DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claims 16-17 are canceled. Claims 1-10 were previously withdrawn. Claims 11 has been amended. Claims 11-15 are 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Any rejections and/or objections made in the previous Office Action and not repeated below, are hereby withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments or/and arguments.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.
Drawings
The amended drawings filed Feb. 27, 2026 are acknowledged and accepted.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following:
1) In claim 11, the following is suggested:
The “mixture a” is changed to “mixture A” or the like to assist readers.
The suggestion applies similarly to “mixture b”, “mixture c”, and “mixture d”.
2) In claim 11, it appears that the phrase “compared to” should read “compared with”.
3) In claim 11, the three “a method”s after “at lease one of the following is performed” appears to be redundant.
4) The recitation “increasing the solid content of each of the mixture a and the mixture b compared to the solid content of each of the mixture c and the mixture d” is awkward. Is the following intended to be claimed?
The solid content of each of the mixture a and the mixture b is greater than that of each of the mixture c and the mixture d.
The issue similarly applies to recitations presented after the second and third “a method of”.
5) The content in claim 11 after the step d) should be rephrased/modified. No new matters should be introduced. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 11 recites “an oxygen content ratio in each of the silicon-containing particles”. However, it is unclear as to what form of the claimed oxygen it is in the silicon-containing particles. According to the claim language “each of the silicon-containing particles includes a domain composed of carbon and a domain composed of silicon”, where is oxygen coming from? Oxygen gas? Oxygen atoms? … Thus, claim 11 is unclear and indefinite.
Claim 11 recites “the kneaders” and “the kneading time”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jun et al. (KR 20180006140 A, whose English machine translation is being used for citation purposes, hereafter Jun) in view of Matsuo et al. (US 20210194002 A1, hereafter Matsuo), Yang et al. (US 20220238911 A1, hereafter Yang), Fukumoto et al. (US 20210193991 A1, hereafter Fukumoto), and Wang et al. (US 20180226642 A1, hereafter Wang).
Regarding claims 11-12, Jun teaches a method of producing a negative electrode for a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery, the method comprising preparing a slurry for forming an active material layer of the negative electrode (See, at least: Title, Abstract and [0042], [0107]),
wherein the preparing of the slurry includes:
a) obtaining a mixture A (second slurry, see [0010], [0060) by mixing silicon-containing particles, a dispersion solvent (e.g., water, [0015]), lithium polyacrylamide (LiPAA) and a conductive material ([0034]-[0035]),
b) obtaining a mixture B (first slurry, see [0010]) by mixing graphite particles (e.g., graphite, [0013]), a binder including carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC) or/and styrene-butadiene rubber (SBR) ([0010]), and a dispersion solvent (e.g., water, [0015]), and
c) obtaining a mixture C (“mixed”, [0063]) by mixing the mixture A, the mixture B, and a dispersion solvent (water).
Jun is silent as to the conductive material in step a) being fibrous carbon. Matsuo, however, discloses that using fibrous carbon (e.g., single-layered CNT) as a conductive agent can form satisfactory conductive paths in a negative electrode ([0044], [0045]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have used single-layered CNT as the conductive material of Jun in order to form satisfactory conductive paths in the negative electrode. Also, 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.
Although Jun uses lithium polyacrylamide (LiPAA), one of ordinary skill in the art would readily appreciate that PAA can be used instead of LiPAA in the preparation step of Jun, since they are functional equivalents polymer binders commonly used in the battery field, as evidenced by Yang ([0081]).
Furthermore, Jun teaches that styrene-butadiene rubber (SBR) can be provided in the step b) ([0010]) and if so, the mixture obtained in the step c) includes SBR, thus teaching the step d) as claimed. Note that the transposition of process steps or the splitting of one step into two, where the processes are substantially identical or equivalent in terms of function, manner and result, was held not to patentably distinguish the process (e.g., Exparte Rubin, 128 USPQ 440 (Bd. Pat. App. 1959). See MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(C).
Jun in view of Matsuo and Yang further teaches the peripheral speed (500 rpm, [0058]-[0060], Jun) of each of the kneaders used in the steps a) and b) is larger than that (100 rpm, ([0063], Jun) in steps c) and d). Note that the mixing step in Jun ([0063]) reads on the steps c) and d) as claimed since the components in the mixture are the same as those in the claimed steps c) and d). Notwithstanding this, a merely change of mixing speed and time is not patentably distinguishable because adjusting them involves ordinary skill of one skilled in the art.
Jun as modified teaches the final mixture (slurry) is applied to a current collector and dried to form an active material layer of the negative electrode (e.g., [0063], Jun). Thus, the formed active material layer contains graphite particles, fibrous carbon such as single-layered CNT, silicon-containing particles, and a binder containing SBR, CMC and PAA.
Jun as modified appears silent as to a BET specific surface area of the graphite particles. Fukumoto discloses a BET specific surface area of 4.0 m2/g or less of graphite particles ([0041]) for the benefits of higher battery capacity due to a larger amount of lithium ions to be occluded ([0041]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have used graphite particles having a BET specific surface area of 4.0 m2/g or less taught by Fukumoto in order to achieve the benefits mentioned above. The claimed 3.5 m2/g or less lies inside the range of 4.0 m2/g or less. 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).
Jun as modified appears silent as to the claimed “each of the silicon-containing particles includes a domain composed of carbon and a domain composed of silicon and having a size of 50 nm or less”. In the same field of endeavor, however, Wang discloses that silicon-containing particles including a domain composed of carbon and a domain composed of silicon (See Fig. 2) can “improve performance of electro-chemically active materials such as improving capacity and/or cycling performance” and “may not significantly degrade as a result of lithiation of the silicon-containing particles” ([0053]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have used silicon-containing particles taught by Wang in the negative electrode of Jun as modified in order to achieve the benefits/advantages mentioned above. Wang further teaches the silicon-containing particles may have a size in the range of about 10 nm to 1 µm ([0055]). The claimed “50 nm or less” 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).
As to the claimed “oxygen content ratio”, see the 112(b) above. Moreover, Wang discloses that the content of oxygen in silicon-containing particles depends on the level of silicon oxide layer to be removed ([0064]. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at the claimed ratio by adjusting the level of silicon oxide layer to be removed, as disclosed by Wang.
Regarding claim 13, Jun as modified teaches the method according to claim 11. Although June does not appear to disclose sizes of silicon-containing particles and graphite particles, selecting a certain size of particles involves merely ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. For instance, Matsuo discloses a size of silicon-containing particles of 1 µm to 15 µm ([0037]) and a size of graphite of 1 µm to 30 µm ([0035], [0029]), which results in a size ratio of silicon-containing particles to graphite particles being about 0.03 to 15. One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the said ratio can be used in Jun in view of Matsuo. As a result, the claimed ratio lies inside 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). In the absence of unexpected results or persuasive evidence that the ratio is significant, the selection of a size ratio as claimed is not patentably distinguishable.
Regarding claim 14, Jun as modified teaches the method according to claim 11, wherein the carbon nanotube exists around the silicon-containing particles. See the circled area in the figure, below.
Regarding claim 15, Jun as modified teaches the method according to claim 11, wherein the polyacrylic acid (PAA) exists around the silicon-containing particles. See blue and red colors in the figure, below.
PNG
media_image1.png
653
1337
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed Feb. 27, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
1) In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (See the bottom of page 11, Remarks) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
2) A new reference Yang has been introduced to address the arguments with respect to the functional equivalents of PAA and LiPAA. See the rejection above.
3) In response to the argument with respect to adding SBR, the Jun reference explicitly teaches adding SBR, as addressed in the rejection above.
4) In response to the argument with respect to the order of adding SBR in steps b) and d). It is iterated again that the transposition of process steps or the splitting of one step into two, where the processes are substantially identical or equivalent in terms of function, manner and result, was held not to patentably distinguish the process (e.g., Exparte Rubin, 128 USPQ 440 (Bd. Pat. App. 1959). See MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(C).
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