DETAILED ACTION
The response filed August 10, 2026 has been entered. Claim 2 has been canceled by Applicant. Claims 1 and 3-16 are pending.
Claim Objections
The previous objection to claim 1 has been withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
Claim 13 is objected to because it depends on claim 12, which already narrows claim 3 to “the aluminum phosphate and lithium phosphate layer”. Claim 13 should depend from claim 3, which first presents the list.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 3-11, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (“Lee”, US 2020/0388833 A1) in view of Zha (CN111180693A).
Regarding claim 1, Lee discloses a negative electrode active material including a core containing SiOx and a lithium-containing compound, and a shell disposed on the core and containing SiOx and magnesium silicate ([0019]).
Lee does not expressly the amount of Li is larger than the amount of Mg.
However, Lee teaches the lithium silicate contained in the core may be included in an amount of 0.1 to 50 wt.% ([0026]), and the magnesium silicate contained in the shell may be included in an amount of 0.1 to 50 wt.% ([0031]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to optimize the amount of Li and Mg through routine experimentation as both directly affect the initial efficiency and lifespan properties of the battery ([0026] and [0031]), as taught by Lee.
Lee teaches the lithium silicate contained in the core may be 3 to 10 wt.% based on the total weight of the negative electrode active material ([0026]), which overlaps the claimed range.
As to claim 2, without necessarily acquiescing to Applicant’s arguments, the Examiner also brings attention to the secondary reference of Zha.
Zha discloses a negative electrode active material ([0009]) and teaches the silicon oxide particles contain lithium, and the lithium in the silicon oxide particles includes lithium silicate compounds ([0013]). Zha teaches the negative electrode active material contains 29.9-69.9 wt.% silicon, 29.9-59.9 wt.% oxygen, and 0.1-20wt.% lithium ([0017]). Zha also teaches the negative electrode active material further includes 0.01 to 10 wt.% of doping elements ([0018]), and the doping element includes one or more of the elements N, B, P, Mg, Al, Cu, Mn, Ca, and Zn ([0019]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to include a doping element such as Mg in the amount taught by Zha (0..01 to 10 wt.%) as magnesium doping in lithium-based negative electrodes is known to improve structural stability, suppress degradation, and enhance electrochemical performance.
As to claim 3, Lee teaches a carbon coating layer disposed on the shell ([0039]).
As to claim 4, Lee teaches the shell may contain magnesium silicate ([0029]).
As to claim 5, Lee teaches the lithium silicate may include Li2SiO3, Li2Si2O5, or Li4SiO4 ([0024]).
As to claim 6, Lee teaches an average particle diameter of 1 to 20 microns ([0050]), which overlaps the claimed range.
As to claim 7, Lee is silent as to the BET specific surface area. However, Lee teaches a substantially similar product made by a substantially similar process (heat treating a mixture) ([0080]-[0082]). Therefore, there would be a reasonable expectation that the product would have substantially similar properties. See MPEP 2144.09 which states that a rejection based on close structural similarity is founded on the expectation that compounds similar in structure will have similar properties.
As to claim 8, Lee teaches a silicon crystal grain with a particle diameter of 8 to 15 nm ([0036]), which overlaps the claimed range.
As to claims 9 and 10, Lee teaches a negative electrode including the negative electrode active material and a secondary battery including the negative electrode ([0002]).
As to claim 11, Lee teaches the carbon coating layer ([0039]). The method by which the carbon coating layer is formed is considered a product by process limitation (see MPEP 2113). Product is defined by structure implied by the steps.
As to claim 14, Lee teaches the thickness of the carbon coating layer may be 200 to 500 nm ([0047]), which overlaps the range claimed.
Claims 12, 13, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee and Zha as applied above, and further in view of Harada et al. (“Harada”, US 2020/0091513 A1).
Regarding claims 12, 13, 15, and 16, Lee does not teach an aluminum phosphate layer or lithium phosphate layer.
However, Harada is also directed to an active material of an electrode in a battery ([0002]) and teaches it is preferable that a phosphate compound is present as at least a part of the surface of the primary particle to form a favorable electrically conductive path and so that active material does not come in to direct contact with the electrolyte ([0046]). Harada teaches the phosphate compound can be lithium phosphate or aluminum phosphate, inter alia ([0047]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to include lithium phosphate or aluminum phosphate at the surface of the primary particle to form a favorable electrically conductive path and so that active material does not come in to direct contact with the electrolyte ([0046]), as taught by Harada.
Further regarding claim 12, the method by which the phosphate layers are formed is considered a product by process limitation (see MPEP 2113). Product is defined by structure implied by the steps.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are either not found persuasive or are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Applicant argues that Lee does not disclose the claimed amount of Li and Mg and argues unexpected results in a 132 Declaration.
Without necessarily acquiescing to Applicant’s arguments, the Examiner has added a secondary reference showing that the claimed ranges of Li and Mg are taught in the prior art (overlapping ranges), and selecting a range within a known range is not considered novel or unobvious. The 132 Declaration alleges unexpected results, but the claims must be commensurate in scope with the ranges that produced the unexpected results.
The unexpected results must be shown over the entire claimed range and must be truly unexpected, not just a predictable improvement.
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 DANIEL H. LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-2548. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00.
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, Michael Orlando can be reached at 5712705038. 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.
DANIEL H. LEE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1746
/DANIEL H LEE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746
Prosecution Insights