DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claims 1 and 10-11 are amended. Claims 1-5 and 7-13 are pending and being examined on the merits in this office action.
Response to Amendments
Applicant’s amendments and arguments have been entered. A reply to the Applicant’s remarks/arguments is presented after addressing the claims.
Any rejections and/or objections made in the previous Office Action and not repeated below, are hereby withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments or/and arguments.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. References cited in the current Office action can be found in a prior Office action. Reference not previously cited can be found per the attached PTO-892 for this Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-5, 7-8 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over An et al. (US 20140242472 A1, hereafter An) in view of Choi et al. (US 20180342757 A1, hereafter Choi) and He et al. (CN 109148871 A, whose English machine translation is being employed for citation purposes, hereafter referred to as He).
Regarding claims 1-3 and 7-8, An teaches a lithium secondary battery (e.g., Title), comprising:
an electrolyte comprising a non-aqueous organic solvent, a lithium salt, and an additive represented by Chemical Formula 1 as recited in claim 1, wherein R1 to R8 each may be independently hydrogen ([0013]), resulting in sulfolane ([0016]). The non-aqueous organic solvent may be a propionate-based solvent, such as methyl propionate ([0043]).
An further teaches a positive electrode comprising a positive active material (“cathode active material”: [0048]-[0050]).
An further teaches a negative electrode (“anode”: [0048]) comprising a carbon-based material, such as natural graphite ([0051]), but is silent as to the claimed Si-carbon composite. However, in the same field of endeavor, Choi discloses a negative electrode active material comprising a Si-carbon composite (“secondary particles” in [0097]; See Figs. 1-6) mixed ([0097]) with crystalline carbon (“graphite-based active material particles” in [0097], such as graphite, [0097]), and as such, the charge and discharge characteristics of the battery can be improved ([0097]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified An to employ a negative electrode active material comprising a Si-carbon composite and crystalline carbon (e.g., graphite), as taught by Choi, as the negative electrode active material of An in order to achieve advantages stated above. As a result, An in view of Choi teaches:
the Si-carbon composite comprises a core (“111”, see, e.g., Fig. 1) and a coating layer around the core (“112”) comprising amorphous carbon ([0046]-[0047]), and
the core comprises comprising a physically mixed Si-C material ([0034]).
Furthermore, although Choi is silent as to “nanoparticles” of Si and crystalline state of carbon, these features as claimed are art-recognized features and can be readily satisfied. For instance, it is known in the prior art He that a mixture of silicon nanoparticles and graphite can be used as a core for coating a carbon layer ([0012]-[0014]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have incorporated the teachings of He into An in view of Choi such that a mixture of silicon nanoparticles and graphite, as taught by He, is used as the core of An in view of Choi. It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See MPEP § 2144.07. As a result, An in view of Choi and He teaches the core comprises silicon nanoparticles, and crystalline carbon or amorphous carbon.
Regarding claim 4, An in view of Choi and He teaches the lithium secondary battery of claim 1, wherein an amount of the additive represented by Chemical Formula 1 is 0.1 wt% to 5 wt% based on 100 wt% of the total weight of the lithium salt and the organic solvent ([0013], An), overlapping the instantly claimed range of 0.1 wt% to 10 wt%. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP § 2144.05 (I).
Regarding claim 5, An in view of Choi and He teaches the lithium secondary battery of claim 1, and further teaches the amount of the Si-carbon composite is 2 wt% to 50 wt% (calculated from the ratios in [0098] of Choi) based on a total weight of the negative active material. The claimed range of 0.1 wt% to 5 wt% overlaps the above 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. See MPEP § 2144.05 (I).
Regarding claim 11, An in view of Choi and He teaches the lithium secondary battery of claim 1, and further both the core of He and the core of Choi are functional equivalents as a part of a core-shell structure in a negative electrode active material. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to replace the core of Choi with the core of He, since a substitution of known equivalents for the same purpose is prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.06). As a result, after the replacement, the core consists of silicon nanoparticles and crystalline carbon (graphite) and the coating layer consists of amorphous carbon (See [0046]-[0047], Choi).
Regarding claim 12, An in view of Choi and He teaches the lithium secondary battery of claim 11, wherein the coating layer has a thickness of about 20 nm to about 100 nm ([0054], Choi). The range of 1 nm to 100 nm as claimed overlaps the above 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. See MPEP § 2144.05 (I).
Regarding claim 13, An in view of Choi and He teaches the lithium secondary battery of claim 11, wherein the “112” (See, e.g., Fig. 1) may be included at 2 wt% to 50 wt% based on 100 wt% of “111” ([0054]). Thus, in the case that “111” contains only silicon, the amount of the Si nanoparticles would be about 67 wt% to about 98 wt% based on a total 100 wt% of the Si-carbon composite. The claimed range of 1 wt% to 60 wt% is close to that of 67 wt% to 98 wt%. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. See MPEP § 2144.05 (I).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over An in view of Choi and He, as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Chiga et al. (US 20070287071 A1, hereafter Chiga).
Regarding claim 9, An in view of Choi and He teaches the lithium secondary battery of claim 7, but appears silent as to the claimed volume ration of propionate-based solvent.
However, absence of persuasive evidence that the claimed volume ratio is critical, selecting a volume ratio involves merely ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. For instance, Chiga discloses that a propionated-based solvent, such as methyl propionate, may be in a volume ratio of 50% based on a total volume of the non-aqueous organic solvent formed of FEC and methyl propionate ([0083]). One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the said 50% may be used in the electrolyte solution of An in view of Jo, since the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way is prima facie obvious.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over An in view of Choi and He, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Li et al. (CN 108470899 A, whose English machine translation is being employed for citation purposes, hereafter referred to as Li).
Regarding claim 10, An in view of Choi and He teaches the lithium secondary battery of claim 1, but is silent on the Si-carbon composite consists of nanoparticles and amorphous carbon.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Li teaches a similar core-shell structure for a negative electrode active material, wherein the core consists of Si nanoparticles on which amorphous carbon is coated (See, e.g., [0058]). Both the core of the modified Choi and the core of Li are functional equivalents as a part of a core-shell structure in a negative electrode active material. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to replace the core of the modified Choi with the core of Li, since a substitution of known equivalents for the same purpose is prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.06). As a result, after the replacement, the core consists of silicon nanoparticles and the coating on the core consists of amorphous carbon (See [0046]-[0047], Choi). The overall result teaches the instantly claimed “the Si-carbon composite consists of Si nanoparticles and amorphous carbon”.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 14, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's arguments are based on the claims as amended. The amended claims have been addressed in the rejections presented 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 ZHONGQING WEI whose telephone number is (571)272-4809. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:30 - 6:00.
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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at (571)272-1330. 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.
/ZHONGQING WEI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1727
Prosecution Insights