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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in the Republic of Korea on 11/29/2022. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the KR10-2022-0163040 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-12 and 17 of Group I in the reply filed on 09/16/2026 is acknowledged.
Group II, claims 13-16, is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 09/16/2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 11/29/2023, 07/30/2024, 03/10/2025, and 08/07/2025 have been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 8 recites the limitation “wherein the core portion comprising the porous spherical particles has a porosity of 20% to 50%.” This language differs from the wording of claim 1 which recites “wherein the core portion is porous spherical particles”. The use of “is” in claim 1 indicates a closed group that defines the core portion as porous spherical particles, but the use of “comprising” in claim 8 indicates an open-ended group where the core portion can be made up of more than the porous spherical particles. For the purposes of examination, the above limitation in claim 8 will be interpreted as “wherein the core portion 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 1-12 and 17 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.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “wherein a core portion is porous spherical particles” is indefinite. It is not clear if the core portion is made up of a plurality of porous spherical particles or if the core portion is being described as a single porous spherical particle. The specification indicates that the core portion of the anode active material is made of a spherical precursor that has metal particles and amorphous carbon [page 3, lines 8-9]. Since the combination of the metal particles and carbon is referred to as a spherical precursor, and Figure 1 of the drawings shows the core portion as a sphere, the above limitation in claim one will be interpreted as “wherein a core portion is a porous spherical particle
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “wherein a core portion is a porous spherical particle
Claims 2-12 and 17 are rejected based on their dependence on claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-2, 6-7, 9, 12, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Jung et. al (US 20190097220).
Regarding claim 1, Jung teaches a negative electrode active material (anode active material) for a lithium secondary battery [0007]. The negative electrode active material includes an active material core and a polymer layer disposed on the surface of the active material core [0011]. The active material core may include a silicon composite cluster as a core (core portion) and a shell (shell portion) disposed on the core which includes second graphene (crystalline carbon) [0052]. This active material taught by Jung corresponds to the claimed core-shell structure. The polymer layer disposed on the surface of the active material core corresponds to the claimed coating layer comprising a polymer that is provided on an outer surface of the shell portion [0054]. Jung teaches that the silicon composite structure of the active material core may include a silicon-carbon composite where silicon primary particles are agglomerated and also include carbon [0050]. This silicon-carbon composite is made of silicon composite primary particles which include silicon, a silicon oxide disposed on the silicon and first graphene disposed on the silicon oxide [0052]. The first graphene disposed on the primary silicon/silicon oxide particles would surround the primary metal particle and therefore require that the secondary particles are formed by the primary particles being connected to each other through this first graphene coating. This structure corresponds to the meta particles of the core portion being connected to each other through the carbon. The silicon-carbon composite that makes up the active material core corresponds to the porous spherical particles [0051-0052, Figure 1].
Regarding claim 2, Jung teaches all the limitation of claim 1 as described above. Jung also teaches that the active material core may include a silicon active material (Si), a tin active material (Sn), SiO2, or a Si-Z alloy where Z can be germanium [0049].
Regarding claim 6, Jung teaches all the limitation of claim 1 as described above. Jung also teaches that the active material core (core portion) may include a silicon-carbon composite where the carbonaceous material includes crystalline carbon, amorphous carbon, or a combination thereof [0050].
Regarding claim 7, Jung teaches all the limitation of claim 1 as described above. Since all the limitations of claim 1 have been met with the inclusion of graphene in the shell portion of the active material, and amorphous carbon is not positively recited in claim 7, the limitations recited in claim 7 regarding the amorphous carbon are not further limiting. Additionally the recited limitation of “derived from one or more selected from a group consisting of sucrose, a phenol resin, a naphthalene resin, a polyvinyl alcohol resin, a furfuryl alcohol resin, a furan resin, a cellulose resin, a styrene resin, a polyimide resin, an epoxy resin, a vinyl chloride resin, coal-based pitch, petroleum- based pitch, polyvinyl chloride, stearic acid, mesophase pitch, tar, a block copolymer, a polyol, and low-molecular-weight heavy oil” is a method limitation and does not determine the patentability of the product, unless the method produces a structural feature of the product. The method of forming the product is not germane to the issue of patentability of the product itself, unless the applicant presents evidence from which the examiner could reasonably conclude that the claimed product differs in kind from those of the prior art. See MPEP 2113.
Regarding claim 9, Jung teaches all the limitation of claim 1 as described above. Jung also teaches that the shell portion of the active material includes graphene which corresponds to the claimed crystalline carbon that is graphite-based carbon [0052].
Regarding claim 12, Jung teaches all the limitation of claim 1 as described above. Jung also teaches that the polymer in the coating layer can be polyimide, PVA, PVDF, PVP, polyamide, SBR, and EPDM [0041, 0085, 0112].
Regarding claim 17, Jung teaches all the limitation of claim 1 as described above. Jung also teaches that the lithium secondary battery contains the anode of claim 1, as well as a positive electrode facing the negative electrode and an electrolyte between the negative electrode and the positive electrode [0011, 0103].
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et. al (US 20190097220) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Yushin et. al (US 20210313617).
Regarding claim 3, Jung teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. Jung is silent on the shape of the metal particles.
Yushin teaches an anode active material for a lithium-ion battery where the anode comprises a core-shell nanocomposite particle (anode active material) [0007-0008]. The nanocomposite particles comprise carbon and silicon nanoparticles in the form of nanoflakes [0070]. The nanocomposite particles comprising Si in the form of nanoflakes correspond to the claimed metal particles that are flakey metal nanoparticles.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the anode active material of Jung with the teachings of Yushin to have metal particles that are flaky metal nanoparticles. The motivation to use flake shaped particles in the anode is to reduce required amount of elastic particles in the binder [0107].
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et. al (US 20190097220) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Hwang et. al (US 20090297945).
Regarding claim 4, Jung teaches all the limitation of claim 1 as described above. Jung teaches that the silicon particles in the core portion are agglomerated in the form of secondary particles, and the agglomerated particles have a size of about 5 µm [0050, 0166]. Jung does not teach that the metal particles have a size Dv50 of 80 nm to 100 nm.
Hwang teaches a negative electrode (anode) active material for a lithium secondary battery [0003]. The anode active material includes a graphite core (core portion) with at least one metal particle located on the graphite core particle, and a film (coating layer) coating the core that is a film of polymer [0014]. Hwang teaches that the metal particles are a material capable of alloying with lithium, including Si, Sn, and Ge with Si being a preferred embodiment due to its high capacity [0027]. Hwang also teaches that the metal particles have small diameters ranging from 0.05 to 1 µm [0028].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the anode active material of Jung with the teachings of Hwang to have metal particles with a size of 80 nm to 100 nm. The motivation to use this particle size is to reduce side reactions and inhibit volume expansion to preserve the electrolyte and increase battery capacity. Smaller particles will have a larger surface area which increases side reactions which facilitate decomposition of the electrolyte, and bigger particles will have a large volume expansion that decreases the battery capacity [0029]. In the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside similar ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Claims 5 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et. al (US 20190097220) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Peng et. al (CN 115188938) which was included in the Information Disclosure Statement, a machine translated copy is attached.
Regarding claim 5, Jung teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Jung teaches that the core portion contains silicon composite secondary particles which are an agglomeration of silicon composite primary particles [0052]. Jung does not teach that the metal particles are dispersed in the core portion without coming into direct contact with each other.
Peng teaches a silicon anode (anode active material) for a battery with lithium [0004, 0051]. The silicon anode has a silicon substrate as the core (core portion), carbon-nanotubes as a first coating layer (shell portion), and a second coating layer that is an elastic polymer layer [0005]. Figure 1 of the original reference document depicts the core as a sphere [element 1 of Figure 1]. Peng also teaches that the core has carbon nanotubes partially infiltrated and doped onto the silicone substrate (core portion) [0028]. These carbon nanotubes serve to increase the bonding strength and form a three-dimensional conductive network to enhance conductivity [0026, 0028]. While Peng does not teach that the metal particles are dispersed in the core portion without coming into direct contact with each other, Peng does teach that the presence of the carbon in the core portion serves to improve the conductivity and bonding strength between the silicon substrate and the other elements of the core shell structure [0026].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the anode active material of Jung with the teachings of Peng to disperse the metal particles in the carbon of the core portion. The motivation to disperse the metal particles in the carbon of the core portion is to increase the conductivity between the metal particles by using a network of highly conductive carbon.
Regarding claim 11, Jung teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Jung is silent on the thickness of the coating layer.
Peng teaches a silicon anode (anode active material) for a battery with lithium [0004, 0051]. The silicon anode has a silicon substrate as the core (core portion), carbon-nanotubes as a first coating layer (shell portion), and a second coating layer that is an elastic polymer layer [0005]. Figure 1 of the original reference document depicts the core as a sphere [element 1 of Figure 1]. Peng also teaches that the core has carbon nanotubes partially infiltrated and doped onto the silicone substrate (core portion) [0028]. Peng further teaches that the thickness of the second coating layer is 5-100 nm [0031].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the anode active material of Jung with the teachings of Peng to adjust the thickness of the coating layer to 10 nm to 200 nm. The motivation to use this coating layer as described is to inhibit the volume expansion of silicon while also improving the cycling performance by protecting the silicon surface from being exposed to the electrolyte [0019, 0067]. In the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside similar ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et. al (US 20190097220) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Ogata et. al (US 20200194749).
Regarding claim 8, Jung teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Jung further teaches that the active material core may have a porous or nonporous structure such as a porous silicon composite cluster [0051-0052]. Jung does not explicitly teach that the core portion of the anode active material has a porosity of 20% to 50%.
Ogata teaches a an anode with an anode layer (anode active material) for a lithium battery, where the anode layer has a silicon-carbon structure [0003, 0047]. This silicon-carbon structure of the anode layer can have a core shell structure [0048]. Ogata teaches that the porosity of the silicon-carbon structure ranges between 5% and 40% [0048].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the anode active material of Jung with the teachings of Ogata to have the core portion of the anode active material with a porosity of 20% to 50%. The motivation to use this porosity is to reduce or eliminate parasitic irreversible volume expansion in the anode active material [0026]. The above-described porous structure can accommodate pre-doped lithium material of lithium ions received during operation of the battery cell [0048]. In this manner the porosity reduces the likelihood of volume expansion from the adsorption of lithium by the silicon [0048]. In the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside similar ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et. al (US 20190097220) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Chung et. al (US 20230084565).
Regarding claim 10, Jung teaches all the limitation of claim 1 as described above. Jung also teaches that the silicon particles in the core portion are agglomerated in the form of secondary particles [0050]. Jung does not teach that the shell portion further comprises silicon nanoparticles.
Chung teaches an anode active material for a lithium secondary battery where the anode active material includes a core portion and a shell portion [0006-0008]. The shell portion contains a silicon-based active material where the silicon-based active material is a silicon-carbon composite [0008, 0015]. Chung teaches that the silicon particles included in the shell portion are in the form of a silicon powder having a size of 500 nm or less, which corresponds to the shell potion comprising silicon nanoparticles [0087].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the anode active material of Jung with the teachings of Chung to include silicon nanoparticles in the shell portion. The motivation to include silicon nanoparticles in the shell portion of the anode active material is to have a material with a high capacity and increase the overall battery capacity [0030].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATALIE R ALTVATER whose telephone number is (571)270-3162. The examiner can normally be reached M-R 8:00 am - 4 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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at 571-272-1291.
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.
/N.R.A./Examiner, Art Unit 1785
/MARK RUTHKOSKY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1785
