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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1-14, 16, and 17 are under examination.
Claim 15 has been withdrawn.
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 Gaben (US 20210367224 A1), and further in view of Furusawa et al. (Furusawa, S., Tabuchi, H., Sugiyama, T., Tao, S. W., & Irvine, J. T. S. (2005). Ionic conductivity of amorphous lithium lanthanum titanate thin film. Solid State Ionics, 176, 553-558. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssi.2004.08.020.).
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 (0019);; and at least one Group 13 element and at least one Group 15 element (para. 0019 [coated with a compound having a boron-fluorine (group 13) and a phosphorous-fluorine (group 15) bond]).
Matsuno teaches that the surface layer comprises Li (para. 0080).
Matsuno does not teach wherein the surface layer comprises a LiyAlzPwOV phase, and the LiyAlzPOV phase is an amorphous phase.
Gaben, in the same field of endeavor, batteries, teaches a protective coating that can be applied the anode film or to powder particles [0016]. The protective coating comprises is a surface layer that comprises a LiyAlzPwOV phase, wherein 0<y<10,0<z<10,0<w10, and 0<v<10, (para. 0092-0093, [Li3Al0.4Sc1.6(PO4)3].
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 LiyAlzPwOV phase to the negative electrode active material of Matsuno, as taught by Gaben, in order to protect the anode from losing the lithium ions inserted into their structure (para. 0088), as taught by Gaben.
Gaben does not teach that the LiyAlzPOV phase is an amorphous phase.
Furusawa et al., in the same field of endeavor, lithium compounds in batteries, teaches a surface layer comprising an amorphous phase (abstract).
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 an amorphous lithium compound as part of the surface layer of Matsuno’s battery, as taught by Furusawa, in order to have a battery that exhibits super-ionic conduction, due to the amorphous phase having an absence of grain boundary elements and structural disorder, which allows a higher conductivity compared to that of a crystalline phase (abstract).
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 Gaben (US 20210367224 A1), and Furusawa et al. (Furusawa, S., Tabuchi, H., Sugiyama, T., Tao, S. W., & Irvine, J. T. S. (2005). Ionic conductivity of amorphous lithium lanthanum titanate thin film. Solid State Ionics, 176, 553-558. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssi.2004.08.020.), 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 Gaben (US 20210367224 A1) and Furusawa et al. (Furusawa, S., Tabuchi, H., Sugiyama, T., Tao, S. W., & Irvine, J. T. S. (2005). Ionic conductivity of amorphous lithium lanthanum titanate thin film. Solid State Ionics, 176, 553-558. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssi.2004.08.020.), 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 Gaben (US 20210367224 A1) and Furusawa et al. (Furusawa, S., Tabuchi, H., Sugiyama, T., Tao, S. W., & Irvine, J. T. S. (2005). Ionic conductivity of amorphous lithium lanthanum titanate thin film. Solid State Ionics, 176, 553-558. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssi.2004.08.020.), 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 Gaben (US 20210367224 A1) and Furusawa et al. (Furusawa, S., Tabuchi, H., Sugiyama, T., Tao, S. W., & Irvine, J. T. S. (2005). Ionic conductivity of amorphous lithium lanthanum titanate thin film. Solid State Ionics, 176, 553-558. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssi.2004.08.020.), 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).
Other Pertinent Art
US 20150270536 A1
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/04/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant states that “Furusawa does not disclose the amorphous phase comprises the at least one Group 13 element and a Group 15 element as required by claim 1”.
Examiner responds by stating that Gaben teaches the surface layer comprised of a lithium compound, and that lithium compound is comprised of at least one Group 13 element and a Group 15 element. Furusawa teaches the use of a lithium compound with an amorphous phase and further teaches that the amorphous phase is beneficial over that of a crystalline phase because it allows for a surface layer with higher conductivity.
The combination of Gaben (modified Matsuno) and Furusawa teaches the use of an amorphous surface layer comprised of a lithium compound comprised of at least one Group 13 element and a Group 15 element.
Applicant states that “the claimed amorphous phase would not have been an obvious modification of Matsuno and Furusawa. Neither reference contemplates the claimed amorphous phase, as discussed above …. Examples 1-1 to 1-3 included a surface layer comprising Li-Al-P-O amorphous phase”.
Examiner states that Gaben (modified Matsuno) teaches a surface layer comprising Li-Al-P-O. One skilled in the art would modify the lithium compound of the surface layer to be amorphous, as taught by Furusawa, which increases the conductivity of the surface layer. Furthermore, Furusawa does contemplate the claimed amorphous phase by teaching a preference of the amorphous to that of the crystalline phase (abstract, [the amorphous LLT thin film shows super-ionic conduction at and above room temperature. … The conductivity of the LLT thin film was an order of magnitude higher than that of its polycrystalline precursor]).
Conclusion
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 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