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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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 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.
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 16-24, 27, and 29-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Hirose et al. (WO 2020/110625 with citations made from English equivalent US 2022/0013770) (Hirose).
Regarding claim 16, Hirose discloses a negative electrode active material for a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery (title; abstract; [0072]; [0149]), the negative electrode material comprising a negative electrode active material particle (abstract; [0037]), wherein the negative electrode active material particle contains a silicon compound particle containing a silicon compound (SiOx: 0.5
≤
x
≤
1.6) ([0105]), with a specific example in which the silicon compound is SiO (x=1) ([0179]), reading on the claimed silicon compound (SiOx: 0.8
≤
x
≤
1.2). Hirose further discloses that the silicon compound particle contains Li2SiO3 (abstract; [0039]; [0043]; [0061]; [0077]-[0078]; [0106]-[0107]). Regarding the claimed formulae (1) to (3) based on measurements of the negative electrode active material particle by X-ray diffraction, Hirose is silent. However, examiner notes that the negative electrode active material particle disclosed by Hirose is substantially identical to the claimed negative electrode active material particle (both containing a silicon compound SiOx: 0.8
≤
x
≤
1.2 and both containing Li2SiO3). Furthermore, examiner notes that the negative electrode active material particle disclosed by Hirose is produced by a substantially identical process as the instant negative electrode active material particle. For instance, the instant specification discloses a method of manufacturing the negative electrode active material involving a heat treatment step of raw material to generate a silicon oxide gas, a step of depositing the silicon oxide and crushing to form a powder, a step of generating a layer of carbon material via a pyrolysis CVD method, a step of inserting Li into the silicon compound by an oxidation-reduction method, and a thermal treatment step designed to allow crystallization of lithium silicate in the lithium doped silicon-based active material particle (see [0125]-[0145] of the PGPub of the instant application). Hirose also discloses a substantially identical method involving the same heat treatment step of raw material to generate a silicon oxide gas, the same step of depositing the silicon oxide and crushing to form a powder, the same step of generating a layer of carbon material via a pyrolysis CVD method, the same step of inserting Li into the silicon compound by an oxidation-reduction method, and the same thermal treatment step designed to allow crystallization of lithium silicate in the lithium doped silicon-based active material particle ([0132]-[0146]). 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. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01. Thus, it is considered inherent that the negative electrode active material particle disclosed by Hirose would satisfy the claimed formulae (1) to (3) because it is substantially identical to the claimed negative electrode active material particle. To the extent that the claimed formulae (1) to (3) result from differences in the instant negative electrode active material compared with the negative electrode active material disclosed by Hirose, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have achieved the claimed formulae (1) to (3) based on routine experimentation of the substantially identical method of manufacturing disclosed by Hirose. Thus, Hirose satisfies all of the limitations in claim 16.
Regarding claims 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, and 24, Hirose discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 16. As set forth above, Hirose discloses a substantially identical negative electrode active material particle and a substantially identical process of manufacturing the negative electrode active material particle as the instant application. 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. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01. Therefore, since all of the limitations in claims 17-24 merely represent properties of the of the negative electrode active material particle, it is considered inherent or, in the alternative obvious, that the negative electrode active material particle disclosed by Hirose would satisfy the claimed limitations in claims 17-24.
Regarding claim 27, Hirose discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 16. Hirose further discloses that a surface layer of the negative electrode active material particle contains a carbon material ([0057]). Hirose further discloses that an average thickness of the carbon material can be 50 nm (see Examples 1-1, 1-2, and 1-3 in Table 1), reading on the claimed range of from 10 nm to 100 nm inclusive.
Regarding claims 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, and 34, Hirose discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claims 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, and 21, respectively. Hirose further discloses a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery comprising the negative electrode active material according to claims 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, and 21 (see Fig. 6; [0072]; [0149]-[0177]).
Regarding claim 35, Hirose discloses all of the limitations in claim 35 present in claim 16, as set forth above. Hirose further discloses a method for manufacturing a negative electrode active material for a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery (title; [0001]), the method comprising steps of: preparing the silicon compound particle according to claim 16, and inserting Li into the silicon compound particle to contain Li2SiO3, wherein the negative electrode active material particle is prepared by these steps ([0132]-[0146]), the method further comprising a step of selecting the negative electrode active material particle which satisfies formulae (1) to (3) (see rejection of claim 16 above), and the selected negative electrode active material particle is used for manufacturing the negative electrode active material for a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery ([0149]-[0177]). Thus, Hirose satisfies all of the limitations in claim 35.
Claims 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirose et al. (WO 2020/110625 with citations made from English equivalent US 2022/0013770) (Hirose) in view of Hirakawa et al. (US 2014/0308588) (Hirakawa).
Regarding claim 25, Hirose discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 16. Hirose fails to explicitly disclose, however, that a BET specific surface area of the negative electrode active material particle is in a range from 1 m2/g to 3 m2/g inclusive.
However, this surface area range is common in the art for negative electrode active material particles. For instance, Hirakawa teaches a similar negative electrode active material for a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery (title; abstract; [0144]), wherein the negative electrode active material comprises a negative electrode active material particle that contains a silicon compound particle (SiOx: 0.5
≤
x
≤
1.5) ([0124]-[0125]). Hirakawa further teaches that a BET specific surface area of the negative electrode active material particle is in a range from 2.0 m2/g to 6 m2/g ([0099]-[0101]), overlapping the claimed range of 1 m2/g to 3 m2/g. In the case where the claimed range overlaps the range disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05. Hirakawa further teaches that configuring the negative electrode active material particles in this way prevents a decline in discharge-capacity maintenance while also making it possible to demonstrate a larger first-round discharge capacity ([0099]-[0101]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured the negative electrode active material particles disclosed by Hirose to have a BET specific surface area within the claimed range, as taught by Hirakawa, because they would have had a reasonable expectation that doing so would prevent a decline in discharge-capacity maintenance while also demonstrating a larger first-round discharge capacity.
Regarding claim 26, Hirose discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 16. Hirose further discloses that a median diameter (D50) of the negative electrode active material particle is in a range of 2.0 µm to 12 µm ([0055]; [0092]), overlapping the claimed range of from 4.0 µm to 15 µm inclusive. In the case where the claimed range overlaps the range disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05. Therefore, absent any showing of unexpected results or criticality, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Hirose to have satisfied the claimed range based on the overlapping range disclosed by Hirose. Hirose fails to explicitly disclose, however, that a ratio (D90/D10) between 10% accumulation diameter (D10) and 90% accumulation diameter (D90) is equal to or lower than 3.
However, this particle size distribution is known in the art. For instance, Hirakawa teaches a similar negative electrode active material for a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery (title; abstract; [0144]), wherein the negative electrode active material comprises a negative electrode active material particle that contains a silicon compound particle (SiOx: 0.5
≤
x
≤
1.5) ([0124]-[0125]). Hirakawa further teaches that a median diameter (D50) of the negative electrode active material particle is between 4.5 µm to 8.0 µm ([0102]-[0104]), suggesting the claimed range of 4.0 µm to 15 µm inclusive. Hirakawa further teaches that a ratio (D10/D90) between 10% accumulation diameter (D10) and 90% accumulation diameter (D90) is 0.1 or more to 0.6 or less ([0197]), making a ratio (D90/D10) be equal to 1.67 or more (1/0.6) to 10 or less (1/0.1), overlapping the claimed range of equal to or lower than 3. In the case where the claimed range overlaps the range disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05. Hirakawa further teaches that configuring the negative electrode active material particles in this way prevents the augmentation of the decomposed products of electrolytic solution while also preventing a decline in the stability of the battery’s characteristics ([0197]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have to configured the negative electrode active material particles disclosed by Hirose to have a ratio (D90/D10) within the claimed range, as taught by Hirakawa, because they would have had a reasonable expectation that doing so would prevent the augmentation of the decomposed products of the electrolytic solution while also preventing a decline in the stability of the battery’s characteristics.
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirose et al. (WO 2020/110625 with citations made from English equivalent US 2022/0013770) (Hirose) in view of Chen et al. (US 2023/0275215) (Chen).
Regarding claim 28, Hirose discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 16. Hirose fails to disclose, however, that a surface layer of the negative electrode active material particle contains a phosphate.
However, this configuration is known in the art. For instance, Chen teaches a similar negative electrode active material for a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery (title; abstract; [0002]), the negative electrode active material comprising a negative electrode active material particle (silicon-carbon composite material) ([0005]-[0008]), wherein the negative electrode active material particle contains a silicon compound particle containing a silicon compound (SiOx: 0<x<2) ([0033]; [0038]-[0039]). Chen further teaches that a surface layer of the negative electrode active material particle can contain a phosphate (lithium phosphate) ([0028]; [0047]). Chen further teaches that this phosphate acts as an ionic conductor and can enhance the ion-conducting capability of the material, allowing for long battery life and a high rate ([0010]; [0022]; [0026]-[0028]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the negative electrode active material particle disclosed by Hirose such that a surface layer of the particle contains a phosphate, as taught by Chen, because they would have had a reasonable expectation that doing so would enhance the ion-conducting capability of the material and allow for long battery life and a high rate.
Claims 16-24 and 27-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 2023/0275215) (Chen).
Regarding claim 16, Chen discloses a negative electrode active material for a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery (title; abstract; [0002]), the negative electrode active material comprising a negative electrode active material particle (silicon-carbon composite material) ([0005]-[0008]), wherein the negative electrode active material particle contains a silicon compound particle containing a silicon compound (SiOx: 0<x<2) ([0033]; [0038]-[0039]), encompassing the claimed silicon compound (SiOx: 0.8
≤
x
≤
1.2). A prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP §2144.05. Therefore, absent any showing of unexpected results or criticality for the claimed atomic ratio of oxygen in the silicon compound, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Chen to have satisfied the claimed range based on the encompassing range disclosed by Chen. Chen further discloses that the silicon compound particle contains Li2SiO3 ([0029]; [0046]). Chen further discloses an X-ray diffraction spectrum of the negative electrode active material particles using Cu-Kα radiation (see Figs. 1 and 2; [0046]; [0052]; [0029]). Specifically, Chen discloses that a half-width of a peak derived from a Li2SiO3 (020) plane (which occurs at 2θ
≈
18.7o) is about equal to 1.25o (see Modified Figure 1 below), suggesting the claimed range of from 1.1o to 1.5o. Chen further discloses that an intensity (Ia) of a peak derived from the Li2SiO3 (020) plane is about 590 units, and an intensity (Ib) of a peak derived from the Li2SiO3 (111) plane (which occurs at 2θ
≈
26.7o) is about 790 units (see Modified Figure 1 below; [0046]). Thus, Chen necessarily discloses that a ratio Ib/Ia is about 1.3 (790/590), suggesting the claimed formula (1): 1.1
≤
Ib/Ia
≤
1.5. Chen further discloses that an intensity value (I(24.8o)) at 2θ=24.8o is about 290 units (see Modified Figure 1 below), making a ratio I(24.8o)/Ia equal to about 0.5 (290/590), suggesting the claimed formula (2): I(24.8o)/Ia
≤
0.5. Chen further discloses that an intensity value (I(28.4o)) at 2θ=28.4o is about 400 units (see Modified Figure 1 below), making a ratio I(28.4o)/Ia equal to about 0.7 (400/590), suggesting the claimed formula (3): I(28.4o)/Ia
≤
1.0. Thus, Chen satisfies all of the limitations in claim 16.
PNG
media_image1.png
509
878
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Modified Figure 1, Chen
Regarding claim 17, Chen discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 16. Chen further discloses that there is no discernible peak from Li2Si2O5 at around 2θ=24.8o (see Fig. 1; [0046]; compare with Figs. 2 and 3 which do contain a peak C derived from Li2Si2O5). Thus, Chen suggests all of the limitations in claim 17.
Regarding claim 18, Chen discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 16. Regarding the limitation in claim 18 requiring that the X-ray diffraction does not have a peak derived from a Si (111) plane, examiner notes that the instant specification defines not having a peak as not “substantially” having a peak (see [0083] of the PGPub of the instant specification). This is also consistent with Fig. 1 of the instant application, which shows a small peak derived from a Si (111) peak at around 2θ=28.4o. Thus, since Chen discloses only a small peak derived from a Si (111) plane in Fig. 1, especially with respect to the other peaks in the X-ray diffraction spectrum (see also Modified Figure 1 above), one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious for Fig. 1 of Chen to have satisfied the broad definition of not substantially having a peak derived from a Si (111) plane. Nevertheless, Chen also discloses another embodiment in which there is no discernible peak from a Si (111) plane at around 2θ=28.4o (see Fig. 2; [0052]; compare with Figs. 1 and 3 which do contain a peak B derived from a Si (111) plane). Examiner also notes that the embodiment shown in Figure 2 still satisfies the claimed formulae (1) to (3) (see Modified Figure 2 below): Ia/Ib
≈
1.4 (700/500); I(24.8o)/Ia
≈
0.58 (290/500); I(28.4o)/Ia
≈
0.8 (410/500) (see Modified Figure 2 below). Furthermore, Chen also discloses that a half-width of a peak derived from a Li2SiO3 (020) plane (which occurs at 2θ
≈
18.7o) is about equal to 1.25o (see Modified Figure 2 below). Thus, Chen satisfies all of the limitations in claim 18.
PNG
media_image2.png
475
828
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Modified Figure 2, Chen
Regarding claim 19, Chen discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 16. As set forth above, Chen discloses that a ratio Ib/Ia is about 1.3 (790/590), suggesting the claimed formula: 1.2
≤
Ib/Ia
≤
1.3.
Regarding claim 20, Chen discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 16. As set forth above, Chen discloses that a half-width of a peak derived from a Li2SiO3 (020) plane (which occurs at 2θ
≈
18.7o) is about equal to 1.25o (see Modified Figure 1 above), suggesting the claimed range of 1.2o to 1.3o.
Regarding claim 21, Chen discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 16. Chen further discloses that an intensity (I(29.9o)) value at 2θ=29.9o is about 300 units (see Modified Figure 1 below), making a ratio I(29.9o)/Ia be equal to about 0.5 (300/590), suggesting the claimed formula: I(29.9o)/Ia
≤
0.7.
PNG
media_image3.png
478
878
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Modified Figure 1, Chen
Regarding claim 22, Chen discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 16. Chen further discloses that there is no discernible peak derived from LiOH
∙
H2O at around 2θ=29.9o (see Modified Figure 1 above).
Regarding claim 23, Chen discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 16. Chen further discloses that an intensity (I(31.7o)) value at 2θ=31.7o is about 275 units (see Modified Figure 1 below), making a ratio I(31.7o)/Ia be equal to about 0.47 (275/590), suggesting the claimed formula: I(31.7o)/Ia
≤
0.7.
PNG
media_image4.png
478
878
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Modified Figure 1, Chen
Regarding claim 24, Chen discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 16. The instant specification indicates that a negative electrode active material particle satisfying the claimed formula (3) in claim 16 would also satisfy the claimed silicon content range in water at 25oC (see [0042]-[0043]; [0071]; and [0101] of the PGPub of the instant application). Therefore, since Chen already satisfies the claimed formula (3) as set forth above for claim 1, it is considered inherent that Chen would also satisfy the claimed content of silicon in claim 24 since claimed properties and functions are presumed to be inherent when the structure recited in the prior art is substantially identical to that of the claims (see MPEP 2112.01(I)).
Regarding claim 27, Chen discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 16. Chen further discloses that a surface layer (first coating layer) of the negative electrode active material particle contains a carbon material ([0020]-[0021]), and an average thickness of the carbon material is in a range of 2 to 1,000 nm ([0030]), encompassing the claimed range of 10 nm to 100 nm. A prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP §2144.05. Therefore, absent any showing of unexpected results or criticality for the claimed thickness range, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Chen to have satisfied the claimed range based on the encompassing range disclosed by Chen.
Regarding claim 28, Chen discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 16. Chen further discloses that a surface layer of the negative electrode active material particle contains a phosphate (lithium phosphate whiskers) ([0047]).
Regarding claims 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, and 34, Chen discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claims 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, and 21, respectively. Chen further discloses a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery comprising the negative electrode active material as set forth above for claims 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, and 21, respectively ([0062]; [0066]).
Regarding claim 35, Chen discloses a method for manufacturing a negative electrode active material for a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery (title; abstract; [0002]), the negative electrode active material comprising a negative electrode active material particle (silicon-carbon composite material) which contains a silicon compound particle ([0005]-[0008]), the method comprising the steps of: preparing the silicon compound particle containing a silicon compound (SiOx: 0<x<2) ([0033]; [0038]-[0039]), encompassing the claimed silicon compound (SiOx: 0.8
≤
x
≤
1.2). A prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP §2144.05. Therefore, absent any showing of unexpected results or criticality for the claimed atomic ratio of oxygen in the silicon compound, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Chen to have satisfied the claimed range based on the encompassing range disclosed by Chen. Chen further discloses that the method further comprising inserting Li into the silicon compound particle to allow the silicon compound particle to contain Li2SiO3 ([0029]; [0046]), wherein the negative electrode active material particle is prepared by these steps ([0043]-[0047]). Chen further discloses an X-ray diffraction spectrum of the negative electrode active material particles using Cu-Kα radiation (see Figs. 1 and 2; [0046]; [0052]; [0029]). Specifically, Chen discloses that a half-width of a peak derived from a Li2SiO3 (020) plane (which occurs at 2θ
≈
18.7o) is about equal to 1.25o (see Modified Figure 1 above), suggesting the claimed range of from 1.1o to 1.5o. Chen further discloses that an intensity (Ia) of a peak derived from the Li2SiO3 (020) plane is about 590 units, and an intensity (Ib) of a peak derived from the Li2SiO3 (111) plane (which occurs at 2θ
≈
26.7o) is about 790 units (see Modified Figure 1 above; [0046]). Thus, Chen necessarily discloses that a ratio Ib/Ia is about 1.3 (790/590), suggesting the claimed formula (1): 1.1
≤
Ib/Ia
≤
1.5. Chen further discloses that an intensity value (I(24.8o)) at 2θ=24.8o is about 290 units (see Modified Figure 1 above), making a ratio I(24.8o)/Ia equal to about 0.5 (290/590), suggesting the claimed formula (2): I(24.8o)/Ia
≤
0.5. Chen further discloses that an intensity value (I(28.4o)) at 2θ=28.4o is about 400 units (see Modified Figure 1 above), making a ratio I(28.4o)/Ia equal to about 0.7 (400/590), suggesting the claimed formula (3): I(28.4o)/Ia
≤
1.0. Chen further discloses that the selected negative electrode active material particle satisfying the claimed formulae (1) to (3) is used for manufacturing the negative electrode active material for a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery ([0062]; [0066]). Thus, Chen satisfies all of the limitations in claim 35.
Claims 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 2023/0275215) (Chen) in view of Hirakawa et al. (US 2014/0308588) (Hirakawa).
Regarding claim 25, Chen discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 16. Chen fails to explicitly disclose, however, that a BET specific surface area of the negative electrode active material particle is in a range from 1 m2/g to 3 m2/g inclusive.
However, this surface area range is common in the art for negative electrode active material particles. For instance, Hirakawa teaches a similar negative electrode active material for a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery (title; abstract; [0144]), wherein the negative electrode active material comprises a negative electrode active material particle that contains a silicon compound particle (SiOx: 0.5
≤
x
≤
1.5) ([0124]-[0125]). Hirakawa further teaches that a BET specific surface area of the negative electrode active material particle is in a range from 2.0 m2/g to 6 m2/g ([0099]-[0101]), overlapping the claimed range of 1 m2/g to 3 m2/g. In the case where the claimed range overlaps the range disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05. Hirakawa further teaches that configuring the negative electrode active material particles in this way prevents a decline in discharge-capacity maintenance while also making it possible to demonstrate a larger first-round discharge capacity ([0099]-[0101]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured the negative electrode active material particles disclosed by Chen to have a BET specific surface area within the claimed range, as taught by Hirakawa, because they would have had a reasonable expectation that doing so would prevent a decline in discharge-capacity maintenance while also demonstrating a larger first-round discharge capacity.
Regarding claim 26, Chen discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 16. Chen further discloses that a median diameter (D50) of the negative electrode active material particle is in a range of 1 to 10 µm ([0038]), overlapping the claimed range of from 4.0 µm to 15 µm inclusive. In the case where the claimed range overlaps the range disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05. Therefore, absent any showing of unexpected results or criticality, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Chen to have satisfied the claimed range based on the overlapping range disclosed by Chen. Chen fails to explicitly disclose, however, that a ratio (D90/D10) between 10% accumulation diameter (D10) and 90% accumulation diameter (D90) is equal to or lower than 3.
However, this particle size distribution is known in the art. For instance, Hirakawa teaches a similar negative electrode active material for a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery (title; abstract; [0144]), wherein the negative electrode active material comprises a negative electrode active material particle that contains a silicon compound particle (SiOx: 0.5
≤
x
≤
1.5) ([0124]-[0125]). Hirakawa further teaches that a median diameter (D50) of the negative electrode active material particle is between 4.5 µm to 8.0 µm ([0102]-[0104]), suggesting the claimed range of 4.0 µm to 15 µm inclusive. Hirakawa further teaches that a ratio (D10/D90) between 10% accumulation diameter (D10) and 90% accumulation diameter (D90) is 0.1 or more to 0.6 or less ([0197]), making a ratio (D90/D10) be equal to 1.67 or more (1/0.6) to 10 or less (1/0.1), overlapping the claimed range of equal to or lower than 3. In the case where the claimed range overlaps the range disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05. Hirakawa further teaches that configuring the negative electrode active material particles in this way prevents the augmentation of the decomposed products of electrolytic solution while also preventing a decline in the stability of the battery’s characteristics ([0197]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have to configured the negative electrode active material particles disclosed by Chen to have a ratio (D90/D10) within the claimed range, as taught by Hirakawa, because they would have had a reasonable expectation that doing so would prevent the augmentation of the decomposed products of the electrolytic solution while also preventing a decline in the stability of the battery’s characteristics.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRENDON C DARBY whose telephone number is (571)272-1225. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 7:30am - 5:00pm.
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, Katelyn Smith can be reached at (571) 270-5545. 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.
/B.C.D./Examiner, Art Unit 1749
/KATELYN W SMITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1749
Prosecution Insights