DETAILED ACTION
The applicant’s remarks filed on June 3, 2026 were received.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office 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 .
Claims 1-8, 10, 11, 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirose et al. (hereinafter “Hirose”) (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0261833 A1) in view of Zhong et al. (hereinafter “Zhong”) (CN 109638231 A; see English machine translation).
Regarding claims 1 and 3, Hirose teaches a negative electrode active containing particles of silicon-based active material having a silicon compound of the formula SiOx, where 0.5≤x≤1.6, in which a Li compound is contained. Further, the negative electrode active material is provided with a carbon coating formed on at least a part of a surface of the silicon compound (see paragraph 59).
Hirose is silent as to SiOy present in a form of a coating layer on at least part of the surface of the silicon-containing composite particle.
Zhong teaches a silicon suboxide composite anode material comprising a core, and a first shell and a second shell formed sequentially from the core outward (see paragraph 39). The core comprises a first silicon suboxide powder SiOx (see paragraph 36). The first shell comprises a second silicon suboxide powder SiOy having a greater oxygen content, 1.5≤y≤2.0, than the first silicon suboxide powder (present in a form of a coating layer between the surface of the silicon-containing composite particles and the carbon coating layer) (see paragraph 37). The second shell covers the first shell and comprises a conductive carbon (see paragraph 37). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the SiOy shell of Zhong between the particles of silicon-based active material and the carbon coating of Hirose because Zhong teaches that two shells effectively prevent direct contact between the silicon suboxide and the electrolyte, and also effectively buffer the expansion/contraction of the core during charging and discharging, ensuring the stability of the silicon suboxide composite anode material structure (see paragraph 45).
Regarding claim 2, although Hirose and Zhong are silent as to the claimed X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy peak, the negative electrode active material of Hirose as modified by Zhong is substantially identical in structure and composition to the claimed negative electrode active material. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the modified negative electrode active material of Hirose and Zhong to exhibit the claimed X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy peak. It has been held by the courts that 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. See In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977) (see MPEP § 2112.01).
Regarding claim 4, Zhong teaches that in the silicon suboxide composite anode material, SiOy accounts for 2% to 6% of the mass of the silicon suboxide composite anode material (see paragraph 41).
Regarding claim 5, Hirose teaches that carbon-coated silicon oxide particles may be agitated in an aqueous solution saturated with the lithium carbonate (lithium by-product) (see paragraphs 170, 171 and 173).
Regarding claim 6, Hirose teaches that after being agitated in an aqueous solution saturated with the lithium carbonate, the carbon-coated silicon oxide particles are subjected to a cleansing treatment (see paragraph 173). As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect only trace amounts of the lithium carbonate to be present on the surface of the carbon-coated silicon oxide particles.
Regarding claim 8, although Hirose and Zhong are silent as to the claimed NMR measurements, the negative electrode active material of Hirose as modified by Zhong is substantially identical in structure and composition to the claimed negative electrode active material. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the modified negative electrode active material of Hirose and Zhong to exhibit the claimed NMR measurements. It has been held by the courts that 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. See In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977) (see MPEP § 2112.01).
Regarding claim 10, Hirose teaches an exemplary negative electrode active material comprising LiH powder of a mass corresponding to 4% by mass of the particles of silicon oxide.
Regarding claim 11, Hirose teaches exemplary negative electrode active materials that may comprise the carbon coating at a rate 5% by mass relative to a total of the silicon compound and the carbon coating (see paragraph 157).
Regarding claims 13 and 14, Hirose teaches that the negative electrode active material may be contained in the negative electrode of a secondary battery (see paragraph 63).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9 and 12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 3, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s principal arguments are as follows:
Neither of the applied references disclose forming an SiOy coating by acid treatment.
Zhang does not disclose that the negative electrode active material includes a lithium compound.
The applied references do not disclose or contemplate the unexpected results realized by the instant invention.
In response to Applicant’s arguments, please consider the following comments.
Here, the feature upon which applicant relies (i.e., coating by acid treatment) is not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Zhong teaches that the first and second shells effectively buffer the expansion/contraction of the core during charging and discharging, ensuring the stability of the silicon suboxide composite anode material structure (see paragraph 45). Given that the battery of Zhong is a lithium-ion battery (see paragraph 20), it is understood that this expansion/contraction of the core would be the result of the intercalation and deintercalation of lithium ions. As such, upon charging, the negative electrode active material of Zhong does contain a lithium compound.
Applicant points to Examples 1-5 of the instant specification as evidencing unexpected results. Here, it is noted that whether the unexpected results are the result of unexpectedly improved results or a property not taught by the prior art, the objective evidence of nonobviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support. See In re Clemens, 622 F.2d 1029, 1036, 206 USPQ 289, 296 (CCPA 1980). Examples 1-5 are specific to a particular process for forming the SiOy coating, but claim 1 does not appear to include any limitation that limit the claimed negative electrode active material to the same process. In other words, the negative electrode active material of claim 1 could conceivably have been formed by another process which does not realize the unexpected results evident in Examples 1-5.
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 STEPHAN J ESSEX whose telephone number is (571)270-7866. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 am - 6:00 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, 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.
/STEPHAN J ESSEX/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1727
Prosecution Insights