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 .
ACTIVE MATERIAL PARTICLE, ELECTROCHEMICAL ELEMENT, AND ELECTROCHEMICAL DEVICE
Examiner: Adam Arciero S.N. 18/274,575 Art Unit: 1727 September 29, 2026
DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s response filed on May 18, 2026 has been received. Claims 1-20 are currently pending. Claim 1 has been amended. Claims 12-20 are newly added.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The claim rejections under 35 USC 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sha on claims 1-2 and 8-11 are maintained.
Claim(s) 1-2, 8-11, 14-16 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sha et al. (US 2021/0288316 A1; as found in IDS dated 04/02/2025).
As to Claims 1-2 and 8-11, Sha discloses a battery, comprising: a first electrode; a second electrode; and an electrolyte, wherein one of the electrodes comprises: a current collector and an active material layer composed of active material particles provided thereon (paragraphs [0070-0071]). Said active material particles comprise: composite particles each containing a lithium silicate phase and a silicon phase dispersed therein; a first coating (intermediate layer) 2 covering at least a part of the surfaces of the composite particles, wherein the first coating comprises SiOx wherein can be 0.6 (reads on oxygen vacancies) and a nonmetallic doping element such as carbon; and a second coating comprising a carbon material provided on the first coating (reads on formed form a carbon coating) (Abstract, Fig. 2, paragraphs [0010-0011, 0015-0016, 0036, 0039]). It is noted that the claim is a product-by-process claim. "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). In addition, Sha discloses wherein the carbon coating layer 3 can be formed from an organic polymer coating (paragraph [0041]).
As to Claims 14-15, it is noted that the claim is a product-by-process claim. "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). In addition, a limitation drawn to an intermediate product (not the final claimed product) does not further limit the claimed final product.
As to Claim 16, Sha discloses wherein the coating layer 3 is carbon (which reads on the structure of the claim) (paragraph [0041]).
As to Claims 18-20, Sha discloses wherein the carbon is amorphous carbon or in combination with carbon nanotube or graphene (conductive carbon/includes a graphite) (paragraph [0016]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The claim rejections under 35 USC 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sha on claims 3, 5 and 7 are maintained.
Claim(s) 3, 5, 7 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sha et al. (US 2021/0288316 A1; as found in IDS dated 04/02/2025).
As to Claims 3 and 5, Sha teaches wherein the intermediate layer (first coating) comprises MxSiyOz; wherein M is one or more of Al, Ca, Mg, Be, Sr, Ba, Ti and Zr and the molar ratio of M+Si is 0.01 to 0.3 (paragraph [0039 and 0053]). At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art to modify the first coating of Sha to read on the claims because Sha teaches that stability of the active material particle can be ensured (paragraph [0015]).
As to Claim 7, Sha teaches wherein the depth of the pores of the intermediate layer (reads on particle radius) is 10-500 nm (claim 8). This range overlaps with the claimed range. At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art to modify the first coating of Sha to have the claimed thickness because Sha teaches that stability of the active material particle can be ensured (paragraph [0015]). In addition, the courts have held that 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.
As to Claim 17, Sha discloses wherein the thickness of layer 3 is 2-1000 nm and the thickness of layer 2 can be 500 nm (upper limits of each) (paragraph [0041] and claim 8). In addition, the courts have held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device, see MPEP 2144.04, IV, A. At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art to modify the coating thickness relationship of Sha to have the claimed relationship because Sha teaches that stability of the active material particle can be ensured (paragraph [0015]).
The claim rejections under 35 USC 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sha and Jiang on claims 4 and 6 are maintained.
Claim(s) 4 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sha et al. (US 2021/0288316 A1; as found in IDS dated 04/02/2025) as applied to claims 1-3, 5 and 7-11 above and in further view of Jiang et al. (US 2022/0052327 A1; as found in IDS dated 04/02/2025).
As to Claims 4 and 6, Sha does not specifically disclose the claimed materials for the first coating layer.
However, Jiang teaches of anode active material particles, comprising a silicon oxide phase core and a first coating layer comprising an oxide MeOy layer, wherein Me can be Al, Cr, Si and/or Mn and y is 0.5-3 (Abstract). At the time of the invention, it would have be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the intermediate layer (first coating layer) of Sha to comprise the claimed oxides because Jiang teaches that the cycle performance of the battery can be improved and the impedance of the battery can be significantly reduced (Abstract).
However, Murayama teaches of an active material for a lithium secondary battery, comprising: active material particles and a metal oxide represented by the formula TiOa wherein 1 ≤ a ≤ 2 and having oxygen vacancies formed on a surface of the anode active particles (paragraph [0008]). At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the negative active material surface coating of Uchiyama to comprise the claimed metal oxide with oxygen vacancies because Murayama teaches that the leaching of the active material can be suppressed thereby improving battery performance (paragraph [0008]).
As to Claim 7, Murayama teaches wherein the thickness of the coating is 3 angstroms to 10,000 angstroms, which overlaps with the claimed range (paragraph [0010]). At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the surface coating of Uchiyama to have the claimed thickness because Murayama teaches that an improved battery is formed (paragraph [0008]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-13 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the closest prior arts of record, Sha and Jiang, do not specifically disclose, teach, or fairly suggest wherein the first element in the first coating is more abundant proximal than distal to the surfaces of the composite particles (claim 12).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed May 18, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 USC 102(a)(1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection has been made above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM ARCIERO whose telephone number is (571)270-5116. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5 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, 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.
/ADAM A ARCIERO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1727
