DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-19 are pending in the application, with claims 1-4 and 12-19 withdrawn. New grounds of rejection have been added as a result of the amendment to the claims submitted 6/8/2026. Applicant’s amendments to the specification have been noted and entered into the record.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 5-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ay et al. (US 2020/0006759) in view of Ishizuka (US 2011/0217643).
Regarding claim 5, Ay et al. discloses in Fig 1, a negative electrode material ([0093]) comprising a silicon oxygen material ([0023]), comprising a silicon oxide having a chemical formula SiOx, with 0<x<2 ([0023]), wherein the silicon oxygen material is primary particles ([0023]) having a Wadell sphericity greater than 0.92 ([0020]-[0021]).
Ay et al. does not explicitly disclose the Wadell sphericity is determined via laser particle size analyzer.
Ishizuka discloses measuring silica particles via a laser technique to obtain Wadell’s true sphericity, i.e., a true / accurate measurement / determination of sphericity ([0130]).
Ishizuka and Ay et al. are analogous since both deal in the same field of endeavor, namely, silicon oxide particle measurement of sphericity.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the sphericity laser measurement disclosed by Ishizuka into the measurement of Ay et al. to enhance accuracy of Wadell sphericity determination.
Regarding claim 6, modified Ay et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the negative electrode material ([0093]) comprises a carbon layer coated on a surface ([0069]) of the silicon oxygen material ([0023]).
Regarding claim 7, modified Ay et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the negative electrode material ([0093]) further comprises a graphite ([0090], [0094]).
Regarding claim 8, modified Ay et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses a carbon material ([0069], [0074]-[0075]), wherein the silicon oxygen material ([0023]) is dispersed in the carbon material ([0069], [0074]-[0078], core of silicon oxygen material is a core in the shell of carbon material), the negative electrode material is secondary particles ([0069], [0074]-[0075], core-shell defined), and the negative electrode material has a Wadell sphericity greater than 0.91 ([0085]).
Regarding claim 9, modified Ay et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the negative electrode material has a specific surface area of 0.5 m2/g to 50 m2/g ([0084]).
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ay et al. (US 2020/0006759) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Xiao et al. (US 2017/0338490).
Regarding claim 10, Ay et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above but does not explicitly disclose a flexible polymer coating layer on a surface of the silicon oxygen material.
Xiao et al. discloses in Figs 1-6, a battery (Abstract, ref 20) including an electrode active material particle (ref 140) containing a silicon material ([0042]) including a flexible polymer coating thereon ([0040]-[0043]). This flexible polymer coating minimizes or prevents fracturing of the negative electrode material during cycling to counter silicon material expansion / volume changes ([0040]-[0043]).
Xiao et al. and Ay et al. are analogous since both deal in the same field of endeavor, namely, negative electrode materials for batteries.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the flexible polymer material coating disclosed by Xiao et al. onto the material of Ay et al. to minimize or prevent fracturing of the negative electrode material during cycling to counter silicon material expansion / volume changes, enhancing overall battery performance.
Regarding claim 11, modified Ay et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the coating layer further comprises a conductive material ([0090], [0091], [0094], [0095]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/8/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive:
Applicants argue Ay et al. discloses core silicon particles, not silicon oxide particles, and that the silicon oxide particles do not correspond to the claimed spheres. However, it is noted that Ay et al. discloses “the core is a porous aggregate containing a plurality of silicon particles, carbon and optionally further components” (see Abstract). It is noted that silicon oxide is one of the optional further components as stated at [0023]. Thus, [0023] states an option that contains silicon oxide in the core, present as particles, at least in addition to the silicon particles. Further, it is these core particles that are coated with carbon, etc. (see Abstract, becoming secondary particles, coated with carbon), and thus the core particles are primary particles, corresponding to the primary particles of the instant claims. As such, this argument is not found persuasive.
Applicant’s further arguments with respect to claims 5-11 are considered moot in view of new grounds of rejection.
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 KENNETH J DOUYETTE whose telephone number is (571)270-1212. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8A - 4P 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, Basia Ridley can be reached at 571-272-1453. 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.
/KENNETH J DOUYETTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights