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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed 5/26/2026 have been entered. Claim 1 is amended and Claim 5 is canceled.
Support for the amendments can be found in original Claim 5.
Claims 1-4 and 6-7 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 6, filed 5/26/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 5 under 25 USC 103 over Kajita in view of Roethinger have been fully considered and are persuasive: Kajita teaches that the second is amorphous and one of ordinary skill in the art would therefore would look to substitute it with crystalline carbon nanotubes. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Ryo (US 20190067678 A1).
Applicant's arguments regarding unexpected results filed 5/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Examples 3 and 4, which comprise carbon nanotubes as the conductive agent, display higher maintenance rates than Example 2, which comprises acetylene black as the conductive agent. However, only one other conductive agent is used in the examples (acetylene black) and only amount is tested for both the acetylene black and carbon nanotubes (0.5% and 0.01%, respectively) and it cannot be concluded that using carbon nanotubes as the conductive agent will provide improved charge-discharge cycle characteristics over an equivalent amount of non-single walled carbon nanotube conductive agent.
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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryo (US 20190067678 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Ryo teaches a negative electrode active material comprising a shell that encloses one or more cores (Abstract). The core can comprise a Si-based material (0034) and single-walled carbon nanotubes (0034), and the shell may comprise activated carbon (0036). As the core is enclosed in the shell, the core (Si-based material and single-walled carbon nanotubes) can be viewed as being supported in the pores of the activated carbon shell (Fig. 8A).
Since Ryo teaches the shell…preferably has porosity (0056), and the shell comprises activated carbon (0036) and the core comprises a Si-based material and single-walled carbon nanotubes (0034), Ryo teaches all those materials as part of a list of possible materials for the core and shell and it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected activated carbon for the porous shell and a Si-based material and single-walled carbon nanotubes for the core as choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation for success, is likely to be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP 2143 E).
Examiner notes that the activated carbon is in the form of a conductive filler in a hollow shell (0036).
Regarding Claim 7, modified Ryo teaches the active material of Claim 1 and that it is used in a secondary battery (0039, Claim 2).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryo as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Motohiko (JP 2015204174 A, cited in the 7/24/2023 IDS as JP 5647366 B1, machine translation provided) and Constantino (US 20200020935 A1).
Regarding Claim 2, modified Ryo teaches the active material of Claim 1. Modified Ryo does not teach that the activated carbon has macropores having an average pore size of greater than or equal to 1 µm and less than or equal to 2 µm, and has a macropore volume of greater than or equal to 1.0 mL/g and less than or equal to 2.1 mL/g.
Motohiko teaches a negative electrode active material comprising a Si-based material supported in the pores of activated carbon (Abstract – silicon nanoparticles supported on a wide internal surface of active carbon). Motohiko teaches that the activated carbon comprises macropores with a size of 50 nm or more (0024) and that larger pores result in better performance (0027). The range of 50 nm or more would overlap the claimed range of between 1 µm and 2 µm.
Ryo and Motohiko are considered analogous to the claimed invention as they relate to the same field of endeavor, namely carbon and silicon based active materials.
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 activated carbon of modified Ryo to comprise macropores with the pore size taught by Motohiko in order to provide better performance.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have routinely selected the overlapping portions of the disclosed size ranges as selection of overlapping portions of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05).
Modified Ryo does not disclose the macropore volume of the activated carbon.
Constantino teaches a negative electrode active material (0010, 0274) comprising a porous carbon scaffold material comprising macropores (Abstract). The porous carbon material can be activated carbon (0142) and the pore volume is impregnated with silicon (0001). The activated carbon can have a pore volume between 0.2 and 2.0 cm3/g (equivalent to mL/g) (0142) and a pore volume distribution ranger of the macropores can be 0 and 99.9% (0147-0148). This is equivalent to a macropore pore volume between 0 to 1.998 cm3/g (2.0 cm3/g * 0.999), which would overlap the claimed range of 1.0 mL/g to 2.1 mL/g.
Constantino is considered analogous to the claimed invention as it relates to the same field of endeavor, namely carbon and silicon based active materials.
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 activated carbon of modified Ryo to comprise the pore volume and macropore volume distribution taught by Constantino as they are known pore volumes and pore volume distributions for activated carbon with silicon. Doing so would provide nothing more than the predictable results of activated carbon with a suitable pore volume and pore volume distribution for use as an active material with silicon (See MPEP 2143 B).
It would also have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have routinely selected the overlapping portions of the disclosed pore volume ranges as selection of overlapping portions of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05).
Although modified Ryo does not teach that the pore volume is measured by mercury intrusion porosimetry, the pore volume would be the same regardless of the method of measurement.
Claim(s) 3 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryo as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of in view of Constantino (US 20200020935 A1).
Regarding Claim 3, modified Ryo teaches the negative electrode active material of Claim 1. Modified Ryo does not disclose the ratio of a volume of the Si-based material to a total pore volume of the activated carbon.
Constantino teaches an active material comprising carbon and silicon (Abstract). Constantino teaches an embodiment where the ratio of a volume of the Si-based material to a total pore volume of the activated carbon ranges from 25% to 35% (0296). This falls within the claimed range of 20% to 40%.
Ryo and Constantino are considered analogous to the claimed invention as they relate to the same field of endeavor, namely carbon and silicon based active materials.
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 substituted the ratio of a volume of the Si-based material to a total pore volume of the activated carbon of modified Ryo with the ratio taught by Constantino as it is a known ratio for a negative electrode active material comprising carbon and silicon. Doing so would provide nothing more than a negative electrode with a suitable ratio of a volume of the Si-based material to a total pore volume of the activated carbon (See MPEP 2143 B).
Regarding Claim 6, modified Ryo teaches the active material of Claim 1. Modified Ryo teaches that a solid electrolyte interface (SEI) can be formed on the surface of the activated carbon shell but does not teach that a carbon film is formed on a surface of the activated carbon.
Constantino teaches that a carbon film/layer can be formed on the surface of a porous carbon material (0232) to provide for a suitable SEI layer (0233).
Ryo and Constantino are considered analogous to the claimed invention as they relate to the same field of endeavor, namely carbon and silicon based active materials.
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 activated carbon of modified Ryo to comprise a carbon film/layer in order to provide for a suitable SEI layer.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryo as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Okai (US 20170309913 A1).
Regarding Claim 4, modified Ryo teaches the active material of Claim 1. Modified Ryo does not teach that a carbon film is formed on a surface of the Si-based material.
Okai teaches a that coating silicon nanoparticles with a carbon layer (Abstract) improves the electrical conductivity of the silicon nanoparticles (0041).
Ryo and Okai are considered analogous to the claimed invention as they relate to the same field of endeavor, namely negative electrode active materials.
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 Si-based material of modified Ryo to comprise a carbon coating layer as taught by Okai in order to improve the electrical conductivity.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZIHENG LU whose telephone number is (703)756-1077. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 - 5 ET.
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, Nicholas Smith can be reached at (571) 272-8760. 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.
/ZIHENG LU/ Examiner, Art Unit 1752 /TIFFANY LEGETTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights