DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is responsive to the April 28th, 2026 arguments and remarks (“Remarks”). The
text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior
Office 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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/26/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendments received on April 28th, 2026:
Claims 1 and 4-20 are pending in the current application. Claim 1 is amended. Claim 21 is cancelled.
Claim 1 is amended to incorporate the limitations recited in Claim 21 in which describe a content of the crystalline Li2Si2O5; and a sum of the content of the crystalline Li2SiO3 and a content of the crystalline Li4SiO4 in the negative electrode active material.
Applicant’s amendment finds support in the disclosure including the originally filed claims and specification. No new matter has been added.
All changes made to the rejection are necessitated by amendment.
Status of Claims
Claims 1 and 4-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as described below:
Claims 1, 4-5, 9-10, and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20170117543 A1) in view of Lee et al. (W.O. Pat. No. 2019103499 A1). The rejections are withdrawn in view of the amendment.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20170117543 A1) in view of Lee et al. (W.O. Pat. No. 2019103499 A1) and further in view of Hirose et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20190157663 A1). The rejections are withdrawn in view of the amendment.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20170117543 A1) in view of Lee et al. (W.O. Pat. No. 2019103499 A1) and further in view of Kamo et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20190097223 A1). The rejection is withdrawn in view of the amendment.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20170117543 A1) in view of Lee et al. (W.O. Pat. No. 2019103499 A1) as applied to Claim 1 above and further in view of Kim et al. (K.R. Pat. No. 20160109878 A), Akira et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20180287140 A1), and Awano et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20210193990 A1). The rejection is withdrawn in view of the amendment.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20170117543 A1) in view of Lee et al. (W.O. Pat. No. 2019103499 A1) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Choi et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20200313173 A1) (Equivalent to W.O. Pat. No. 2019078690 A2) as further evidenced by Takeshita et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20180257942 A1). The rejection is withdrawn in view of the amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed April 28th, 2026 have been fully considered as further described below:
Regarding Claim 1 as amended, see pg. 7 of the “Remarks,” applicant argues that Choi discloses a Li2Si2O5 content (1 to 45 wt.%) that merely overlaps the claimed range (22 to 28 wt.%) and Choi further discloses preferred ranges (i.e., 1 to 20 wt.% and 1 to 12 wt.%) lying outside of the claimed range.
"In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976)" (see MPEP 2144.05.I).
"Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971)" (see MPEP 2123.II).
In this case, a prima facie case of obviousness exists as the disclosed Li2Si2O5 content range of 1 to 45 wt.% of Choi overlaps the claimed range of 22 to 28 parts by weight (wt.%); and Choi’s disclosure of a preferred narrower range of 1 to 20 wt.% and 1 to 12 wt.% does not constitute a teaching away from the broader range of 1 to 45 wt.%. The broader range remains an embodiment of Choi; while, the disclosed narrower ranges are merely more preferred embodiments. Therefore, applicant’s arguments are deemed unpersuasive.
Further, applicant argues criticality of the claimed ranges (see pg. 7 of the “Remarks”) in view of Examples 1-6 of the specification and Tables 1-2; applicant argues that Examples 1-6 are commensurate in scope with Claim 1 and no further evidence of unexpected results should be required.
“Objective evidence which must be factually supported by an appropriate affidavit or declaration to be of probative value includes evidence of unexpected results … See, for example, In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705, 222 USPQ 191, 196 (Fed. Cir. 1984)” (see MPEP 716.01(c)).
“To establish unexpected results over a claimed range, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range. In re Hill, 284 F.2d 955, 128 USPQ 197 (CCPA 1960)” (see MPEP 716.02(d)(II)).
“An affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 must compare the claimed subject matter with the closest prior art to be effective to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Burckel, 592 F.2d 1175, 201 USPQ 67 (CCPA 1979)” (see MPEP 716.02(e)).
“The nonobviousness of a broader claimed range can be supported by evidence based on unexpected results from testing a narrower range if one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to determine a trend in the exemplified data which would allow the artisan to reasonably extend the probative value thereof. In re Kollman, 595 F.2d 48, 201 USPQ 193 (CCPA 1979)” (see MPEP 716.02(d)(II)).
In this case, the applicant has not provided an affidavit/declaration to establish unexpected results as required and arguments cannot take place of factually supported evidence:
Regarding the content of the crystalline phase, applicant presents Examples 1-6 with a content within the claimed range of 50 to 80 parts by weight (i.e., 65, 64, 66, 68, 71, 54, respectively); applicant provides Comparative Examples 1-5 with a content outside of the claimed range of 50 to 80 parts by weight (i.e., 46, 46, 81, 89, 38, respectively). As shown, a gap exists between test results surrounding the claimed lower end limit of 50 parts by weight and the upper end limit of 80 parts by weight (i.e., 46 to 54 parts by weight and 71 to 81 parts by weight) in which the criticality of a content of 50 and 80 parts by weight cannot be established. Further, an obvious trend cannot be observed from the data points that are provided and the applicant has not attested to the presence of said trend.
Regarding the content of crystalline Li2Si2O5, a sufficient number of tests have not been provided outside the range of 22 to 28 parts by weight; results show a test of 5 and 8 parts by weight (i.e., Comparative Examples 1-2 and 5) in which test results are not provided above the upper limit of 28 and between the gap of 8 to 22 parts by weight.
Regarding the sum of a content of the crystalline Li2SiO3 and a content of the crystalline Li4SiO4 between 2 to 16 parts by weight as claimed, applicant provides only a few data points outside of the claimed range (i.e., Comparative Examples 2-4: 17, 26, and 32 parts by weight, respectively); no test results below 2 parts by weight are provided. Further, the test results are not commensurate with the scope of the claim; in inventive Examples 1-6, the content of Li4SiO4 is either 0 or 1 parts by weight, while the content of crystalline Li2SiO3 ranges from 2 to 15 parts by weight. The claim language describes the content as a sum in which significantly broadens the scope of the invention and does not require the low crystalline Li4SiO4 content as presented in the Examples. Therefore, criticality cannot be established based on the results presented in the originally filed disclosure. Therefore, applicant’s arguments are deemed unpersuasive.
Examiner recommends further limiting the claimed language and/or filing an appropriate affidavit/declaration; The affidavit/declaration should include experimental results both inside and outside the claimed ranges, a comparison of the claimed invention to the prior art, and must be commensurate with the scope of the claims. Examiner recommends further limiting the claimed invention to reflect the inventive concept and the evidence of unexpected results. Therefore, applicant’s arguments are deemed unpersuasive.
All changes made to the rejection are necessitated by amendment.
Cited Prior Art
Previously Cited Park et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20170117543 A1) (“Park et al”)
Previously Cited Lee et al. (W.O. Pat. No. 2019103499 A1)(“ Lee et al.”)
Previously Cited Hirose et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20190157663 A1) (“Hirose et al.”)
Previously Cited Kamo et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20190097223 A1) (“Kamo et al.”)
Previously Cited Kim et al. (K.R. Pat. No. 20160109878 A) (“Kim et al.”)
Previously Cited Akira et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20180287140 A1) (“Akira et all”)
Previously Cited Awano et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20210193990 A1) (“Awano et al.”)
Previously Cited Choi et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20200313173 A1) (Equivalent to W.O. Pat. No. 2019078690 A2) (“Choi et al.”)
Previously Cited Takeshita et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20180257942 A1) (“Takeshita et al.”)
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.
Claims 1, 4-5, 9-10, and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20170117543 A1) in view of Lee et al. (W.O. Pat. No. 2019103499 A1) and further in view of Choi et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20200313173 A1) (Equivalent to W.O. Pat. No. 2019078690 A2) as further evidenced by Takeshita et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20180257942 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Park et al. teaches a negative electrode active material particles comprising a silicon-containing oxide represented by SiOx (0<x<2) (para. 15). Lithium is distributed in the particles wherein the lithium is present in a form of (a) Li2Si2O5 having a crystalline structure, (b) crystalline Li2SiO3, and (c) crystalline Li4SiO4 (although optional) (para. 13, Table 1). Park et al. teaches a content of the crystalline Li2Si2O5 (14 wt. %) that is higher than the sum of a content of the crystalline Li2SiO3 and a content of the crystalline Li4SiO4 (2 wt.%, see Table 1). Park et al. teaches the negative electrode active material in which the sum of the content of the crystalline Li2SiO3 and the content of the crystalline Li4SiO4 is 2 parts by weight (2 wt. %, Table 1: Example 1), within the scope of the claimed range of 2 parts by weight to 16 parts by weight.
Park et al. does not teach a total content of the crystalline phase present in the particles being higher than a total content of the amorphous phase; and that the total content of the crystalline phase present in the particles is more than 50 parts by weight and 80 parts by weight or less based on total 100 parts by weight of the particles.
Lee et al. specifically teaches a negative electrode active material comprising a silicon-based particle represented by M-SiOx, in which M-SiOx includes a crystalline phase and an amorphous phase; immediately following in the same sentence, Lee et al. discloses that the amorphous phase is 20 wt. % to 70 wt. % based upon a total weight (100 wt. %) of the M-SiOx (para. 12). Therefore, Lee et al. establishes that the M-SiOx particles comprise two phases, a crystalline phase and an amorphous; and proceeds to provide the content of one phase (the amorphous phase) in which it is wholly within the level of a skilled artisan to calculate the amount of the second component (crystalline phase) based on a total weight or 100 wt.% of the particles. Therefore, the amorphous phase of 20 wt. % (parts by weight) to 70 wt. % (parts by weight) corresponds to a crystalline phase of 80 wt. % to 30 wt.%, respectively, based on a total of 100 parts by weight of the particles (para. 36) comprising a crystalline and amorphous phase.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the negative electrode active material particles of Park et al. by Lee et al. to include a crystalline phase of 30 parts by weight to 80 parts by weight or less based on total 100 parts by weight of the particles, overlapping the claimed range of 50 parts by weight to 80 parts by weight. Therefore, it would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to select an 80 wt. % crystalline phase, corresponding to a 20 wt. % amorphous in which the total content of the crystalline phase present in the particles is higher than a total content of the amorphous phase. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP § 2144.05, I). One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to perform the described modification to provide improved crystallinity, life time characteristics, and efficiency (Lee et al., para. 37).
Park et al. does not teach that the content of the crystalline Li2Si2O5 is in a range of 22 parts by weight to 28 parts by weight of the negative electrode active material.
Choi et al. teaches a content of Li2Si2O5 in which may be included in an amount of 1 to 45 wt.% of the negative electrode active material to improve the initial efficiency and capacity of the battery (para. 24). Further, the structure of Li2Si2O5 is inherently crystalline and it is desirable to use crystalline Li2Si2O5 in negative electrode active materials as further evident by Takeshita et al.; Takeshita et al. teaches lithium silicon oxide powders for use in negative electrode materials in which comprise crystallized lithium silicate such as crystallized Li2Si2O5 (para. 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the negative electrode active material of Park et al. to include 1 to 45 wt.% of crystalline Li2Si2O5 as taught by Choi et al. as further evidenced by Takeshita et al., overlapping the claimed range of 22 parts by weight to 28 parts by weight. "In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976)" (see MPEP 2144.05.I). One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to perform the described modification to provide a battery with improved initial efficiency and capacity. Additionally, as Choi et al. is a more current reference (more recent publication date) than Park et al., one of ordinary skill in the art would find the teachings of Choi et al. useful in providing an improved crystalline Li2Si2O5 content based on updated research, development, and discoveries observes in the field of endeavor.
Regarding Claim 4, Park et al. is modified by Lee et al. and Choi et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. Park et al. teaches an example component content of 14 wt. % crystalline Li2Si2O5 -and 2 wt. % crystalline Li2SiO3 where the difference between the content of the crystalline Li2Si2O5 and the content of the crystalline Li2SiO3 is 12 wt. % or 12 parts by weight based on a total 100 parts by weight of the particles, within the claimed range of 1 part by weight to 40 parts by weight of the particles (para. 92, Table 1).
Regarding Claim 5, Park et al. is modified by Lee et al. and Choi et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. Park et al. provides an example negative electrode active material where the crystalline Li4SiO4 is present in 0 wt. % and therefore, does not comprise the crystalline Li4SiO4. Therefore, all claim limitations are met.
Regarding Claim 9, Park et al. is modified by Lee et al. and Choi et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. Park et al. provides an example negative electrode active material primarily comprising amorphous SiO2 in which the amount of crystalline SiO2 can be considered close to 0 wt. %, within the claimed range of less than 5 parts by weight based on a total 100 parts by weight of the particles.
Regarding Claim 10, Park et al. is modified by Lee et al. and Choi et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. Park et al. teaches lithium present in an amount of 3 parts by weight based on a total 100 parts by weight of the negative electrode active material (para. 85), within the claimed range of 0.5 part by weight to 25 parts by weight.
Regarding Claim 12, Park et al. is modified by Lee et al. and Choi et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. Park et al. teaches a carbon layer disposed on the respective particles (para. 57).
Regarding Claim 13, Park et al. is modified by Lee et al. and Choi et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. Park et al. teaches a method for preparing the negative electrode material comprising preparing a composition for forming a negative electrode active material by mixing the silicon-containing oxide (represented by SiOx wherein 0<x<2) with a lithium precursor (para. 47) and heat treating the composition for forming the negative electrode active material at a temperature of 700°C or above (para. 34), including the claimed range of 780°C to 900°C. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (see MPEP § 2144.05, I).
Regarding Claim 14, Park et al. is modified by Lee et al. and Choi et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 13 above. Park et al. teaches performing an acid treatment on the heat-treated composition for forming the negative electrode active material (para. 91-92).
Regarding Claim 15, Park et al. is modified by Lee et al. and Choi et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 13 above. Park et al. teaches forming a carbon coating layer on the surface of the silicon oxide particles before mixing the silicon oxide particles with the lithium precursor (para. 57).
Regarding Claim 16, Park et al. is modified by Lee et al. and Choi et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 13 above. Park et al. teaches a heat treatment performed for a time in a range of 1 to 3 hours (para. 62), within the claimed range of 1 hour to 12 hours. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP § 2144.05, I).
Regarding Claim 17, Park et al. is modified by Lee et al. and Choi et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 13 above. Park et al. teaches the heat treatment performed in an argon (inert gas) atmosphere in which constitutes an inert atmosphere (para. 85).
Regarding Claim 18, Park et al. is modified by Lee et al. and Choi et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. Park et al. teaches a negative electrode comprising a negative electrode current collector, and the negative electrode active material layer (comprising the negative electrode active material of Claim 1 as modified) is disposed on at least one surface of the current collector (para. 65). Therefore, all claim limitations are met.
Regarding Claim 19, Park et al. is modified by Lee et al. and Choi et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 18 above. Park et al. teaches a secondary battery comprising the negative electrode of Claim 18 as modified comprising a positive electrode, negative electrode, a separator interposed between the negative electrode and the positive electrode, and an electrolyte (para. 101). Further, the positive electrode can be considered to face the negative electrode based on the positional relationship described. Therefore, all claim limitations are met.
Regarding Claim 20, Park et al. is modified by Lee et al. and Choi et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. Park et al. teaches that the lithium is present in an amount of 3 to 30 parts by weight of the negative electrode active material, overlapping the claimed range of 3.5 to 25 parts by weight ([0052] teaches a silicon oxide to lithium precursor mixing ratio of 70:30 to 97:3, [0085] provides an example in which the lithium precursor is lithium, [0086] specifies that the negative electrode active material is formed by the silicon oxide and lithium mixed within said weight ratio) (see MPEP 2144.05.I). Therefore, all claim limitations are met.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20170117543 A1) in view of Lee et al. (W.O. Pat. No. 2019103499 A1), Choi et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20200313173 A1) (Equivalent to W.O. Pat. No. 2019078690 A2) as further evidenced by Takeshita et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20180257942 A1) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Hirose et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20190157663 A1).
Regarding Claim 6, Park et al. is modified by Lee et al. and Choi et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above.
Park et al. does not teach -29Si-MAS-NMR analysis of the negative electrode active material and a height of a peak p1 of Li2SiO3 appearing at a chemical shift peak of -70 ppm to -80 ppm smaller than a height of a peak p2 of Li2Si2O5 that appears at a chemical shift peak of -90 ppm to -100 ppm.
Hirose et al. teaches -29Si-MAS-NMR analysis of a negative electrode active material in which a height of a peak A or p1 of Li2SiO3 appears at a chemical shift peak of 75 ppm, within the claimed range of 70 to 80 ppm. A peak C or p2 of Li2Si2O5 appears at a chemical shift peak of 93 ppm, within the claimed range of 90 ppm and 100 ppm; a height of a peak p1 (A) is smaller than a height of a peak p2 (C) (para. 168).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the negative electrode active material of Park et al. to include an -29Si-MAS-NMR analysis in which may exhibit a height of a peak p1 of Li2SiO3 appearing at a chemical shift peak of 75 ppm (within the claimed range of 70 to 80 ppm) in which is smaller than a height of a peak p2 of Li2Si2O5 appearing at a chemical shift peak of 93 ppm (within the claimed range of 90 ppm and 100 ppm) as taught by Hirose et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to perform the described modification to quantify the lithium silicates by NMR (Hirose et al., para. 95) of a negative electrode active material slurry with improved initial charge/discharge and cycle characteristics (Hirose et al., para. 23).
Regarding Claim 7, Park et al. is modified by Lee et al. and Choi et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above.
Park et al. does not teach -29Si-MAS-NMR analysis of the negative electrode active material and a ratio p2/p1 of a height of a peak p2 of Li2Si2O5 that appears at a chemical shift peak of -90 ppm to -100 ppm to a height of a peak p1 of Li2SiO3 that appears at a chemical shift peak of -70 ppm to -80 ppm of more than 0.1 and 6.5 or less.
Hirose et al. teaches -29Si-MAS-NMR analysis of a negative electrode active material in which a height of a peak A or p1 of Li2SiO3 appears at a chemical shift peak of 75 ppm, within the claimed range of 70 to 80 ppm. A peak C or p2 of Li2Si2O5 appears at a chemical shift peak of 93 ppm, within the claimed range of 90 ppm and 100 ppm (para. 168). A ratio p2/p1 (C/A) of the peak intensity corresponding to the peak height can satisfy the formula A < C/3 (p1 < p2/3) equivalent to 3 < C/A (3 < p2/p1) in which p2/p1 is greater than 3, within and overlapping the claimed range of more than 0.1 and 6.5 or less.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electrode active material of Park et al. to include a height of a peak p2 of Li2Si2O5 that appears at a chemical shift peak of -90 ppm to -100 ppm and a height of a peak p1 of Li2SiO3 that appears at a chemical shift peak of -70 ppm to -80 ppm with a ratio p2/p1 of greater than 3 as taught by Hirose et al., within and overlapping the claimed range of more than 0.1 and 6.5 or less. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP § 2144.05, I). One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to perform the described modification to quantify the lithium silicates by NMR (Hirose et al., para. 95) of a negative electrode active material slurry with improved initial charge/discharge and cycle characteristics (Hirose et al., para. 23).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20170117543 A1) in view of Lee et al. (W.O. Pat. No. 2019103499 A1), Choi et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20200313173 A1) (Equivalent to W.O. Pat. No. 2019078690 A2) as further evidenced by Takeshita et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20180257942 A1) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Kamo et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20190097223 A1).
Regarding Claim 8, Park et al. is modified by Lee et al. and Choi et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above.
Park et al. does not teach a peak p3 of Li4SiO4 that appears at a chemical shift peak of -60 ppm to -69 ppm in which is not present during 29Si-MAS-NMR analysis of the negative electrode active material.
Kamo et al. teaches a peak p3 of Li4SiO4 that may appear at a chemical shift peak of 63 ppm (within the claimed range of 60 ppm to 69 ppm) during 29Si-MAS-NMR analysis of a negative electrode active material (para. 113). The term “may” suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art that the peak may also not be present during the analysis.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the negative electrode active material of Park et al. to include performance of an 29Si-MAS-NMR analysis of the negative electrode active material in which a peak p3 of Li4SiO4 that appears at a chemical shift peak of -60 ppm to -69 ppm is not present as taught by Kamo et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to perform the described modification to quantify the lithium silicates and other materials present in the negative electrode active material particles (Kamo et al., para. 74) of a negative electrode active material with improved cycle characteristics and initial charge/discharge characteristics (Kamo et al., para. 23).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20170117543 A1) in view of Lee et al. (W.O. Pat. No. 2019103499 A1), Choi et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20200313173 A1) (Equivalent to W.O. Pat. No. 2019078690 A2) as further evidenced by Takeshita et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20180257942 A1) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (K.R. Pat. No. 20160109878 A), Akira et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20180287140 A1), and Awano et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20210193990 A1).
Regarding Claim 11, Park et al. is modified by Lee et al. and Choi et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. Park et al. teaches the negative electrode active material obtained by adding the negative electrode active material to a solvent such as distilled water and stirring the resulting mixture (para. 96).
Park et al. does not teach a quantity of 0.5 g of the negative electrode active material added, a quantity of 50 mL of distilled water, a stir time of 3 hours, and a pH of 9 or more and 13 or less at 23°C.
Kim et al. teaches preparing a negative electrode active material by mixing 0.5 g of the negative electrode active material (lithium titanium oxide) in 50 mL of distilled water and stirring (Example One). Akira et al. teaches stirring a negative electrode active material for 3 hours (para. 73). Awano et al. teaches a pH of negative electrode active material particles of 10 to 13 (para. 26), within the claimed range of 9 or more and 13 or less in which it is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the pH is observed at room temperature in which has an average or standard value of 23°C.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the negative electrode active material of Park et al. to include adding 0.5 g of the negative electrode active material to 50 mL of distilled water and stirring as taught by Kim et al. with a stir time of 3 hours as taught by Akira et al. and a pH ranging from 10 to 13 at 23°C (within the claimed range of 9 or more and 13 or less) as taught by Awano et al. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP § 2144.05, I). One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to perform the described modification to provide a method of forming a negative electrode active material exhibiting improved electrochemical characteristics with specific material to solvent mixing ratios (Kim et al., para. 2) and an appropriate stirring time for an electrode active material in which provides sufficient mixing and dispersibility. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify the pH as taught by Awano et al. to provide a negative electrode active material with improved initial efficiency and cycle characteristics due to high stability of the negative electrode active material slurry (Awano et al., para. 27).
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 CHRISTINA RENEE DAULTON whose telephone number is (703)756-5413. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, ULA RUDDOCK can be reached at (571) 272-1481. 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.
/C.R.D./Examiner, Art Unit 1729
/ULA C RUDDOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights