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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 9 and 11-17 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II and species b, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 07/30/2026.
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.
Claims 1-8, 10, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yan et al.(WO-2020098088-A1, reference made to English translation) in view of Shin et al.(US-20200280062-A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 5, Yan discloses a negative active material for a rechargeable lithium battery(¶[0057]), the negative active material comprising:
a porous carbon matrix (i.e. carbon mesh, ¶[0008]) having a porosity of about 10% to about 80%(¶[0013]);
silicon oxide distributed in pores of the porous carbon matrix(¶[0008]); and
a coating layer on a surface of the porous carbon matrix, the coating layer comprising carbon(¶[0015]).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP §2144.05.
Yan does not explicitly disclose the carbon matrix or coating layer as amorphous.
Shin, related to negative active materials, teaches a negative active material composite with a core including amorphous carbon and silicon nanoparticles and a coating layer including amorphous carbon(¶[0010]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood using amorphous carbon for the core and coating layer in the negative electrode material of Yan as taught by Shin would have resulted in a material with improved initial efficiency and cycle-life characteristics(¶[0009]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to have used amorphous carbon for the core and coating layer to improve initial efficiency and cycle-life characteristics.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, modified Yan discloses the negative electrode material of claim 1 and Shin further teaches the carbon matrix may be a hard carbon(¶[0015]).
Regarding claim 4, modified Yan discloses the negative electrode material of claim 1 and Yan further discloses the silicon oxide may be nano-silicon suboxide (SiOx) where x is 0.8-1.5(¶[0020]).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP §2144.05.
Regarding claim 6, modified Yan discloses the negative electrode material of claim 1 and Yan further discloses the silicon oxide particle size D50 of the silicon material is 5-300 nm(¶[0020]).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP §2144.05.
Regarding claim 7, modified Yan discloses the negative electrode material of claim 1 and Shin further teaches silicon nanoparticle loading of 20-80%(¶[0014]).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP §2144.05.
Regarding claim 8, modified Yan discloses the negative electrode material of claim 1 and Shin further teaches the coating layer is 10-2000 nm thick(¶[0025]) which one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize given the size of the composite particle of 1-20 µm(¶[009]) would lead to an overlapping range with the claimed 1-20 wt.% of the wt. of the coating layer to the active material.
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP §2144.05.
Regarding claim 10, modified Yan discloses the negative electrode material of claim 1 and Shin further teaches the nano-silicon material which includes nano silicon suboxide may be amorphous(¶[0020]).
Regarding claim 18, modified Yan discloses the negative electrode material of claim 1 and Shin further teaches the material used in a rechargeable lithium-ion battery including a positive electrode(i.e. counter electrode) and electrolyte(¶[0057]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAREN J. ARMSTRONG whose telephone number is (703)756-1243. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10 am-6 pm 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, Jeffrey Barton can be reached at (571) 272-1307. 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.
/K.J.A./Examiner, Art Unit 1726 /RYAN S CANNON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726
Prosecution Insights