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
Claims 1-9 were rejected in the Office Action from 03/12/2026.
Applicant filed a response and amended claims 1-9.
Claims 1-9 are currently pending in the application and are being examined on the merits in this Office Action.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 3-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tahara (WO2017199606A1) and further in view of Minami et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0309950).
The Examiner has provided a machine translation of WO2017199606A1. The citation of the prior art in this rejection refer to the machine translation.
Regarding claim 1, Tahara teaches a negative electrode active material for a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery (title), comprising: composite particles containing a lithium aluminate phase (i.e., Li-containing oxide contains Al) (30) (page 3, line 18-20; page 5, lines 30-44) (see figure 1), and a silicon phase (i.e., silicon particles) (20) dispersed in the lithium aluminate phase (page 3, line 18-20; page 5, lines 30-44), wherein
the silicon phase has a conductive binder in the amount of 10% by mass or more (page 3, lines 58-60; page 4, lines 1-5). As such, the content of the silicon MSi derived in the silicon phase results in 90% or less which overlaps the claimed range.
Tahara does not explicitly articulate the composite particles have a sea-island structure in which the lithium aluminate phase forms a sea and the silicon phase forms islands dispersed in the sea, however, figure (2) below appears to conform to such shape/configuration because the lithium aluminate phase (30) (the sea) surrounds the silicon phase (20) (the island). Nonetheless, additional guidance is provided below.
PNG
media_image1.png
210
268
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Minami, also directed to a negative electrode active material (abstract), teaches a lithium silicate phase (11) forming a sea and a silicon phase (12) forms islands disperse in the sea (see figure 1 below) (abstract) (paragraph [0026]-[0027]). Minami teaches such configuration improve cycle characteristics (paragraph [0007]-[0008]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tahara an include the composite particles having a sea-island structure in which the lithium aluminate phase forms a sea and the silicon phase forms islands dispersed in the sea, as suggested by Minami, in order to improve cycle characteristics.
PNG
media_image2.png
322
332
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Tahara teaches the lithium aluminate phase contains at least one selected from the group consisting of LiAl5, Li2A1407, LiAlO2, and Li5AlO4 (page 3, lines 15-25).
Regarding claims 5 and 7, Tahara teaches the negative electrode active material as described above in claim 1 which includes a lithium aluminate phase and a silicon phase dispersed in the lithium aluminate phase.
Tahara does not explicitly articulate the specifics of the X-ray diffraction measurements as recited in the instant claims. However, X-ray diffraction is a well-known analytical technique used to identify crystalline phases in electrode materials. Because Tahara teaches identical lithium aluminate including Al2O3, the same X-ray diffraction peaks associated with the corresponding phases would be expected. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to perform routine x-ray diffraction analysis of the composite particles disclosed in Tahara in order to confirm the presence of the lithium aluminate phase and Al2O3 and observe the corresponding peaks. Determining the diffraction pattern of a known crystalline material amounts to routine characterization and merely reveals an expected property of the material.
Regarding claim 6, Tahara teaches wherein an A1203 phase is dispersed in the lithium aluminate phase (page 3, lines 15-25).
Regarding claim 8, Tahara teaches the lithium aluminate phase contains at least one element selected from the group consisting of sodium, potassium, calcium, magnesium, zirconium, iron, boron, phosphorus, and lanthanum (page 3, lines 5-25).
Regarding claim 9, Tahara teaches a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery (page 6, line 15-17), comprising: a positive electrode (page 6, line 28); a negative electrode (page 5, line 49); and a non-aqueous electrolyte (page 6, line 42), wherein the negative electrode includes the negative electrode active material for a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery of claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-3 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. In other words, claim 1 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form to incorporate:
all the limitations of claim 1 and claim 2
Applicant is encouraged to consider amending claim 1 accordingly to place the application in condition of allowance.
The prior art, whether alone or in combination, fails to teach or fairly suggest the limitations as recited in the instant claim in combination with the new limitations recited in claim 1. In particular, the claim would be allowable if rewritten as follows:
A negative electrode active material for a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery, comprising: composite particles containing a lithium aluminate phase, and a silicon phase dispersed in the lithium aluminate phase, wherein
the composite particles have a sea-island structure in which the lithium aluminate phase forms a sea and the silicon phase forms islands dispersed in the sea,
in the composite particles, a content proportion MSi of silicon in all elements other than oxygen is 40 mass% or more and 85.5 mass% or less,
the content proportion MSi is a content proportion of silicon derived from the silicon phase, wherein
in the composite particles, a content proportion MA1 of aluminum in all elements other than oxygen is 10 mass% or more and 47 mass% or less, and
a content proportion MLi of lithium in all elements other than oxygen is 0.7 mass% or more and 13.5 mass% or less.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s argument filed on 05/05/2026 are deemed moot in view of the new grounds of rejection presented in this Office Action, necessitated by Applicant’s amendment to the claims which significantly affected the scope thereof (i.e., by incorporating new limitations into the independent claims, which require further search and consideration). The new limitations have been fully addressed above in view of Minami.
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 CHRISTIAN ROLDAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5098. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9:00 am - 7:00 pm.
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, TONG GUO can be reached at 571-272-3066. 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.
/CHRISTIAN ROLDAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights