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/Restriction
Applicant’s election of Group I, claim(s) 1–7, 13, and 14, in the reply filed on 06/22/26 is acknowledged. Examiner notes that this response was incomplete because the restriction also included an election of species (Species A–C). Accordingly, Examiner called on 06/24/26 to inform Applicant of this deficiency and to a request a complete election. Applicant followed up on 06/25/26 with a complete election of Species A (one or more elements is B).
Examiner submits that claims 1–7, 13, and 14 read on the elected group and species. Thus, claim(s) 8–12 is/are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in each reply.
Claim Objections
It is recommended that Applicant amend the claims as follows:
In claim 4, line 2, “a distance from a center to a surface of the silicon-based composite” should read “a distance from [[a]] the center to [[a]] the surface of the silicon-based composite” to denote proper antecedence from claim 1.
In claim 4, line 4, “the center to the surface of the silicon-based composite to the surface has a higher value” should seemingly read “the center to the surface of the silicon-based composite
In claim 5, line 2, “a distance from a center to a surface of the silicon-based composite” should read “a distance from [[a]] the center to [[a]] the surface of the silicon-based composite” to denote proper antecedence from claim 1.
In claim 5, lines 4 and 5, “the center to the surface of the silicon-based composite to the surface has a value higher” should seemingly read “the center to the surface of the silicon-based composite
In claim 5, line 6, “a point where Ra becomes 0.5 Ra” should read “[[a]] the point where Ra becomes 0.5 Ra” to denote proper antecedence from the beginning of claim 5.
Appropriate correction is required.
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(s) 4 is/are 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 4 recites “a concentration of the one or more elements comprised in a region from a point where Ra becomes 0.75 Ra in the direction from the center to the surface of the silicon-based composite … has a higher value than a concentration of the one or more elements comprised in the remaining regions” in lines 3–6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the remaining regions” because there appears to only be antecedent basis for “a region from a point where Ra becomes 0.75 Ra”, and it is unclear that there is inherent antecedent basis for “other regions” given that one could delineate 0.75 Ra to Ra as the only remaining “region”. Moreover, even if there were inherent antecedent basis, it would appear unclear which regions “the remaining regions” referenced.
The specification’s pp. 16 and 17 describe a “fourth region” corresponding to a point from 0.75 Ra to Ra, though such is exemplary and, thus, non-limiting to the type or number of regions. Therefore, under broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, for this Office Action claim 4 will be interpreted to require that the concentration of the one or more elements comprised in a region from a point where Ra becomes 0.75 Ra in the direction from the center to the surface of the silicon-based composite has a higher value than a concentration of the one or more elements comprised in any remaining regions, as appears broadly suggested by pp. 16 and 17.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claim(s) 1–7, 13, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito (JP 2016152213 A, from 10/27/23 IDS; see mach. translation in 05/01/26 PTO-892) in view of Bridel et al. (WO 2018050585 A1) (Bridel).
Regarding claims 1–3, 13, and 14, Ito discloses a secondary battery (e.g., ¶ 0012, 0014, exs.) comprising a negative electrode comprising a negative electrode active material (Id.) having a silicon-based composite (B-O co-doped Si particles, e.g., Ex. 1, ¶ 0136), the silicon-based composite comprising silicon-based particles (Si particles, ¶ 0136); and one element of B and distributed in the silicon-based particles (via doping, ¶ 0136).
As established above, Ito discloses that O and B are co-doped into the Si particles via a Si-B-O coating layer atop the Si substrate (e.g., ¶ 0033). Regarding the weight percentages of Si, O, and B based on 100 parts by weight of the silicon-based particles, the skilled artisan would recognize that the vast majority of the mass should come from the Si particles for capacity given that such is the Li-intercalating material (as implied at least by capacity discussion of ¶ 0021 and 0178 and the fact that O and B are deemed dopants in ¶ 0136). Meanwhile, the artisan would recognize that the dopants should be included at relatively low concentrations to avoid detracting from such capacity and intercalation but must be included at contents sufficient for increased conductivity (e.g., ¶ 0021, 0033).
Although Ito may fail to explicitly disclose ≥ 95 parts by weight Si, ≤ 3 parts by weight O (claim 2), and 0.1–50 parts by weight B (claim 3) based on 100 parts by weight of the silicon-based composite, considering that Ito is analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely B-doped, Si-based negative electrode active material, to balance suitable capacity with improved conductivity, it would have been readily envisaged by and obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the claimed invention’s effective filing date, to arrive at each recited range by routinely optimizing the wt% of each of Si, O, and B (MPEP 2144.05 (II)).
Further, Bridel teaches a Si-based negative electrode active material composite (Abstract), where the content of O is < 3 wt% (claim 5). Bridel compares materials P, Q, and R including respective O contents of 0.5 wt%, 0.9 wt%, and 28 wt% (Table 2), where increasing O content deteriorates cycle life and first cycle irreversibility (Table 3).
Bridel is analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely Si-based negative electrode active material.
It would have been further obvious to arrive at 95 parts by weight Si (claim 1) and ≤ 3 parts by weight O (claim 2) by minimizing the O content—and, thus, relatively increasing the Si content—with the reasonable expectation of achieving improved cycle life and first cycle irreversibility, as taught by Bridel.
Ito further discloses that the Si-containing particles may be gradient particles in which the B concentration decreases from particle surface to center (¶ 0016), though Ito appears to fail to explicitly disclose such in Ex. 1.
It would have been obvious to distribute B in a concentration gradient increasing from the center to the surface of the silicon-based composite with the reasonable expectation of achieving successful active particles.
Regarding claim 4, modified Ito discloses the negative electrode active material of claim 1.
As established above, Ito discloses a positive B gradient from center to surface. As a gradient, by definition, is a continual change, and any other portions of Ito’s radius outside 0.75r–r could be considered “the remaining regions”, Ito would necessarily disclose that when a distance from the center to the surface of the silicon-based composite is defined as Ra, a concentration of the one element comprised in a region from a point where Ra becomes 0.75 Ra in the direction from the center to the surface of the silicon-based composite
Regarding claim 5, modified Ito discloses the negative electrode active material of claim 1.
As established above, Ito dopes the Si material with B for higher conductivity (e.g., ¶ 0021), and the skilled artisan would recognize that B’s concentration must continually increase from center to surface to conform to the above gradient. The artisan would further understand, however, that including too much B at any point along the gradient would necessarily hamper capacity by detracting from Si (as implied by ¶ 0021).
Although Ito may fail to explicitly disclose that when a distance from the center to the surface of the silicon-based composite is defined as Ra, a concentration of the one element comprised in a region from a point where Ra becomes 0.75 Ra in the direction from the center to the surface of the silicon-based composite
Regarding claim 6, modified Ito discloses the negative electrode active material of claim 1.
Although Ito discloses that the Si-based particles/Si substrate is crystalline (¶ 0019), Ito appears to fail to disclose a size of such crystals and, thus, 5–1000 nm.
Bridel further teaches that the Si particles in the composite exhibit a d50, i.e., mean size, of 200 nm or less (p. 5, lines 25 and 26).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that Ito's Si crystals must necessarily be incorporated with some size, and, as demonstrated by Bridel, the skilled artisan would find it obvious to employ a mean size ≤ 200 nm and reasonably expect to achieve successful particles. This range overlaps the recited 5–1000 nm so significantly so as to read on the range with sufficient specificity, absent criticality below 5 nm (note that spec.’s comp. exs. all include Si grain size within claimed range).
Regarding claim 7, modified Ito discloses the negative electrode active material of claim 1.
However, in appearing unconcerned with the particle size of the composite, Ito fails to articulate a value of such and, thus, that the negative electrode active material has a D50 of 0.5–50 μm.
Bridel further teaches that the composite particles have a D50 of 1–20 μm (claim 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that Ito's composite particles must necessarily be incorporated with some size, and, as demonstrated by Bridel, the skilled artisan would find it obvious to employ a D50 of 1–20 μm (falling within 0.5–50 μm) and reasonably expect to achieve successful particles.
Conclusion
The cited art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20150243972 A1 and WO 2022104143 A1 both disclose Si negative electrode active material that may be gradient-doped.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN S MEDLEY whose telephone number is (703)756-4600. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00–5:00 EST M–Th and 8:00–12:00 EST F.
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, Jonathan Leong, can be reached on 571-270-192. 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.
/J.S.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/Haroon S. Sheikh/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1751
Prosecution Insights