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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 05/04/26 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Applicant’s amendment and arguments, filed 05/04/26, have been fully considered. Claim(s) 1 is/are amended; claim(s) 4–6 stand(s) as originally or previously presented; and claim(s) 2 and 3 is/are canceled; no new matter is entered. Examiner affirms that the original disclosure provides adequate support for the amendment.
Upon considering said amendment and arguments, the previous claim objection set forth in the Office Action mailed 02/05/26 has been withdrawn, but the pending 103 rejection has been maintained and altered as necessitated by Applicant’s amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The text forming the basis for the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) may be found in a prior Office Action.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 5 recites “the negative electrode mixture layer further includes a carbon-based active material” in line 3. It is unclear if this active material is meant to be the same as or different than the “carbon-based active material” within the negative electrode mixture layer in parent claim 1.
The specification’s ¶ 0032–0034 describe a carbon-based active material included in the negative electrode mixture layer alongside the Si-based active materials and, thus, appears to reference the same carbon material. Thus, for this Office Action claim 5 will be interpreted to require that “the negative electrode mixture layer the carbon-based active material”, consistent with ¶ 0032–0034. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text forming the basis for the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 may be found in a prior Office Action.
Claim(s) 1 and 4–6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mori (JP 2015230747 A, with mach. translation) in view of Iwami et al. (WO 2020066576 A1, from 12/19/22 IDS; citations to English equivalent US 20220037643 A1, from same IDS) (Iwami).
Regarding claims 1 and 5, Mori discloses a negative electrode for a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery (e.g., ¶ 0012), having a band-shaped negative electrode current collector (strip-shaped collector 46, fig. 1); and a negative electrode mixture layer formed on a surface of the negative electrode current collector (active material layer 44, figs. 1 and 2).
The limitation “the non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery comprises a non-aqueous electrolyte liquid” is an intended-use limitation imparting no additional structure to the negative electrode beyond that the electrode is capable of being used in a battery comprising a non-aqueous electrolyte liquid, which, absent evidence precluding such use, Mori’s electrode would reasonably meet given Mori, as modified Iwami, discloses all structural limitations below (MPEP 2111.02 (II)). Nonetheless, Mori discloses a battery comprising a non-aqueous electrolyte liquid (e.g., ¶ 0060).
Mori further discloses that the negative electrode mixture layer includes a first active material and a second active material (composite active particles 2 and 1, respectively, figs. 1 and 2), and,
in the negative electrode mixture layer, a proportion of a mass of the first active material to a total mass of the first and second active materials is larger in a central part than in an end part in a width direction of the negative electrode current collector (note composite particles 2 concentrated in center and composite particles 1 concentrated on edges of active layer in width direction of collector in figs. 1 and 2; thus, the mass proportion of the “first active material” based on the two materials’ total mass would be larger in the central part than end).
Per figs. 1 and 2, the composite particles 2, i.e., first active material, are larger than the composite particles 1, i.e., second active material (see also, e.g., ¶ 0010), though Mori discloses that the specific diameters (D50) are not particularly limited (¶ 0035).
Mori further discloses that various materials such as silicon compounds may be used for the negative active materials (¶ 0056) but, in being unconcerned with the specific active material(s), fails to explicitly embody first and second Si-based active materials and, by extension, that both the first and second Si-based materials have a structure in which Si particles are dispersed in an oxide phase, and a content rate of the Si particles in the first Si-based active material is higher than a content rate of the Si particles in the second Si-based active material, as well as that the D50 of the first material is larger than the D50 of the second material, where the first D50 is 7–20 μm, and the second D50 is 2–7 μm, and, before a first charge, the oxide phase of the first Si-based active material contains lithium silicate as a main component, and the oxide phase of the second Si-based active material contains silicon oxide as a main component.
Iwami, in teaching an analogous negative electrode with first and second Si active materials (Abstract), teaches first Si-material mother particle 35 and second Si-material mother particle 40 (fig. 3, ¶ 0028). Iwami teaches that each Si material includes Si particles dispersed in an oxide phase (e.g., ¶ 0032, fig. 3), and the first Si material is larger and contains a higher content of Si particles dispersed in the respective oxide phase (¶ 0034, fig. 3). Specifically, the first material’s D50 is preferably 7–20 μm, and the first material’s is preferably 2–7 μm (¶ 0035). Thus, Iwami’s first and second Si materials would correspond to Mori’s second and first composite particles’ active materials, respectively. Iwami teaches that, compared to a case where only one of these Si materials is used or where the conditions of the Si-particle content or mother particles’ diameter is not met, using these Si materials greatly improves (dis)charge cycle characteristics, and both battery capacity and cycle characteristics can be satisfied (¶ 0036).
Iwami further teaches that the first Si material’s oxide phase preferably contains lithium silicate as a main component—i.e., component with the greatest mass (¶ 0037), which is equivalent to the instant main component (see instant spec.’s ¶ 0024)—and the second Si material’s oxide phase preferably contains silicon oxide as a main component to more significantly improve the battery’s cycle characteristics (¶ 0040).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Iwami’s first and second Si materials as Mori’s second and first composite particles’ active materials, respectively—with first D50 7–20 μm and second D50 2–7 μm, where first D50 is larger than second, and, before a first charge, the oxide phase of the first Si-based active material contains lithium silicate as a main component, and the oxide phase of the second Si-based active material contains silicon oxide as a main component—with the reasonable expectation of greatly improving (dis)charge cycling to secure both battery capacity and cycle characteristics, as taught by Iwami.
Mori further discloses that, alongside the Si materials, carbonaceous materials such as graphite are also employable as negative active materials (¶ 0056), but modified Mori fails to explicitly embody that the negative electrode mixture layer further includes a carbon-active material, and a mixing ratio between the carbon-based active material and the Si-based active materials is 98:2 to 80:20, and the total content of the first and second Si-based active materials is 2–20 mass% based on the total mass of the negative electrode active material (claim 5).
Iwami further teaches that the Si materials increase capacity but suffer larger volume change during (dis)charge (¶ 0029). To mitigate this issue and, thus, secure good cycle characteristics while increasing capacity, Iwami teaches employing carbonaceous material such as graphite alongside the Si materials, where the Si materials constitute preferably 2–20 mass% based on the negative active material’s total mass (¶ 0029–0031).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate a carbon-based active material such as graphite into Mori’s negative electrode mixture layer alongside Mori’s Si materials, where the Si materials together occupy 2–20 mass% of the active material—and, thus, satisfying a mixing ratio between the carbon-based active material and the Si-based active materials is 98:2 to 80:20, and the total content of the first and second Si-based active materials is 2–20 mass% based on the total mass of the negative electrode active material (claim 5)—with the reasonable expectation of securing good cycle characteristics while increasing capacity, as taught by Iwami.
Regarding claim 4, modified Mori discloses a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery (Mori, e.g., ¶ 0060), comprising the negative electrode according to claim 1 (Mori, e.g., ¶ 0012, 0060); a positive electrode (Mori, ¶ 0060); and a non-aqueous electrolyte (Id.).
Regarding claim 6, modified Mori discloses the negative electrode for a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery according to claim 1.
As seen in Mori’s fig. 1, the end part necessarily exhibits some width as a fraction of the collector’s width to accommodate the composite particles 1, i.e., second Si particles, but, in being unconcerned with the end part’s specific width relative to the collector’s width, fails to explicitly disclose that the end part’s width is 10–30% of the entire width of the negative electrode current collector.
One skilled in the art would reasonably recognize, however, that the end part must be wide enough to accommodate the composite particles 1 in an amount suitable to perform their function without detracting from the central part’s width to accommodate the composite particles 2, which together provide a difference in the angle of repose to provide suitable active-material coating while inhibiting peeling/chipping at the edge of the active layer (¶ 0030). Meanwhile, as Mori details in ¶ 0060, the edges of the current collectors (36/46) are welded to the battery’s respective terminals, meaning that sufficient room in the width direction’s ends must exist for proper welding and electrical conductivity, whereas making the collector too wide would necessarily reduce relative active-material volume and, thus, energy density. To balance all these effects, then, it would have been obvious to reach the instant range by routinely optimizing the end part’s width relative to the collector’s total width (MPEP 2144.05 (II)).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been fully considered but are unpersuasive.
Applicant argues that incorporating a carbon-based active material alongside Mori’s first and second composite particles—modified to be the first and second Si active materials, per Iwami—at 98:2 to 80:20 carbon:Si would be illogical because the composite particles contribute to Mor’s inventive concept of preventing active-material slippage, so incorporating the (Si) particles at a smaller content would change Mori’s principle of operation.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Mori plainly allows carbon-based material alongside other materials like Si compounds as the negative active material (¶ 0056) and discloses that the proportion of the active material—i.e., the composite particles—relative to the negative electrode mixture layer’s weight is not particularly limited, exemplifying a broad possible range of 50~99 mass% (¶ 0057). Examiner respectfully submits, then, that Mori’s inventiveness does not appear particularly restricted to the composite particles’ weight percentage.
Further, Examiner observes that claim 1’s “mixing ratio” is open to any content, whether mass, volume, or so on. For example, then, claim 1 would allow, depending on the masses of the first and second Si materials and the carbon material, a relatively high mass ratio of C:Si but a relatively low volume ratio of C:Si such that the (Si) composite particles could still be present in at least a volume content sufficient to exert the desired effect. Indeed, the skilled artisan would have accounted for this concern and would have understood, when starting with Mori and then consulting Iwami, to incorporate the Si materials at 2–20 mass% based on the total of C and Si materials for Iwami’s optimized capacity and volume expansion while also accounting for at least the volume content of Si materials, as part of the composite particles, to prevent active-material slippage. Thus, this argument is unpersuasive.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN S MEDLEY whose telephone number is (703)756-4600. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00–5:00 EST M–Th and 8:00–12:00 EST F.
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, Jonathan Leong, can be reached on 571-270-192. 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.
/J.S.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 7/20/2026
Prosecution Insights