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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 12/7/2023, 3/7/2025, 8/1/2025 and 6/15/2026 has/have been received and complies with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner, and a copy with initials is attached herewith.
Election/Restrictions
4. Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-8 and 15) in the reply filed on 6/18/2026 is acknowledged. Therefore, claims 1-8 and 15 are examined on the merits.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. Claim(s) 1-8 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirose et al (US 20180175377 A1).
Regarding claims 1-2, Hirose discloses a negative electrode (10) comprising a negative electrode current collector (11) and a negative electrode active material layer (12) provided on the negative electrode current collector (11). The negative electrode active material layer (12) comprises a silicon-based active material consisting of particles comprising SiOx (x being between 0.5 and 1.6) and Li, as well as one or more of compounds of aluminum oxide, aluminum hydroxide, zirconium oxide and zirconium hydroxide (i.e. structures of aluminum / zirconium bound to oxygen) [Abstract; Fig. 2; paragraph 0066, 0072-0077]. Hirose does not explicitly disclose the mass% content of the above mentioned structures of aluminum and/or zirconium. However, within the frame of the technical problem of improving the charge/discharge efficiency of a negative electrode; a skilled person in the art would have experimented with several mass contents of the above mentioned structures/compounds of aluminum and/or zirconium and would be obvious.
Regarding claim 3, Hirose teaches that the structures/compounds of aluminum and/or zirconium elements which are bound to oxygen are hydroxide of aluminum and/or zirconium [paragraph 0068-0070].
Regarding claim 4, Hirose does not explicitly teach to form a lithium aluminum compound, a lithium boron compound, a lithium zinc compound or a lithium zirconium compound. However, Hirose teaches that the silicon-based active material preferably contains Li2SiO3 as the Li compound contained in the silicon compound. Such Li silicate as Li2SiO3 is relatively stable compared to other Li compounds, and accordingly, a silicon-based active material containing the Li compound(s) can give more stable battery performances. These Li compounds can be obtained by selectively changing a part of SiO2 component formed in the silicon compound to a Li compound to modify the silicon compound [paragraph 0080].
Regarding claim 5, Hirose does not explicitly teach amount of Li present in the silicon-containing active material. However, it is within the technical grasp of skilled artisan to find out the effective amount of lithium for charge/discharge efficiency of a negative electrode and would have been obvious.
Regarding claims 6-7, Hirose teaches that the silicon-containing active material further comprises a carbon layer on at least a portion of silicon-containing particles [Abstract; paragraph 0027-0029, 0068-0069].
Regarding claim 8, Hirose is silent about a weight ratio of the silicon-containing active material to the carton-based carbon-containing active material. However, it is within the technical grasp of skilled artisan to find out the effective ratio for charge/discharge efficiency of a negative electrode and would have been obvious.
Regarding claim 15, Hirose negative electrode slurry comprises a silicon-based active material having particles comprising SiOx (x being between 0.5 and 1.6) and Li, as well as one or more of compounds of aluminum oxide, aluminum hydroxide, zirconium oxide and zirconium hydroxide (i.e. structures of aluminum / zirconium bound to oxygen) [Abstract; paragraph 0066, 0072-0077]. Hirose does not explicitly disclose the mass% content of the above mentioned structures of aluminum and/or zirconium. However, within the frame of the technical problem of improving the charge/discharge efficiency of a negative electrode; a skilled person in the art would have experimented with several mass contents of the above mentioned structures/compounds of aluminum and/or zirconium and would be obvious.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUHAMMAD S SIDDIQUEE whose telephone number is (571)270-3719. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 am - 5:00 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, Tong Guo can be reached at (571) 272-3066. 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.
/MUHAMMAD S SIDDIQUEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights