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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/08/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed 01/08/2026 has been entered. Claims 1 and 3-8 are currently pending. Claims 1-5 are amended. Claim 2 is cancelled. Support for the amended claims is found in the claims as originally filed. Applicant’s amendment has overcome each and every rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in the previously mailed Office Action.
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, 3-4, and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moon et al. (US 20190233294 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Moon discloses a negative active material for a rechargeable lithium battery (paragraphs 0066, 0225), the negative active material comprising: a composite of porous silicon and amorphous carbon (paragraph 0066, figures 1-2), the composite of porous silicon and amorphous carbon having macropores with a size of 50 nm or more (paragraph 0134, 30-300 nm, substantially overlapping the claimed range), and a porosity of 15 % to 40 % (paragraph 0072, 5 to 60%, overlapping the claimed range), wherein the amount of amorphous carbon is greater than 40 wt% to 50 wt%, based on a total 100 wt% of the negative active material (paragraph 0164, 3 to 60 parts by weight, overlapping 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, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 3, Moon discloses the limitations of claim 1. Moon further discloses that the porosity of the composite of porous silicon and amorphous carbon is 20 % to 40 % (paragraph 0072, 5 to 60%, overlapping 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, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 4, Moon discloses the limitations of claim 1. Moon further discloses that the macropores have a size of 50 nm to 300 nm (paragraph 0134, 30 nm to 300 nm, substantially overlapping the claimed range).
Regarding claim 6, Moon discloses the limitations of claim 1. Moon further discloses that the composite of porous silicon and amorphous carbon is a heat-treated composite (paragraphs 0025, 0139, 0153).
Regarding claim 7, Moon discloses the limitations of claim 1. Moon further discloses a rechargeable lithium battery (paragraph 0254, figure 15), comprising: a negative electrode including the negative active material (paragraphs 0066, 0225); a positive electrode including a positive active material; and a non-aqueous electrolyte (paragraph 0254).
Regarding claim 8, Moon discloses the limitations of claim 1. Moon further discloses that the porous silicon has macropores with a size of about 50 nm or more (paragraph 0134, 30 nm to 300 nm, substantially overlapping the claimed range).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moon et al. (US 20190233294 A1) in view of Shin (US 20200280062A1).
Regarding claim 5, Moon discloses the limitations of claim 1. Moon is silent regarding that an amount of the porous silicon is 50 wt% to 60 wt%, based on a total of 100 wt% of the negative active material.
Shin discloses a composite negative active material including amorphous carbon and silicon particles (Shin paragraph 0010). Shin further discloses that the silicon particles are included in an amount of 30 wt% to 60 wt% based on a total weight of the negative e active material composite (Shin paragraph 0052), overlapping the claimed range. The reference teaches that when the silicon particles are included within the above-described ranges, battery capacity may be improved (Shin paragraph 0052). Shin and Moon are analogous because they both disclose silicon-carbon negative active materials.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the active material disclosed by Yoo to include the silicon particles in the amount disclosed by Shin. Doing so would improve battery capacity.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-8 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 BENJAMIN T LUSTGRAAF whose telephone number is (571)272-0165. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 am - 6:00 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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at 571-272-1330. 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.
/B.T.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1727
/Maria Laios/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1727