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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/20/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Examiner notes the following amendments made to the claims
Claim 1 amended to include 3 additional limitations
Claims 2-3, 5 cancelled
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, in the interview with applicant, it was determined that if applicant made all four proposed amendments to the claims, this would narrow down the scope of the claims such that the unexpected results would overcome the previously applied prior art (Lee), which teaches all of the ranges of both the previously presented and currently amended claims. Since applicant only included three of the proposed amendments, the scope of the claim has not been limited sufficiently and the rejections are maintained. Examiner would suggest that applicant add in the fourth proposed limitation, regarding the BET specific surface area of the negative electrode active material, in order to overcome the previously applied prior art. Regarding the specific arguments made, examiner will respond in order:
Applicant claims that Lee does not teach or suggest the following features:
the at least one metal atom comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of Mg, Li, Al, and Ca
the silicon-containing negative electrode active material has a D5/D50 of 0.5 or more and 0.6 or less
the silicon-containing negative electrode active material has a D5 of 3 m or more and 3.6 m or less, and a D5o of 4 m or more and 11 m or less,
the at least one metal atom is comprised in an amount of 1 part by weight or more and 6 parts by weight or less based on a 100 parts by weight of the core.
Specifically, applicant claims that Lee fails to teach the Mg content in regards to specifically the weight of the core of a core-shell structure, and that Lee fails to teach the D5/D50 values as claimed. Examiner finds the argument regarding the Mg content in core to not be persuasive, as Lee teaches the shell of its core-shell structure is a carbon coating, and that the content of carbon in the silicon-silicon complex oxide-carbon composite is 2-30% (“Thus, the present composite according to an embodiment of the present invention has a core-shell structure comprising a shell formed of a carbon layer by coating the surface of the core of the composite with carbon” Lee [0138] and “According to an embodiment, the content of carbon (C) may be 2% by weight to 30% by weight, 2% by weight to 15% by weight, or 4% by weight to 10% by weight, based on the total weight of the silicon-silicon complex oxide-carbon composite.” Lee [0145]) Therefore, the Mg present in the silicon-silicon complex oxide carbon composite is all present in the core. If, for example, only 2% of the total weight of the silicon-silicon complex oxide-carbon composite of Lee were carbon, then the remaining 98% of the weight would be the core. If Mg were included in 2-15% by weight of the overall composite, it would be present in 2.04-15.3% by weight of the core, which would still overlap the claimed range. The arguments regarding the d5/d50 ratio as well as the implied d5 values extracted from Lee remain have been stated in previous actions, and examiner still believes that the material of Lee would inherently have the d5/d50 ratios as claimed in the instant application, despite not explicitly stating it. Applicant states that the examiner’s derived values “merely overlap the claimed ranges,” however, this is sufficient to reject as, barring the inclusion of the BET specific surface area limitation, the unexpected results argument is not persuasive.
Lastly, applicant claims that because inventive examples 1-1 to 2-2 include the above limitations, that they would correspond to the claimed embodiments and generate the unexpected results. Examiner finds this non-persuasive, as inventive examples 1-1 to 2-2 also all have a BET specific surface area between 2.5-3.5 m2/g. As originally proposed in interview, if applicant included the fourth limitation, which limits claim 1 to a BET specific surface area between 2 and 5 m2/g, the arguments would be found persuasive, and further search and consideration would be required.
Regarding the dependent claims—since claim 1 is still rejected, the rejections of dependent claims remain in place and unchanged. There is currently considered to be no allowable subject matter present in the claims.
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.
Claim(s) 1,4, 6-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 20230049476).
Regarding claim 1, Lee teaches all of the following elements:
A silicon-containing negative electrode active material, comprising: (“the present invention provides a negative electrode active material comprising the silicon-silicon complex oxide-carbon composite.” Lee paragraph 0021)
a core and a carbon layer on the core, (The present invention provides a silicon-silicon complex oxide-carbon composite having a core-shell structure, wherein the core comprises silicon, a silicon oxide compound, and magnesium silicate, the shell comprises a carbon layer,” Lee paragraph 0019)
wherein the core comprises SiO-x, wherein 0<x<2 and at least one metal atom, (“the present invention provides a method for preparing a silicon-silicon complex oxide-carbon composite, which comprises a first step of preparing a raw material obtained by using a silicon powder and a silicon oxide (SiOx (0.5≤x≤2)” Lee paragraph 0020)
wherein the at least one metal atom comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of Mg, Li, Al, and Ca, (“The silicon-silicon complex oxide-carbon composite (hereinafter, the “present composite”) according to an embodiment of the present invention has a core-shell structure, wherein the core comprises silicon, a silicon oxide compound, and magnesium silicate,” Lee paragraph 003)
and the silicon-containing negative electrode active material has a D5 of 3 µm or more and 3.6 µm or less, (“the present composite may have a Dmin of 0.1 to 3.0 μm,” Lee paragraph 0049. Based on the definitions of D5 and Dmin, a Dmin value of 3 µm means that d5 would be at least 3 µm or larger. Additionally, “the present composite may have a D10 of 0.7 μm to 4.0 μm, 1.0 μm to 4.0 μm, or 2.0 μm to 3.5 μm.” Lee paragraph 0039. If the d5 is between the Dmin and D10, the range of possible D5 extends from 0.1-4 μm )
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of 0.1-3.0 μm for Dmin value and 0.7-4.0 μm for the D10 value means the range of possible D5 values is between 0.1-4 μm, which encompasses the claimed range of 3 μm or more and 3.6 μm or less for a D5 value, for the reasoning described above. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
and a D50 of 4 µm or more and 11 µm or less. (“According to an embodiment of the present invention, the present composite may have a D50 of 0.5 μm to 10.0 μm, 1.0 μm to 8.0 μm, or 3.0 μm to 7.0 μm.” Lee paragraph 0041)
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of 0.5-10 μm as the d50 of the silicon-containing negative electrode active material overlaps the claimed range of 4 μm or more and 11 μm or less. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
wherein the silicon-containing negative electrode active material has a D5/D50 of 0.5 or more and 0.6 or less, (“the present composite may have a D10 of 0.7 μm to 4.0 μm, 1.0 μm to 4.0 μm, or 2.0 μm to 3.5 μm.” Lee paragraph 0039. According to the Dmin and D10 values of Lee, shown above, and the definitions of the parameters, it is reasoned that the D5 value must be between 0.1 and 4.0 μm. If this were the case, a D5 value of 3.5 μm and a D50 value of 10 μm are within the ranges provided in the prior art, and would meet the claimed ratio in the above limitation)
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art ranges of 0.1-4 μm for D5 and 0.5-10 μm for D5, giving a possible D5/D50 ratio of anywhere between 0.01-1 (can’t be higher than 1 because by definition the D50 cannot be smaller than the D5) encompasses the claimed range of 0.5 or more and 0.6 or less for the same parameter. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
Wherein the at least one metal atom is comprised in an amount of 1 part by weight or more and 6 parts by weight or less based on a 100 parts by weight of the core. (Lee teaches the shell of its core-shell structure is a carbon coating, and that the content of carbon in the silicon-silicon complex oxide-carbon composite is 2-30% (“Thus, the present composite according to an embodiment of the present invention has a core-shell structure comprising a shell formed of a carbon layer by coating the surface of the core of the composite with carbon” Lee [0138] and “According to an embodiment, the content of carbon (C) may be 2% by weight to 30% by weight, 2% by weight to 15% by weight, or 4% by weight to 10% by weight, based on the total weight of the silicon-silicon complex oxide-carbon composite.” Lee [0145]) Therefore, the Mg present in the silicon-silicon complex oxide carbon composite is all present in the core. If, for example, only 2% of the total weight of the silicon-silicon complex oxide-carbon composite of Lee were carbon, then the remaining 98% of the weight would be the core. If Mg were included in 2-15% by weight of the overall composite, it would be present in 2.04-15.3% by weight of the core, which would still overlap the claimed range.)
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of 2.04% (in the case where there is 2% carbon and 2% Mg) to 21.4% (in the case where there is 30% carbon and 15 % Mg) of the weight % of Mg relative to the core of the core-shell material overlaps the claimed range between 1 and 6 parts per weight of metal atom based on 100 parts per weight of the core. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
Lee discloses particle size ratios for D5, D50, and a D5/D50 ratio which overlap the instantly claimed ranges for the same parameters, and therefore establishes a case of prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05 I. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the claimed range from the broader prior art range because prior art teaches the same utility over the entire range. This reasoning applies to all of the overlapping ranges used for claims 1,4, 6-14, including those regarding the Dmax, the weight percentage of metal atom in active material, the weight percentage of the carbon layer compared to the active material as a whole, and the BET surface area of the active material, in addition to the D5 and D50 ranges regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, Lee teaches all of the following elements:
The silicon-containing negative electrode active material of claim 1, wherein the D50 is 4.2 µm or more and 10 µm or less. (“According to an embodiment of the present invention, the present composite may have a D50 of 0.5 μm to 10.0 μm, 1.0 μm to 8.0 μm, or 3.0 μm to 7.0 μm.” Lee paragraph 0041)
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of 0.5-10 μm as the D50 of the silicon-containing negative electrode active material encompasses the claimed range of 4.2 μm or more and 10 μm or less. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 6, Lee teaches all of the following elements:
The silicon-containing negative electrode active material of claim 1, wherein the silicon-containing negative electrode active material has a Dmax of 35 µm or less. (“In addition, the present composite may have a Dmax of 6.0 to 25 μm, 7 to 22 μm, or 7.45 to 21.9 μm. Dmax is a value measured as a particle diameter at which the cumulative volume concentration is the maximum, for example, D.sub.99.9 in particle size distribution measurement according to a laser beam diffraction method.” Lee paragraph 0050)
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of 6.0-25 µm for the Dmax value of the silicon-containing negative electrode active material anticipates the claimed range of 35 µm or less.
Regarding claim 7, Lee teaches all of the following elements:
The silicon-containing negative electrode active material of claim 1, wherein the at least one metal atom is comprised in an amount of 0.1 part by weight or more and 40 parts by weight or less based on a total 100 parts by weight of the silicon-containing negative electrode active material. (“the content of magnesium (Mg) in the present composite may be 2% by weight to 15% by weight, 2% by weight to 12% by weight, or 4% by weight to 10% by weight, based on the total weight of the silicon-silicon complex oxide-carbon composite.” Lee paragraph 0067)
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of 2-15% by weight of the metal atom in the silicon-containing negative electrode active material anticipates the claimed range of 0.1-40% by weight.
Regarding claim 8, Lee teaches all of the following elements:
The silicon-containing negative electrode active material of claim 1, wherein the at least one metal atom comprises Mg or Li. (“the content of magnesium (Mg) in the present composite may be 2% by weight to 15% by weight, 2% by weight to 12% by weight, or 4% by weight to 10% by weight, based on the total weight of the silicon-silicon complex oxide-carbon composite.” Lee paragraph 0067)
Regarding claim 9, Lee teaches all of the following elements:
The silicon-containing negative electrode active material of claim 1, wherein the carbon layer is comprised in an amount of 0.1 part by weight or more and 50 parts by weight or less based on a total 100 parts by weight of the silicon-containing negative electrode active material. (“According to an embodiment, the content of carbon (C) may be 2% by weight to 30% by weight, 2% by weight to 15% by weight, or 4% by weight to 10% by weight, based on the total weight of the silicon-silicon complex oxide-carbon composite. Lee paragraph 0145)
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of 2-30% by weight of carbon in the silicon-containing negative electrode active material anticipates the claimed range of 0.1-50% by weight.
Regarding claim 10, Lee teaches all of the following elements:
The silicon-containing negative electrode active material of claim 1, wherein the silicon-containing negative electrode active material has a BET specific surface area is more than 2 m2/g and less than 10 m2/g. (“the present composite may have a specific surface area of 3 m.sup.2/g to 30 m.sup.2/g, 3 m.sup.2/g to 25 m.sup.2/g, or 3 m.sup.2/g to 20 m.sup.2/g.” Lee paragraph 0057. Lee also states in paragraph 0058 that the specific surface area is measured by the BET method.)
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of 3-20 m2/g as the BET specific surface area of the silicon-containing negative electrode active material overlaps the claimed range of 2-10 m2/g. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 11, Lee teaches all of the following elements:
A negative electrode comprising: a negative electrode active material, wherein the negative electrode active material comprises the silicon- containing negative electrode active material of claim 1. (“According to an embodiment of the present invention, the present invention may provide a negative electrode comprising the negative electrode active material and a secondary battery comprising the same.” Lee paragraph 0231)
Regarding claim 12, Lee teaches all of the following elements:
The negative electrode of claim 11, wherein the negative electrode active material further comprises a carbon-containing negative electrode active material. (“According to an embodiment, the content of carbon (C) may be 2% by weight to 30% by weight, 2% by weight to 15% by weight, or 4% by weight to 10% by weight, based on the total weight of the silicon-silicon complex oxide-carbon composite. Lee paragraph 0145. See 112b rejection for why the silicon-containing negative electrode active material meets this limitation, given that it also comprises carbon.)
Regarding claim 13, Lee teaches all of the following elements:
The negative electrode of claim 11, further comprising a negative electrode current collector; (“The negative electrode may be composed of a negative electrode mixture only or may be composed of a negative electrode current collector” Lee paragraph 0233)
and a negative electrode active material layer on at least one surface of the current collector, (“The negative electrode may be composed of a negative electrode mixture only or may be composed of a negative electrode current collector and a negative electrode mixture layer (negative electrode active material layer) supported thereon.” Lee paragraph 0233)
wherein the negative electrode active material layer comprises the negative electrode active material. (“If the negative electrode is composed of a current collector and an active material layer supported thereon, the negative electrode may be prepared by coating the negative electrode active material composition comprising the silicon-silicon complex oxide-carbon composite on the surface of the current collector and drying it.” Lee paragraph 0235)
Regarding claim 14, Lee teaches all of the following elements:
A secondary battery comprising the negative electrode according to claim 11. (” According to an embodiment of the present invention, the present invention may provide a negative electrode comprising the negative electrode active material and a secondary battery comprising the same.” Lee paragraph 0231)
Conclusion
During an updated search, examiner found the following pieces of art which were considered relevant but not used in rejection because the previous rejection remains in place:
Takeda (US 20180241038 A1) teaches a D50/D5 ratio of a negative electrode active material of 1.2-5, which, when made into a d5/d50 ratio, would be 0.2-0.83, encompassing the claimed range. Takeda additionally teaches a BET surface area of 1-10 m2/g,
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN ELI KASS-MULLET whose telephone number is (571)272-0156. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am-6pm except for the first Friday of bi-week.
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, NICHOLAS SMITH can be reached at (571) 272-8760. 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.
/BENJAMIN ELI KASS-MULLET/Examiner, Art Unit 1752
/NICHOLAS A SMITH/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752