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 .
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(s) 1-4, 6, and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizutani et al. (JP 2019021571 A, hereinafter “Mizutani”; listed in the IDS filed 2 February 2024; using Applicant’s submitted English machine translation for citations), in view of ABE et al. (US 2014/0242458, hereinafter “Abe”; listed in the IDS filed 17 July 2025).
Regarding claim 1, Mizutani teaches a negative electrode active material, comprising:
granulated particles (see [0013] and [0018]), the granulated particles comprising:
primary particles containing at least a silicon material (see [0014]-[0018]); and
a fluorine-based polymer (PVDF, see [0017]).
Mizutani is silent to wherein the primary particles contain a cationic polymer.
Abe teaches in the negative electrode for a nonaqueous secondary battery according to the invention, a polymer coating layer is formed on at least part of surfaces of negative electrode active material particles containing silicon oxide. Since this polymer coating layer coats the negative electrode active material particles, the negative electrode active material particles and an electrolytic solution can be prevented from directly contacting each other (see [0014]). Since the polymer coating layer thus formed and the negative electrode active material particles have a high bond strength, the negative electrode active material particles and the electrolytic solution can be suppressed from directly contacting each other even when a battery is driven under a high voltage. Moreover, since the polymer coating layer has a total thickness on a nanometer order to a submicronmeter order, the polymer coating layer can be suppressed from exhibiting resistance to lithium ion conductivity. Therefore, the electrolytic solution can be suppressed from being decomposed, so it becomes possible to provide a nonaqueous secondary battery which has a high capacity and can maintain high battery characteristics even after repeated charge and discharge (see [0016]).
In view of Abe’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the negative electrode active material of Mizutani to include wherein the primary particles contain a cationic polymer because it becomes possible to provide a nonaqueous secondary battery which has a high capacity and can maintain high battery characteristics even after repeated charge and discharge
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Mizutani and Abe teaches wherein the cationic polymer includes a polymer having a quaternary ammonium salt group as a cation (Abe: polydiallyldimethylammonium chloride, see [0028]).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Mizutani and Abe teaches wherein the fluorine-based polymer is a polymer containing a structural unit derived from vinylidene fluoride (Mizutani: PVDF, see [0017]).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Mizutani and Abe is silent to wherein a total amount of polymer components with respect to the negative electrode active material is from 5 mass % to 25 mass %, and a content of the cationic polymer with respect to a total amount of polymer components of the negative electrode active material is from 3 mass % to 10 mass %. However, if the total amount of polymer components with respect to the negative electrode active material is too low, it may cause issues such as the active material detaching from the current collector because of an insufficient amount of the binder, or the benefit of the cationic polymer would not be realized. On the other hand, if the total amount of polymer components with respect to the negative electrode active material is excessively high, it may decrease the amount of available negative electrode active material which would result in a lower overall battery capacity. Therefore, there must be an optimum amount of a total amount of polymer components with respect to the negative electrode active material and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to discover through routine experimentation. See MPEP §2144.05(II). Similarly, if the content of the cationic polymer with respect to a total amount of polymer components of the negative electrode active material is too low, its benefit would not be realized. On the other hand, if the content of the cationic polymer with respect to a total amount of polymer components of the negative electrode active material is excessively high, it may cause issues such as the active material detaching from the current collector because of an insufficient amount of the binder. Therefore, there must be an optimum amount of a content of the cationic polymer with respect to a total amount of polymer components of the negative electrode active material and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to discover through routine experimentation. See MPEP §2144.05(II).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Mizutani and Abe teaches a negative electrode (Mizutani: see [0026]), comprising the negative electrode active material of claim 1 (see rejection for claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Mizutani and Abe teaches a solid-state battery (Mizutani: see [0027]), comprising:
the negative electrode of claim 6 (see rejection for claim 6 above);
a positive electrode (Mizutani: see [0027]); and
a solid electrolyte layer (Mizutani: see [0027]).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Mizutani and Abe as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yamaguchi et al. (US 2021/0020938, hereinafter “Yamaguchi”).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Mizutani and Abe is silent to wherein the silicon material includes at least one of porous silicon or a silicon clathrate compound.
Yamaguchi teaches an active material comprising a silicon clathrate type crystal phase, and the active material includes a Na element, a Si element and a M element that is a metal element with an ion radius larger than the Si element, and a proportion of the M element to a total of the Si element and the M element is 0.1 atm % or more and 5 atm % or less (see [0011]). Since the M element is included, an expansion upon intercalation of a metal ion may be suppressed in an active material (see [0012]).
In view of Yamaguchi’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the active material of the combination of Mizutani and Abe to include wherein the silicon material includes a silicon clathrate compound, as taught by Yamaguchi, because it can help to suppress an expansion of the active material upon intercalation of a metal ion.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN HA whose telephone number is (571)270-5934. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00 EST.
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, Keith Walker can be reached at 571-272-3458 . 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.
/S.S.H/Examiner, Art Unit 1735 13 June 2026
/KEITH WALKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1735
Prosecution Insights