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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on December 30th 2025 is acknowledged. Claims 1-9 & 14-15 remain pending in the application. Claim 16 was added by the Applicant. Applicant’s amendments to Claims 2 & 7 have overcome the previous 112(b) rejections, therefore the rejections have been withdrawn. Applicant’s arguments to the previous rejections of the claims were fully considered but are not persuasive. The 103 rejections of the claims are maintained.
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.
Claim 1-9 & 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang et al. US 20200212427 A1, and further in view of Chen et al CN 112103480 A. Further evidence provided by Bradley “XRD in Materials Analysis”.
Regarding claim 1, Jiang discloses an anode active material for a lithium secondary battery [0002]. Jiang discloses that the anode active material is a composite comprising a lithium silicate material (lithiated silicon-oxygen material) [0007] and a phosphorus material [0009]. Jiang discloses that the anode active material has an XRD pattern as shown in Figure 1 below:
PNG
media_image1.png
412
955
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Jiang Annotated Figure 1
As shown in Annotated Figure 1, Jiang discloses that the anode active material has a peak at 28.3±0.1° (peak “A”) [0043], which is represented by the lithiated silicon material [0043], and a peak at 21.7±1° (peak “B”) [0042] which is represented by the phosphorus material [0118]. As illustrated in Annotated Figure 1, which shows the XRD pattern for Embodiment 14, the ratio of the intensity of peak B compared to peak A is at least less than 0.5, and as shown in Table 1, Embodiment 14 comprises 0.138wt% phosphorous. Jiang discloses further embodiments (such as Embodiment 13) wherein the content of phosphorus is significantly lower at 0.062wt% (see Table 1), which is a reduction of approximately half the amount of phosphorus. As evidenced by Bradley, peak intensity is directly related to concentration of the material thus a lower concentration results in a smaller peak intensity [Page 3]. Thus, Jiang discloses in Embodiment 13 a lower phosphorus content by about half of the amount of phosphorus in Embodiment 14, which as evidenced by Bradley would result in a peak intensity of about half of what is shown in Figure 1, thus a B/A ratio of about 0.25 or less, which falls within the claimed range.
Jiang discloses that the phosphorus material is one of phosphoric acid, tripolyphosphoric acid, sodium tripolyphosphate and potassium tripolyphosphate [0037], however is silent as to the phosphorus compound containing lithium.
Chen discloses a processing method for a negative electrode material [Page 1 Lines 37-38] wherein pre-lithiated silicon oxide is processed with ammonium phosphate [Page 1 Lines 42-44].
Chen discloses that when the pre-lithiated silicon oxide is treated with ammonium phosphate, the lithium on the surface of the pre-lithiathed silicon oxide is converted to lithium phosphate [Page 4 Lines 36-40], which improves the stability of the electrode [Page 4 Lines 40-41].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to use ammonium phosphate as suggested by Chen in place of the phosphorus material used by Jiang to convert the lithium on the surface of the lithiated silicon-oxygen material of the anode to lithium phosphate, and improve the stability of the anode.
Thus, modified Jiang discloses a composite anode material comprising lithium silicate that is processed with ammonium phosphate, as modified by Chen, which results in a lithium-containing phosphate on the surface of the lithium silicate.
As evidenced by the instant specification, the Applicant discloses that residual lithium is present on the surface of the lithium silicate material [0039], and by adding a phosphate the lithium can be converted to a lithium containing phosphate, [0037-0039]. The instant specification discloses processing lithium silicate with a phosphate [0064] such as adding the lithium silicate to a cleaning solution containing a phosphate and stirring [0064]. The instant specification discloses that suitable phosphates include ammonium phosphate [0065], and further discloses that processing the lithium silicate with a phosphate such as ammonium phosphate generates a lithium containing phosphate [0066], which is further supported by preparation of the examples [0094-0098].
Thus, as further evidenced by Applicant’s specification, modified Jiang, with the modification of Chen’s ammonium phosphate, results in the top surface of the composite that includes lithium silicate as well as lithium containing phosphate.
In regards to the limitation “wherein the XRD analysis if performed using a Cu-Kα ray”, the Examiner is treating it as a product by process claim, specifically regarding the phrase "performed using a Cu-Kα ray". It has been shown that even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process (MPEP 2113).
Regarding Claim 2, Jiang discloses that the content of the phosphorus material (represented by “M” in Jiang’s disclosure) in the composite is 0.05-1.0wt%, more preferably 0.2wt% [0041], which falls within the claimed range of 2.5wt% or less. In regards to the amount of phosphorus, the Examiner directs Applicant to MPEP 2144.05 I. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected the overlapping ranged disclosed by Jiang because selection of the overlapping portion or ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Additionally, Chen discloses that lithium phosphate is formed when the lithium silicate material is treated with the ammonium phosphate [Chen Page 1 Lines 49-53], which has the formula Li3PO4 [Page 3 Lines 41-45], thus Chen discloses a Li to P ratio of 3, which falls within the claimed range of 100 or less.
Thus, modified Jiang with the modification of Chen as mentioned with regards to Claim 1, reads on the limitations of Claim 2.
Regarding Claim 3, Jiang discloses that lithium silicate (lithiated silicon-oxygen material) comprises one of Li2SiO3, Li6Si2O7, Li2Si2O5, and Li4SiO4 [0035], which meets the limitations of the formula in Claim 3 wherein:
x is 2-6, which falls within the range
y is 1-2, which falls within the range
z is 3-7, which falls within the range
In regards to the subscripts of the formula (representing the molar amounts of Li, Si, and O), the Examiner directs Applicant to MPEP 2144.05 I. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected the overlapping ranged disclosed by Jian because selection of the overlapping portion or ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Regarding Claim 4, as mentioned with regards to Claim 3 above, Jiang discloses that the lithium silicate (lithiated silicon-oxygen material) is one of Li2SiO3, Li4SiO4, Li6Si2O7, and Li2Si2O5 [0035]. More specifically, Jiang discloses in the examples that Li2SiO3 was used as the lithiated silicon-oxygen material [0092, 0122].
Regarding Claim 5, modified Jiang discloses that lithium phosphate is formed when the lithium silicate material is treated with the ammonium phosphate [Chen Page 1 Lines 49-53], which has the formula Li3PO4 [Page 3 Lines 41-45]. Thus modified Jiang reads on the claim limitation of Formula 2 wherein a = 3, b = 1, and c = 4.
Regarding Claim 6, similarly to Claim 5 above, modified Jiang discloses that lithium phosphate is formed when the lithium silicate material is treated with the ammonium phosphate [Chen Page 1 Lines 49-53], which is known to have the formula Li3PO4, which meets the claim limitation.
Regarding Claim 7, Jiang discloses that the anode active material has a core-shell structure (anode active material includes a lithiated silicon-oxygen material and a coating layer) [0033], wherein the core comprises the silicon based material (lithiated silicon oxygen material) [0033] and the shell (coating layer) is disposed on the surface of the core [0033] and comprises the lithium containing phosphate (the coating layer includes a compound containing phosphorus) [0036]. As modified by Chen above with regards to Claim 1, modified Jiang discloses that the shell (coating layer) thus comprises the lithium containing phosphate.
Regarding Claim 8, Jiang discloses that the anode active material further comprises amorphous carbon (Example 1 comprises carbon black, which is amorphous, as a conductive agent) [0093].
Regarding Claim 9, Jiang discloses that the anode active material further comprises graphite (Example 1 comprises graphite) [0093].
Regarding Claim 14, Jiang discloses an anode [0016], comprising the anode active material of Claim 1 (includes the anode active material of the present invention).
Regarding Claim 15, Jiang discloses an electrochemical device comprising the anode active material [0017], wherein the electrochemical device is a lithium secondary battery [0085].
Regarding Claim 16, as mentioned with regards to Claim 1 above, Jiang discloses, as illustrated in Annotated Figure 1, that the ratio of the intensity of peak B compared to peak A is at least less than 0.5, which overlaps with the claimed range of 0.04 to 0.31.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that Jiang fails to disclose that the peak intensity ratio B/A is within the amended claimed range and the narrower range leads to surprisingly and unexpected improvements such as improved initial coulombic efficiency and reduced slurry gas generation. This is not found to be persuasive because it is not sufficient to overcome the prima facie case of obviousness. Examiner respectfully points out that as stated in the rejection above, Jiang does disclose that the peak intensity ratio B/A would be approximately less than 0.25 when using Embodiment 13 which has a reduced amount of phosphorus, which falls within the claimed range. Additionally, the claimed invention is not commensurate in scope with the examples of the instant specification and therefore the examples cannot be relied upon to show that the claimed invention presents the unexpected and superior results of the examples. At a minimum, the claimed invention is not commensurate in scope because the presence of the cleaning solution (NaH2PO4) of the experimental examples vary compared to the comparative examples and therefore could be contributing to the unexpected and superior results, specifically the gas generation results. The comparative examples, as shown in Table 1 of the instant specification, show a significantly higher gas generation compared to the experiment examples, and additionally the comparative examples have little to no (0-0.005 M) cleaning solution compared to that of the experiment examples 1-11 (0.01-3.0). Therefore other varying features other than the B/A ratio, such as the presence and amount of the cleaning solution appear to be contributing to the results of reduced gas generation of the experimental examples. Additionally, the arguments regarding the gas generation are not commensurate in scope with the claimed invention as the results of the reduced gas generation appear to be directly related to the presence and amount of the cleaning solution, as shown in Table 1, which is not a claimed limitation of Claim 1. Accordingly, the argument that the claimed invention of Claim 1 would lead to unexpected and superior results is not persuasive.
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 ANNA E GOULD whose telephone number is (571)270-1088. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am-5:00pm.
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.
/A.E.G./Examiner, Art Unit 1726
/JEFFREY T BARTON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1726 13 February 2026