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 .
Status of Claims
Applicant’s amendment and arguments, filed 11/17/25, have been fully considered. Claim(s) 1 and 2 is/are amended; claim(s) 3 and 4 stand(s) as originally or previously presented; and claim(s) 5 and 6 is/are added without entering new matter. Examiner affirms that the original disclosure provides adequate support for the amendment.
Upon considering said amendment and arguments, the previous 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection as well as 103 rejection over Watanabe in view of Kurata, set forth in the Office Action mailed 08/18/25, has/have been withdrawn. However, the pending 103 rejection over Mori in view of Iwami has been maintained and altered as necessitated by Applicant’s amendment. Moreover, Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new grounds of rejection below.
Claim Objections
It is recommended that Applicant amend claim 1 as follows: in line 12, “D50 of the first Si-based active material … D50 of the second Si-based active material” should read “a D50 of the first Si-based active material … a D50 of the second Si-based active material” for proper grammar. 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) 1–6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mori (JP 2015230747 A) 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 4, Mori discloses a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery (Li battery, e.g., Abstract and ¶ 0012), comprising a negative electrode, a positive electrode, and a non-aqueous electrolyte (e.g., ¶ 0012, 0015), the negative electrode 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), wherein 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.
Iwami, in teaching a 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 and Mori are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely battery negative electrodes.
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—with the reasonable expectation of greatly improving (dis)charge cycling to secure both battery capacity and cycle characteristics, as taught by Iwami.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, modified Mori discloses the negative electrode for a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery but fails to explicitly articulate the type of oxide phase in each of the first and second Si materials and, thus, that, before a first charge, the oxide phase contains lithium silicate or silicon oxide as a main component and, specifically, that the oxide phase of the first Si-based active material contains the lithium silicate as a main component, and the oxide phase of the second Si-based active material contains the silicon oxide as a main component.
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 incorporate lithium silicate as a main component of the first Si material’s oxide phase and silicon oxide as a main component of the second Si material’s oxide phase, as taught by Iwami, with the reasonable expectation of more significantly improving the battery’s cycle characteristics, as taught by Iwami.
Regarding claim 5, modified Mori discloses the negative electrode for a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery according to claim 1.
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 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.
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, as taught by Iwami, with the reasonable expectation of securing good cycle characteristics while increasing capacity, as taught by Iwami.
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, 5, and 6 have been considered. Applicant’s amendment overcame the previous 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection—which, as noted above, has been withdrawn—and necessitated the new grounds of rejection citing additional teachings from Mori and Iwami, as established above. Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s arguments against Mori and Iwami as follows:
Applicant argues that Mori’s composite particles’ respective diameters are far outside the respectively recited ranges. Examiner respectfully notes that Applicant has cited one of Mori’s exemplary embodiments (¶ 0034), though Mori appears to further disclose that the composite particles’ respective sizes are not particularly limited as long as the second particles (equivalent to instant first particles) are bigger than the first particles (equivalent to instant second particles), exemplifying a very broad D50 range and overall particle-size distribution (¶ 0035; note also that such references the composite particles’ diameters, which would necessarily be larger than each active material’s diameter because each composite is an active material encapsulated in a binder, per Mori’s ¶ 0026). Thus, Examiner believes that the skilled artisan would have reasonably expected successful active particles for improved (dis)charge and cycle characteristics in adopting Iwami’s first and second Si active materials—at their respective D50s of preferably 7–20 μm and 2–7 μm—as Mori’s active particles within the second and first composite particles, respectively, as Iwami teaches. Per MPEP 2123 (II), prior art is good for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one of ordinary skill, and non-preferred embodiments do not teach away unless they discredit or otherwise discourage such embodiment(s).
Additionally, Applicant argues that the claimed electrode improves both battery capacity and (dis)charge cycle characteristics. Examiner first respectfully notes that Iwami’s first and second Si materials, where the first material’s D50 as well as dispersed-Si content are higher than the second material’s, greatly improve battery capacity and cycle characteristics (¶ 0036), making Applicant’s results appear expected from the prior art. Moreover, Table 1’s Comp. Ex. 2 appears to be the only proper comp. ex. as such is the only one with the central/end split (see MPEP 716.02(c), where unexpected results must be compared against the closest prior art, i.e., Mori/Iwami’s central/end split with the recited first and second Si materials). Importantly, the inventive example, as compared to the comp. ex., appears incommensurate with claim 1 at least as follows:
Claim 1 allows any first and second Si materials, whereas the exs. use first particles with lithium silicate as the oxide phase’s main component, as well as second particles with silicon oxide as the oxide phase’s main component; it is unclear if the results would extend to, e.g., two SiO particles of varying dispersed-Si content and D50.
Claim 1 only requires Si active materials and at any ratio, whereas the exs. incorporate these materials at a certain ratio alongside an overwhelming majority of graphite; it is unclear if the results are replicable without graphite, particularly the inventive ex.’s capacity retention as adding graphite alongside Si active materials is known to enhance cycle retention by absorbing Si materials’ volume change (as seen in Iwami, ¶ 0029–0031).
Claim 1 is to a negative electrode, whereas the results stem from incorporating the electrode into a lithium secondary battery alongside a positive electrode and liquid, non-aqueous electrolyte (¶ 0051 and 0052); it is unclear if the results would occur when incorporating the negative electrode into any electrochemical device, as well as when using any non-aqueous electrolyte (see spec.’s ¶ 0036, where the central/end split appears tailored for liquid-electrolyte interactions).
As MPEP 716.02(d) requires unexpected results to be commensurate with the claimed scope, this argument is further unpersuasive.
Regarding new claims 5 and 6, see the new grounds of rejection above.
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 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 2/2/2026