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 .
Claims 4-6 are pending in the application.
Claims 1-3 and 7 are withdrawn in the application.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II, claims 4-6 in the reply filed on 02/09/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-3 and 7 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 the reply filed on 02/09/2026.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 5 includes multiple sentences separated by periods including lines ending with "aspect ratio of 2.5 or more" and "included in the cross section". Periods may not be used elsewhere in the claims except for abbreviations, MPEP 608.01 (m). 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 5 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 5 recites “further comprising pressing” in line 1. It is unclear if the pressing step recited in claim 5 is the same pressing step recited in claim 4 or the claim requires an additional, separate pressing step rendering the claim vague and indefinite.
Claim 5 recites “the composite particles extracted by the following extraction method” while the method itself states that particles “are extracted”, without clearly indicating whether the extraction method constitutes a required step of the claimed manufacturing method.
Claim 5 recites “at least half of a plurality of the composite particles extracted…” the claim is unclear about the aspect ratio of the composite particles not included in the extracted particles on the cross section rendering the claim vague and indefinite.
Claim 5 recites “extracted in descending order of a cross-sectional area…” renders the claim indefinite. A composite particle cut near its center appears large and is extracted early whereas the same particle cut near its edge appears small and may not be extracted at all. The descending order thus changes with every cross section taken through the same electrode giving different results as to whether it satisfies the claim limitation of the composite particle aspect ratio being 2.5 or more. Therefore, it is unclear how the cross section is selected.
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wakasugi et al. (JP-2020/170605 A) in view of Hiroyuki et al. (JP-2019/121557 A). For purpose of prior art discussion refer to US PG Pub 2018/0069234 for WO 2016/146999
Regarding claim 1, Wakasugi et al. discloses a manufacturing method of porous silicon particles for use in secondary battery negative electrode comprising of acquiring a LiSi precursor removing Li from the LiSi precursor to form porous silicon particles (para. 0046-0049). Wakasugi et al. further discloses a composite particle including a plurality of porous silicon particles and a binder (para. 0014, 0021). Wakasugi et al. further discloses an active material mixture (negative electrode mixture layer) includes a composite particle and a sulfide solid electrolyte (para. 0014).
Wakasugi et al. fails to disclose pressing of the active material mixture to form an active material layer having a porosity of more than 15% in the manufacturing method of a negative electrode.
Hiroyuki et al. discloses acquiring active material mixture for use in an all-solid-state battery having a composite particle containing silicon elements (para. 0021), a binder (para. 0022, 0023) and a sulfide solid electrolyte (para 0032, 0028). Hirouyuki et al. further discloses the pressing active material mixture to give active material layer (negative electrode layer) porosity of 18% and 25% (para. 0052 – 0053, comparative Example 2 and 3) and the porosity of the active material layer can be adjusted by pressing the active material mixture (para. 0035).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the method of manufacturing of secondary battery negative electrode as disclosed by Wakasugi et al. and pressing the active material mixture to obtain an active material layer with a defined porosity as taught by Hiroyuki et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate the pressing step to manufacturing method to control the porosity there by improving the cycle characteristics of the electrode by suppressing the local expansion and contraction of the negative electrode active material.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wakasugi et al. (JP-2020/170605 A) in view of Hiroyuki et al. (JP-2019/121557 A) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Friend et al. (WO 2016/146999 A1). For purpose of prior art discussion refer to US PG Pub 2018/0069234 for WO 2016/146999.
Wakasugi et al. and Hiroyuki et al. are relied upon as described above.
Regarding claim 5, Wakasugi et al. fails to teach the composite particles used in a secondary battery negative electrode having an aspect ratio of 2.5 or more. Friend et al. discloses a method of making a composite particle composed of porous silicon for use in a metal-ion battery (abstract). Friend et al. further discloses composite particle (fragments) is characterized by the presence of plurality of elongate structural element having an aspect ratio of preferably 3:1 and most preferably at least 5:1 (para. 040-041).
All though Friend et al. does not disclose that the aspect ratio is measured using the claimed extraction method, the process relates to a way to measure the aspect ratio of the composite particles in active material mixture. The specific measurement method would not affect the actual aspect ratio of the composite particles. Given that Friend et al. discloses an aspect ratio overlapping with the applicant’s claimed range it would be expected that the aspect ratio would be present regardless of what measurement process is used to calculate it. As such, in view of the combination of Wakasugi et al. in view of Hiroyuki et al. as set forth above, the resulting particles would be such that when subjected to the extraction process as claimed, the content of particles having aspect ratios as set forth in the prior art would be as high as possible, including 50% or more, which overlaps with the presently claimed range.
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified method of making the negative electrode as disclosed by Wakasugi et al. and Hiroyuki et al. to arrive at composite particles with an aspect ratio of 2.5 or more as taught by Friend et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include composite particles with high aspect ratio to accommodate volume changes during charging and discharging.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wakasugi et al. (JP-2020/170605 A) in view of Hiroyuki et al. (JP-2019/121557 A) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Friend et al. (WO 2016/146999 A1) and Tzeng et al. (Effects of Pyrolysis on High-Capacity...). For purpose of prior art discussion refer to US PG Pub 2018/0069234 for WO 2016/146999.
Wakasugi et al., Hiroyuki et al. and Friend et al. are relied upon as described above.
Regarding claim 6, Wakasugi et al. fails to teach mixing porous silicon particles with an organic component and carbonizing the organic compound to acquire the porous silicon and porous carbon serving as a binder. Friend et al. discloses assembling the porous silicon particles with a binder to acquire an intermediate complex (para. 0080). Friend et al. further disclose a cabonised binder obtained from carbonisable precursors like sugars, polysaccharides, petroleum pitch and polymers which are converted to carbon by heating the porous particles from 600-1000oC and forming a carbon layer that coats at least a portion of the porous silicon particles (para. 0082-0083). Examples 4 and 6 (Friend et al.) discloses pyrolysis of the organic component (para 0184, 0188) to produce graphitic carbon binder/coating on the silicon particles.
Friend et al. fails to disclose the carbon formed on the porous silicon particles by the carbonizing of organic component to be porous.
Tzeng et al. discloses fabrication of anode containing silicon and an organic component (binder) for use as an anode in lithium-ion battery (page 2, para. 4). Tzeng et al. further discloses pyrolysis of a binder to form graphitic carbon coatings on silicon flakes and has a porous structure (abstract, conclusion). Tzeng et al. further discloses pyrolysis of silicon anode with an organic component (CMC, SBR) at a temperature of 700oC forming porous carbon structure with a graphitic carbon coatings on the silicon (page 4, para. 3, figure 1 and 2).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified method of making the negative electrode of Wakasugi et al. and Hiroyuki et al. to include pyrolysis of organic component step to obtain porous carbon serving as a binder as taught by Friend et al. and Tzeng et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include composite particles which includes porous silicon particles and porous carbon serving as a binder to control the formation of SEI layers on the surface of the electroactive material and the binder transformed into a porous carbon structure, provides additional buffer room for volume expansion of the silicon anode thereby improving the cycling lifetime of the electrode (Tzeng et al., page 16, para. 3)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ISWARYA MATHEW whose telephone number is (571)272-9515. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM - 3:00 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, ALICIA CHEVALIER can be reached at (571) 272-1490. 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.
/I.M./
Iswarya MathewExaminer, Art Unit 1788
03/19/2026
/Alicia Chevalier/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1788
Prosecution Insights