in balancing considerations of initial efficiency and byproduct generation, it would be obvious before the effective filing date of the instant application for one having ordinary skill in the art to optimize the amount of Li metal powder used to lithiate Kang’s negative electrode material; see MPEP 2144.05 II. In doing so, one would also optimize a weight of lithium in the electroactive material particle; while Kang does not disclose an exact weight, given that a weight percentage of lithium as a raw material ranges from 2-30 wt%, one having ordinary skill in the art could reasonably have utilized the similar claimed range of 5-15 wt%.
Furthermore, Kang discloses at least 0.05 wt% of first carbon coating layer is provided to control a reaction between Li metal powder and the silicon-based core during manufacture ([0037-0038]), and at least 1 wt% secondary carbon coating material is provided to prevent side reactions with an aqueous binder ([0035]). Additionally, unlike the silicon-based core material ([0083]), Kang does not indicate the carbon coatings contribute significantly to lithium storage, such that a skilled artisan would avoid excessive amounts of the carbon coatings in the interest of maximizing energy density.
Thus, in seeking to balance providing sufficient protection with the first/second carbon coatings while maximizing energy density, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to optimize the total coating weight between 1.05%-35 wt%, this range approximately encompassing the claimed range of 1-10%; see MPEP 2144.05 II.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang (KR101676405B1) in view of Lan (US20240128446A1) as applied to claim 17, further in view of Park et al. (US20210167369A1).
Regarding claim 20, modified Kang discloses the negative electrode of Claim 17; however, Kang fails to expressly specify a preferred weight content of the electroactive material particles with respect to a weight of the negative electrode as recited in claim 20, “wherein the electroactive material particles account for, by weight, greater than or equal to about 90% and less than or equal to about 98% of the negative electrode”. Instead, Kang specifies the selection of a conventional negative electrode manufacturing method known in the art using the electroactive material particles, a binder, and a conductive agent (Kang [0046]).
Park is directed to a structurally analogous negative electrode active material comprising electroactive material particles of a silicon-based core and a shell which is a bi-layer structure including a first and second carbon coating layer (Park [0016, 0025-0034]). Park provides an exemplary negative electrode produced with only the electroactive material particles of a silicon-based core, a polymer binder, and electrically conductive particles (“conducting agent”) in a ratio of 80:10:10 ([0086, 0075-0078]). Park further teaches optimizing a binder weight between at least 0.1 wt% to provide sufficient binding effect, and less than 10 wt% to avoid reducing volumetric energy capacity ([0058]). Similarly, Park teaches a range of electrically conductive particles between 1 wt%-9 wt% which would be similarly utilized to balance improving conductivity without impacting the volumetric energy capacity ([0059]). In performing the above optimizations, a weight of the electroactive material particles would be varied between 80% (10 wt% binder, 10 wt% electrically conductive particles) to 98.9% (0.1 wt% binder, 1 wt% electrically conductive particles) based on a weight of the negative electrode
Thus, in seeking to provide sufficient binding effects and electrical conductivity improvements in modified Kang’s negative electrode without impacting the energy capacity, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to optimize respective weights of the binder and electrically conductive particles such that a remaining weight of the electroactive material particles is varied between 80-98.9 wt%. This range encompasses the range of 90-98 wt% claimed in claim 20 such that a skilled artisan optimizing the polymer binder and electrically conductive particle weight would inherently utilize at least a portion of the claimed range (MPEP 2144.05 II). Such a modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success due to the analogous structure and composition between modified Kang’s and Park’s core-shell electroactive material particles, and because Kang expresses a suitability of using conventionally known means of producing a negative electrode from the electroactive material particles (MPEP 2144.07).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to rejection of claim(s) 11 anticipated under 35 U.S.C. 102 by Kang et al. KR101676405 and of rejection of previously recited limitations of claim 13 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Kang in view of Luo et al (WO2021136245A1) (Remarks p. 9-10) 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. Withdrawal of the previous ground of rejection has been necessitated by Applicant’s amendment filed 04/24/2026.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EVERETT T CHOI whose telephone number is (703)756-1331. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 11:00-8:00.
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, Jonathan G Leong can be reached on (571) 270 1292. 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.
/E.C./Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 7/23/2026
Prosecution Insights