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 .
Response to Amendments
In response to the Amendments received 07/23/2026:
Claims 1-15 are pending in the current application. Claims 1, 7, and 13 have been amended.
The previous claim objection has been overcome in light of the amendments.
The previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) have been overcome in light of the amendments.
Claim Interpretation
Independent claims 1 and 13 recite “…a negative electrode material comprising silicon monoxide particles…”. A particle is defined as a small piece or amount of a physical substance. The disclosure teaches forming the silicon monoxide particles by mixing powders of silicon dioxide with particles of metal silicon that are crushed and heated to form said particle (P73). In other embodiments the particle is formed by including additional carbon (i.e. claims 4 and 6). Accordingly a silicon monoxide particle may be interpreted as an agglomeration/agglomerate or composite particle made up of smaller particles stuck together (i.e. combination of powders) and/or particles including surface coatings/shells/layer. The particle may be made as a core-shell, yolk-shell, secondary particle or other interpretations that fall within the broad definition of a particle as long as it meets the claimed limitation.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-2, 4-5,7-10, and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang et al. (CN109638254A – wherein US20220052327A1 is used as translation).
Regarding claim 1, Jiang teaches a negative electrode material, comprising silicon monoxide particles (P6-7.32-33.47), wherein a molar ratio A of oxygen to silicon on a surface of the silicon monoxide particle and a molar ratio B of oxygen to silicon at any point above 25 nm from the surface of the silicon monoxide particle satisfy A/B > 1.5, or wherein a core of SiOx- wherein x is about 0.5 to 1.5, such as SiO (P42.47) and the surface comprises a porous oxide layer of component MeOy where y is about 0.5 to 3 and Me may include Si (P27.43).
While Jiang is silent in teaching the ratio of A/B>1.5, examples are provided wherein the core comprises silicon monoxide with a thickness of 500 nm to 30,000 nm, and the surface of the core is a porous oxide layer bonded with Si and may include SiOy -(y:0.5-3), or TiO2 or Al2O3 (P27.32.43.48.64-66.83).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application that a ratio of A/B is greater than 1.5 wherein at a distance of 25 nm from the surface oxide component, i.e. on surface with MeOy component such as TiO2 bonded with silicon monoxide component, the core is present comprising silicon monoxide, and thus the ratio of such MeOy- surface bonded with Si comprises oxygen in a greater amount relative to Si than the silicon monoxide core. 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. MPEP 2112
Regarding claim 2, Jiang teaches a molar ratio B of oxygen to silicon inside the silicon monoxide particle satisfies 0.5 [Symbol font/0xA3] B [Symbol font/0xA3] 1.5, or a core of silicon monoxide (P42.47.121).
Regarding claim 3, Jiang teaches comprising a conductive material provided on the surface of the silicon monoxide particle, the conductive material comprises at least one of amorphous carbon, or the carbon precursor of a phenolic resin is sintered in an inert atmosphere on a surface of the silicon monoxide particles, thus forming an amorphous carbon layer, taught to have a thickness of 10 nm to 50 nm, overlapping the claimed thickness of 1 nm to 50 nm and a mass percentage of 1 to 10 weight% of the anode material (P15.55-56.65.82-84.142; Table 1-2; Fig. 1). 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. MPEP 2112
Regarding claim 4, Jiang teaches further comprising a polymer provided on the surface of the silicon monoxide particle, or the anode contain a binder material that is mixed with the silicon oxide particle, and thus on the surface (P89.136.142) wherein based on a total mass of the negative electrode material, a mass percentage of the polymer is 1% to 10%; and the polymer comprises at least one of carboxymethyl cellulose, polyacrylic acid, polyvinyl alcohol, polyamide, polyacrylic ester, for example a polymer or polyacrylic acid is mixed with the particle and 3.8% of the total mass of the negative electrode material (P86.136.142)
Regarding claim 5, Jiang teaches the average particle size of the silicon monoxide particle is about 3 to 8 µm (P53).
While Jiang is silent in teaching the Dv50, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the Dv50 of the silicon monoxide particles would fall within the size average of 3 µm to 8 µm overlapping the claimed range of 1 µm to 15 µm.
Regarding claim 7, Jiang teaches the particle size range of the negative electrode material is between 3.0 and 42 µm, with an example comprising a range of 3.0 to 25 µm and wherein particle size was found in the same way as the instant disclosure (P131; Table 2).
While Jiang is silent in teaching the Dv50, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the Dv50 of the negative electrode material particles would fall within the size range of 3 to 25 µm using the same method of calculation, overlapping the claimed range of 3 µm to 15 µm.
Regarding claim 8, Jiang teaches the particle size range of the negative electrode material is between 3.0 and 42 µm, with an example comprising a range of 3.0 to 25 µm and wherein particle size was found in the same way as the instant disclosure (P131; Table 2).
While Jiang is silent in teaching the Dv99, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the Dv99 of the negative electrode material particles would fall within the size range of 3 to 25 µm using the same method of calculation, overlapping the claimed range of 10 µm to 45 µm to have a uniform size distribution. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” It is well settled that it is an obvious matter of design choice to change the general shape or size of a known element in the absence of a disclosed non-obvious advantage associated with the change.
Regarding claim 9, Jiang teaches the average particle diameter is about 500 nm to 30 µm (P53) where about is defined as +/- 10% (P40) and wherein particle size was found in the same way as the instant disclosure (P131; Table 2).
While Jiang is silent in explicitly teaching the claimed Dv50 range, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to reasonably expect that since the claimed upper limit Dv50 of 500 nm is close/overlaps the lower limit of the diameter of the prior art of 500 nm, that the of the negative electrode material particles would have the same as, or similar to, performance of the claimed range. Further it would have been obvious to person having reasonable skill in the art to employ a diameter within the expanded range of the prior art, falling within the claimed Dv50 of 60 nm to 500 nm with reasonable expectation of success. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. MPEP 2144.05
Regarding claim 10, Jiang teaches examples wherein the capacity falls within a range of 1259 to 1320mAh/g (P144-146; Table 2), overlapping the claimed range of 600 mAh/g to 1400 mAh/g. While Jiang is silent in teaching such a capacity at 2.0 V, given that Jiang teaches the importance of maintaining capacity, and examples operated within the claimed range, one of ordinary skill in the art would assume that the negative electrode material of Jiang is capable of performing the claimed function.
“Claims drawn to an device must distinguish from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function” MPEP 2114 “It is well settled that the recitation of a new intended use for an old product does not make a claim to that old product patentable.”
Regarding claim 13, Jiang teaches a negative electrode plate (P142) comprising a negative electrode material, comprising silicon monoxide particles (P6-7.32-33.47), wherein a molar ratio A of oxygen to silicon on a surface of the silicon monoxide particle and a molar ratio B of oxygen to silicon at any point above 25 nm from the surface of the silicon monoxide particle satisfy A/B > 1.5, or wherein a core of SiOx- wherein x is about 0.5 to 1.5, such as SiO (P42.47) and the surface comprises a porous oxide layer of component MeOy where y is about 0.5 to 3 and Me may include Si (P27.43).
While Jiang is silent in teaching the ratio of A/B>1.5, examples are provided wherein the core comprises silicon monoxide with a thickness of 500 nm to 30,000 nm, and the surface of the core is a porous oxide layer bonded with Si and may include SiOy -(y:0.5-3), or TiO2 or Al2O3 (P27.32.43.48.64-66.83).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application that a ratio of A/B is greater than 1.5 wherein at a distance of 25 nm from the surface oxide component, i.e. on surface with MeOy component such as TiO2 bonded with silicon monoxide component, the core is present comprising silicon monoxide, and thus the ratio of such MeOy- surface bonded with Si comprises oxygen in a greater amount relative to Si than the silicon monoxide core. 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. MPEP 2112
Regarding claim 14, Jiang teaches an electrochemical apparatus, or lithium battery comprising the negative electrode plate (P2.110-117)
Regarding claim 15, Jiang teaches an electronic apparatus or device comprising the electrochemical apparatus or battery (P2.110-117).
Claims 3, 6, and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang as applied to at least claim 1 above, and further in view of Maeda (US 20170214090).
Regarding claim 3, Jiang teaches comprising a conductive material provided on the surface of the silicon monoxide particle, the conductive material comprises at least one of amorphous carbon, or the carbon precursor of a phenolic resin is sintered in an inert atmosphere on a surface of the silicon monoxide particles, thus forming an amorphous carbon layer, taught to have a thickness of 10 nm to 50 nm, overlapping the claimed thickness of 1 nm to 50 nm and a mass percentage of 1 to 10 weight% of the anode material (P15.55-56.65.82-84.142; Table 1-2; Fig. 1). 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. MPEP 2112
Furthermore, Maeda, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches a negative electrode material comprising silicon oxide particles with a carbonaceous coating (P80-99).
Maeda teaches that using amorphous carbon as a coating on a silicon composite reduces volume expansion as a whole and is less likely to be deteriorated and is included in a mass percent amount of 2% to 30% (P84-86.92).
Therefore, it also would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have the carbonaceous coating of Jiang be amorphous and present in an amount of 2% to 30%, overlapping the claimed range of 0.5% to 8%, to prevent deterioration, as taught by Maeda.
Regarding claim 6, Jiang teaches comprising amorphous carbon, such as ketjen black or carbon black (P96.136)
Furthermore, Maeda, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches a negative electrode material comprising silicon oxide particles with a carbonaceous coating (P80-99).
Maeda teaches that using amorphous carbon as a coating on a silicon composite reduces volume expansion as a whole and is less likely to be deteriorated and is included in a mass percent amount of 2% to 30% (P84-86.92).
Therefore, it also would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have the carbonaceous coating of Jiang be amorphous as taught by Maeda.
Regarding claim 11, Jiang teaches based on a total mass of the negative electrode material a mass percentage of the amorphous carbon, or carbon black in an example is 10% (P136), falling within the claimed range of 5% to 50%. Jiang in view of Maeda further teaches a mass percent amount of 2% to 30% for the amorphous carbon, overlapping the claimed range of 5% to 50%, to prevent deterioration (P84-86.92).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang as applied to at least claim 1 above, and further in view of Put et al. (US20150325839A1).
Regarding claim 12, Jiang teaches having mass ratio of the silicon components to the carbon within the negative electrode mixture but is silent in explicitly teaching the mass percentage of silicon based on a total mass of the negative electrode material is between 15% and 38%.
However, Put, in a similar field of endeavor, also teaches a silicon composite active material. Put teaches the silicon content as a result effective variable wherein too much silicon (i.e. above 50 wt%) may lead to rapid capacity fading due to mechanical stress, and too low silicon content (i.e., below 10 wt%) may lead to low specific capacity (P97-99.130).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to find a mass percentage of silicon based on total mass of the negative electrode material of Jiang, that is high enough to reach a desired specific capacity, but not so high to mechanically stress the system and arrive at a percentage between 10 wt% and 50 wt%, as suggested by Put, overlapping the claimed range of 15 wt% to 38 wt%. Furthermore, absent objective evidence of unexpected results commensurate in scope with the claimed subject matter, it is considered an obvious expedient to determine an optimum or workable range on the basis of the following case law:
“[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” MPEP 2144.05.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues:
PNG
media_image1.png
442
641
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As included in the claim interpretation section, above, a particle has a broad interpretation and can be interpreted as a secondary, complex, primary, aggregate, core-shell, or yolk-shell particle as non-limiting examples of a particle. Fig. 1 of Jiang clearly shows a core-shell silicon monoxide particle, or a silicon monoxide particle comprising a shell. Examiner notes the oxide layer on the surface of the particles in the claimed invention.
Accordingly, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., silicon monoxide particle structure i.e. silicon monoxide with an oxide layer) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). In light of this, Applicants arguments with respect to the range are drawn to a much narrower embodiment of the invention than that claimed.
For the above reasons the examiner maintains a prima facie showing of obviousness by a preponderance of the evidence has been established.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Amanda Rosenbaum whose telephone number is (571)272-8218. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am-5 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, Nicholas A. Smith can be reached at (571) 272-8760. 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.
/Amanda Rosenbaum/Examiner, Art Unit 1752
/Helen Oi K CONLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752
Prosecution Insights