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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 1 as being anticipated by Kajita (JP 2018163776 A, cited in the 12/03/2025 IDS, machine translation provided).
Regarding Claim 1, Kajita teaches a negative electrode material comprising a first carbon material comprising a plurality of pores and silicon and silicon oxides dispersed in the pores (Abstract). The first carbon material can be activated carbon (0019). The negative electrode material can also comprise a second carbon material that can be viewed as a conductive agent (0027). The second carbon material/conductive agent ensures electrical connection between the first carbon material and the silicon particles within the pores of the first carbon material/activated carbon and would therefore also be located within the pores of the first carbon material/activated carbon.
Regarding Claim 7, Kajita teaches the negative electrode material of Claim 1 and a secondary battery comprising the negative electrode material of Claim 1 (Kajita: 0013, Claim 5).
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) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kajita (JP 2018163776 A, cited in the 12/03/2025 IDS, machine translation provided) 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, Kajita teaches the active material of Claim 1. Kajita 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 ort 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.
Kajita 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 Kajita 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 Kajita 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 Kajita 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 Kajita 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) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kajita in view of Constantino (US 20200020935 A1) and Ogihara (DE 102017218712 A1).
Regarding Claim 2, Kajita teaches the active material of Claim 1. Kajita 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.
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.
Kajita 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 Kajita 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).
Modified Kajita teaches does not teach that the activated carbon has macropores that have an average pore size of greater than or equal to 1 µm.
Ogihara teaches a porous carbon particles comprising pores and silicon particles within said pores (Abstract). The porous carbon particle can have an average pore size of between 100 and 5000 nm. This would also be the average pore size of the macropores (See paragraph 0024 of the instant specification).
Ogihara 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 to have substituted the pore size of modified Kajita with the pore size taught by Ogihara as it is a pore size suitable for an active material with silicon within the pores. Doing so would provide nothing more than the predictable results of an active material with a pore size suitable for carrying silicon particles.
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 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 Kajita 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 Kajita (JP 2018163776 A, cited in the 12/03/2025 IDS, machine translation provided) in view of Constantino (US 20200020935 A1).
Regarding Claim 3, Kajita teaches the negative electrode active material of Claim 1. Kajita 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 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%.
Kajita 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 Kajita 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, Kajita teaches the active material of Claim 1. Kajita 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).
Kajita 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 Kajita 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 Kajita in view of Okai (US 20170309913 A1).
Regarding Claim 4, Kajita teaches the active material of Claim 1. Kajita 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).
Okai is considered analogous to the claimed invention as it relates 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 Kajita to comprise a carbon coating layer as taught by Okai in order to improve the electrical conductivity.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kajita in view of Roethinger (US 20200194780 A1).
Regarding Claim 5, Kajita teaches the active material of Claim 1. Kajita does not teach that the conductive additive/agent includes a single-walled carbon nanotube.
Roethinger teaches that single-walled carbon nanotubes can be used as conductive additives in a negative electrode (0004).
Roethinger is considered analogous to the claimed invention as it relates to the same field of endeavor, namely negative electrodes.
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 conductive additive/agent of Kajita for single-walled carbon nanotubes as Roethinger teaches them as suitable conductive additives in a negative electrode. Doing so would provide nothing more than the predictable results of a negative electrode active material comprising a conductive additive/agent known to work in negative electrodes (See MPEP 2143 B).
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
/NICHOLAS A SMITH/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752