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 .
Summary
Claims 1-13 are currently pending.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I, claims 1-9, in the reply filed on October 28, 2025, is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 10-13 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Objections
Claims 8-9 are objected to because of the following informalities: “the surface of the first silicon particle” in the last line of each claim should be rewritten to indicate plural silicon particles; for example: “the surface of the first silicon particles”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bohnke et al (US 20160248081 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Bohnke teaches a negative electrode for a lithium secondary battery prepared from composite material for a negative electrode mixture comprising of silicon particles (a silicon material) ground together with carbon fibers and mixed with graphitic carbon particles (a carbon material) ([0025] -[0030]), which are negative electrode active materials ([0006]-[0007]), and spreading it on a negative electrode current collector ([0031]), thus forming a negative electrode mixture layer on the negative electrode current collector. Bohnke also teaches the average particle size of the graphitic carbon (carbon material) can range from 5 µm to 60 µm ([0049]), which overlaps with 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) Furthermore, Bohnke discloses the silicon material includes particles where the average size is less than or equal to 4 µm, preferably less than or equal to 300 nm, and in particular less than or equal to 150 nm ([0055]), which overlaps with the claimed range of at least one of first silicon particles having an average particle size ranging from 1 µm to 20 µm or second silicon particles having an average particle size ranging from 30 nm to 500 nm. 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)
Bohnke teaches in Table 2 ([118]) a composition of the negative electrode mixture layer containing 96% of the composite material, which can have 0.1 to 15 wt% silicon ([0059]), including a specific example of 5% silicon shown in Table 1 ([0104]), resulting in a range of about 0.1 to about 14 wt% silicon in the negative electrode mixture layer, and which overlaps with the claimed range of 40 wt% or less of silicon (Si) based on a total weight of the negative electrode mixture layer. 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)
Regarding claim 2, Bohnke teaches the negative electrode of claim 1, and as pointed out previously in addressing claim 1, Bohnke teaches wherein the negative electrode mixture layer contains Si in an amount of about 0.1 to about 14 wt% silicon in the negative electrode mixture layer, which overlaps with 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)
Regarding claim 3, Bohnke teaches the negative electrode of claim 1, and further teaches the carbon material may be selected from a synthetic graphitic carbon or natural one ([0046]), thereby reading on the claimed species of natural graphite and artificial graphite.
Regarding claim 4, Bohnke teaches the negative electrode of claim 1 and further teaches the silicon material is in “the form of spherical elementary particles or in the form of a secondary agglomerate of spherical elementary particles where the average size of the elementary particles is less than or equal to 4 μm, preferably less than or equal to 300 nm, and in particular less than or equal to 150 nm” ([0055]). Table 1 also indicates that the silicon material used is silicon ([0104]), therefore teaching the limitation of a silicon (Si) particle as claimed.
Regarding claim 5, Bohnke teaches the negative electrode of claim 1, and Bohnke further teaches that the grinding of the carbon fibers with the silicon leads to more homogeneous dispersion of these two compounds in the graphitic carbon matrix ([0134]), thereby teaching the graphitic carbon (carbon material) is a matrix and also that the silicon is uniformly dispersed in the carbon material. As pointed out previously in addressing the limitations of the silicon material in claim 1, the size range of the Bohnke’s silicon material overlaps with the first silicon particle or, alternatively, the second silicon particle, therefore Bohnke teaches wherein the negative electrode active material has a structure in which the first silicon particles or the second silicon particles are uniformly dispersed using the carbon material as a matrix.
Claim 6 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bohnke et al (US 20160248081 A1) in view of Lee et al (KR20190047196A).
Regarding claim 6, Bohnke teaches the negative electrode of claim 1, and wherein Bohnke teaches the negative electrode active material has a structure in which the silicon particles less than or equal to 4 µm ([0055]) (i.e., the first silicon particles) are uniformly dispersed using the graphitic carbon particles (i.e. the carbon material) as a matrix ([0134]).
However, Bohnke does not teach the negative electrode active material further has a form in which the second silicon particles are partially adsorbed on a surface of the carbon material.
Lee in the same field of endeavor teaches an embodiment of a negative electrode active material wherein silicon-based particles doped with metal (200) are dispersed and positioned on the surfaces of larger carbon-based particles (100) (Fig. 1, reproduced below; machine translation [0043], [30]). Lee further teaches their silicon-based particles may have an average particle diameter of 100 nm to 300 nm and that when the size range is satisfied, the side reaction with the electrolyte and the volume expansion of the silicon-based particles can be maintained at an appropriate level, providing a battery with excellent life characteristics ([0044]). Lee also discloses the carbon-based particles can be artificial graphite ([0028]) Lee also teaches that the configuration maximizes the advantages while overcoming the disadvantages of conventional carbon-based compounds and silicon by providing a silicon-carbon composite that exhibits excellent initial efficiency, volume expansion, and lifespan characteristics when used as a negative electrode active material ([0010]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the artificial graphite (carbon material) of modified Bohnke to incorporate silicon-based particles doped with metal on the surfaces of the artificial graphite, as taught by Lee, to provide the advantages of excellent initial efficiency, volume expansion, and lifespan characteristics when used as a negative electrode active material. Within the combination of prior art, the silicon-based particles on the surface of the carbon material as taught by Lee corresponds to the second silicon particles. Given that second silicon particles have only part of their surfaces adsorbed to the surfaces of the carbon material, they are partially adsorbed.
Fig. 1 of Lee:
PNG
media_image1.png
297
371
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bohnke et al (US 20160248081 A1) in view of Kim et al (US 20200243848 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Bohnke teaches the negative electrode of claim 1. Bohnke teaches the negative electrode active material includes carbon fibers ([0025] -[0030]), and further teaches that the category of carbon fibers includes carbon nanotubes ([0016]) and that the carbon fibers have a diameter less than or equal to 150 nm ([0063]). Bohnke teaches that the carbon fibers are used as a potential solution to address loss of charge capacity as the charge-discharge cycles proceed ([0015]). Bohnke does not explicitly state that the diameter is a D50 value nor teaches the explicit selection of carbon nanotubes as a species.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Kim teaches use of fibrous carbon nanotubes as a conductive material for a negative electrode active material (layer 40) consisting of silicon material and artificial graphite ([0038], [0040] lines 7-12; Fig. 2) and discloses that the carbon nanotubes can have an average diameter of 10-120 nm ([0046]), which overlaps with 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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) Kim further teaches that when the average diameter of carbon nanotubes satisfies the range, it retains conductivity between silicon-based materials and improves cycle characteristics of a lithium secondary battery ([0047]-[0048]), which corresponds to the batteries taught by Bohnke. They also teach carbon nanotubes provide unique properties of electrical conductivity such ([0045]) that when carbon nanotubes are positioned sufficiently throughout the surface of the silicon-based active material in a line contact mode as opposed to a spot contact mode such as with a spherical conductive material as carbon black ([0037]-[0038], [0041]), a conductive path throughout the silicon-based active material can be retained stably, which inhibits degradation of discharge capacity over repeating charge/discharge cycles ([0041]). One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have found it obvious to modify Bohnke’s negative electrode to use carbon nanotubes as the carbon fibers as taught by Kim because it is a suitable option and for the benefit of retaining a conductive path throughout the silicon-based active material within the negative electrode active layer of Bohnke. Thus, the carbon nanotubes read on the carbon body of the limitation of claim 7.
Regarding claim 8, the combination above teaches the negative electrode of claim 7, wherein Bohnke teaches the negative electrode active material has a structure in which the silicon particles less than or equal to 4 µm ([0055]) (i.e., the first silicon particles) are uniformly dispersed using the graphitic carbon particles (i.e. the carbon material) as a matrix ([0134]). When using the carbon nanotubes as taught by Kim within the negative electrode mixture layer, the binding ability of the negative electrode material is improved and carbon nanotubes sufficiently form a conductive network between silicon particles (Kim: [0059]), wherein the silicon particles correspond to the first silicon particles in modified Bohnke. As previously pointed out, Kim teaches that when carbon nanotubes are positioned sufficiently throughout the surface of the silicon-based active material in a line contact mode as opposed to a spot contact mode such as with a spherical conductive material as carbon black ([0037]-[0038], [0041]), a conductive path throughout the silicon-based active material can be retained stably, which inhibits degradation of discharge capacity over repeating charge/discharge cycles ([0041]). If a conductive network exists between the first silicon particles based on a conductive path formed by carbon nanotubes, and forms a line contact with the surface of the silicon-based particle, then inherently the carbon nanotubes (carbon body) are attached to the first silicon particles and must be partially or entirely adsorbed on a surface of the first silicon particle.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bohnke et al (US 20160248081 A1) in view of Kim et al (US 20200243848 A1) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Lee et al (KR 20190047196 A).
Regarding claim 9, the combination above teaches the negative electrode of claim 7, and wherein Bohnke teaches the negative electrode active material has a structure in which the silicon particles less than or equal to 4 µm ([0055]) (i.e., the first silicon particles) are uniformly dispersed using the graphitic carbon particles (i.e. the carbon material) as a matrix ([0134]).
When using the carbon nanotubes as taught by Kim within the negative electrode mixture layer, the binding ability of the negative electrode material is improved and carbon nanotubes sufficiently form a conductive network between silicon particles (Kim: [0059]), wherein the silicon particles correspond to the first silicon particles in modified Bohnke. As previously pointed out, Kim teaches that when carbon nanotubes are positioned sufficiently throughout the surface of the silicon-based active material in a line contact mode as opposed to a spot contact mode such as with a spherical conductive material as carbon black ([0037]-[0038], [0041]), a conductive path throughout the silicon-based active material can be retained stably, which inhibits degradation of discharge capacity over repeating charge/discharge cycles ([0041]). If a conductive network exists between the first silicon particles based on a conductive path formed by carbon nanotubes, and forms a line contact with the surface of the silicon-based particle, then inherently the carbon nanotubes (carbon body) are attached to the first silicon particles and must be partially or entirely adsorbed on a surface of the first silicon particle.
However, the combination above does not teach the negative electrode active material further has a form in which the second silicon particles are partially adsorbed on a surface of the carbon material.
Lee in the same field of endeavor teaches an embodiment of a negative electrode active material wherein silicon-based particles doped with metal (200) are dispersed and positioned on the surfaces of larger carbon-based particles (100) (Fig. 1; machine translation [0043], [30]). Lee further teaches their silicon-based particles may have an average particle diameter of 100 nm to 300 nm and that when the size range is satisfied, the side reaction with the electrolyte and the volume expansion of the silicon-based particles can be maintained at an appropriate level, providing a battery with excellent life characteristics ([0044]). Lee also discloses the carbon-based particles can be artificial graphite ([0028]).
Lee also teaches that the configuration maximizes the advantages while overcoming the disadvantages of conventional carbon-based compounds and silicon by providing a silicon-carbon composite that exhibits excellent initial efficiency, volume expansion, and lifespan characteristics when used as a negative electrode active material ([0010]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the artificial graphite (carbon material) of modified Bohnke to incorporate silicon-based particles doped with metal on the surfaces of the artificial graphite, as taught by Lee, to provide the advantages of excellent initial efficiency, volume expansion, and lifespan characteristics when used as a negative electrode active material. Within the combination of prior art, the silicon-based particles on the surface of the carbon material as taught by Lee corresponds to the second silicon particles. Given that second silicon particles have only part of their surfaces adsorbed to the surfaces of the carbon material, they are partially adsorbed.
Claims 1, 3-4, 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al (US 20200243848 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kim teaches a negative electrode (Fig. 2, reproduced below) for a lithium secondary battery, comprising a negative electrode current collector (10); and
A negative electrode mixture layer (combination of layer 30 and layer 40) which is located on the negative electrode current collector (10) and contains a negative electrode active material (layer 40),
Wherein the negative electrode active material includes a carbon material (carbonaceous active material) and a silicon material (silicon-based active material) (Fig. 2; [0042], [0059]),
Wherein an average particle size (D50) of the carbon material ranges from 1 µm to 20 µm ([0063] teaches an overlapping range of 10-25 µm; 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)),
Wherein the silicon material includes at least one of the first silicon particles having an average particle size (D50) ranging from 1 µm to 20 µm or second silicon particles having an average particle size (D50) ranging from 30 nm to 500 nm ([0058] teaches an average particle diameter of 0.5- 5 µm which is an overlapping range with either the first silicon particles and the second silicon particles, and teaches teach Si as a suitable option for the silicon-based material for layer 40 ([0055]). 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)), and
Wherein the negative electrode mixture layer contains 40 wt% or less of silicon (Si) based on a total weight of the negative electrode mixture layer (Paragraph [0100] discloses Example 1, which provides an example wherein the combination of the silicon-based active material and the carbonaceous active material is present at 95% in the negative electrode active material (layer 40), and wherein the carbonaceous active material is mixed with the silicon -based active material at a weight ratio of 9:1, and the silicon-based active material is SiO with molar mass 44.08 g/mol. Therefore, an example is taught of 95% x 10% x (28.09/44.08) or about 6% Si in the negative electrode active material. Given that the negative electrode mixture layer is formed of both layers 30 and 40, the amount of Si must be less than 40 wt% based on a total weight of the negative electrode mixture layer).
Fig. 2 of Kim:
PNG
media_image2.png
461
673
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Kim teaches the negative electrode of claim 1, and Kim further teaches the carbonaceous active material (i.e., carbon material) can be artificial graphite ([0100], [0099]).
Regarding claim 4, Kim teaches the negative electrode of claim 1. Kim teaches Si as a suitable option for the silicon-based material ([0055]), and Kim also discloses the silicon-based material may have an average particle diameter of 0.5-5 µm ([0058]), thereby teaching the silicon material can be a silicon (Si) particle.
Regarding claim 7, Kim teaches the negative electrode of claim 1, and Kim further teaches the negative electrode active material (layer 40) includes carbon nanotubes, which correspond to the claimed carbon body (Fig. 2) ([0039]-[0040], [0100]). Kim further teaches the carbon nanotubes may have an average diameter of 10-120 nm ([0046]), which overlaps with 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)
Claims 5 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al (US 20200243848 A1) in view of Bohnke et al (US 20160248081 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Kim teaches the negative electrode of claim 1, and Kim further teaches wherein the silicon-based active material (corresponding to either the first silicon particles or second silicon particles based on overlapping ranges with the recited size ranges, per ([0058])) can be mixed with carbonaceous active material (the carbon material) in a 9:1 weight ratio of the carbonaceous active material to the silicon particles ([0100]) in the negative electrode active material. In the mixture, the carbon material is present at a much higher quantity and therefore is asserted to be functioning as a matrix for the silicon particles present in a lesser quantity.
Although Kim teaches using the carbon material as a matrix, Kim does not claim the first silicon particles or the second silicon particles are uniformly dispersed.
Bohnke in the same field of endeavor teaches a silicon-carbon active material wherein the silicon-based material are particles that are homogeneously (uniformly) dispersed using the carbon material as a matrix ([0055], [0134]). Bohnke further discloses an example comparing the battery performance of a negative electrode prepared using less uniformly dispersed silicon in the carbon matrix (Electrode B, Fig. 1) of the active material and a negative electrode prepared using more uniformly dispersed silicon in the carbon matrix (Electrode A, Fig. 2) ([0129]-[0134]), and wherein the results (Fig. 3) show that the specific capacity of Electrode A with the more uniformly dispersed silicon maintains a relatively constant specific capacity in deinsertion whereas electrode B experiences a sharp drop in specific capacity in deinsertion starting from the first cycles of use ([0146]-[0147]). A skilled artisan at the time of filing would have been motivated to modify Kim’s negative electrode to uniformly disperse the first silicon particles or second silicon particles within the carbon material as a matrix as taught by Bonhke for the advantage of maintaining specific capacity in deinsertion.
Regarding claim 8, Kim teaches the negative electrode of claim 7, and Kim further teaches wherein the silicon-based active material (corresponding to the first silicon particles based on overlapping range with the recited size range, per ([0058])) can be mixed with carbonaceous active material (the carbon material) in a 9:1 weight ratio of the carbonaceous active material to the silicon particles ([0100]). In the mixture, the carbon material is present at a much higher quantity and therefore functions as a matrix for the silicon particles present in a lesser quantity.
Kim teaches the carbon nanotubes are positioned sufficiently throughout the surface of the silicon-based active material in a line contact mode ([0041]), therefore inherently the carbon nanotubes (carbon body) are attached to the first silicon particles and must be partially or entirely adsorbed on a surface of the first silicon particles.
Although Kim teaches using the carbon material as a matrix, Kim does not claim the first silicon particles or the second silicon particles are uniformly dispersed.
Bohnke in the same field of endeavor teaches a silicon-carbon active material wherein the silicon-based material are particles that are homogeneously (uniformly) dispersed using the carbon material as a matrix ([0055], [0134]). Bohnke further discloses an example comparing the battery performance of a negative electrode prepared using less uniformly dispersed silicon in the carbon matrix (Electrode B, Fig. 1) of the active material and a negative electrode prepared using more uniformly dispersed silicon in the carbon matrix (Electrode A, Fig. 2) ([0129]-[0134]), and wherein the results (Fig. 3) show that the specific capacity of Electrode A with the more uniformly dispersed silicon maintains a relatively constant specific capacity in deinsertion whereas electrode B experiences a sharp drop in specific capacity in deinsertion starting from the first cycles of use ([0146]-[0147]). A skilled artisan at the time of filing would have been motivated to modify Kim’s negative electrode to uniformly disperse the first silicon particles within the carbon material as a matrix as taught by Bonhke for the advantage of maintaining specific capacity in deinsertion.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GIGI LIN whose telephone number is (571)272-2017. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:30 - 6.
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, Jeffrey T Barton can be reached at (571) 272-1307. 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.
/G.L.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1726
/JEFFREY T BARTON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1726 14 January 2026