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 .
Claim Status
Applicant’s arguments and claim amendments submitted on August 3rd, 2026 have been entered into the file. Currently, claims 1-2, 5, and 9-10 are amended and claim 3 is cancelled, resulting in claims 1-2, 4-12 pending for examination.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s arguments and claim amendments submitted on August 3rd, 2026 have been entered into the file.
Applicant’s amendment to claim 1 has overcome the claim objection to claim 1 set forth in the Non-Final Rejection mailed April 1st, 2026.
Applicant’s amendment to claim 5 has overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claims 5, and subsequently dependent claims 7-8 and 11 set forth in the Non-Final Rejection mailed April 1st, 2026.
Applicant’s amendment to claims 9-10 have overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claims 9-10 set forth in the Non-Final Rejection mailed April 1st, 2026.
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
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 1-2, 6-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Yamamoto (Japanese Patent Publication No. 2018006129 A) in view of Park (Korean Patent Publication No. 20140085822 A), Xu (Chinese Patent Publication No. 107732169 A), and Wu (Chinese Patent Publication No. 113659122 A).
Regarding claim 1, Yamamoto teaches an energy storage device (lithium ion secondary battery) (Paragraph 0001), comprising an electrolyte, active layer (negative electrode) comprising an anode active material (Paragraph 0011), and a cathode active layer comprising a cathode active material (Paragraph 0010).
Yamamoto teaches the positive electrode active material of the disclosure comprising a lithium-containing transition metal oxide (A) containing nickel and a lithium-containing transition metal oxide (B) containing iron (Paragraph 0018). Yamamoto teaches the lithium-containing transition metal oxide (A) may be represented by a lithium nickel cobalt manganese oxide (NCM) material (Paragraph 0021). Yamamoto teaches the lithium-containing transition metal oxide (B) may be represented by a lithium manganese iron phosphate (LMFP) material (Paragraph 0024).
Thus, Yamamoto teaches the cathode active material comprising a blend of LMFP and NCM, meeting the instant claimed limitation.
Yamamoto teaches the lithium-containing transition metal oxide (A), the NCM positive electrode active material as discussed above, is present in the positive electrode active material at a mass MA. Yamamoto teaches the lithium-containing transition metal oxide (B), the LMFP positive electrode active material as discussed above, is present in the positive electrode active material at a mass MB. Yamamoto teaches the ratio of the lithium-containing transition metal oxide (B) to the sum of the lithium-containing transition metal oxide (A) and (B), MB/(MA+MB), in the positive electrode active material is between 0.05 and 0.40 (Paragraphs 0032-0033).
Thus, Yamamoto teaches LMFP (lithium-containing transition metal oxide (B)) is present in a smaller amount than NCM (lithium-containing transition metal oxide (A)), meeting the instant claimed limitations of NCM present in a larger amount than the LMFP.
Further, Yamamoto teaches the compositions of the positive electrode active material in the Examples 1-10 of the disclosure in Table 1, wherein for each of the examples, a greater quantity of NCM is included in the positive electrode composition than the LMFP, further exemplifying this teaching (Paragraph 0089).
PNG
media_image1.png
493
1006
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Translated Table 1 of Yamamoto
Yamamoto teaches in addition to the positive electrode active material, the positive electrode layer may comprise a binder (Paragraph 0028) such as polyvinylidene chloride (PVDC), polyethylene oxide (PEO), polypropylene oxide (PPO), polyethylene oxide-propylene oxide copolymer (PEO-PPO) (Paragraph 0030). Therefore, Yamamoto teaches suitable binders for the cathode which do not comprise fluorine. Thus, Yamamoto teaches the cathode active material comprises a polymeric binder that has less than 900 parts per million of fluorine, or it would have been obvious to select PVDC, PEO, PPO, or PEO-PPO from the finite list of suitable binders taught by Yamamoto to ensure the polymeric binder has less than 900 parts per million of fluorine in accordance with the claimed limitations.
Yamamoto teaches in addition to the negative electrode active material, the negative electrode layer may comprise a binder as described above in the suitable binders for the positive electrode (Paragraph 0058). Therefore, Yamamoto also teaches suitable binders for the anode which do not comprise fluorine. Thus, Yamamoto teaches the anode active material comprises a polymeric binder that has less than 900 parts per million of fluorine, or it would have been obvious to select PVDC, PEO, PPO, or PEO-PPO from the finite list of suitable binders taught by Yamamoto to ensure the polymeric binder has less than 900 parts per million of fluorine in accordance with the claimed limitations.
Yamamoto teaches suitable anode active materials capable of occluding and releasing lithium that may be used in combination including graphite as well as bismuth (SiO2) and silicon oxides SiOx (0 < x < 2) (Paragraph 0059).
Thus, Yamamoto teaches the anode active material comprises silicon and graphite, or it would have been obvious to select graphite and silicon-containing compounds from the finite list of suitable negative electrode materials taught by Yamamoto to arrive at the negative electrode of the instant claim since the combination of components would have yielded predictable results as a material capable of occluding and releasing lithium.
Yamamoto is silent as to the silicon of the anode active material being microsilicon.
However, Park teaches an electrode (Page 10, Paragraph 2) comprising an active layer including carbon materials such as graphite (Page 17, Paragraphs 3-4) and active particles (Pages 11 and 24, Paragraph 1) that may be Si, SiO, or a mixture of Si and SiO (page 16).
Therefore, given the general teachings of Park, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute a mixture of silicon and silicon oxide anode active material of Park for the silicon oxide anode active material of Yamamoto because Park teaches the anode active material accompanying graphite may suitably be selected as Si, SiO, or a mixture of Si and SiO. The substitution would have been one known element for another and one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art would reasonably expect the predictable result that the modified active material would be useful in the negative electrode layer of a battery. See MPEP § 2143.I.(B).
Further, Park teaches the silicon-containing particles having an average particle diameter of 1 nm to 5 µm (Page 16, Paragraphs 11-12). Thus, Park teaches at least some portion of the silicon active material particles having a diameter in the micron range, or it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan to select a size within the micron range. Park teaches when the average particle diameter of the silicon particles is within this range, the dispersibility of the active particles is excellent, reversible capacity is increased, and volume expansion during reaction with lithium is suppressed, thereby improve cycle life characteristics (Page 17, Paragraph 1). Therefore, Park clearly exemplifies how silicon in a micron-size range is suitable for use in an electrode layer of a battery to obtain the aforementioned benefits, and the ordinary artisan would recognize that in the substitution above, the silicon in the element silicon and silicon oxide in the anode active material of Park in view of Yamamoto would be of micron-size or it would have been obvious to provide the silicon as microsilicon in order to obtain the predictable results of excellent dispersibility, reversible capacity, and volume expansion as discussed above.
Additionally, Xu discloses a lithium battery with a silicon-based negative electrode material (Paragraph 6), wherein a micro-silicon powder is used to prepare the anode in order to have a lower cost (Paragraph 18). Wu discloses a silicon-carbon anode material used for energy storage (Paragraph 6), wherein the core silicon material is micron silicon (Paragraph 15). Wu teaches that compared to nano silicon, a micron silicon has a wide range of sources, low cost, high controllability of the preparation process, and is suitable for large-scale production (Paragraph 56).
Therefore, it would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the silicon material of Yamamoto in view of Park to incorporate the teachings of Xu and Wu in which the silicon is microsilicon. Doing so would advantageously result in lower preparation cost, high controllability, numerous sources, and ability to produce on a large scale, as recognized by Xu and Wu.
Regarding claim 2, Yamamoto teaches the energy storage device of claim 1.
As discussed above, Yamamoto teaches suitable anode active materials capable of occluding and releasing lithium that may be used in combination including graphite as well as bismuth (SiO2) and silicon oxides SiOx (0 < x < 2). Further, discussed above in the modification of Yamamoto by Park, the anode active material may comprise a combination of such silicon oxide particles with silicon on a micron scale.
Thus, the silicon oxide formula of Yamamoto corresponds to the instant silicon oxide formula, thereby meeting the instant claimed limitation of the anode active material further comprising particles in the form of SiOx, where x is 1 to 4.
Regarding claim 6, Yamamoto teaches the energy storage device of claim 1.
Table 1 of Yamamoto provides the compositions of the positive electrode active material in the Examples 1-10 of the disclosure (Paragraph 0089). As seen in the Table 1, the composition of LMFP in the positive electrode active material for Examples 1-10 varies, but is less than 50 wt%, based on a total weight of the cathode active material, meeting the instant claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 7, Yamamoto teaches the energy storage device of claim 1.
In the preparation of the negative electrode as disclosed in Example 1 of Yamamoto, the negative electrode slurry is prepared by mixing 930 g of natural graphite (anode active material) and 1 g of Super-P (conductive additive) and later adding 500 g of NMP (solvent), 500 g of an 8% -PVDF solution (PVDF dissolved in NMP) (binder and solvent), then 250 g of an 8% -PVDF solution (binder) before drying (Paragraphs 0076-0077).
Thus, the quantity of anode active material in the anode active layer may be calculated as follows:
= 930 g anode active material / (930 g anode active material + 1 g conductive additive + (0.08 * 500) g binder + (0.08 * 250) g binder
= 94 %
Thus, Yamamoto teaches an example in which the anode active material comprises 94% by weight of the anode active layer. The range of anode active material in the anode active layer of Yamamoto overlaps with the range of the instant claim. Therefore, prima facie obviousness is established and the claimed limitations are met. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding claim 9, Yamamoto teaches the energy storage device of claim 1.
As described above, Table 1 of Yamamoto discloses the compositions of active layer for Examples 1-10, particularly the composition of NCM523 (lithium-containing transition metal oxide (A)), LMFP (lithium-containing transition metal oxide (B)) in the cathode active layer.
As described above in the rejection of claim 1, Yamamoto teaches the cathode active material comprises a blend of LMFP and NCM. Thus, by summing the columns disclosing the weight percentage of NCM and LMFP in Table 1 of Yamamoto, the proportion of cathode active material in the cathode active layer can be calculated.
PNG
media_image2.png
493
712
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Portion of Table 1 of Yamamoto
As is shown in the annotated Figure above, Yamamoto teaches the cathode active layer comprises the cathode active material in an amount greater than or equal to 90 wt% based on a total weight of the cathode active layer..
Regarding claim 10, Yamamoto teaches the energy storage device of claim 1.
Yamamoto teaches in the method of preparing the positive electrode, the positive electrode active material power, conductive additive, binder, and thermally cross linkable polymer are mixed. Yamamoto teaches the mass ratio of each component in the following proportions 80 to 96: 1 to 10 : 1 to 10: 0.1 to 5, respectively (Paragraph 0047).
Thus, the upper and lower limits of the cathode active material in the cathode active layer may be calculated as follows, on a basis of 100 parts of material in the cathode active layer:
Upper limit:
96 parts of active material / (96 parts active material + 1 part conductive additive + 1 part binder + 0.1 parts thermally cross linkable binder)
= 98 % cathode active material based on a total weight of the cathode active layer (see 112b interpretation above)
Lower limit:
80 parts of active material / (80 parts active material + 10 parts conductive additive + 10 parts binder +5 parts thermally cross linkable binder)
= 76 % cathode active material based on a total weight of the cathode active layer
Thus, Yamamoto teaches the cathode active material may suitably comprise 76-98% by weight of the cathode active layer. The range of cathode active material in the cathode active layer of Yamamoto overlaps with the range of the instant claim (see 112b interpretation above). Therefore, prima facie obviousness is established and the claimed limitations are met. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding claim 11, Yamamoto teaches the energy storage device of claim 1, wherein the anode active layer further comprises an electrically conducting additive (Paragraph 0058).
Regarding claim 12, Yamamoto teaches the energy storage device of claim 1, wherein the cathode active layer further comprises an electrically conducting additive (Paragraph 0028).
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto in view Park, Xu, and Wu as applied to claims 1-2, 6-12 above, further in view of Sawayama (Japanese Patent Publication No. 2013030428A).
Regarding claim 4, Yamamoto teaches the energy storage device of claim 2.
Yamamoto is silent as to the SiOx is present in amount of greater than 50 wt%, based on a total weight of the anode active material.
However, Sawayama discloses a negative electrode active material for a lithium ion secondary battery (Paragraph 1), comprising a silicon oxide SiOx (0 < x < 2) and a carbon material (Paragraph 8). Sawayama teaches that the negative electrode active material preferably contains 5% by weight or more and 95% by weight or less, more preferably 70% by weight or more and 90% by weight or less, of silicon oxide. Sawayama teaches that when the content of silicon oxide in the negative electrode active material lies outside this range, the conductivity provided by the carbon material is lowered, deteriorating the charge and discharge cycle characteristics and the lithium ion absorption may be small, lower charge/discharge capacity (Paragraph 29).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the proportion of SiOx in the anode active material of Yamamoto to incorporate the teachings of Sawayama in which the composition is between 70% to 90% by weight of the anode active material layer. Doing so would advantageously result in sufficient conductivity and lithium ion absorption, as recognized by Sawayama.
The resulting range of SiOx in the anode active material of Yamamoto in view of Sawayama lies within the instant claimed range, meeting the limitations.
Regarding claim 5, Yamamoto teaches the energy storage device of claim 2.
Yamamoto is silent as to the SiOx is present in amount of greater than 80 wt%, based on a total weight of the anode active material.
However, as discussed above, Yamamoto in view of Sawayama teaches SiOx present in the anode active material between 70% to 90% by weight of the anode active material layer in order to ensure desirable conductivity, charge/discharge characteristics, and lithium ion adsorption.
Thus, the proportion of SiOx present in the anode active material of Yamamoto in view of Sawayama overlaps with the instant claimed range. Thus, prima facie obviousness is established and the claimed limitations are met. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto in view of Park, Xu, and Wu as applied to claims 1-2, 6-12 above, further in view of Yew (U.S. Patent Publication No. 20080118834 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Yamamoto teaches the energy storage device of claim 1.
Yamamoto is silent as to the anode active layer comprises the anode active material in an amount of greater than equal to 95 wt%, based on a total weight of the anode active layer.
However, Yew discloses negative active material active material for a rechargeable lithium battery (Paragraph 0003). Yew teaches the negative electrode composition of the negative electrode comprising negative electrode active material, a binder, and a conductive agent which is applied on the negative current collector (Paragraph 0068). Yew teaches the negative active material may include silicon oxide and carbon (Paragraph 0020). Further, Yew teaches the negative active material included in an amount of 50 to 99 wt% based on the total weight of the negative active material layer. Yew teaches that when the amount of the negative active material is less than 50 wt %, battery capacity may be decreased, and when it is more than 99 wt %, the relative amount of binder is reduced and thus binding force between the negative active material layer and a current collector may be decreased (Paragraph 0068).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the anode active material of Yamamoto to incorporate the teachings of Yew in which he negative active material included in an amount of 50 to 99 wt% based on the total weight of the negative active material layer. Doing so would advantageously result in the desired battery capacity and binding force, as recognized by Yew.
The range of anode active material in the anode active layer as a result of the modification of Yamamoto in view of Yew overlaps with the instant claimed range. Thus, prima facie obviousness is established and the claimed limitations are met. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Response to Arguments
In the remarks filed August 3rd, 2026, applicant argues that with respect to the amendment to claim 1 to incorporate the subject matter of claim 3, the Examiner’s rejection of these limitation over Yamamoto in view of Byrd lack rational underpinning, as Byrd expressly reports that the asserted benefits are not obtained when the micron-size silicon is employed in an electrode of the type disclosed by Yamamoto. Applicant argues that Byrd reports micron-sized silicon exhibiting poor cycle life and acceptable performance is only obtained when the micron-sized silicon is disposed within the structure of Byrd. Applicant argues that one of ordinary skill in the art reading Byrd as a whole would not have been motivated to modify the silicon of Yamamoto to be micron-sized silicon with any reasonable expectation of obtaining the benefits asserted in the Office Action.
Applicant’s arguments 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 OLIVIA A JONES whose telephone number is (571)272-1718. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30 AM - 4:30 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, Marla McConnell can be reached at (571) 270-7692. 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.
/O.A.J./Examiner, Art Unit 1789
/MARLA D MCCONNELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights