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 .
Summary
This is the second Office Action based on Application 18/268,085 and is in response to Applicant Arguments/Remarks filed 08/03/2026
Claims 1-15 are previously pending, of those claims, claims 1 and 6 have been amended, all amendments have been entered. Claims 1-15 are currently pending and have been fully considered.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JO (US 2018/0097229 A1) in view of BAEK (US 2022/0216461 A1).
With respect to claims 1-2. JO teaches a negative electrode active material that includes a silicon-carbon secondary particles 10 having a compact porous composite structure including a composite of silicon carbon primary particles 12 and a second carbonaceous material 14 (paragraph 0060). There is a composite of silicon-carbon primary particles 12 and a second carbonaceous material 14 (paragraph 0060). The primary particles 12 are Si/C particles having a silicon based material 19 and a first carbonaceous material 20 (paragraph 0060). The silicon based material may be the nanostructured silicon (paragraph 0070). The first carbonaceous material may include a crystalline carbon (paragraph 0072). The crystalline carbon may include a flake graphite (paragraph 0073).
JO does not explicitly teach a conductive additive including carbon nanotubes in an amount of 0.2-1.5 wt%.
BAEK teaches a negative electrode including an active material including an active material and a conductive agent (abstract). The conductive agent then may include carbon nanotubes which play a role in reducing resistance of the negative electrode by forming a conductive network between the negative electrode active material particles (paragraph 0039). The carbon nanotubes may be included in an amount of 0.01-1.0 wt% in the active material layer (paragraph 0045) which is taken to be an overlapping range with the claimed amount. 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, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP 2144.05(I).
At the time the invention was filed one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the conductive additive of BAEK with the active material of JO, as BAEK teaches the benefits of the carbon nanotubes are reducing resistance of the negative electrode by forming a conductive network between the negative electrode active material particles (paragraph 0039).
With respect to claim 3. JO teaches the preparation method of the negative active material that includes a pressing and grinding of the silicon nanoparticles (paragraph 0145).
With respect to claim 15. JO teaches a full cell including a positive electrode, negative electrode, separator and an electrolyte (paragraph 0155).
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JO (US 2018/0097229 A1) in view of BAEK (US 2022/0216461 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 3 above, and further in view of OH (US 2020/0411844 A1).
Claim 4 is dependent upon claim 3 which is rejected above under 35 U.S.C> 103 in view of JO and BAEK. JO does not explicitly teach or suggest the nanoparticles have a size of 30- 200 nm and an aspect ratio of greater than 1.5.
OH teaches a composite anode for a battery including a silicon-carbonaceous compound composite (abstract). Included are silicon nanoparticles with an average diameter of 5-150 nm and an aspect ratio of 4-10 (paragraph 0121). Such shapes are taken to be beneficial as they reduce the expansion ratio and result in improved lifespans of batteries (paragraph 0121).
At the time the invention was filed one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to form the nanocomposite silicon of JO to be within the values of OH, as OH teaches such values are beneficial for improvements of lifespans of the batteries.
Claim 5 is dependent upon claim 1. JO does not explicitly teach the particle size of the flaky graphite.
The teachings of OH from above are repeated here. OH further teaches the anode active material includes the silicon-carbonaceous compound composite including graphite (paragraph 0190). The graphite may then have an average particle diameter of 6 microns (paragraph 0209).
At the time the invention was filed one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have the graphite of JO be formed with the average size of OH, as this is a simple combination of known prior art elements in order to achieve predictable results.
Claim(s) 6-11 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JO (US 2018/0097229 A1) in view of BAEK (US 2022/0216461 A1) and PIAO (US 2022/0376250 A1).
With respect to claims 6 and 10. The rejection of claim 1 in view of JO and BAEK from above is repeated here. JO teaches a preparation of a negative active material (paragraph 0145). During the synthesis the nano-silicon particles are mixed with carbon and graphite then pressed into pellets, thermal treatment is performed and grinding to prepare the silicon carbon primary particles having a compact structure (paragraph 0145).
JO does not explicitly teach the spheronizing the material.
PIAO teaches a spheronized carbonaceous negative electrode active material and a method of preparing it (abstract). The spheronized particles are then carbonized (paragraph 0046).
At the time the invention was filed one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include the spheronization and carbonization process of the active material of PIAO for the active material of JO and BAEK, as this is a combination of known prior art elements in order to achieve predictable results.
With respect to claim 7. JO teaches the preparation of the active material is used in a dry method (paragraph 0145).
With respect to claim 8. JO teaches the first mixture includes a preparation method including preparing the amorphous carbon by mixing with a coal-tar pitch or petroleum pitch (paragraph 0101).
With respect to claim 9. JO does not teach the amorphous carbon precursor material has a 50-85 wt% fixed carbon and a softening point less than 300 degrees C. However, JO teaches the same amorphous carbon material s claimed and is taken to have the same properties.
With respect to claim 11. JO teaches the preparation method of the negative active material that includes a pressing and grinding of the silicon nanoparticles (paragraph 0145).
With respect to claim 14. JO teaches the heat treatment method is performed at 900 degrees C (paragraph 0145). JO does not explicitly the duration of the heat treatment, such as from 0.5-2 hours. However, adjusting the duration of the heat treatment may be achieved as a matter of routine experimentation, as the general duration of the heat treatment may be achieved by one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim(s) 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JO (US 2018/0097229 A1) in view of BAEK (US 2022/0216461 A1) and PIAO (US 2022/0376250 A1) as applied to claims 6 and 11 above, and further in view of OH (US 2020/0411844 A1).
Claim 12 is dependent upon claim 11 which is rejected above under 35 U.S.C> 103 in view of JO and BAEK. JO does not explicitly teach or suggest the nanoparticles have a size of 30- 200 nm and an aspect ratio of greater than 1.5.
OH teaches a composite anode for a battery including a silicon-carbonaceous compound composite (abstract). Included are silicon nanoparticles with an average diameter of 5-150 nm and an aspect ratio of 4-10 (paragraph 0121). Such shapes are taken to be beneficial as they reduce the expansion ratio and result in improved lifespans of batteries (paragraph 0121).
At the time the invention was filed one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to form the nanocomposite silicon of JO to be within the values of OH, as OH teaches such values are beneficial for improvements of lifespans of the batteries.
Claim 13 is dependent upon claim 6. JO does not explicitly teach the particle size of the flaky graphite.
The teachings of OH from above are repeated here. OH further teaches the anode active material includes the silicon-carbonaceous compound composite including graphite (paragraph 0190). The graphite may then have an average particle diameter of 6 microns (paragraph 0209).
At the time the invention was filed one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have the graphite of JO be formed with the average size of OH, as this is a simple combination of known prior art elements in order to achieve predictable results.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/03/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues against the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of the claims in view of JO and BAEK as applied to claim 1, and in view of JO, BAEK, and PIAO as applied to claim 6. On page 7 Applicant argues that claim 1 has been amended to recite the content of the carbon nanotube is 0.2 to 1.5 wt% compared to the metal based material nanoparticle in the composite. Applicant argues that Table 1 of the present specification showed the claimed content of the carbon nanotube is 0.2 to 1.5 wt% compared to the metal based material nanoparticle in the composite achieves an expansion rate of 50% or less while also providing satisfactory performance with respect to the remaining electrochemical properties. Applicant argues that such features and technical significance are not taught or suggested by the combined teachings of the cited references. This argument is not persuasive.
As an initial matter the Examiner notes that the expansion rate and performance are unclaimed elements. Arguments that the taught benefits are unexpected are not persuasive. See MPEP 716.02. Any differences between the claimed invention and the prior art may be expected to result in some differences in properties. The issue is whether the properties differ to such an extent that the difference is really unexpected. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). See also MPEP 716.02(b). The evidence relied upon should establish "that the differences in results are in fact unexpected and unobvious and of both statistical and practical significance." Ex parte Gelles, 22 USPQ2d 1318, 1319 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992) (Mere conclusions in appellants’ brief that the claimed polymer had an unexpectedly increased impact strength "are not entitled to the weight of conclusions accompanying the evidence, either in the specification or in a declaration."). IN the present case the Applicant has not showed how the evidence established unexpected and unobvious and of both statistical and practical significance as required. Further there is merely a conclusionary statement that the prior art would not teach this without showing any evidence from the prior art.
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 JONATHAN G JELSMA whose telephone number is (571)270-5127. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 9:00 AM to 4:00 PM EST.
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, Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at (571)272-3433. 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.
/JONATHAN G JELSMA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722
