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
The Applicant’s amendment and arguments, filed 06/19/2026, has been entered. Claim 1 is amended; claims 2-7 stand as originally or previously presented; and claims 8-12 are withdrawn. Support for the amendments is found in the original filing, and there is no new matter.
Upon considered said amendments and arguments, the previous 35 U.S.C.102 rejection set forth in Office Action mailed 03/19/2026 has been withdrawn. Amended and new grounds of rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 citing to newly cited art are set forth below as necessitated by the claim amendments.
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) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Troegel et al. (US 20180342732 A1, hereinafter Troegel), in view of Kamo et al. (US 20160254537 A1, hereinafter Kamo).
Regarding Claim 1, Troegel discloses the limitations regarding an anode active material for a lithium secondary battery (Troegel, anode active materials for lithium ion batteries, [0001]), comprising:
a carbon-based particle containing pores (Troegel, core is a porous, carbon-based matrix, [0011]);
a silicon-containing coating layer formed at an inside of the pores or on a surface of the carbon-based particle (Troegel, carbon-based matrix which contains silicon particles in which the silicon particles are enclosed in the pores of the matrix, [0011]; the Examiner notes that multiple silicon particles would form a “layer” in the pores of the porous carbon); and
a carbon coating formed on the silicon-containing coating layer (Troegel, the shell is obtainable by carbonization of one or more carbon precursors, which leads to a nonporous shell, [0011]; the Examiner notes that the shell is formed on silicon because silicon is on the inner side of the coating layer).
Troegel is silent regarding a ratio of a peak intensity (ID) of a D band relative to a peak intensity (IG) of a G band in a Raman spectrum of the carbon coating is 1.58 to 1.64.
Kamo discloses an anode active material for a lithium secondary battery (Kamo, a negative electrode active material for a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery, Abstract), comprising:
a carbon coating formed on the silicon-containing coating layer (Kamo, negative electrode active material particles containing a silicon compound expressed by SiOx where 0.5≦x≦1.6, the negative electrode active material particles at least partially coated with a carbon coating, [0011]), wherein
a ratio of a peak intensity (ID) of a D band relative to a peak intensity (IG) of a G band in a Raman spectrum of the carbon coating is 1.58 to 1.64 (Kamo, the carbon coating preferably exhibits scattering peaks at 1330 cm-1 and 1580 cm-1 in Raman spectrum obtained by Raman spectrometry and satisfies 0.7<I1330/I1580<2.0, [0042]; the disclosed ratio of 0.7<I1330/I1580<2.0 overlaps the claimed ratio of 1.58 to 1.64.
As evidenced in Instant Specification [0050], the wavenumber region of the G band is from about 1,540 cm-1 to about 1,620 cm-1, and the wavenumber region of the D band is from about 1,300 cm-1 to about 1,420 cm-1. In Kamo, I1330 corresponds to the D band and I1580 corresponds to the G band; thus, Kamo discloses a ratio of ID/IG.
Kamo teaches that when the intensity ratio I1330/I1580 of the scattering peaks is less than 2.0 in the Raman spectrum, the retention rate and the initial efficiency were improved because the particles had few carbon components having disordered bond attributable to I1330 on their surface and the electrical conductivity was high. When the ratio I1330/I1580 was more than 0.7, the capacity retention rate was improved because the particles had few carbon components such as graphite attributable to I1580 on their surface, and the ionic conductivity and the expandability of the carbon coating corresponding to the expansion of the silicon compound due to the insertion of lithium were improved (Kamo, [0297]). Kamo further teaches that the peak intensity ratio I1330/I1580 in Raman spectrum may be adjusted by adjusting CVD temperature and time, degree of stirring the powder material during CVD, and adjustment of the temperature inside a reactor (Kamo, [0161]).
Troegel and Kamo are analogous to the current invention as they are all directed towards an anode active material comprising silicon and a carbon coating.
Therefore, absent evidence of unexpected results obtained from utilizing the claimed a ratio of ID/IG, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to have optimized the a ratio of ID/IG of the carbon coating in order to arrive at a desired electrical conductivity, capacity retention rate, and ionic conductivity of the carbon coating, since the ratio of ID/IG of the carbon coating is directly related to the CVD temperature and time, degree of stirring the powder material during CVD, and adjustment of the temperature inside a reactor which optimizes the peak intensity ratio I1330/I1580 of the carbon coating, as recognized by Kamo (see MPEP 2144.05 (II)).
Regarding Claim 2, modified Troegel discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Troegel discloses the limitations regarding an anode active material for a lithium secondary battery (Troegel, anode active materials for lithium ion batteries, [0001]), wherein a carbon content of the surface of the anode active material measured by an X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) relative to a silicon content of the surface measured by the XPS is in a range from 200% to 500% (Troegel, the shell is obtainable by carbonization of one or more carbon precursors, which leads to a nonporous shell, [0011], Figure 1 and Figure 2).
While modified Troegel is silent regarding the carbon content to silicon content on the surface of the anode active material, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the nonporous carbon shell would limit the silicon content on the surface. Thus, the carbon content to silicon content on the surface of the anode active material would at least overlap the claimed range of 200% to 500%.
Regarding Claim 3, modified Troegel discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Troegel discloses the limitations regarding an anode active material for a lithium secondary battery (Troegel, anode active materials for lithium ion batteries, [0001]), wherein the carbon-based particle includes at least one selected from the group consisting of a carbon nanotube, graphene, carbon black, graphite, a porous carbon, (Troegel, the carbon of the matrix is, for example, obtainable by carbonization of one or more carbon precursors, such resorcinol-formaldehyde resin, lignin or polyacrylonitrile, and the core of the core-shell composite particles can optionally contain one or more additional active materials, such as graphite, (conductive) carbon black, amorphous carbon, pyrolytic carbon, carbon nanotubes (CNTs), graphene, [0034-0038]).
Regarding Claim 4, modified Troegel discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Troegel discloses the limitations regarding an anode active material for a lithium secondary battery (Troegel, anode active materials for lithium ion batteries, [0001]), wherein the carbon-based particle has an amorphous structure (Troegel, The matrix is generally based on carbon, in particular amorphous carbon, [0031]).
Regarding Claim 5, modified Troegel discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Troegel discloses the limitations regarding an anode active material for a lithium secondary battery (Troegel, anode active materials for lithium ion batteries, [0001]), wherein the silicon-containing coating layer and the carbon coating do not contain silicon carbide (SiC) (Troegel, the silicon particles can, for example, be based on elemental silicon, silicon oxide or silicon/metal alloys, and preference is given to elemental silicon since this has the greatest storage capacity for lithium ions, [0026]).
Regarding Claim 6, Troegel discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Troegel discloses the limitations regarding an anode active material for a lithium secondary battery (Troegel, anode active materials for lithium ion batteries, [0001]), wherein the carbon coating is also formed on a portion where the silicon-containing coating layer is not formed among the inside of the pores and the surface of the carbon-based particle (Troegel, The shell envelopes the core of the core-shell composite particles preferably completely, [0050]).
Regarding Claim 7, modified Troegel discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Troegel discloses the limitations regarding a lithium secondary battery, comprising: an anode comprising an anode active material layer that comprises the anode active material for a lithium secondary battery (Troegel, anode active materials for lithium ion batteries, [0001]); and
a cathode facing the anode (Troegel, lithium ion batteries having a first electrode as cathode, a second electrode as anode, a membrane arranged between the two electrodes as separator, two connections to the electrodes, and an electrolyte which contains lithium ions and with which the two electrodes are impregnated, [0085]; the Examiner notes that the positive electrode must be facing the negative electrode in order for the separator to be between both electrodes).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 6-9, filed 06/19/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-7 under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Troegel et al. (US 20180342732 A1, hereinafter Troegel), in view of Kamo et al. (US 20160254537 A1, hereinafter Kamo), as noted above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20180337400 A1 discloses an anode active material including carbon particles having a spherical shape, a first carbon coating layer present on surfaces of the carbon particles, a silicon coating layer present on the first carbon coating layer and including silicon nanoparticles, and a second carbon coating layer present on the silicon coating layer (Abstract);
US 20200020935 A1 discloses an anode active material comprising a carbon having a pore volume comprising micropores, mesopores, and/or macropores, wherein said volume is impregnated with silicon, and the silicon-impregnated porous scaffold can be further coated with carbon to reduce any remaining surface area [0001].
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 KEVIN NGUYEN whose telephone number is (703)756-1745. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9:50 - 7:50 ET.
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, NICHOLAS A SMITH can be reached at (571) 272-8760. 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.
/K.N./Examiner, Art Unit 1752
/OSEI K AMPONSAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752
Prosecution Insights