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 1-12 are currently pending.
Claims 1 and 12 have been amended.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/09/2026 has been entered.
Status of Rejections Pending since the Office Action of 6 March 2026
All the 103 rejections pending from the previous office action are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment. However, a new ground(s) of rejection has been set forth below as necessitated by Applicant’s amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-12 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.
Regarding claims 1 and 12, claim 1 and 12 recite the limitation of “wherein the silicon-carbon composite comprises secondary particles……a core comprising a carbonaceous material and the silicon particles, and a shell around the core and comprising an amorphous carbon”. There is lack of antecedent basis for the limitations of “the silicon-carbon composite” and the “silicon particles” in the claim. It is unclear whether the claimed “silicon-carbon composite” and the silicon particles belong to the claimed “silicon-based active material” or to a different active material. For the purpose of this office action, it is considered that the claimed silicon particles of the silicon-carbon composite are part of the silicon-based active material of the second active material. Moreover, it is unclear whether the claimed “carbonaceous material” of the core refers to the claimed second or third crystalline carbon material or both. Either of said claimed interpretation would read on the claimed invention. Claims 2-11 are also rejected for being dependent from claim 1.
Regarding claims 5 and 10, claims 5 and 10 recite the limitation of “wherein the first crystalline carbon and/or the second crystalline carbon comprises a natural graphite comprising a plurality of secondary particles, each of the plurality secondary particles comprising a plurality of primary particles that are agglomerated, amorphous carbon on a surface of the plurality of primary particles, and a coating layer comprising amorphous carbon around each of the plurality of secondary particles”. It is unclear whether the claimed secondary and primary particles are referring to the secondary and primary particles of claim 1 or to additional particles. For the purpose of this office action, either of said interpretation would read on the claimed invention. Claim 6 is also rejected for being dependent from claim 5.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1, 3-4, 7-9, and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al, US 20200176753 A1 (as cited in the IDS) and Moon et al., U.S. Publication No. 2019/0233294 A1.
Regarding Claims 1 and 12, Kim teaches a negative electrode (Kim, 100; figure 1) for a lithium secondary battery including a negative electrode current collector (Kim, 110; figure 1) with a first negative electrode mixture layer (Kim, 120; figure 1) present on the top surface of the negative electrode current collector, a second negative electrode mixture layer (Kim, 130; figure 1) and a third negative electrode mixture layer (Kim, 140; figure 1) [Kim, 0010 & 0027], wherein the first negative electrode mixture layer, formed directly onto the face of the negative electrode current collector, includes a first carbonaceous negative electrode active material, the second negative electrode mixture layer includes a silicon-based negative electrode active material, between the first and third negative electrode mixture layers as shown in figure 1 of Kim, and the third negative electrode mixture layer includes a second carbonaceous negative electrode active material [Kim, 0028], wherein the first and second carbonaceous material may include natural and artificial graphite, and according to the instant specification, crystalline carbon materials includes natural graphite and/or artificial graphite [instant specification, 0005]. Kim’s first active material layer does not comprise silicon [0036].
However, Kim is silent to teach on the second active material layer comprising a second crystalline carbon and a third crystalline carbon, wherein the silicon-based active material is a silicon-carbon composite comprising secondary particles comprising a plurality of primary particles that are agglomerated, each of the secondary particles having a core comprising a carbonaceous material and the silicon particles, and a shell around the core and comprising an amorphous carbon.
Moon teaches a silicon composite structure used as a negative active material in a lithium battery [0080], wherein the silicon composite structure is a silicon-carbon composite (Fig.2) comprising secondary particles (10) comprising a plurality of primary particles that are agglomerated [0075], each of the secondary particles having a core comprising a carbonaceous material (first and second carbon flake 12; [0077]) and the silicon particles (11; Fig.2), and a shell (15) around the core and comprising an amorphous carbon [0075]. The first and second carbon flakes of Moon correspond to the claimed “second and third crystalline carbon”, because Moon teaches that the first and second carbon flakes 12 are both a graphene flake [0077] and further refers to graphene carbonaceous material as crystalline carbon [0094].
Moon and Kim are considered analogous arts in the area of batteries and power storage devices.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the silicon-carbon composite negative active material of Moon for the silicon containing second negative active material of Kim, because such silicon containing negative active material would suppress side reactions between the silicon and a liquid electrolyte during charging and discharging while reducing volumetric changes of the silicon and improving the lifespan of the battery [0080].
Regarding Claim 3, modified Kim teaches the negative electrode of claim 1, wherein the thickness of the first negative electrode mixture layer is between 10 μm to 145 μm, the second negative electrode mixture layer has a thickness between 10 μm to 30 μm, and the third negative electrode mixture layer has a thickness between 10 μm to 145 μm [Kim, 0074], therefore, the thickness ratio between the first and second electrode mixture layer is 1:1 (10:10) and 29:6 (145:30), the thickness ratio between the first and the third electrode mixture layer is 1:1, and the thickness ratio between the second and third negative electrode mixture layer is 1:1 (10:10) and 6:29 (30:145), which falls within the thickness ratio required by the claim.
Moreover, according to MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir.1990).
Regarding Claim 4, modified Kim teaches the negative electrode of claim 1, wherein the thickness of the first negative electrode mixture layer is between 10 μm to 145 μm, the second negative electrode mixture layer has a thickness between 10 μm to 30 μm, and the third negative electrode mixture layer has a thickness between 10 μm to 145 μm [Kim, 0074], therefore, the thickness ratio between the first and second electrode mixture layer is 1:1 (10:10) and 29:6 (145:30), the thickness ratio between the first and the third electrode mixture layer is 1:1, and the thickness ratio between the second and third negative electrode mixture layer is 1:1 (10:10) and 6:29 (30:145), which falls within the thickness ratio required by the claim.
Moreover, according to MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir.1990).
Regarding Claim 7, modified Kim teaches that the mixing ratio of the second crystalline carbon (Moon: first carbon flake) to the third crystalline carbon (Moon: second carbon flake) is about 30:1 to about 1:3 by weight [0095].
Moreover, according to MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir.1990).
Regarding Claim 8, modified Kim teaches on the negative electrode of claim 1, wherein the third crystalline carbon (carbon flake of Moon) is artificial graphite (Moon: [0090 and 0094]).
Regarding Claim 9, modified Kim teaches the negative electrode of claim 1, wherein the third electrode mixture layer includes a second carbonaceous carbon active material [Kim, 0025], corresponding to the fourth crystalline carbon of the claim, wherein the second carbonaceous negative electrode active material may include artificial graphite [Kim, 0015].
Regarding Claim 11, modified Kim teaching a lithium secondary battery comprising a positive electrode, a negative electrode, wherein the negative electrode is the electrode of claim 1, and a separator [Kim, 0019], and the secondary battery further includes an electrolyte [Kim, 0089].
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al, US 20200176753 A1 (as cited in the IDS) and Moon et al., U.S. Publication No. 2019/0233294 A1 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Han et al., U.S. 20210391570 A1 (already on the record).
Regarding Claim 2, modified Kim teaches the negative electrode of claim 1, but is silent to teach about the amount of silicon in the negative active material being about 0.6 wt% to about 9 wt% based on a total 100 wt% of the negative active material layer.
Han teaches a negative electrode with a current collector and a first, second and third negative electrode active material layer [0007], wherein the second negative active material layer includes a graphite based active material containing artificial and natural graphite, corresponding to the claimed second and third crystalline carbons and a second based active material [0033]. Han teaches the amount of silicon in the second silicon-based active material may be included in an about of 0.1 to 35% by weight based on the total weight of the negative electrode active material in the second negative electrode active material layer [Han, 0038].
Han and modified Kim are considered analogous arts in the area of batteries and power storage devices.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the second negative electrode layer of modified Kim to include the amount of silicon taught by Han because such modification may prevent a rapid increase in the ratio of the increase in the volume expansion rate relative to the increase in the energy density of the cell, thus maintain, at a very high level, a fast charging lifespan [Han, 0038].
Claims 5-6, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al, US 20200176753 A1 (as cited in the IDS) and Moon et al., U.S. Publication No. 2019/0233294 A1, as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Lee et al, US 20200083536 A1 (already on the record).
Regarding Claim 5, modified Kim teaches the negative electrode of claim 1, wherein the first negative electrode mixture layer includes a first carbonaceous negative electrode active material [Kim, 0010], corresponding to the first crystalline carbon, and the first carbonaceous negative electrode active material may include graphite [Kim, 0015], further the second negative electrode active material layer, comprises natural graphite, corresponding to the second crystalline carbon of the claim [Han, 0007]. However, modified Kim is silent to teach on the natural graphite comprising a plurality of secondary particles, wherein the plurality of secondary particle is an agglomerate of primary particles, with amorphous carbon on the surface, and an amorphous carbon coating on the secondary particles.
Lee teaches a negative electrode active material for a rechargeable lithium battery [Lee, 0006], comprising natural graphite including a plurality of primary particles assembled into a secondary particle, with an amorphous carbon on the surface of the plurality of primary particles and an amorphous carbon coating surrounding the secondary particles [Lee, 0010].
Lee and modified Kim are considered analogous arts in the area of negative electrode active materials for lithium secondar batteries.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application to replace the natural graphite material of modified Kim with the natural graphite material taught by Lee, because such modification would result in a battery with an improved charge and discharge rate capability [Lee, 0044], also, it is well known to use natural graphite comprised of a plurality of primary particles agglomerated into a plurality of secondary particles, with amorphous carbon on both the primary and secondary particles for a negative electrode active material. Further, a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results supports prima facie obviousness determination (MPEP 2143, I, B).
Regarding Claim 6, modified Kim teaches the negative electrode of claim 5, but is silent to teach on the average diameter of the plurality of primary particles, the average diameter of the plurality of secondary particles, and the peak intensity ratio when measured by XRD.
Lee teaches the primary particles have an average particle diameter of about 5 to 15 μm [Lee, 0060], and the secondary particles have an average particle diameter of about 8 to 24 μm [Lee, 0039], and a peak intensity ratio I(002)/I(110) of less than or equal to 120 [Lee, 0049].
Lee and modified Kim are considered analogous arts in the area of negative electrode active materials for lithium secondar batteries.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Kim to include the average diameter of the plurality of primary particles as taught by Lee, because such modification would result in a negative electrode active material that may effectively suppress or reduce material expansion and enhance the materials tap density [Lee, 0060].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Kim to include the average diameter of the plurality of secondary particles as taught by Lee, because such modification would result in a negative electrode active material that is balanced between an electrolyte impregnation that is not excessively small and an electrode that is not too thick to be applied to the battery [Lee, 0039].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Kim to include the peak intensity ratio I(002)/I(110) of less than or equal to 120 as taught by Lee, because such modification would result in a material that can better facilitated the intercalation/deintercalation of lithium ions into the graphite particles so as to improve the charge and discharge rate capability of the battery [Lee, 0050].
Regarding Claim 10, modified Kim teaches the negative electrode of claim 1, wherein the first negative electrode mixture layer includes a first carbonaceous negative electrode active material [Kim, 0010], corresponding to the first crystalline carbon, and the first carbonaceous negative electrode active material may include graphite [Kim, 0015], further the second negative electrode active material layer, comprises natural graphite, corresponding to the second crystalline carbon of the claim [Han, 0007], and an artificial graphite, corresponding to a third crystalline carbon of the claim [Han, 0007]. The third electrode mixture layer includes a second carbonaceous carbon active material [Kim, 0025], corresponding to the fourth crystalline carbon of the claim, wherein the second carbonaceous negative electrode active material may include artificial graphite [Kim, 0015]. However, modified Kim is silent to teach on the natural graphite comprising a plurality of secondary particles, wherein the plurality of secondary particle is an agglomerate of primary particles, with amorphous carbon on the surface, and an amorphous carbon coating on the secondary particles.
Lee teaches a negative electrode active material for a rechargeable lithium battery [Lee, 0006], comprising natural graphite including a plurality of primary particles assembled into a secondary particle, with an amorphous carbon on the surface of the plurality of primary particles and an amorphous carbon coating surrounding the secondary particles [Lee, 0010].
Lee and modified Kim are considered analogous arts in the area of negative electrode active materials for lithium secondar batteries.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application to replace the natural graphite material of modified Kim with the natural graphite material taught by Lee, because such modification would result in a battery with an improved charge and discharge rate capability [Lee, 0044], also, it is well known to use natural graphite comprised of a plurality of primary particles agglomerated into a plurality of secondary particles, with amorphous carbon on both the primary and secondary particles for a negative electrode active material. Further, a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results supports prima facie obviousness determination (MPEP 2143, I, B).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NIKI BAKHTIARI whose telephone number is (571)272-3433. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30 AM-6 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, Srilakshmi Kumar can be reached at 571-272-7769. 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.
/NIKI BAKHTIARI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1722
