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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed January 6th, 2026 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 because while the Chinese office action dated November 4th, 2025, is listed within the IDS, no legible copy of the office action has been provided. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits. Applicant is advised that the date of any re-submission of any item of information contained in this information disclosure statement or the submission of any missing element(s) will be the date of submission for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements based on the time of filing the statement, including all certification requirements for statements under 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendments received in the Remarks on October, 14th, 2025:
Claims 1-8 are pending in the current office action, claim 7 has been amended.
Claim 7 has been amended to exclude the first iteration of (111) and remove the “(°)” next to 0.5 degrees and 7 degree.
Status of Objections and Rejections Pending from Office Action of July 14th, 2025:
The claim objection regarding claim 7 has been overcome in view of the amendments received in the remarks on October 14th, 2025.
The previous claim rejection under 35 U.S.C 103 have been upheld in view of the amendments received in the remarks on October 14th, 2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues the rejection of claims 1-4 and 8 would not have been obvious in view of the teaching of Lee, because the claimed anode active material provides a surprising and unexpected improvement in properties relative to the teaching of Lee. In particular, the anode active material of the instant invention includes a silicon-carbon composite comprising a void in the central portion, wherein the radius of the central portion corresponding to 30% to 50% of a radius of the anode active material. Specifically when the radius is out of this range, the initial expansion rate is extremely increased, or the total volume expansion of the anode active material is extremely enlarged, and the cycle-life characteristics also deteriorated and such information is clearly shown in Table 1 of the instant specification. While Lee may teach or suggest diameters of a center pore and a negative active material, it does not disclose, suggest or teach that a radius of the center pore corresponding to 30% to 50% of a radius of the negative active material is preferred. Furthermore, applicant argues, even if the radius of the center pore diameter of the negative electrode active material is calculated from the preferred center pore or 0.5 μm to 5 μm and the average diameter of the negative electrode active material, from the examples, of 15 μm, 16 μm, and 18 μm, the values are about 3.1% to 33.3%, which is a broader range and outside the range of the instant invention. Since Lee does not disclose any relationship between the radius of the center pore and the negative active material, there it would not have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art to arbitrarily select a particular pore and active material radii to arrive at a value recited in the instant claim, because the anode of the instant application provides a superior cycle-like expansion rate and capacity retention, when compared to the anode active material of the prior art.
In response to applicant’s arguments, based on the results provided in table 1 of the instant specification, the results are not unexpected superior for Examples 1 and 2 of the instant invention. There is a difference between the results obtained in examples 1 and 2, even if though the radius is within the claimed range, and it would be expected to see some differences in the results for different radii in the Comparative examples of the instant invention.
According to the instant specification, example 1 has a radius size of the central portion corresponding to 37.5% of the radius of the anode active material [page 22 of the instant specification], example 2 has a radius size of the central portion corresponding to 45% of the radius of the anode active material [page 23 of the instant specification], comparative example 1 has no voids present [page 23 of the instant specification], comparative example 2 has voids present, but no radius size give [page 23 of the instant specification], comparative example 3 has a radius size of the central portion corresponding to 18.8% of the radius of the anode active material [page 24 of the instant specification], and comparative example 4 has a radius size of the central portion corresponding to 68.5% of the radius of the anode active material [page 24 of the instant specification].
In regards to the discharge capacity of anode active material discharge (mAh/g), the discharge capacity of the anode active material for all the examples, both experimental and comparative, vary between different values, no trend is present to compare examples 1 and 2 to the comparative, furthermore, the discharge capacity for comparative example 2 falls between the discharge capacities of examples 1 and 2.
In regards to the initial efficiency (%), example 1 presents a value of 87.1% and example 2 presents a value of 86.3%, whereas comparative example 3 presents a value of 88.6%, which is only a 1.5% difference from the efficiency of example 1.
In regards to the initial expansion rate (%), example 1 presents a value of 33.3% and example 2 presents a value of 32.6%, whereas comparative example 4 presents a value of 31.5%, which is only a 1.1% difference from the expansion rate of example 2, and comparative example 2 presents a value of 33.2% which is only a 0.1% difference from the expansion rate of example 2.
In regards to the cycle-life expansion rate (%), example 1 presents a value of 26.1% and example 2 presents a value of 28.1%, whereas comparative example 3 presents a value of 25.7%, which is only a 0.4% difference from the expansion rate of example 1.
In regards to the capacity retention (%), example 1 presents a value of 77.1% and example 2 presents a value of 75.3%, whereas comparative example 3 presents a value of 77.7%, which is only a 0.6% difference from the retention rate of example 1.
The analysis above shows the results provided within table 1 of the instant specification are not sufficient to show unexpected superior results of the claimed range, presented with examples 1 and 2. Furthermore, there are not enough examples within the instant invention to show the criticality of the radius range of 30 to 50%. To show criticality, there would need to be more examples inside and outside of the claimed range.
In regards to applicant’s argument regarding the radius range of Lee, first, it should be noted that the radius of the center pore diameter of between 0.5 μm to 5 μm is considered a preferred embodiment, because Lee teaches the central pore may has a diameter of 0.1 μm to 10 μm, and more preferably, within 0.5 μm to 5 μm [Lee, page 5 of PDF]. Therefore, based on the average diameter of the negative electrode active material provided in examples 1-4 of Lee, 15 μm, 16 μm and 18 μm [Lee, pages 24-25], the range is 0.55% to 66.6%, which while broad, includes values within the range of the claimed invention. Therefore, a person with ordinary skill in the art, would have found it obvious to select a value within a range of values corresponding to the instant invention based on the teaching of Lee.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-4, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Lee et al, KR 20090109225 A (already on the record).
Regarding Claim 1, Lee teaches a negative electrode active material for a lithium secondary battery, wherein the active material contains flake graphite and a secondary particle containing an element including silicon with a central pore formed inside the particle, corresponding to the claimed “void in a central portion” [Lee, page 4 of PDF]. The central pore (Lee, 110; Figure 1a) has a diameter of 0.1 to 10 μm [Lee, page 5 of PDF], and the negative electrode active material (Lee, 100; Figure 1a) has a diameter of 5 to 10 μm [Lee, page 27 of PDF], therefore, if diameter of the central pore is 1.5 μm and the diameter of the active material is 5 μm, the radius of the central pore is 30 % of the active material, which falls within the range of the claim. Furthermore, Lee teaches the negative electrode active material (Lee, 100; Figure 1) contains a second particle (Lee, 50; Figure 1a), that can be silicon, and a low crystalline or amorphous carbon (Lee, 50; Figure 1a)[Lee, page 6 of PDF].
Moreover, according to MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lieinside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim,541F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir.1990).
Regarding Claim 2, Lee teaches the anode active material of claim 1, wherein the silicon is dispersed in and around the central pore to improve the conductivity, as show in Figure 1a, wherein the second particle (Lee, 20; Figure 1a), corresponding to the silicon, is shown within the central portion of the active material [Lee, page 6 of PDF].
Regarding Claim 3, Lee teaches the anode active material of claim 1, wherein second particle, corresponding to the silicon, has a particle size of 5 nm to 3 μm [Lee, page 10 of PDF], furthermore, the first example of Lee has a nano-silicon particle diameter of 50 nm [Lee, page 24 of PDF].
Moreover, according to MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lieinside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim,541F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir.1990).
Regarding Claim 4, Lee teaches the anode active material of claim 1, wherein the negative electrode active material (Lee, 100; Figure 1a) has a diameter of 5 to 10 μm [Lee, page 27 of PDF], more specifically according to examples 1 – 4 of Lee, the negative electrode active material can have a particle diameter between 15 to 18 μm [Lee, page 24-25 of PDF].
Moreover, according to MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lieinside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim,541F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir.1990).
Regarding Claim 8, Lee teaches a negative electrode comprising the negative electrode active material of claim 1 for a lithium ion secondary battery that further includes a positive electrode containing a positive electrode active material and an electrolyte [Lee, page 22 of PDF], wherein the electrolyte comprises LiPF6 mixed with diethyl carbonate (DEC) and ethylene carbonate (EC)[Lee, page 26 of PDF], which corresponds to a non-aqueous electrolyte.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al, KR 20090109225 A (already on the record) as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Tzeng et al, US 20190067681 A1 (already on the record).
Regarding Claim 5, Lee teaches the anode active material of claim 1, comprising nano-silicon [Lee, page 24 of PDF], but is silent to teach the silicon nanoparticles being the flake type.
Tzeng teaches a novel composite electrode material for a lithium based battery using silicon or Si-based compounds coated with carbon nanotubes or carbon fibers[Tzeng, 0006], wherein the silicon is preferably a silicon flake [Tzeng, 0010].
Tzeng and Lee are considered analogous arts in the area of anode active materials.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify Lee to include the flake type silicon as taught by Tzeng because silicon flake is more elastic and flexible, therefore not easily broken during charge/discharge of the battery. Furthermore, selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use, in this case, silicon nanoparticles suitable for use as an anode active material for a secondary battery, supports prima facie obviousness determination, see MPEP 2144.07
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al, KR 20090109225 A (already on the record) as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Kim et al, US 20200280060 A1 (already on the record).
Regarding Claim 6, Lee teaches the anode active material of claim 1, but is silent to teach on the aspect ratio of the silicon nanoparticles.
Kim teaches a negative electrode active material comprising a silicon-carbon composite [Kim, 0010], wherein the silicon nanoparticles have an aspect ratio of about 2 to 8 [Kim, 0054].
Kim and Lee are considered analogous arts in the area of negative electrode active material for a lithium secondary battery.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify Lee to include the silicon nanoparticle aspect ratio as taught by Kim because such modification would result in a negative electrode active material capable of suppressing any side reactions between the active material and the electrolyte and reducing the expansion of the silicon nanoparticles, whilst improving the efficiency and life-cycle characteristics of the battery [Kim, 0054].
Regarding Claim 7, Lee teaches the anode material of claim 1, but is silent to teach on the silicon nanoparticle having a full width half maximum (FWHM) at a plane of (111) of 0.5 to 7° found by X-ray diffraction using a CuKα ray.
Kim teaches the silicon nanoparticles having a FWHM at a plane of (111) of 0.3 to 7° (2-theta), when analyzed by CuKα ray X-ray diffraction [Kim, 0052].
Kim and Lee are considered analogous arts in the area of negative electrode active material for a lithium secondary battery.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify Lee to include the FWHM of the silicon nanoparticles as taught by Kim because such modification would result in a battery with improved life-cycle characteristics [Kim, 0052].
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 LILIAN ALICE ODOM whose telephone number is (703)756-1959. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9AM - 5PM EST.
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, NIKI BAKHTIARI can be reached at (571) 272-3433. 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.
/LILIAN ALICE ODOM/Examiner, Art Unit 1722
/ANCA EOFF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722
Prosecution Insights