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 .
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.
Claim Status
Claims 1-5 have been canceled.
Claims 6-21 are newly added; support for these claims can be found in original claims 1-5.
Claims 6-21 have been examined on the merits.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of the applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Japan on 08/11/2021. It is noted that applicant has filed a certified copy of the application, JP2021-131146, as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
Each information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on or before 03/16/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner and an initial copy is attached herewith.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 6, line 6 “roughened surface” should read “a roughened surface”.
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.
Claims 6-21 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.
The term “lower” in claim 6 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “lower” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term “lower” renders the limitation “amount of oxygen” indefinite as it is not clear what the amount of oxygen is lower than. The following limitation “a plurality of second regions having a higher amount of oxygen than the first regions” establishes that the first regions have a lower amount of oxygen than the second regions but as claimed, it is not clear that the “lower amount of oxygen” is lower solely relative to the amount of oxygen of the second regions (i.e. the amount of oxygen may be lower relative to something else). Claims 7-21 are rendered indefinite because of dependence on claim 6.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 6 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Matsumoto (US20100159337A1 cited IDS of 04/18/2024).
Regarding claim 6, Matsumoto discloses a negative electrode ([0256]) comprising:
a negative electrode current collector (Fig. 10; 72A; [0256]) with a surface (surface with roughness per [0256]) having roughened surface ([0256]); and
a negative electrode active material layer (Fig. 10; 72B) provided on the negative electrode current collector (72A),
wherein the negative electrode active material layer (72B) has a multilayer structure ([0256]),
in the multilayer structure ([0256]), a central portion (annotated Fig. 10; CP) of each layer ([0256]) in a thickness direction (annotated Fig. 10; Z) includes a composite compound (Si, SiOx per [0256] and lithium inserted during charging of the battery) containing silicon ([0256]), lithium (lithium is inserted into the negative electrode during charging of the battery), and oxygen ([0256]), a plurality of first regions (layer of Si per [0256]) having a lower amount of oxygen (Si has less oxygen than SiOx), and a plurality of second regions (SiOx of [0256]) having a higher amount of oxygen (SiOx has more oxygen than Si) than the first regions (Si), and
an average width (“film thickness”; [0256]) of each of a maximum width (“film thickness”; [0256]) in the first regions (Si) and a maximum width (“film thickness”; [0256]) in the second regions (SiOx) is 10 nm or less (5 nm per [0256]).
PNG
media_image1.png
301
509
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 14, Matsumoto discloses wherein ten-point mean roughness Rz ([0256]) of the surface ([0256]) of the negative electrode current collector ([0256]) is within a range of 1.5 um or more and 5 um or less (3 um per [0256]).
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.
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.
Claims 6-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kogetsu (US 20060134518 A1, cited 03/16/2024).
Regarding claim 6, Kogetsu discloses a negative electrode (Fig. 1) comprising:
a negative electrode current collector (Fig. 1; 2) with a surface (Fig. 1; top surface of 2) and
a negative electrode active material layer (Fig. 1; 1) provided on the negative electrode current collector (2),
wherein the negative electrode active material layer (1) has a multilayer structure (Fig. 1; 1),
in the multilayer structure (1), a central portion (annotated Fig. 1; CP) of each layer (Fig. 1; each layer is a combination of 1a and 1b) in a thickness direction (annotated Fig. 1) includes a composite compound (“SiO.sub.x”; [0055]; “Li.sub.xSi and Li.sub.xSiO.sub.y”; [0053] and other lithium inserted during charging) containing silicon ([0053]; [0055]), lithium ([0053]; the SiO.sub.x of [0055] has lithium inserted during charging), and oxygen ([0053]; [0055]), a plurality of first regions (Fig. 1; 1a) having a lower amount of oxygen ([0055] teaches oxygen content in 1a is lower than 1b), and a plurality of second regions (Fig. 1; 1b) having a higher amount of oxygen ([0055]) than the first regions (1a), and
an average width (“thickness”; [0056]) of each of a maximum width (“maximum thicknesses”; [0063]) in the first regions (1a) and a maximum width (“maximum thicknesses”; [0063]) in the second regions (1b) is 10 nm or less (5 nm to 1 um per [0056-0057]).
PNG
media_image2.png
309
594
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have employed an average width of each of a maximum width in the first regions and a maximum width in the second regions of 5 to 10 in Kogetsu because these values are within ranges disclosed by Kogetsu.
Kogetsu also teaches another current collector ([0067]) having roughened surface ([0067]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Kogetsu by roughening the surface of the current collector in order to improve adhesion as taught by Kogetsu ([0067]).
Regarding claim 7, Kogetsu fails to explicitly disclose wherein a ratio of oxygen/silicon is higher than 1/3 in a peak intensity analyzed by a TEM-EDX of the composite compound in each of the first regions and the second regions. Kogetsu does teach a ran
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected a ratio of oxygen/silicon of higher than 1/3 in the first and second regions because this range is within the broader range taught by Kogetsu ([0055]). Further, by performing this modification, a ratio of oxygen/silicon higher than 1/3 in a peak intensity analyzed by a TEM-EDX of the composite compound in each of the first regions and the second regions would naturally be present.
Regarding claim 8, Kogetsu discloses wherein the composite compound ([0053, 0055]) does not have a crystal plane of Si (111) in TEM observation (“the first and second layers were both amorphous”; [0125]; also, Kogetsu does not teach the crystallization of the composite compound).
Regarding claim 9, wherein the composite compound ([0053, 0055]) does not have a crystal plane of Si (111) in TEM observation (“the first and second layers were both amorphous”; [0125]; also, Kogetsu does not teach the crystallization of the composite compound).
Regarding claim 10, wherein the composite compound ([0053, 0055]) does not have a crystal plane of Si (111) in TEM observation (“the first and second layers were both amorphous”; [0125]; also, Kogetsu does not teach the crystallization of the composite compound).
Regarding claim 11, Kogetsu fails to explicitly disclose wherein the composite compound contains at least any one of Li4SiO4 and Li2SiO3.
However, Kogetsu does suggest ([0053]) wherein the composite compound ([0053]; [0055]) contains at least any one of Li4SiO4 and Li2SiO3 ([0053]) because Kogetsu teaches that as the oxygen ratio of silicon oxide decreases it becomes possible for lithium and silicon to react with each other and form LixSiOy ([0053]) which includes both Li4SiO4 and Li2SiO3.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention that the composite compound contains at least any one of Li4SiO4 and Li2SiO3 because Kogetsu teaches that the first region has a low oxygen to silicon ratio ([0046]) which according to Kogetsu’s disclosure ([0055]) would naturally result in the formation of LixSiOy which encompasses Li4SiO4 and Li2SiO3.
Claims 8-9 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kogetsu (US 20060134518 A1, cited 03/16/2024) in view of Iwamoto (US 20090047577 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Kogetsu fails to explicitly disclose wherein the composite compound does not have a crystal plane of Si (111) in TEM observation.
Iwamoto discloses a composite compound (“silicon oxide”; [0020] and any lithium silicate naturally generated during the charging process) having an amorphous structure ([0020]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Kogetsu by substituting the undisclosed crystallinity of Kogetsu’s composite compound for a fully amorphous structure in order to obtain a negative electrode active material for a lithium ion secondary battery capable of exerting excellent charge-discharge cycle characteristics while maintaining a high charge-discharge capacity as taught by Iwamoto ([0020]). Doing so would have rendered the limitation wherein the composite compound does not have a crystal plane of Si (111) in TEM observation obvious as a crystal plane of Si(111) would not be expected in TEM observation of a fully amorphous structure.
Regarding claim 9, Kogetsu fails to explicitly disclose wherein the composite compound does not have a crystal plane of Si (111) in TEM observation.
Iwamoto discloses a composite compound (“silicon oxide”; [0020] and any lithium silicate naturally generated during the charging process) having an amorphous structure ([0020]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Kogetsu by substituting the undisclosed crystallinity of Kogetsu’s composite compound for a fully amorphous structure in order to obtain a negative electrode active material for a lithium ion secondary battery capable of exerting excellent charge-discharge cycle characteristics while maintaining a high charge-discharge capacity as taught by Iwamoto ([0020]). Doing so would have rendered the limitation wherein the composite compound does not have a crystal plane of Si (111) in TEM observation obvious as a crystal plane of Si(111) would not be expected in TEM observation of a fully amorphous structure.
Regarding claim 12, Kogetsu in view of Iwamoto fails to explicitly disclose wherein the composite compound contains at least any one of Li4SiO4 and Li2SiO3.
However, Kogetsu does suggest ([0053]) wherein the composite compound ([0053]; [0055]) contains at least any one of Li4SiO4 and Li2SiO3 ([0053]) because Kogetsu teaches that as the oxygen ratio of silicon oxide decreases it becomes possible for lithium and silicon to react with each other and form LixSiOy ([0053]) which includes both Li4SiO4 and Li2SiO3.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention that the composite compound of Kogetsu in view of Iwamoto contains at least any one of Li4SiO4 and Li2SiO3 because Kogetsu teaches that the first region has a low oxygen to silicon ratio ([0046]) which according to Kogetsu’s disclosure ([0055]) would naturally result in the formation of LixSiOy which encompasses Li4SiO4 and Li2SiO3.
Regarding claim 13, Kogetsu in view of Iwamoto fails to explicitly disclose wherein the composite compound contains at least any one of Li4SiO4 and Li2SiO3.
However, Kogetsu does suggest ([0053]) wherein the composite compound ([0053]; [0055]) contains at least any one of Li4SiO4 and Li2SiO3 ([0053]) because Kogetsu teaches that as the oxygen ratio of silicon oxide decreases it becomes possible for lithium and silicon to react with each other and form LixSiOy ([0053]) which includes both Li4SiO4 and Li2SiO3.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention that the composite compound of Kogetsu in view of Iwamoto contains at least any one of Li4SiO4 and Li2SiO3 because Kogetsu teaches that the first region has a low oxygen to silicon ratio ([0046]) which according to Kogetsu’s disclosure ([0055]) would naturally result in the formation of LixSiOy which encompasses Li4SiO4 and Li2SiO3.
Claims 14-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kogetsu (US 20060134518 A1, cited 03/16/2024) in view of Matsumoto (US 20100159337 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Kogetsu fails to disclose wherein ten-point mean roughness Rz of the surface of the negative electrode current collector is within a range of 1.5 um or more and 5 um or less.
Matsumoto discloses wherein ten-point mean roughness Rz ([0045]) of a surface ([0045]) of a negative electrode current collector ([0045]) is within a range of 1.5 um or more and 5 um or less (1.5 to 6.5 um [0045]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Kogetsu by substituting a ten-point mean roughness Rz of the surface of the negative electrode current collector within a range of 1.5 um or more and 5 um or less for the roughness of Kogetsu’s collector in order to improve the contact characteristics between the anode current collector and the anode active material layer as taught by Matsumoto ([0045]).
Regarding claim 15, Kogetsu fails to disclose wherein ten-point mean roughness Rz of the surface of the negative electrode current collector is within a range of 1.5 um or more and 5 um or less.
Matsumoto discloses wherein ten-point mean roughness Rz ([0045]) of a surface ([0045]) of a negative electrode current collector ([0045]) is within a range of 1.5 um or more and 5 um or less (1.5 to 6.5 um [0045]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Kogetsu by substituting a ten-point mean roughness Rz of the surface of the negative electrode current collector within a range of 1.5 um or more and 5 um or less for the roughness of Kogetsu’s collector in order to improve the contact characteristics between the anode current collector and the anode active material layer as taught by Matsumoto ([0045]).
Regarding claim 16, Kogetsu fails to disclose wherein ten-point mean roughness Rz of the surface of the negative electrode current collector is within a range of 1.5 um or more and 5 um or less.
Matsumoto discloses wherein ten-point mean roughness Rz ([0045]) of a surface ([0045]) of a negative electrode current collector ([0045]) is within a range of 1.5 um or more and 5 um or less (1.5 to 6.5 um [0045]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Kogetsu by substituting a ten-point mean roughness Rz of the surface of the negative electrode current collector within a range of 1.5 um or more and 5 um or less for the roughness of Kogetsu’s collector in order to improve the contact characteristics between the anode current collector and the anode active material layer as taught by Matsumoto ([0045]).
Regarding claim 17, Kogetsu fails to disclose wherein ten-point mean roughness Rz of the surface of the negative electrode current collector is within a range of 1.5 um or more and 5 um or less.
Matsumoto discloses wherein ten-point mean roughness Rz ([0045]) of a surface ([0045]) of a negative electrode current collector ([0045]) is within a range of 1.5 um or more and 5 um or less (1.5 to 6.5 um [0045]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Kogetsu by substituting a ten-point mean roughness Rz of the surface of the negative electrode current collector within a range of 1.5 um or more and 5 um or less for the roughness of Kogetsu’s collector in order to improve the contact characteristics between the anode current collector and the anode active material layer as taught by Matsumoto ([0045]).
Regarding claim 18, Kogetsu fails to disclose wherein ten-point mean roughness Rz of the surface of the negative electrode current collector is within a range of 1.5 um or more and 5 um or less.
Matsumoto discloses wherein ten-point mean roughness Rz ([0045]) of a surface ([0045]) of a negative electrode current collector ([0045]) is within a range of 1.5 um or more and 5 um or less (1.5 to 6.5 um [0045]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Kogetsu by substituting a ten-point mean roughness Rz of the surface of the negative electrode current collector within a range of 1.5 um or more and 5 um or less for the roughness of Kogetsu’s collector in order to improve the contact characteristics between the anode current collector and the anode active material layer as taught by Matsumoto ([0045]).
Regarding claim 19, Kogetsu fails to disclose wherein ten-point mean roughness Rz of the surface of the negative electrode current collector is within a range of 1.5 um or more and 5 um or less.
Matsumoto discloses wherein ten-point mean roughness Rz ([0045]) of a surface ([0045]) of a negative electrode current collector ([0045]) is within a range of 1.5 um or more and 5 um or less (1.5 to 6.5 um [0045]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Kogetsu by substituting a ten-point mean roughness Rz of the surface of the negative electrode current collector within a range of 1.5 um or more and 5 um or less for the roughness of Kogetsu’s collector in order to improve the contact characteristics between the anode current collector and the anode active material layer as taught by Matsumoto ([0045]).
Regarding claim 20, Kogetsu fails to disclose wherein ten-point mean roughness Rz of the surface of the negative electrode current collector is within a range of 1.5 um or more and 5 um or less.
Matsumoto discloses wherein ten-point mean roughness Rz ([0045]) of a surface ([0045]) of a negative electrode current collector ([0045]) is within a range of 1.5 um or more and 5 um or less (1.5 to 6.5 um [0045]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Kogetsu by substituting a ten-point mean roughness Rz of the surface of the negative electrode current collector within a range of 1.5 um or more and 5 um or less for the roughness of Kogetsu’s collector in order to improve the contact characteristics between the anode current collector and the anode active material layer as taught by Matsumoto ([0045]).
Regarding claim 21, Kogetsu fails to disclose wherein ten-point mean roughness Rz of the surface of the negative electrode current collector is within a range of 1.5 um or more and 5 um or less.
Matsumoto discloses wherein ten-point mean roughness Rz ([0045]) of a surface ([0045]) of a negative electrode current collector ([0045]) is within a range of 1.5 um or more and 5 um or less (1.5 to 6.5 um [0045]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Kogetsu by substituting a ten-point mean roughness Rz of the surface of the negative electrode current collector within a range of 1.5 um or more and 5 um or less for the roughness of Kogetsu’s collector in order to improve the contact characteristics between the anode current collector and the anode active material layer as taught by Matsumoto ([0045]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GRACE A KENLAW whose telephone number is (571)272-1253. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM-6:00 PM.
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, Tiffany Legette-Thompson can be reached at (571) 270-7078. 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.
/G.A.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1723 /TIFFANY LEGETTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights