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
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(s) 1, 4-5, 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minami et al. (US 2017/0309950A1) in view Wang et al. (CN103400971A, refer to English machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, Minami discloses a composite active material particle (see Title, Abstract, Fig. 1) comprising:
a lithium silicate phase (lithium silicate phase 11 [0011]);
a plurality of silicon particles dispersed in the lithium silicate phase (silicon particles dispersed in the lithium silicate phase [0011]).
Although Minami further discloses metallic compounds and/or further carbon material ([0011], [0029]-[0030]), the reference does not expressly disclose a plurality of fibrous carbon materials dispersed in the lithium silicate phase.
Wang discloses a silicon-based composite material comprising a mixture of silicate and carbon to form a massive body, and silicon particles dispersed in the massive body, wherein the carbon includes carbon nanotubes (see Title, Abstract, p.6,8).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a carbon material, including carbon nanotubes, with an active material particle comprising a lithium silicate phase in Minami. Said combination would amount to use of a known element for its intended use in a known environment to accomplish an entirely expected result.
Regarding claim 4, modified Minami discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Minami further discloses lithium silicate included in the lithium silicate phase has a composition represented by Li2zSiO(2+z) (0<z≤2) ([0011]).
Regarding claim 5, modified Minami discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Minami further discloses a battery (battery [0018]) comprising:
a positive electrode (positive electrode [0018]);
a negative electrode (negative electrode [0018]); and
an electrolyte layer positioned between the positive electrode and the negative electrode (electrolyte [0018]), wherein
the negative electrode includes the composite active material particle according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 7, modified Minami discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Minami further discloses the composite active material particles is a primary particle (primary particles [0040]).
Regarding claim 8, modified Minami discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Minami further discloses the lithium silicate phase is a continuous phase (lithium silicate phase [0027], Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 9, modified Minami discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Wang further discloses the plurality of fibrous carbon materials include at least one selected from the group consisting of carbon fibers and carbon nanotubes (carbon nanotubes, see Title, Abstract, p.6,8).
Claim(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minami et al. (US 2017/0309950A1) in view Wang et al. (CN103400971A, refer to English machine translation), as applied to claims 1, 4-5, 7-9 above, and further in view of Akira et al. (WO2019151016A1, refer to English equivalent US 2021/0057727A1).
Regarding claim 2, modified Minami discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Although Minami further discloses a metallic compound ([0011], [0036]-[0037]), the reference does not expressly disclose a plurality of metal particles, which do not alloy with lithium, dispersed in the lithium silicate phase.
Akira discloses a negative electrode active substance comprising a silicate phase, silicon particle and metal particles dispersed in the silicate phase, the metals including Ni (see Title, Abstract). Akira further discloses dispersion of silicon particles and metal particles can prevent a volume change of the silicon particles due to the charge/discharge reaction, to thereby prevent the breakage of the particle structure ([0011]).
Minami and Akira are analogous art because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely negative electrode active materials including a lithium silicate phase.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Minami by incorporating metal particles including Ni because Akira teaches improved performance by preventing volume change during cycling.
Regarding claim 3, modified Minami discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Akira further discloses the plurality of metal particles includes at least one selected from the group consisting of elemental Ni and stainless steel (Ni, see Title, Abstract).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minami et al. (US 2017/0309950A1) in view Wang et al. (CN103400971A, refer to English machine translation), as applied to claims 1, 4-5, 7-9 above, and further in view of Si et al. (US 2023/0223522A1).
Regarding claim 6, modified Minami discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. However, Minami does not further disclose the negative electrode further includes a solid electrolyte.
Si discloses a negative electrode active material including a phase including silicon and a phase including lithium silicate (see Title, Abstract). Si further discloses lithium silicate can serve as a solid electrolyte in the negative electrode active material, wherein specific examples include Li.sub.2SiO.sub.3, Li.sub.2Si.sub.2O.sub.5, Li.sub.4SiO.sub.4, and Li.sub.6Si.sub.2O.sub.7. and two or more kinds can be used to facilitate insertion and extraction of lithium ([0034], [0036]).
Minami and Si are analogous art because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely negative electrode active materials including a lithium silicate phase.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Minami by incorporating two or more lithium silicates because Si teaches improved lithium insertion-extraction for improved cyclability.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/8/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to applicant’s arguments directed to Minami failing to teach or suggest new limitation recited in claim 1 “fibrous carbon materials dispersed in the lithium silicate phase” (see Remarks filed 7/8/2026), said reference is not relied upon to teach or suggest said claim limitation. A combination of Minami and Wang et al. (CN103400971A, refer to English machine translation), which discloses a silicon-based composite material comprising a mixture of silicate and carbon to form a massive body, and silicon particles dispersed in the massive body, wherein the carbon includes carbon nanotubes (see Title, Abstract, p.6,8), is relied upon to teach instant claim 1 as set forth above.
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 JAMES LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-7937. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9AM - 5PM.
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, NICOLE BUIE-HATCHER can be reached at (571)270-3879. 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.
/James Lee/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725 9/25/2026
Prosecution Insights