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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 5/4/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
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.
Claims 1-5, 8-10, 13-14, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuno (EP 3306711 B1), in view of Gugtapeh (Gugtapeh, “Formation of aluminum phosphate coating on graphite by cathodic electrochemical treatment” Surface & Coatings Technology. Elsevier. 28 June 2018).
Regarding claims 1 and 4, Matsuno teaches a negative electrode active material comprising (abstract): silicon-containing composite particles comprising SiOX, wherein 0<x<2 (para. 0019, [SiOx: 0.5≤X≤1.6]), and a Li compound (para. 0019 and 0035); a carbon layer on at least a part of a surface of the silicon-containing composite particles (para. 0019) (para. 0040, the carbon coating having … with a graphite structure contained to improve the battery performances such as capacity retention rate and first efficiency]).
Matsuno teaches that the surface layer comprises Li (para. 0080).
Matsuno does not teach wherein the surface layer comprises AlzPwOV and the AlzPOV is an amorphous phase.
Gugtapeh, in the same field of endeavor, batteries, teaches a surface layer that can be deposited onto a layer of graphite (Gugtapeh, abstract, [aluminum phosphate coating was deposited on graphite …]). The protective coating comprises is a surface layer that comprises AlzPwOV, wherein 0<z<10,0<w10, and 0<v<10, (Gugtapeh, abstract, [the phase that was formed in this coating was characterized as Al(PO3)3]). (z=1; w=3; v=9)
Gugtapeh teaches wherein the AlzPwOV is in the amorphous phase (Gugtapeh, pg. 853, first paragraph, [In other words, on the course of thermal transformations, secondary amorphization occurs and with the Al(PO3)3 phase, amorphous products also are formed]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have added a surface layer comprised of a AlzPwOV to the carbon layer of Matsuno, as taught by Gugtapeh, in order to protect the carbon layer against oxidation at high temperatures and in order to impart good strength, high-temperature stability, and abrasion resistance (Gugtapeh, introduction, para. 1), as taught by Gugtapeh.
Regarding claim 2, modified Matsuno teaches the negative electrode active material of claim 1, wherein the surface layer comprises Al, P and O elements (para. 0029, the surface … is composed of at least one compound selected from the group having a phosphorous-fluorine bond contain aluminum oxide).
Regarding claim 3, modified Matsuno teaches the negative electrode active material of claim 1, wherein the surface layer comprises Li (para. 0080), Al, P and O elements (para. 0029, the surface … is composed of at least one compound selected from the group having a phosphorous-fluorine bond contain aluminum oxide).
Regarding claim 5, modified Matsuno teaches the negative electrode active material of claim 1, wherein during X-ray diffraction analysis of the negative electrode active material, a crystalline peak derived from the surface layer does not appear (para. 0187 and Table 9, [half width example 9-8 of the silicon crystallite size = 0]). This implies the absence of a crystallite structure due to the use of an amorphous silicon compound (0187).
Regarding claim 8, modified Matsuno teaches the negative electrode active material of claim 1, wherein a weight ratio of the surface layer and the carbon layer is 1:0.1 to 1:30 (claim 7, carbon coating is 5-20% by mass) (carbon content of 20% is equal to a ratio of 1:0.25).
Regarding claim 9, modified Matsuno teaches the negative electrode active material of claim 1, wherein the surface layer is comprised in an amount of 90 parts by weight or less based on 100 parts by weight of the carbon layer (claim 7, carbon coating is 5-20% by mass, therefore the surface layer is 90% or less when carbon the carbon layer is between 10-20%).
Regarding claim 10, modified Matsuno teaches the negative electrode active material of claim 1, wherein the surface layer further comprises one or more selected from the group consisting of Li2O, LiOH, and Li2CO3 (0080).
Regarding claim 13, modified Matsuno teaches the negative electrode active material of claim 1, wherein the carbon layer is comprised in an amount of 0.1 part by weight to 50 parts by weight based on a total 100 parts by weight of the negative electrode active material (claim 7, carbon coating is 5-20% by mass).
Regarding claim 14, modified Matsuno teaches the negative electrode active material of claim 1, wherein the surface layer is present on an outer surface of at least a part of the carbon layer (para. 0094, [an aluminum element is deposited and oxidized on the surface of the silicon compound and the surface of the carbon coating]).
Regarding claim 16, modified Matsuno teaches a negative electrode comprising the negative electrode active material according to claim 1 (para. 0068).
Regarding claim 17, modified Matsuno teaches a secondary battery comprising the negative electrode according to claim 16 (claim 16).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuno (EP 3306711 B1), in view of Gugtapeh (Gugtapeh, “Formation of aluminum phosphate coating on graphite by cathodic electrochemical treatment” Surface & Coatings Technology. Elsevier. 28 June 2018), and further in view of the machine translation of Osawa (WO 2020149079 A1).
Regarding claim 6, modified Matsuno teaches a negative electrode active material of claim 1, and further teaches wherein during X-ray diffraction analysis of the negative electrode active material, a peak derived from Si appears (Table 9, examples 9-1 to 9-7). Table 9 also teaches the incorporation of lithium compounds such as L2SiO3 within the active material.
Matsuno does not teach that a peak derived from at least one of Li2SiO3 and Li2Si2O5 appears.
Osawa, in the same field of endeavor, negative electrodes, teaches a negative electrode active material composed of silicon oxide particles (abstract). The particles contain amorphous silicon, a lithium compound (Li2SiO3 and Li2Si2O5), and a surface layer on the silicon particles (abstract).
Furthermore, Osawa teaches wherein during X-ray diffraction analysis of the negative electrode active material, a peak derived from Si appears (Fig. 2) and a peak derived from at least one of Li2SiO3 and Li2Si2O5 appears (Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have reported the XRD results of the L2SiO3 peak of Matsuno’s negative active material, as taught by Osawa, in order to compare the crystallinity of the lithium compound to the silicon particles and to monitor they crystallinity while making the negative active material, as exemplified by Fig. 2 and para. 88 Of Osawa.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuno (EP 3306711 B1), in view of Gugtapeh (Gugtapeh, “Formation of aluminum phosphate coating on graphite by cathodic electrochemical treatment” Surface & Coatings Technology. Elsevier. 28 June 2018), and further in view of Hirose (US 11594716 B2).
Regarding claim 7, modified Matsuno teaches the negative electrode active material of claim 1, wherein there is a silicon amorphous phase comprised in the surface layer.
Modified Matsuno does not teach that the amorphous phase is comprised in an amount of more than 50 parts by weight based on a total 100 parts by weight of the surface layer.
Hirose, in the same field of endeavor, negative electrode active materials, teaches that the Si component of the silicon compound particle contains few Si regions with different crystallinities (0055), thereby teaching the preference of having a majority of one phase (amorphous) over another (crystalline) (0055). Hirose teaches that Li ions diffuse differently in the respective regions of crystalline Si and amorphous Si, and in consequence, generates strain by the expansion behavior of the silicon compound (0055).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have utilized Matsuno’s amorphous silicon phase of the surface layer in an amount of more than 50 parts by weight based on a total 100 parts by weight of the surface layer, in order to suppress the strain that can generate with the addition of crystalline Si, as taught by Hirose, Suppressing the strain prevents the expansion of the silicon compound particle and prevents the negative electrode active material from breaking and degrading (Hirose, 0055).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuno (EP 3306711 B1), in view of Gugtapeh (Gugtapeh, “Formation of aluminum phosphate coating on graphite by cathodic electrochemical treatment” Surface & Coatings Technology. Elsevier. 28 June 2018), and further in view of Park (US 20220037644 A1).
Regarding claim 11, modified Matsuno teaches the negative electrode active material of claim 1.
Matsuno does not teach wherein Li is comprised in an amount of 0.1 part by weight to 25 parts by weight based on a total 100 parts by weight of the negative electrode active material.
Park, in the same field of endeavor, batteries, teaches that Li is comprised in an amount of 0.1 part by weight to 25 parts by weight based on a total 100 parts by weight of the negative electrode active material (para. 0057, [includes 25 wt % or less of Li4SiO4 with respect to the total weight]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have used Li4SiO4 in the amount of 25 wt % or less for Matsuno’s negative active material, as used by Park, in order to improve the water resistance of the negative electrode slurry when combined with a water-based binder, as taught by Park (para. 0057).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuno (EP 3306711 B1), in view of Gugtapeh (Gugtapeh, “Formation of aluminum phosphate coating on graphite by cathodic electrochemical treatment” Surface & Coatings Technology. Elsevier. 28 June 2018), and further in view of Chen (US 2023343933 A1).
Regarding claim 12, modified Matsuno teaches the negative electrode active material of claim 1, including a carbon layer (0019).
Matsuno does not teach wherein the carbon layer comprises an amorphous phase.
Chen, in the same field of endeavor, carbon surface layers, teaches wherein the carbon layer of the silicon surface comprises amorphous carbon (0051).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have utilized an amorphous carbon layer in the negative active material of Matsuno’s silicon composite, as taught by Chen, in order to inhibit the volume expansion/swelling of the silicon particle, as taught by Chen, which further improves the cycling performance of the electrode (0051).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VERITA E GRANNUM whose telephone number is (571)270-1150. The examiner can normally be reached 10-5 EST / 7-2 PST.
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, Allison Bourke can be reached at (303) 297-4684. 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.
/V.G./Examiner, Art Unit 1721 /ALLISON BOURKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1721
Prosecution Insights