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
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I (Claims 1-11) in the reply filed on 6/12/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is the grounds that Groups I and II were not fully considered in light of the specification, and since the groups share a special technical feature, there is unity among the groups.
While Examiner agrees the instant specification shows the groups share the claimed special technical feature, the special technical feature does not make a contribution over the prior art, and therefore the groups are not linked to form a single general inventive concept (see PCT Rule 13.1). The restriction requirement cited prior art (Troegel et al., US 20180342732 A1) that disclosed the special technical feature prior to the effective filing date of the present invention. Applicant does not assert error or otherwise attempt to redefine the special technical feature identified by the Examiner.
Applicant also states a search burden is not present by examining the groups together. Examiner respectfully disagrees. It cannot be assumed a reference that teaches the layered particle (Group I) will also teach the claimed method (Group II). The particle may be constructed with methods different than the mixing method of Group II. For example, the layered particle construction disclosed by Troegel (spray dispersion method [0131]), is different than the mixing method of Group II.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 13-17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected group (Group II), there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claims 1-11 are under examination.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 2, and 5-10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1: Please amend “SiOx particle” on line 3 to “a SiOx particle.”
Claims 1, 2, 5, 7, and 8: The “x” in “SiOx” should be shown as a subscript. Please change all recitations of “SiOx” to “SiOx” in the claims.
Claims 5, 6, and 10: Since the claims express particle diameters or thicknesses in multiple units (micron and nanometer), please add units to the minimum value of the ranges. The instant specification at [0045, 0049] is clear that the range of Claim 5 is “1 µm to 20 µm,” the range of Claim 6 is “1 nm to 50 nm,” and the range of Claim 10 is “10 nm to 1000 nm.”
Claim 9: The “y” in “SiOy” should be shown as a subscript. Please change the recitations of “SiOy” to “SiOy” in the claim.
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 7 and 8 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.
Claim 7 depends upon Claim 1. The composite material of Claim 1 comprises a SiOx particle having Sn particles existing within, and surface of the SiOx particle is coated with a resin-made thermolysis product. See Fig. 1:
PNG
media_image1.png
474
1084
media_image1.png
Greyscale
18/557,169 – Fig. 1 Annotated by Examiner
Claim 7 recites: “The composite material according to Claim 1, wherein the resin-made thermolysis product is 5-20 pts.mass to the SiOx of 100 pts.mass, and wherein the Sn particles are 1-10 pts.mass to the SiOx of 100 pts.mass.” The claimed mass percentages can be interpreted two ways:
Interpretation #1: The mass percent of the resin-made thermolysis product (1) and Sn particles (3) are each expressed with respect to the total mass of the composite material (i.e., total mass of 1+2+3).
Interpretation #2: The mass percent of the resin-made thermolysis product (1) and Sn particles (3) are each expressed with respect to the mass of the SiOx particle (i.e., the mass of 3). The claim uses “the SiOx” and not “the SiOx particle” like other dependent claims. Does the “100 pts.mass” of “the SiOx” refer to the mass of only the SiOx in the composite material?
Examples 1-4 of the instant application disclose the mass percent of the thermolysis product and Sn particles under Interpretation #1 (see [0120]: “The composite material of Example 1 had a composition: SiO=84 wt %, C=13 wt %, and Sn=3 wt %”). For the purpose of this action, Claim 7 will be examined under Interpretation #1.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 depends upon Claims 1 and 2. The composite material of Claims 1 and 2 comprises the following, see Figs. 3:
PNG
media_image2.png
488
1306
media_image2.png
Greyscale
18/557,169 – Fig. 3 Annotated by Examiner
Claim 8 recites “The composite material according to Claim 2, wherein the at least one oxide selected from the group consisting of the aluminum oxide and the magnesium oxide is 2-20 pts.mass to the SiOx of 100 pts.mass when it is converted to a numerical value of a corresponding Al or Mg.” The claimed mass percentage can be interpreted two different ways:
Interpretation #1: The mass percent of the Al and/or Mg is expressed with respect to the total mass of the composite material (i.e., a total mass of 1+2+3+4, see Fig. 1).
Interpretation #2: The mass percent of the Al and/or Mg is expressed with respect to the mass of the SiOx particle (i.e., the mass of 3, see Fig. 1). The claim uses “the SiOx” and not “the SiOx particle” like other dependent claims. Does the “100 pts.mass” of “the SiOx” refer to the mass of only the SiOx in the composite material?
Examiner notes Examples 5-10 of the instant application disclose the mass percent of the Al or Mg under Interpretation #1 (see [0067]: “A composite material of Example 5 had a composition: SiO=84 wt%, C=12 wt%, Sn=2 wt%, and Al=2 wt%”). For the purpose of this action, Claim 8 will be examined under Interpretation #1.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1, 3-7, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He et al., CN 113506861 A, and further in view of Kitano, US 20180316002 A1.
Regarding Claim 1, He discloses a composite material (a carbon-coated Sn-doped silicon-based composite anode material with a uniform carbon coating on the outer layer and a uniform Sn element doping on the inner layer [0078]), comprising:
a thermolysis product (carbon coating, may be produced by sintering a polymer [0023, 0091]),
a SiOx particle, wherein x ≤ 1.2 (Raw Material A: silicon suboxide, SiOx, wherein 0.1 < x ≤ 2.0 [0034]); and
Sn particles (Raw Material B: doped metal, Sn [0070, 0078]; see Examples 1-6)
wherein a surface of the SiOx particle is coated by the thermolysis product (carbon coating on the outer layer of the particle [0078]),
wherein the Sn particles exist in the SiOx particle (Sn is uniformly dispersed within the silicon suboxide [0030, 0059-0061, 0078]), and
wherein the composite material has substantially no Li (see Examples 1-6, no Li or Li-based materials used for the composite material construction).
He does not disclose the thermolysis product is “a resin-made thermolysis product” as required by Claim 1. However, this limitation is taught by Kitano.
Kitano teaches a silicon-based negative electrode active material can be coated with carbon ([0057]), wherein the carbon comes from a resin-made thermolysis product ([0008-0030]). Kitano teaches the most preferable resin-made thermolysis product is polyvinyl alcohol (PVA), because PVA does not generate toxic gases or side reactions when decomposing, and also does not lower the Si content of the active material ([0088-0096]).
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the resin-made thermolysis product of Kitano (PVA) as the carbon coating of He, in order to avoid generating toxic gases or side reactions when decomposing, and also avoid lowering the Si content of the SiOx particle.
Regarding Claim 3, modified He discloses all limitations as set forth above. Modified He discloses a resin of the resin-made thermolysis product is a thermoplastic resin (Kitano, PVA is a thermoplastic resin [0080]).
Regarding Claim 4, modified He discloses all limitations as set forth above. Modified He discloses a resin of the resin-made thermolysis product is a polyvinyl alcohol (Kitano, PVA [0080]).
Regarding Claim 5, modified He discloses all limitations as set forth above. Modified He discloses the SiOx particle has an average diameter of 1 µm to 20 µm (He, 0.1 µm to 20 µm [0027, 0055]).
Regarding Claim 6, modified He discloses all limitations as set forth above. Modified He discloses
the Sn particles have an average diameter of 1 nm to 50 nm (He, 1 nm to 20 nm [0023-0030]).
Regarding Claim 7, modified He discloses all limitations as set forth above. Modified He discloses
the resin-made thermolysis product is 5-20 pts.mass to the SiOx of 100 pts.mass (He, 1 wt% to 10 wt % [0020]), and
wherein the Sn particles are 1-10 pts.mass to the SiOx of 100 pts.mass (He, 3 wt% to 12 wt % [0020, 0036]).
Regarding Claim 11, modified He discloses all limitations as set forth above. Modified He discloses a negative electrode comprising: the composite material according to Claim 1 (He, a carbon-coated Sn-doped silicon-based composite anode material with a uniform carbon coating on the outer layer and a uniform Sn element doping on the inner layer [0078]).
Claims 2 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified He as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Li, CN 114503305 A.
Regarding Claim 2, modified He discloses all limitations as set forth above. Modified He does not disclose “The composite material further comprises: at least one oxide selected from the group consisting of an aluminum oxide and a magnesium oxide, wherein the at least one oxide exists between the resin-made thermolysis product and the SiOx particle.” However, this limitation is taught by Li.
Li teaches a negative electrode active material comprising a SiOx core and a carbon coating, with a first coating layer deposited therebetween ([0062-0074], Fig. 1). Li teaches when the first coating layer comprises Al2O3, silicon particle agglomeration is inhibited, and rate performance of the anode material is improved ([0003-0006, 0035]). Examiner notes the Al2O3 layer of Li exists between the carbon coating and the SiOx particle ([0026], Fig. 1), and therefore meets the limitation “the at least one oxide exists between the resin-made thermolysis product and the SiOx particle” as claimed.
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to add the Al2O3-based first coating layer of Li to the SiOx particle surface of modified He, in order to prevent silicon particle agglomeration and improve the rate performance of the anode material.
PNG
media_image3.png
254
476
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Li – Fig. 1
Regarding Claim 10, modified He discloses all limitations as set forth above. Modified He discloses the at least one oxide forms an oxide layer (Li, Al2O3-based first coating layer), and the oxide layer has a thickness of 10-1000 nm (Li, 0.5nm to 10 nm [0006, 0035]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified He as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Shin et al., “Agglomeration Mechanism and a Protective Role of Al2O3 for Prolonged Cycle Life of Si Anode in Lithium-Ion Batteries,” Chem Mater., 2018, pg. 3233-3243.
Regarding Claim 8, modified He discloses all limitations as set forth above. Modified He does not disclose any weight percentage of the Al2O3 coating, and therefore does not disclose “the aluminum oxide is 2-20 pts.mass to the SiOx of 100 pts.mass when it is converted to a numerical value of a corresponding Al or Mg.” However, this limitation is taught by Shin.
Shin teaches a Si-based anode material comprising 9 mass% of an Al2O3 coating (Section 3.1). Like Modified He, Shin also teaches the Al2O3 coating improves Si particle dispersion and improves battery performance (Abstract, Sections 4-5).
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to add the Al2O3 coating at 9 mass % to the SiOx particle surface of modified He, and would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so, as Shin teaches this weight percentage will produce similar benefits to the Al2O3 coating taught by modified He.
Al2O3 consists of approximately 53 mass% aluminum (Al) and 47 mass% oxygen (O). Since Shin teaches the Al2O3 coating is 9 mass% of the anode material, the Al content of the anode material would be 4.8 mass%, which is within the claimed range of 2 mass% to 20 mass %.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified He as applied to Claims 1 and 2 above, and further in view of Kim et al., “Effect of carbon coating on nano-Si embedded SiOx-Al2O3 composites as lithium storage materials,” Applied Surface Science, 416, (2017), pg. 527–535.
Regarding Claim 9, modified He discloses all limitations as set forth above. Modified He discloses the at least one oxide forms an oxide layer (Li, Al2O3 layer). Modified He does not disclose “the composite material further comprises SiOy , wherein 0 ≤ y < 1 and y < x, and wherein the SiOy exists in the oxide layer.” However, Kim teaches these limitations are met by the structure of modified He.
Kim teaches an anode active material particle comprising Si, SiOx, and Al2O3 (Section 2). Kim teaches Al2O3 has a reducing effect on a silicon-oxygen material, and during a heat treatment step, Al is oxidized to an amorphous aluminum oxide phase, and the oxygen in the silicon-oxygen material is reduced to nanocrystalline Si and amorphous silicon suboxides (Sections 1-3). Kim teaches the 900 °C heat treatment is performed to create a thin amorphous carbon layer on the particle surface, “resulting in a carbon-coated Si–SiOx–Al2O3 composite” (Section 3). See Examples in He for 800 °C and 900 °C heat treatment temperatures for carbon coating the SiOx particle.
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to expect the Al2O3 coating layer to further comprise nanocrystalline Si, on the SiOx particle surface of modified He, as Kim teaches Al2O3 reduces a silicon-oxygen material (such as the SiOx particle of modified He) to an amorphous aluminum oxide, nanocrystalline Si, and amorphous silicon suboxides during a heat treatment temperature used by modified He.
The “nanocrystalline Si” satisfies the claimed formula SiOy , wherein y = 0, and y < x (See Claim 1, value of x ranges from 0.1 < x ≤ 2.0).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BETHANY C GARCIA whose telephone number is (571)272-2475. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 0800 - 1730 MT.
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, Allison Bourke can be reached at 303-297-4684. 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.
/BETHANY C GARCIA/Examiner, Art Unit 1721
/ALLISON BOURKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1721
Prosecution Insights