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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-7, drawn to a composite particle for a negative electrode active material, and a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery in the reply filed on 04/10/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 8-10 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected (Group II), there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 04/10/2026.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/13/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “the mixture layer” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because claim 7 does not recite “a mixture layer” prior to the recitation in line 2. Although “a mixture layer” is recited in claim 6, claim 7 depends only on claim 5. Therefore, it is unclear what structure is being referred to by “the mixture layer” in claim 7.
For purposes of examination, “the mixture layer” as recited in claim 7 is interpreted to refer to “a mixture layer of the negative electrode” recited in claim 6. It is suggested to amend claim 7 to depend from claim 6 instead of claim 5, or to amend claim 7 to introduce proper antecedent basis.
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uchiyama et al. (US 20190319261 A1), and further in view of Choi et al. (US 20230092951 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Uchiyama teaches a composite particle for a negative electrode active material (Fig. 1, [0046, 0069], negative electrode active material, LSX particle 20), including: a lithium silicate phase (Fig. 1, [0046], lithium silicate phase 21); silicon particles dispersed in the lithium silicate phase (Fig. 1, [0046], silicon particles 22); and a conductive layer formed of a conductive material that covers the surface of a matrix particle which is formed of the lithium silicate phase and the silicon particles (Fig. 1, [0046], conductive layer 24 formed on the matrix particle 23). Uchiyama teaches that the conductive layer may be formed from carbon blacks such as acetylene black, conductive fibers such as carbon fibers and organic conductive materials such as phenylene derivatives, and the like ([0074]). Uchiyama fails to explicitly teach a limitation wherein the composite particle for a negative electrode active material includes a resin-calcined material, wherein the resin-calcined material contains at least one element selected from the group consisting of F and N.
However, Choi explicitly teaches this limitation. Choi teaches a negative electrode active material including an outer coating layer which is formed on a silicon-based core and includes polyimide with a fluorine-containing imide unit ([0015]). Choi teaches that polyimide contains at least one element selected from the group consisting of F and N ([0124], chemical formula 1-1). Choi further teaches that forming a polyimide coating layer on a silicon-based particle controls the volumetric expansion/contraction of the silicon-based particle according to charging and discharging and simultaneously prevents side reactions with an electrolyte at an excellent level, resulting in enhancement of lifetime characteristics ([0015]). Importantly, Choi teaches that the coating layer is formed from a polyimide precursor (resin) and the polyimide precursor is subjected to thermal treatment (calcination) at 250 °C to 500 °C, and preferably, 300 °C to 400 °C for 0.5 hours to 5 hours, and preferably, 1 hour to 3 hours [0063-0064]. So that a polyimide coating layer having high coverage is formed to prevent the detachment from the surface when it is dissolved in a solvent [0063-0064].
In the light of the instant specification, one of the preferred resins is a N-containing resin such as a polyimide (instant specification [0038]). The present specification further teaches that a mixture of the precursor particle and the resin is calcined at a temperature of greater than or equal to 300°C and less than or equal to 1000°C for a calcination time of about 2–6 hours or 3–5 hours (instant specification [0044]).
Accordingly, Choi teaches the same resin and the same calcination process, in that the disclosed conditions overlap with and fall within the ranges recited in the present specification, including temperature, and time. Therefore, Choi teaches the same calcination method that produces the claimed resin-calcined material. Further, Uchiyama, and Choi are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of negative active material.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Uchiyama’s composite particle by forming a coating derived from Choi’s resin in order to control the volumetric expansion/contraction of the silicon-based particle and suppress side reactions with an electrolyte at an excellent level, resulting in enhancement of lifetime characteristics ([0015]).
Regarding claim 2, Uchiyama, as modified by Choi, teaches all limitations of claim 1, as stated above. Choi further implicitly teach a limitation wherein a content of the resin-calcined material is greater than or equal to 1 mass% and less than or equal to 20 mass% relative to a mass of the composite particle. Specifically, Choi teaches that the outer coating layer may be included in an amount of more than 0 wt % and 4.5 wt % or less ([0051]). This range overlaps with the claimed range of 1 to 20 mass%. It has been held that in the case where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 I. Choi further teaches that when the above-described amount of the outer coating layer (corresponding to the resin-calcined material) is included in a negative electrode active material layer, it is possible to prevent electrolyte side reactions at an excellent level and simultaneously prevent an increase in resistance due to a coating layer formed in an excessive amount, and thus high-temperature lifetime performance, high-temperature storage performance, and output performance can be enhanced at the same time. Also, when the outer coating layer is formed in an excessive amount in the negative electrode active material, excessive aggregation between active material particles may occur, making it difficult to form an electrode. Therefore, it is preferable that the outer coating layer is formed in the above-described range ([0051]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a content of the coating layer within the overlapping range taught by Choi when modifying Uchiyama, in order to achieve the same benefits of controlling side reactions, suppressing resistance increase, and improving high-temperature lifetime performance ([0051]).
Regarding claim 3, Uchiyama, as modified by Choi teaches all limitations of claim 1, as stated above. Modified Uchiyama further teaches a limitation wherein the resin-calcined material coats at least a part of the silicon particles. Uchiyama teaches that the conductive layer covers at least a portion of the surface of the LSX particle or the matrix particle ([0046]), which is formed of the lithium silicate phase and the silicon particles. As illustrated in Fig. 1, the conductive layer 24 is formed on the matrix particle 23 containing silicon particles 22, and some silicon particles are located at the surface such that the conductive layer is in direct contact with those silicon particles. Accordingly, the conductive layer 24, when modified to the resin-calcined material in view of Choi, would coat at least a part of the silicon particles, thereby satisfying the claimed limitation.
Regarding claim 5, Uchiyama, as modified by Choi teaches all limitations of claim 1, as stated above. Modified Uchiyama further teaches a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery, comprising: a negative electrode including the composite particles for a negative electrode active material according to claim 1; a positive electrode; and a non-aqueous electrolyte ([0012] of Uchiyama ).
Regarding claim 6, Uchiyama, as modified by Choi teaches all limitations of claim 5, as stated above. Uchiyama further teaches a limitation wherein a content of the composite particle is greater than or equal to 0.5 mass% and less than or equal to 30 mass% relative to a mass of a mixture layer of the negative electrode ([0069-0070]). Specifically, Uchiyama discloses that the negative electrode material mixture layer includes LSX particles as an active material, along with carbon material, binder, conductive material, and thickener ([0069]). Uchiyama further teaches that the proportion of LSX particles in the negative electrode material is preferably 3–30 mass% ([0070]). Since the LSX particles correspond to the claimed composite particles, and the disclosed range of 3–30 mass% falls within the claimed range of 0.5–30 mass%, modified Uchiyama teaches the claimed limitation.
Regarding claim 7, Uchiyama, as modified by Choi teaches all limitations of claim 6 (see 112(b) claim interpretation of claim 7), as stated above. Uchiyama further teaches a limitation wherein the mixture layer includes polyacrylic acid ([0069, 0073]). Specifically, Uchiyama discloses that the negative electrode material mixture layer may include a binder, and identifies polyacrylic acid as an example of such a binder ([0069, 0073]).
As discussed above, for purposes of examination, “the mixture layer” recited in claim 7 is interpreted to refer to a mixture layer of the negative electrode recited in claim 6.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uchiyama, as modified by Choi, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Minami et al. (US 20170331108 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Uchiyama, as modified by Choi, teaches all limitations of claim 1, as stated above. Modified Uchiyama fails to teach a limitation wherein a porosity of the composite particle is less than or equal to 10%.
However, Minami teaches this limitation. Specifically, Minami discloses a negative electrode active material particle (10) including a base particle (13) comprising a lithium silicate phase (11) and silicon particles (12) dispersed therein (Fig. 1, [0029]). Minami further teaches that the base particle (13) preferably has a porosity of 10% or less before initial charging ([0041]), which is identical to the claimed range. Minami additionally teaches that controlling the porosity of the particle reduces disintegration of the particle structure originating from internal voids during charging and discharging ([0040]), and improves the initial charge/discharge efficiency of a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery ([0009]).
Modified Uchiyama and Minami are considered analogous art because both are directed to negative electrode active materials including silicon and lithium silicate phases for use in non-aqueous electrolyte secondary batteries.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the composite particle of modified Uchiyama to have a porosity of less than or equal to 10% as taught by Minami in order to reduce structural degradation and improve initial charge/discharge efficiency, as suggested by Minami ( [0009], [0040]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lili Rassouli whose telephone number is (571)272-9760. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00 AM-4:00 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, Matthew T Martin can be reached at (571) 270-7871. 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.
/LILI RASSOULI/ Examiner, Art Unit 1728
/MATTHEW T MARTIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Prosecution Insights