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 the Claims
The remarks submitted 08/03/2026 have been entered and fully considered. Claims 1-11 are pending. Claim 7 is withdrawn. Claims 1-6 and 8-11 are examined herein.
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.
Claims 1-6 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 3 597 597 A1 (“Haon”) in view of US 2006/0022198 A1 (“Aramata”).
Regarding claim 1, Haon discloses a particulate material for use as an electrode active material comprising spherical silicon oxycarbide (SiOC) particles (Abstract). The particles are coated with an amorphous carbon layer ([0016]-[0018]). The SiOC particles correspond to the claimed nucleus and the carbon layer corresponds to the claimed carbon film. The particulate material has a sphericity ranging from 0.95 to 1.0 ([0013], [0057]-[0060], [0071]). This is interpreted as falling within the claimed ratio of a/b.
Haon does not expressly disclose that the particles have a porous structure.
Aramata discloses a Si-C-O composite powder (Abstract). Each Si-C-O composite particle (containing voids within itself) preferably has a void content of 1 to 70% by volume. A void content of less than 1% by volume may lead to the increased risk that particles collapse by volume changes during charge/discharge operation. A void content of more than 70% by volume may lead to a reduced capacity or liquid electrolyte leakage ([0061]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the voids taught by Aramata to decrease the risk of particle collapse and limit capacity reduction and liquid electrolyte leakage.
Regarding claims 2 and 4, modified Haon discloses the SiOC composite material of claim 1. Haon discloses the SiOC particles have an average particle size (D50) of around 11.7 µm (Fig. 2; [0178]). Haon discloses the coating of precursor carbon may also be obtained by other standard methods, for example by chemical vapor deposition ([0140]) but does not disclose the particles have a surface morphology of fibers, and the fiber has a fiber length of 15 nm to 50 nm [claim 1] or a fiber length of 20 nm to 50 nm [claim 4].
Aramata discloses a thermal CVD treatment of the Si-C-O composite particles to provide a carbon coat leads to substantial improvements in performance ([0010], Table 1). As shown in Fig. 1, the carbon coating has a surface morphology of fibers wherein the fiber length falls within the claimed range. Aramata provides motivation to optimize the amount of the carbonaceous material. Less than 1 wt % of the carbonaceous material may fail to impart sufficient conductivity whereas more than 80 wt % may lead to a reduced capacity ([0047]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the carbon coating of Aramata to improve performance and to optimize the amount thereof to impart sufficient conductivity while limiting reduction in capacity.
Regarding claim 3, modified Haon discloses the SiOC composite material of claim 2. Haon discloses the spherical SiOC particles have an average particle size (D50) ranging from 1 to 20 µm ([0051]). As shown in Table 1, where Examples 1 and 3 have a higher D50 and Examples 2 and 4 have a lower D50, the average particle size affects electrode density and the reversible volumetric capacity ([0012], [0019], [0201]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the average particle size through routine experimentation because Haon shows the average particle size affects electrode density and the reversible volumetric capacity.
Regarding claim 5, modified Haon discloses the SiOC composite material of claim 1. It is deemed that the Raman spectroscopy test results and sNMR detection results are inherent characteristics and/or properties of the specifically disclosed SiOC composite material. In this respect, MPEP 2112 sets forth the following:
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
“When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
“Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. Id.
Regarding claim 6, modified Haon discloses the SiOC composite material of claim 1. As seen in Fig. 1 of Aramata, the particles have a microporous and mesoporous structures.
Regarding claim 8, modified Haon discloses the SiOC composite material of claim 1. Haon discloses negative electrode active material that is entirely (i.e. 100%) the SiOC particulate material ([0196]).
Regarding claim 9, modified Haon discloses the SiOC composite material of claim 1. Haon discloses a negative electrode comprising the SiOC particulate material ([0026]). The negative electrode comprises a negative electrode layer applied to a negative electrode current collector ([0160]). Haon discloses Example 4 has an electrode density of 1.51 g/cm3 (Table 1). Haon discloses the thickness of the electrode active material on the collector ranges from 50 to 100 µm ([0160]). The thickness of the electrode active material layer is directly proportional to the total reversible capacity in the coin battery of Haon. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the thickness through routine experimentation because it directly the capacity of the battery.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 3 597 597 A1 (“Haon”) in view of US 2006/0022198 A1 (“Aramata”) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of WO 2012/026462 A1 (“Maeda” – machine translation cited herein).
Regarding claim 10, modified Haon discloses the negative electrode plate of claim 9. Haon discloses a preparation method of the negative electrode comprises applying a slurry containing a raw material of the negative electrode layer to a surface of the negative electrode current collector ([0196]) but does not expressly disclose the slurry has a solid percentage of 35% to 50% and/or the slurry has a viscosity of 1500 mPas to 4000mPas.
Maeda discloses a slurry composition for a secondary battery negative electrode is obtained by mixing the binder composition, the negative electrode active material, and a conductive agent used as necessary. The amount of the dispersion medium used when preparing the slurry composition is such that the solid content concentration of the slurry composition is usually in the range of 1 to 50% by mass. When the solid content concentration is within this range, the binder composition is preferably dispersed uniformly (pg. 47). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the solid content concentration to uniformly disperse the binder composition.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 3 597 597 A1 (“Haon”) in view of US 2006/0022198 A1 (“Aramata”) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of US 2019/0393503 A1 (“Takano”).
Claim interpretation: the claim recites “vinyl fluorocarbonate.” This appears to be non-standard nomenclature. For the purpose of this Office action, the vinyl fluorocarbonate will be interpreted as fluoroethylene carbonate (FEC). This appears to be consistent with the specification as filed. See [0055].
Regarding claim 11, modified Haon discloses the negative electrode plate of claim 9. Haon discloses a lithium-ion secondary battery comprising the negative electrode ([0166]). Haon further discloses the battery comprises an electrolyte solution containing a polar aprotic solvent ([0167]) but does not expressly disclose the solvent comprises vinyl fluorocarbonate having a mass percentage of 3% to 25% based on a total mass of the liquid electrolyte.
Takano discloses a material for a negative electrode active material comprising a core containing at least Si (silicon), O (oxygen) and C (carbon) as a constituent element containing crystalline carbon and non-crystalline carbon as a constituent; and a shell involving the core, and including a SiOC structure having a graphene layer (Abstract). Takano discloses an additive that promotes stable coating formation on a surface of the negative electrode active material, such as fluoroethylene carbonate (FEC), is added to the electrolyte for the purpose of improving charging and discharging cycle performance ([0218]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include FEC and to optimize the amount thereof through routine experimentation because Takano teaches the FEC is included to promote stable coating formation on a surface of the negative electrode active material for the purpose of improving charging and discharging cycle performance.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/03/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Haon teaches spherical SiOC particles, but Haon discourages the porous structure required by claim 1. The Office acknowledges the section of Haon cited by applicant. However, it is the opinion of the Office that this does not constitute a teaching away from the particles having a porous structure. Haon merely states “Further, they are preferably non-porous. The non-porosity may be defined by an adsorption isotherm of nitrogen classified into TYPE III defined in IUPAC.” Haon provides no reasoning as to why the particles are non-porous, nor does Haon provide any reasoning as to why one should not make the particles porous. Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971). See also MPEP 2123. Aramata provides an explicit motivation to provide voids within the particle: a void content of less than 1% by volume may lead to the increased risk that particles collapse by volume changes during charge/discharge operation; and a void content of more than 70% by volume may lead to a reduced capacity or liquid electrolyte leakage ([0061]).
In response to applicant's argument that Aramata’s void structure is based on fundamentally different Si-C-O composite particles, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Applicant argues the structural difference between Haon and Aramata is non-trivial. However, it is of note that the Office is not relying on any particle size distribution of Haon to teach porosity. Aramata provides explicit motivation to provide internal voids within the Si-C-O particles as noted above.
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Robert Scott Carrico whose telephone number is (571)270-5504. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:15AM-6PM 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, 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.
Robert Scott Carrico
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1727
/Robert S Carrico/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1727
Prosecution Insights