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 .
Claims 9-27 are pending in the application.
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 9-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kizaki et al. (WO 2014/002356) in view of Yasuda et al. (WO 2012/077268), for prior art discussions please see attached machine translation.
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “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).
Regarding claim 9, 10, 17 and 25, Kizaki et al. discloses a negative electrode active material comprising silicon monoxide particles SiO x powder satisfying x = 0.4 ≤ x ≤ 1.2 (para. 0012) with a conductive carbon film (para. 0028, , 0063) and the size distribution of the silicon monoxide particles (figure 3, para. 0045 - 0049). Kizaki et al. further discloses an accumulative 50%-particle-size D50 preferably satisfies 3 µm ≤D50≤ 15 µm (para. 0035) overlapping with the claimed range in claims 9 and 13. Additionally, Kizaki et al. discloses the accumulative particle size distribution of the Silicon monoxide particle at D0.1, D10, D99.9 values (figure 3, examiner figure A, para. 0045). As shown in the annotated diagram below, D0.1 of about 2.2 µm
D10 of about 3.5 µm
D50 of 3 µm ≤D50≤ 15 µm (para. 0035),
D99.9 of about 25 µm.
The ranges all overlap or lie within the presently claimed ranges for particle size distribution and therefore render the limitations obvious.
PNG
media_image1.png
554
970
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kizaki et al. further discloses if the particle size of the anode active material is too small, the total specific surface area of the powder becomes too large, which accelerates the reaction between the electrolyte and the anode powder in lithium-ion secondary batteries, and can cause breakdown due to electrolyte depletion (para. 0035). Additionally, if the particle size of the anode powder is too large, the separator in the lithium-ion secondary battery may be destroyed, potentially causing a short circuit (para. 0035). Kizaki et al establishes fine and coarse silicon monoxide particles as result -effective variables for improving the performance of the anode active material. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to control the fine end and coarse end of the silicon monoxide particle size distribution in the claimed range to prevent failure of the secondary battery as disclosed by Kizaki et al. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to have arrived at the claimed ranges for D0.1, D10, and D99.9 by routine optimization to achieve an active material with suitable characteristics. (MPEP 2144.05 II).
Kizaki et al. fails to disclose silicon monoxide particles satisfying BET specific surface area Sm, 1.0 m2/g≤Sm≤3.5 m2/g.
Yasuda et al. discloses a negative electrode active material comprising of silicon monoxide particles - SiO x powder satisfying x = 0.4 ≤ x ≤ 1.2 (para. 0029), where in silicon monoxide particles size distribution D50 is 3 μm ≤ D50 ≤ 12 μm (para. 0036). Yasuda et al. further discloses a BET specific surface area preferably satisfies 0.5 m 2 / g or more and 6.0 m 2 / g or less (para. 0039) thereby encompassing the claimed range of Sm, 1.0 m2/g≤Sm≤3.5 m2/g. Yasuda et al. further discloses when the specific surface area of the negative electrode material powder is small, generation of an SEI film (Solid Electrolyte Interface) on the electrode surface during the charge / discharge can be suppressed and if the specific surface area is large the ratio of the SEI film formed on the particle surface is increased, and the capacity of the lithium ion secondary battery will be decreased (para. 0039).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the silicon monoxide particles disclosed in Kizaki et al. to have a specific surface area as taught by Yasuda et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the silicon monoxide to have the surface area in the range disclosed by Yasuda et al. to increase the capacity of the secondary battery. e
Regarding claim 11 and 12, Kizaki et al. fails to disclose silicon monoxide particle with D10 in the range of 4.8 μm ≤ D10 ≤ 7 μm.
Yasuda et al. discloses the cumulative particle size distribution D50 of the silicon oxide powder preferably satisfies 3 μm ≤ D50 ≤ 12 μm (para. 0036) and the relationship between D50 and D10 preferably satisfies 1.6 ≤ D50 / D10 ≤ 2.1 (para. 0038). Since,
D
10
=
D
50
/
(
D
50
/
D
10
)
D50 = 12 μm, D10 = 7.5 μm
D50 = 3 μm, D10 = 1.43 μm
Thus Yasuda et al. discloses the preferred D10 range of 1.43 μm – 7.5 μm, thereby encompassing with the claimed D10 range. Yasuda et al. further discloses when D50/D10 < 1.4, the bulk density of the slurry produced by mixing the powder for negative electrode materials with a binder or a conductivity agent increases. In this case, the slurry readily separates from the applied working electrode current so the discharge capacity of the lithium-ion secondary battery decreases. When D50/D10 > 2.4, the particle size distribution is broad, the amount of air bubbles generated is large when producing the slurry, and uniform mixing is difficult, and the discharge capacity of the lithium-ion secondary battery decreases when used as an electrode. The relationship between D50 and D10 preferably satisfies 1.6 ≤ D50/D10 ≤ 2.1 to increase the discharge capacity of the lithium-ion secondary battery (para. 0038).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the silicon monoxide particles disclosed in Kizaki et al. to have D10 particle size in the range as taught by Yasuda et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the silicon monoxide of Kizaki et al. as taught by Yasuda et al.to increase the discharge capacity of the lithium-ion secondary battery.
Regarding claim 13, 14, 15 and 16, Kizaki et al discloses a accumulative 50%-particle -size, 3 µm ≤D50≤ 15 µm, overlapping the claimed ranges (para.0035 ).
Regarding claim 18, as disclosed above Kizaki et al. discloses the accumulative particle size distribution of the Silicon monoxide particle at D0.1 overlaps with claimed range. Yasuda et al. discloses a BET specific surface area preferably satisfies 0.5 m 2 / g or more and 6.0 m 2 / g or less (para. 0039) thereby encompassing the claimed range of Sm, 1.0 m2/g≤Sm≤2.2 m2/g. The combination of Kizaki et al. and Yasuda et al. with respect to claim 10 applies here and for reasons as set above.
Regarding claims 19 and 20, as discussed above Yasuda et al. discloses the accumulative 10%- particles-size D10 of 1.43 μm – 7.5 μm with respect to claims 11 and 12 applies here and for reasons as set above.
Yasuda et al. further discloses a BET specific surface area preferably satisfies 0.5 m 2 / g or more and 6.0 m 2 / g or less (para. 0039) thereby encompassing the claimed range of Sm, 1.0 m2/g≤Sm≤2.2 m2/g.
Regarding claims 21, 22, 23, and 24, Kizaki et al discloses a accumulative 50%-particle -size, 3 µm ≤D50≤ 15 µm, overlapping the claimed ranges (para). Yasuda et al. discloses a BET specific surface area preferably satisfies 0.5 m 2 / g or more and 6.0 m 2 / g or less (para. 0039) thereby encompassing the claimed range of Sm, 1.0 m2/g≤Sm≤2.2 m2/g. The combination of Kizaki et al. and Yasuda et al. discloses all the limitations of the claims.
Regarding claim 26 and 27, Kizaki et al. discloses a negative electrode, and a lithium-ion secondary battery (para. 0067-0069, 0003, figure 1) comprising of a positive electrode, a separator and an electrolyte (para. 0003)
Claims 9-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasuda et al. (WO 2012/077268) in view of Kizaki et al. (WO 2014/002356), for prior art discussions please see attached machine translation.
Regarding claim 9, 10, and 17, Yasuda et al. discloses a negative electrode active material comprising silicon monoxide particles and the size distribution of the silicon monoxide particles (para. 0019, 0029, 0049). Yasuda et al. discloses a BET specific surface area of silicon monoxide particles preferably satisfies 0.5 m 2 / g or more and 6.0 m 2 / g or less (para. 0038) thereby encompassing the claimed range. Yasuda et al. further discloses an accumulative 50%-particle-size D50 preferably satisfies 3 µm ≤ D50 ≤ 12 µm (para. 0036) thereby overlapping with the claimed range.
Yasuda et al. further discloses the relationship between D50 and D10 preferably satisfies 1.6 ≤ D50 / D10 ≤ 2.1 (para. 0038). Since,
D
10
=
D
50
/
(
D
50
/
D
10
)
,
at D50 = 12 μm, D10 = 7.5 μm
at D50 = 3 μm, D10 = 1.43 μm
Thus, Yasuda et al. discloses the preferred D10 range of 1.43 μm – 7.5 μm, thereby encompassing the claimed D10 range. Regarding particle size distribution D0.1, ranges claimed in claims 9, and 10, Yasuda et al. expressly teaches removal of fine silicon monoxide particles before use in a negative electrode due to their tendency to cause bubbles in the slurry (para. 0016, 0062-0063). Yasuda et al. further discloses the sedimentation process to remove fine powder having a particles size of about 1μm (figure 3, para. 0062-0065). By removing particles of about 1 μm, the smallest particle size in the composition would be more than about 1 μm, which would therefore result in a D0.1 to be implicitly more than about 1 μm, such as 1.1 μm or 1.2 μm or above, which lies within the presently claimed range.Yasuda et al. fails to teach particle size D99.9 ranges claimed in claims 9,
Kizaki et al. discloses D99.9 at about 25 µm, falling within the range recited (figure 3, examiner figure A, para. 0045). Additionally, Kizaki et al. teaches if the particle size of the anode powder is too large, the separator in the lithium-ion secondary battery may be destroyed, potentially causing a short circuit. (para. 0035).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify silicon monoxide of Yasuda et al. as taught by Kizaki et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the silicon monoxide of Yasuda et al. to have particle-size D99.9 in the range taught Kizaki et al. to obtain a lithium-ion secondary battery with high discharge capacity, good cycle characteristics and durability for utility-level use.
In view of the teachings of Kizaki et al. regarding the result effective nature of particle size distributions one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to control the fine end (D0.1) and coarse end (D99.9) of the accumulative size distribution of silicon monoxide particles. Additionally selecting specific ranges for D0.1 and D99.9 with in the claimed windows would have been a matter of routine optimization (MPEP 2144.05 II). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have routinely selected within the overlapping ranges with reasonable expectation of achieving an active material with suitable characteristics.
Regarding claims 11 and 12, Yasuda et al. discloses preferred D10 range of 1.43 μm – 7.5 μm, thereby encompassing with the claimed D10 range as discussed above
Regarding claims 13, 14, 15, and 16, Yasuda et al. discloses D50 preferably satisfies 3 µm ≤ D50 ≤ 12 µm (para. 0036) thereby overlapping within the range claimed.
Regarding claim 18, as discussed above Yasuda et al. expressly teaches removal of fine silicon monoxide particles having a particles size of about 1μm (figure 3, para. 0062-0065), which would therefore result in a D0.1 to be implicitly more than about 1 μm,
Yasuda et al. fails to teach particle size distribution 2.0 μm ≤ D0.1 ≤ 3.0 μm.
Kizaki et al. discloses the accumulative particle size distribution of the Silicon monoxide particle at D0.1 of about 2.2 μm which overlaps with claimed range. (figure 3, examiner figure A, para. 0045). Kizaki et al. further discloses if the particle size of the anode active material is too small, the total specific surface area of the powder becomes too large, which accelerates the reaction between the electrolyte and the anode powder in lithium-ion secondary batteries, and can cause breakdown due to electrolyte depletion (para. 0035). Kizaki et al establishes fine silicon monoxide particles as result -effective variables for improving the performance of the anode active material. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to have arrived at the claimed ranges for D0.1 by routine optimization to achieve an active material with suitable characteristics. (MPEP 2144.05 II).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated modify the silicon monoxide particles of Yasuda et al. as taught by Kizaki et al. to control the fine end of the silicon monoxide particle size distribution in the claimed range to prevent failure of the secondary battery as disclosed by Kizaki et al.
Regarding claims 19 and 20, Yasuda et al. discloses preferred D10 range of 1.43 μm – 7.5 μm, thereby encompassing with the claimed D10 range as discussed above. Yasuda further discloses a BET specific surface area of silicon monoxide particles preferably satisfies 0.5 m 2 / g or more and 6.0 m 2 / g or less (para. 0038) thereby encompassing the claimed range.
Regarding claims 21, 22, 23 and 24, Yasuda et al. discloses D50 preferably satisfies 3 µm ≤ D50 ≤ 12 µm (para. 0036) thereby overlapping with the range claimed. Yasuda further discloses a BET specific surface area of silicon monoxide particles preferably satisfies 0.5 m 2 / g or more and 6.0 m 2 / g or less (para. 0038) thereby encompassing the claimed range. The combination of Kizaki et al. and Yasuda et al. disclose all the limitations of the claims
Regarding claim 25, Yasuda et al. discloses the silicon monoxide particles are coated with carbon coating (para. 0035).
Regarding claim 26 and 27, Yasuda et al. discloses a lithium – ion secondary battery with a negative electrode, comprising the silicon monoxide as the negative electrode active material (para. 0072-0075, 0003, figure 1), a positive electrode, a separator and an electrolyte (para. 0003).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ISWARYA MATHEW whose telephone number is (571)272-9515. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM - 3:00 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, ALICIA CHEVALIER can be reached at (571) 272-1490. 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.
/I.M./
Iswarya MathewExaminer, Art Unit 1788 06/01/2026
/ALEXANDRE F FERRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1788 06/09/2026
Prosecution Insights