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 .
Status of Claims
Applicant’s amendment and arguments, filed 12/17/25, have been fully considered. Claims(s) 1 is/are amended, claim(s) 3–5 and 10–17 stand(s) as originally or previously presented; and claim(s) 2 and 6–9 is/are canceled; no new matter has been added. Examiner affirms that the original disclosure provides adequate support for the amendment.
Upon considering said amendment and arguments, the previous 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection set forth in the Office Action mailed 09/17/25 is withdrawn. Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new grounds of rejection below.
Claim Objections
3. Claim 3 is objected to for the following informality: in line 2, “SiOx (0<x<2)” should read “SiOx (0<x<2)” to clarify that “x” is a molar subscript, as in spec., e.g., ¶ 0046 and 0047. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. The text forming the basis for the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 may be found in a prior Office Action.
Claim(s) 1, 3–5, and 14–17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasuda et al. (US 20200373563 A1) (Yasuda) in view of Park et al. (KR 102286235 B1; citations to English equivalent US 20220037644 A1) (Park).
Regarding claims 1, 3, and 17, Yasuda discloses a lithium secondary battery (e.g., ¶ 0029), comprising a cathode facing an anode (positive and negative electrodes, which would necessarily face each other to conduct ions, ¶ 0030 and 0031) comprising an anode active material (negative electrode material, e.g., Abstract and ¶ 0031) comprising a silicon-based active material that comprises a core particle and a carbon coating on the core particle (SiO core with carbon coating, e.g., Ex. 1, ¶ 0191 and 0197–0199; see also Ex. 11, ¶ 0288 and Table 2).
Yasuda is silent to a content of particles having a diameter of 2 μm or less in the silicon-based active material’s being in a range from 0.2 wt% to 1.0 wt% based on a total weight of the silicon-based active material.
However, Yasuda discloses 1) a substantially similar negative electrode material compared to the instant claims (as seen throughout the claims) and 2) a substantially similar production method (milling SiO to a D50 of < 7 μm, coating carbon via CVD using a hydrocarbon gas, and heating at 1000°C, ¶ 0191, 0197–0199, and Ex. 11 (¶ 0288), which was produced as in Ex. 2/Ex. 1, ¶ 0280) compared to the instant specification (milling SiOx to a D50 of ≤ 7 μm, coating carbon by CVD with a hydrocarbon atmosphere such as acetylene, and heating from 550–1150°C, ¶ 00155). Considering that Yasuda is analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely Si/C negative electrode active material, before the claimed invention’s effective filing date, the skilled artisan would have reasonably expected Yasuda’s material to encompass a concentration of particles with a diameter of ≤ 2 μm falling within or at least overlapping the recited 0.2–1.0 wt%, absent additional evidence (MPEP 2112.01 (I)) such that the skilled artisan could have routinely selected within the overlap with a reasonable expectation of achieving a successful active material with a suitable number of fine particles (MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Yasuda further exemplarily discloses a D10, D50, and D90 of 4.53 μm, 5.8 μm, and 9.98 μm, respectively (Table 2, Ex. 11, where mean volume diameter = D50), yielding a SPAN of 0.94, which falls within 0.8–1.1, as well as a specific surface area (SSA) calculated by nitrogen adsorption via the BET method of, e.g., 2.0 m2/g (Ex. 11; see also ¶ 0105 and 0106).
Yasuda further controls the degree of Si crystallites and amorphous SiO2 phase via PSi/PSiO2 XRD ratio for improving charge-discharge characteristics (¶ 0081–0083)—appearing to desire higher crystalline-Si content (via preferred PSi/PSiO2 of 1.5–2.0 in ¶ 0084)—and evaluates the negative active material’s Raman spectra (¶ 0063, 0244) but fails to explicitly disclose a Raman peak intensity IC corresponding to a crystalline region of the silicon-based active material obtained through a Raman spectroscopy and an IA peak intensity corresponding to an amorphous region of the silicon-based active material obtained through the Raman spectroscopy and, thus, fails to explicitly disclose an IC/IA ratio of 1.5 to 3.0 and, by extension, an SA value of 0.5 to 2.0 according to the recited Equation 1.
Park, in teaching a SiOx negative electrode active material (Abstract), teaches optimizing the SiOx’s crystalline and amorphous Raman peaks (note Relation 1, ¶ 0037), wherein when peak C is positioned at 500 ± 15 cm-1, peaks A, B, and C all show non-crystalline phase character, which suppresses growth of crystalline Si and increases amorphous Si content, improving a problem in which SiOx crystallization proceeds during conventional Li pre-treatment (¶ 0041). Park teaches that such crystallinity control improves the problem of deteriorated battery stability and life characteristics from SiOx’s expansion when used as an active material (¶ 0007). Park further teaches that controlling an intensity ratio of peak C–-i.e., amorphous peak (note peak at 498 cm-1, i.e., within 500 ± 15 cm-1, ¶ 0128 and, e.g., Table 1, Ex. 1-7)–-to peak B–-i.e., a crystalline peak (note peak at 460.0 cm-1, i.e., less than 500 ± cm-1, ¶ 0128 and, e.g., Table 1, Ex. 1-7; note also that, per instant claim 2, the 450–490 range is crystalline) to 2.0–2.9 further improves the above effects (¶ 0046) and specifically teaches a ratio of, e.g., 2.43 (Table 2, Ex. 1-7; these intensities are reasonably maximum intensities because such is how Raman intensities are conventionally reported, in contrast to area ratios).
Park is analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely Si/C anode active material.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to configure Yasuda’s silicon particles to exhibit Park’s optimized Raman peaks, especially the C/B ratio–-i.e., IC/IA–-of, e.g., 2.43, with the reasonable expectation of controlling the silicon particles’ crystallinity to further improve battery stability and life characteristics, as taught by Park and desired by Yasuda.
In incorporating the above dimensions, such yields an SA of 1.55 based on the below calculations based on the recited Equation 1, which falls within 0.5–2.0.
S
A
=
D
90
-
D
10
D
50
S
S
A
2
I
C
/
I
A
=
(
0.94
)
(
2.0
)
2
2.43
≈
1.55
Further, based on Yasuda’s Ex. 11, the SB would be 1.45 (5.8/(2.0)2). Although such narrowly falls outside 1.5–3.0, 1.45 is so close to 1.5 that the skilled artisan would have expected substantially similar results from the prior art’s material, absent demonstrated criticality (MPEP 2144.05 (I)). Similarly, although Ex. 11’s SSA of 2.0 m2/g narrowly falls outside 1.3–1.9 m2/g, the artisan would have expected substantially similar results from the prior art’s material, absent demonstrated criticality (MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
More generally, though, Yasuda discloses a preferable SSA range of 1.0–3.0 m2/g (¶ 0105), which, based on Ex. 11’s particle distribution and D50 of 5.8 μm, would yield an SB of 0.64~5.8. Importantly, Yasuda discloses that when the negative active material’s SSA is ≤ 10 m2/g, increased initial irreversible capacity and binder consumption are suppressed, whereas when the SSA is ≥ 0.1 m2/g, the active material’s contact area with the electrolyte solution is sufficient to allow (dis)charge efficiency to increase (¶ 0105). To balance these effects, then, it would have been obvious to arrive at the instant SB of 1.5–3.0 and SSA of 1.3–1.9 m2/g by routinely optimizing the SSA, including within 1.0–1.9 m2/g, and, thus, necessarily optimizing SB (MPEP 2144.05 (II)).
Modified Yasuda further discloses that IA is a maximum value of peak intensities measured at a Raman shift of, e.g., 460.0 cm-1 (Peak B of Park, Table 1, Ex. 1-7), which falls within 450–490 cm-1.
Modified Yasuda further discloses that the C peak–-corresponding to IC–-is positioned at 500 ± 15 cm-1 (Park, ¶ 0128; note specifically 498 cm-1, Park, Table 1, Ex. 1-7) but fails to explicitly disclose, within the above embodiment, a peak at 510–530 cm-1.
In generally analyzing the peak at 500 ± 15 cm-1, this range overlaps and renders obvious the recited 500–530 cm-1 such that the skilled artisan could have routinely selected within the overlap with a reasonable expectation of successfully observing the desired C peak (MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
It is submitted that the above disclosure further reads on claim 3; i.e., the core particle includes SiOx (0 < x < 2) (SiO, Yasuda, e.g., ¶ 0199);
Regarding claims 4 and 5, modified Yasuda discloses the anode active material for a lithium secondary battery according to claim 1, wherein the carbon coating includes an amorphous carbon (Yasuda, e.g., ¶ 0057) and covers 100% of an outer surface of the core particle (per Yasuda, e.g., ¶ 0056, ¶ 0153, and FIG. 1, the coating may cover the whole surface), which falls within ≥ 50%.
Regarding claims 14–16, modified Yasuda discloses the anode active material for a lithium secondary battery of claim 1.
Yasuda further discloses that the anode active material may also comprise a carbon-based active material including, e.g., artificial or natural graphite for effects such as improved cycle characteristics or suppressed electrode expansion (¶ 0156 and 0157), wherein a content of the silicon-based active material is 1–10 wt% based on a total weight of the anode active material for a lithium secondary battery (note preferable ratio of Si material:C material of 1–10:90–99–-and, thus, a 1–10 wt% of the Si material based on the total active-material weight–-¶ 0157), which falls within greater than 0 wt% and less than or equal to 15 wt%, though Yasuda fails to explicitly embody such.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the claimed invention’s effective filing date, to routinely incorporate a mixture of the Si active material and a carbon active material such as natural graphite—where the Si material constitutes 1–10 wt%, satisfying greater than 0 wt% and ≤ 15 wt%—as Yasuda’s active material with a reasonable expectation of forming a successful active-material mixture with, e.g., improved cycle characteristics or suppressed electrode expansion, as suggested by Yasuda (e.g., MPEP 2143 (A.) and 2144.06 (I)).
Claim(s) 10–13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasuda et al. (US 20200373563 A1) (Yasuda) in view of Park et al. (KR 102286235 B1; citations to English equivalent US 20220037644 A1) (Park), as applied to claim 1, taken alone or, alternatively, further in view of Yoo et al. (CN 105189352 A) (Yoo).
Regarding claims 10–13, modified Yasuda discloses the anode active material for a lithium secondary battery of claim 1.
Per claim 1, Yasuda further exemplifies a D10, D50, and D90 of 4.53 μm, 5.8 μm, and 9.98 μm, respectively, but fails to explicitly articulate the active material’s Dmin and Dmax, and, thus, a Dmin of 1.1 μm or more and, specifically, 1.5–7 μm, as well as a Dmax of 25 μm or less and, specifically, 10–20 μm.
However, Yasuda generally discloses that the active material preferably has a D10/D90 of preferably 0.1–1.0, where greater values reflect a narrow particle-size distribution, to reduce the difference in the amount of change in electrode expansion and contraction to suppress cycle-characteristic deterioration (¶ 0123). Further, Yasuda generally discloses that the particles should be large enough so that SSA does not excessively increase to increase electrolytic contact and diminishing (dis)charge efficiency, but the particles should be small enough to avoid unevenness on the electrode surface and to reduce Li+ diffusion distance (¶ 0121). Although Yasuda may not specify minimum and maximum particle diameters, the skilled artisan would understand that Yasuda’s distribution, in including a D10, D50, and D90, would necessarily possess some Dmin and Dmax. To achieve Yasuda’s desired narrow particle distribution to suppress electrode expansion and contraction, all while preventing excessive SSA increase while avoiding electrode unevenness and reducing Li+ diffusion distance, it would have been readily envisaged by and obvious to one skilled in the art to further control the distribution’s minimum and maximum diameters and, thus, arrive at the respectively recited ranges by routinely optimizing Dmin and Dmax (MPEP 2144.05 (II)).
Alternatively, Yoo, in teaching silicon anode particles (Abstract), teaches that the particles may exhibit a Dmin of 2.312 μm and a Dmax of 10.09 μm (Table 2, Ex. 7).
Yoo is analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely Si negative electrode active material.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the claimed invention's effective filing date, that Yasuda’s particles, in exhibiting a D10, D50, and D90, must necessarily also exhibit a Dmin and Dmax, and, as demonstrated by Yoo, the skilled artisan would find it obvious to incorporate Yasuda’s particles with a Dmin and Dmax of, e.g., 2.312 μm and 10.09 μm, respectively (falling within ≥ 1.1 μm (claim 10)/1.5–7 μm (claim 11) and ≤ 25 μm (claim 12) and 10–20 μm (claim 13), respectively), as appropriate sizes with a reasonable expectation of forming a successful active material with a suitable particle distribution.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been fully considered but are unpersuasive.
Applicant argues that the instant SPAN, SA, SB, and SSA achieve unexpectedly superior life span, high-temperature life span, and high-temperature storage (see also Declaration of 06/03/25, p. 1). Examiner first respectfully reiterates that Yasuda’s Ex. 11’s SPAN of 0.94 falls within the recited SPAN range, which appears to make the SPAN value less/not vulnerable to criticality arguments (see MPEP 2131.03 (I) and (II)). Further, as addressed below, it is unclear that SA is unexpected.
Nonetheless, arguendo, if all claimed ranges were critical to achieving the allegedly unexpected results, Examiner respectfully maintains that the data are incommensurate with claim 1’s scope at least as follows:
Si-Based Material
Claim 1 allows any Si-based active material, whereas the results employ SiOx (0<x<2) (¶ 0155); as the results pertain to life-span property, the skilled artisan would recognize that such is based on capacity retention and, thus, availability of active material to the electrolyte. Importantly, Si, due to high volume expansion/contraction, is well known to yield different cycling results than its oxide analogues (as seen in Yasuda’s ¶ 0005, 0009, and 0081–0083 and Park’s ¶ 0005), so it is unclear that the results would occur across any Si-based material.
Claim 1 allows any non-zero amount of C coating, whereas spec.’s ¶ 0055/0056 indicates that the coating covers ≥ 50% of the surface to reduce electrolyte side reactions and gas generation to improve life span. It is unclear if the results would occur with 0.0001% areal coating.
If incorporated into an anode, claim 1 would allow any weight percentage of the Si-based material, whereas spec.’s ¶ 0112 notes that the Si-based material’s content, based on the total active material’s content, may be greater than 0 wt% to ≤ 15 wt% because this range allows the aforementioned expansion to be suppressed and the life span to improve. It is unclear that the results would occur if, e.g., the active material consisted of the Si material.
Other Anode Active Material(s)
Claim 1 allows any other active material(s) besides the Si material, whereas spec.’s ¶ 0107–0109 (and exs., e.g., ¶ 0158) explains that the active material may include artificial or natural graphite to improve life span and capacity. It is unclear if the results would occur without such graphite.
Battery Components
Applicant acknowledges that the results stem from incorporating the active material into an anode that is incorporated alongside a cathode into a lithium secondary battery (see spec., e.g., ¶ 0179–0191, which is reflected in Declaration, pp. 4 and 5).
The active material is tailored to react with an electrolyte solution in the battery (spec., e.g., ¶ 0079) versus with, e.g., an inorganic solid or polymer electrolyte (as allowed by claim 1), and it is unclear from the results in the affidavit alone that these parameters are immaterial to Applicant’s life-span and temperature-storage properties.
Claim 1 allows any cathode active material, whereas the results are tailored to lithium transition-metal oxides like high-Ni NCM for improved capacity, resistance, and electrical stability (e.g., ¶ 0119–0128, ¶ 0177). It is unclear if such results would occur when using, e.g., a sulfur-based cathode.
Claim 1 would allow any conductive material at any concentration (zero or non-zero) in either electrode. It is unclear if the Si-based material, as a known semiconductor or insulator, would produce the results without aid from conductive material at a suitable concentration (see, e.g., ¶ 0175, 0177).
Claim 1 would allow any binder at any concentration (zero or non-zero) in either electrode, whereas spec. employs PVDF in cathode to increase the relative active-material content to improve capacity and power (e.g., ¶ 0131, 0177). It is unclear if the results would occur using 0% binder in either electrode.
Thus, absent additional evidence or declaration explaining these discrepancies, per MPEP 716.02(d), this argument is further unpersuasive.
Applicant further argues that Yasuda does not disclose SB of 1.5–3.0 and never recognizes this parameter. Examiner respectfully reiterates that Yasuda’s Ex. 11 yields SB of 1.45, which is so close to 1.5–3.0 that the skilled artisan would have expected substantially similar performance, absent demonstrated criticality (MPEP 2144.05 (I)). Such criticality demonstration encounters the same commensurateness issue as above, based on MPEP 716.02(c) and (d).
Applicant then argues that Yasuda’s general ability to overlap SB based on a broader SSA permittance of preferably 1.0–3.0 is arbitrary hindsight and that one must use the SSA associated with the respective particle distribution in each of Yasuda’s examples. 1) Examiner included Ex. 11’s SSA of 2.0 m2/g, which is so close to 1.3–1.9 m2/g that the skilled artisan would have expected substantially similar performance, absent demonstrated criticality (MPEP 2144.05 (I)); there appears to be no criticality of record to an SSA within the recited range, and, even if there were, such would encounter the same commensurateness issue as above. 2) Although Examiner agrees that variables such as D10, D50, and D90 belong to a certain particle distribution in each example, it is unclear that SSA is necessarily confined to its associated particle distribution. Rather, the skilled artisan would seemingly have been able to employ a slightly broader SSA range (e.g., 1.0–3.0 m2/g) and routinely optimized within this range to balance electrolytic contact and binder consumption with irreversible capacity, as Yasuda directs in ¶ 0105. Thus, the argument that the SSA is arbitrary is unpersuasive. Regarding Applicant’s auxiliary argument that Yasuda’s range yields SB values within Applicant’s comp. exs., such encounters the same commensurateness issue as above.
Applicant argues that Park requires pre-lithiating the Si material to form silicates so that the B’ and C’ peaks reflect amorphous, unreacted SiOx and amorphous or crystalline material, respectively, making such inapplicable to Yasuda, which requires no such treatment. Examiner respectfully disagrees because Yasuda recognizes controlling the degree of Si crystallites and amorphous SiO2 phase via the PSi/PSiO2 ratio (e.g., ¶ 0081–0083), and the active material is evaluated by Raman spectroscopy (¶ 0244). Thus, Park’s peaks appear similarly applicable to further enhance Yasuda’s desired improvement of (dis)charge characteristics. Obviousness hinges not on individual teachings but on the prior art’s combined suggestions (MPEP 2145 (IV)).
Applicant then argues that Examiner arbitrarily derived an SA range of 0.38–4.38 and that such includes Applicant’s comp. exs. However, such argument appears moot because Examiner has specified Ex. 11’s SA of 1.55, which falls within 0.5–2.0 and, thus, appears less vulnerable to such unexpected-results arguments. Moreover, even if the SA range were vulnerable to such arguments, such would encounter the same commensurateness issue as above. Although Applicant additionally contends that multiple of Park’s examples satisfy the IC/IA such that the skilled artisan would have no reason to select Park’s Ex. 1-7 (IC/IA = 2.43) over Park’s Comp. Ex. 1-2, Examiner respectfully disagrees because the comp. exs. are understood to be inferior, so the artisan would reasonably pursue an inventive ex. such as 1-7.
Applicant next argues that the references do not disclose 1.3–1.9 m2/g SSA. Examiner respectfully disagrees based on the reasons discussed above in Yasuda’s SSA.
Applicant then argues that the criticality of SPAN is confirmed when SA and/or SB is satisfied, and there is no basis to derive SA and SB. 1) Examiner respectfully disagrees and reiterates the response to the above arguments pertaining to these parameters. 2) Applicant further admits that “satisfying both SPAN and SA ranges is more important than merely achieving the SPAN range alone” (Remarks, p. 18). Importantly, as addressed in claim 1, Yasuda’s Ex. 11 satisfies SPAN and, when paired with Park’s Ex. 1-7, satisfies SA, where the “basis to derive SA” stems from Park’s teachings of further improving (dis)charge characteristics.
Moreover, the only difference between Yasuda and claim 1’s SA appears to be the IC/IA. Importantly, as discussed above, both Yasuda and Park (¶ 0084 and Ex. 1-7 (Tables 1/2), respectively) recognize that controlling the degrees of crystallinity and amorphousness is critical for regulating volume expansion/contraction, high-temperature storage and life-span properties, which appear to be substantially similar effects as the instant spec. (¶ 0084 and tables). Therefore, SA’s effects as a whole would seem expected.
Applicant finally argues that SA and SB are regulated to “control the contact properties with the electrolyte” but then alleges that “the limitation of SA range (and/or SB) range … is entirely unrelated to controlling the interaction with a specific electrolyte [so that] requiring additional data for all electrolytes is not reasonable” (Remarks, p. 18). Examiner mentioned this discrepancy because, as Applicant admits, SA is tailored to preventing side reactions with electrolyte solution (¶ 0079), while claim 1 is merely to the active material and, thus, open to use in any lithium secondary battery employing any type of electrolyte, including solid, inorganic electrolytes. As no evidence or declaration of record explains why an anode active material with the claimed SA could be employed alongside non-liquid electrolytes, this argument is unpersuasive (MPEP 716.02(d)).
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 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 571-270-1292. 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
/JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 3/23/2026