DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Objections
The objection to claim 1 is withdrawn because Applicant amended claim 1.
The objection to claim 15 for reciting a plurality of elements without the required separation by line indentation is maintained. 37 C.F.R. 1.75(i); M.P.E.P. § 608.01(i). Particularly, the negative electrode current collector, the negative electrode film layer, and the negative electrode active material are each a separate element.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The rejection of claims 1-17 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite is withdrawn because Applicant amended claims 1 and 15.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The rejection of claims 1-8, 10, 11, and 13-17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang et al. (WO 2021/128198 A1 relying on US 2022/0223854 A1 for English translation), hereinafter “Jiang,” in view of Choi et al. (US 2024/0290983 A1), hereinafter “Choi,” is maintained as set forth below.
Regarding claim 1, Jiang discloses a silicon-containing negative electrode active material comprising:
a silicon-based material, in this case silicon-based particles (¶ [0025] & [0059], Fig. 1, ref. no. 1); and
a conductive layer located on the surface of the silicon-based material that comprises a polymer and a one-dimension conductive material, in this case the outer layer comprises a polymer containing a carbon material (¶ [0025] & [0059], Fig. 1, ref. no. 2) where the carbon material may be carbon nanotubes (¶ [0038]) with a diameter of 1 nm to 30 nm (¶ [0041]) and a length-to diameter ratio of 100 to 20,000 (¶ [0042])1.
Jiang does not disclose the polar functional group(s) or the claimed loading ratio. However, Choi teaches including functional groups selected from carbonyl groups, an amino group, and others in polymeric coatings in order to improve the lithium ion conductivity in negative electrode active material layers (¶ [0033]-[0036]). Choi further teaches that the electrode active material includes 7 wt% of a silicon-containing material and 2.7 wt% of polymers (¶ ([0099]), which would result in an A2/A1 ratio that overlaps with the claimed range of 0.2 to 8. Applicant is reminded that a prima facie case of obviousness exists in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. M.P.E.P. § 2144.05. One having ordinary skill in the art would have realized that including such functional groups in the polymer at the claimed loading ratio would have yielded improved lithium ion conductivity in the negative electrode, thereby facilitating improved battery operation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have included an amino functional group or a carbonyl functional group in order to have facilitated improved battery operation.
Regarding claim 2, Jiang does not disclose the polar functional group(s) or the claimed loading ratio. However, Choi teaches including functional groups selected from carbonyl groups, an amino group, and others in polymeric coatings in order to improve the lithium ion conductivity in negative electrode active material layers (¶ [0033]-[0036]). Choi further teaches that the electrode active material includes 7 wt% of a silicon-containing material and 2.7 wt% of polymers (¶ ([0099]), which would result in an A2/A1 ratio that overlaps with the claimed range of 0.6 to 2.5. Applicant is reminded that a prima facie case of obviousness exists in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. M.P.E.P. § 2144.05. One having ordinary skill in the art would have realized that including such functional groups in the polymer at the claimed loading ratio would have yielded improved lithium ion conductivity in the negative electrode, thereby facilitating improved battery operation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have included an amino functional group or a carbonyl functional group in order to have facilitated improved battery operation.
Regarding claim 3, Jiang does not disclose the polar functional group(s). Choi teaches the polar functional group(s) as discussed in the rejection of claim 1, above, but does not specify the loading of the functional group(s). However, Choi does teach that including the polar functional group(s) improves the lithium ion conductivity in negative electrode active material layers (¶ [0033]-[0036]). One having ordinary skill in the art would have understood to provide a sufficient loading of the polar functional group(s) in order to provide the desired improvement in lithium ion conductivity (see ¶ [0034]), thereby facilitating improved battery operation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have provided the polar functional group(s) at 5 mass% to 90 mass% in order to have facilitated improved battery operation.
Regarding claim 4, Jiang further teaches that the polymer has a weight average molecular weight, B1, of greater than 100,000, in this case 1x104 to 2x106 (¶ 0028]). Applicant is reminded that a prima facie case of obviousness exists in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. M.P.E.P. § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 5, Jiang further teaches that the one-dimension conductive material has an aspect ratio, B2, of 100 to 20,000, in this case a length-to diameter ratio of 100 to 20,000 (¶ [0042]). Applicant is reminded that a prima facie case of obviousness exists in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. M.P.E.P. § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 6, Jiang further teaches that B1/B2 is 5 to 200, in this case 0.5 (1x104 ÷ 20,000 = 0.5) to 20,000 (2x106 ÷ 100 = 20,000). Applicant is reminded that a prima facie case of obviousness exists in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. M.P.E.P. § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 7, Jiang further discloses that:
the one-dimension conductive material has a diameter from 1 nm to 30 nm, in this case the carbon nanotubes have diameter of 1 nm to 30 nm (¶ [0041]); and
the one-dimension conductive material has a length from 0.5 μm, in this case a diameter of 1 nm and an aspect ratio of 500 results in a length of 500 nm = 0.5 μm (see ¶ [0041]-[0042]), to 20 μm, in this case a diameter of 1 nm and an aspect ratio of 20,000 results in a length of 20,000 nm = 20 μm (see ¶ [0041]-[0042]).
Regarding claim 8, Jiang further discloses that the polymer has a glass transition temperature of below 150°C, in this case the polymer layer may include polyacrylic acid (¶ [0112]), which is known to have a glass transition temperature of 103°C to 126°C.
Regarding claim 10, Jiang further discloses that the one-dimension conductive material comprises carbon nanotubes, in this case the outer layer comprises a polymer containing a carbon material (¶ [0025] & [0059], Fig. 1, ref. no. 2) where the carbon material may be carbon nanotubes (¶ [0038]) with a diameter of 1 nm to 30 nm (¶ [0041]) and a length-to diameter ratio of 100 to 20,000 (¶ [0042]).
Regarding claim 11, Jiang further discloses that the silicon-based material comprises silicon, silicon oxide, and a silicon carbon compound, in this case Si, SiO, SiO2, and SiC (¶ [0037]).
Regarding claim 13, Jiang further discloses that the conductive layer thickness is from 1 nm to 2 μm, in this case the polymer layer thickness is 5 nm to 200 nm (¶ [0040]). Applicant is reminded that a prima facie case of obviousness exists in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. M.P.E.P. § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 14, Jiang further discloses that:
the silicon-containing negative electrode active material has an average particle size Dv50 of 2 μm to 10 μm, in this case 5.2 μm (¶ [0145]); and
the silicon-containing negative electrode active material has a specific surface area from 0.8 m2/g to 5 m2/g, in this case 3 m2/g and 4 m2/g (¶ [0046])
Regarding claim 15, Jiang discloses a negative electrode plate (¶ [0114]) comprising:
a negative current collector (¶ [0063]);
a negative electrode film layer located on at least one of the surfaces of the negative current collector (¶ [0063]);
wherein the negative electrode film layer comprises:
the silicon-containing negative electrode active material in this case silicon-based particles (¶ [0025] & [0059], Fig. 1, ref. no. 1; see rejection of claim 1, above);
a conductive agent (¶ [0076]); and
a binder (¶ [0076]).
Regarding claim 16, Jiang further discloses a lithium battery (¶ [0091]).
Regarding claim 17, Jiang further discloses an electrical device, in this case an electrical apparatus (¶ [0093]-[0095]).
The rejection of claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang and Choi as applied to claim 8, above, and further in view of Nakayama et al. (CN 112385062 A), hereinafter “Nakayama,” is maintained as set forth below.
Regarding claim 9, neither Jiang nor Choi discloses the recited polymeric materials. However, Nakayama teaches a negative electrode with a polymeric thickening agent selected from the salt of carboxymethyl cellulose or poly (methyl) acrylic acid (p. ). One having ordinary skill in the art would have realized that providing such a polymer in the coating would have improve the coating property and the charge and discharge characteristics of the battery (see p. ), thereby facilitating improved battery operation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have included the salt of carboxymethyl cellulose or poly (methyl) acrylic acid in the polymer coating in order to have facilitated improved battery operation.
The rejection of claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang and Choi as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Liu et al. (US 2024/0113282 A1), hereinafter “Liu,” is maintained as set forth below.
Regarding claim 12, Jiang further discloses that:
the silicon-based material has a mass percentage content, W1, of 90 mass% to 98 mass%, in this case
the polymer has a mass percentage content, W2, of 1 mass% to 9 mass% (¶ [0039]); and
the one-dimension conductive material has a mass percentage content, W3, of 0.1 mass% to 1 mass% (¶ [0042]).
Applicant is reminded that a prima facie case of obviousness exists in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. M.P.E.P. § 2144.05.
Neither Jiang nor Choi disclose that the silicon-based material mas a mass percentage content of 70 mass% to 98 mass%. However, Liu teaches a silicon-based active material where the silicon is present in the negative electrode or anode at 90 wt%, 95 wt%, and 98 wt% (¶ [0109]). One having ordinary skill in the art would have understood that providing such loadings would have yielded the predictable result of a functioning anode. See M.P.E.P. § 2143 I. A. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have provided the silicon at 90 mass% to 98 mass% in order to have yielded the predictable result of a functioning anode.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 26, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that unexpected results are achieved by the claimed electrode active material. The Office disagrees.
In response to Applicant’s argument that unexpected results in terms of powder resistivity, initial reversible capacity, initial coulombic efficiency, and thickness growth rate are achieved by the claimed electrode material. Applicant’s findings obtained from the data provided in the written description (see Remarks p. 7) are reproduced in the table below.
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The Office notes that the small differences between the characteristics cited by Applicant for Examples and Comparative Examples appear to be insignificant. Furthermore, Applicant offers no explanation as to why such small, incremental differences are significant. Nor does Applicant provide any explanation as to why the characteristics exhibited by the Examples merit the descriptor “excellent” while those of the Comparative Examples are deemed to be “poor.” Therefore, Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT J CHMIELECKI whose telephone number is (571)272-7641. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 am to 5 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, Ula Ruddock can be reached at (571) 272-1481. 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.
/SCOTT J. CHMIELECKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729
1 “One-dimensional” materials are understood to have two dimensions at nanoscale and the third dimension to be orders of magnitude larger. See. https://www.nature.com/collections/eddjehjdee.
Prosecution Insights