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 without traverse of Group I, drawn to claims 1-15 and 22-23 in the reply filed on 09/04/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 16-21 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 09/04/2026.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 7 includes the limitation “is greater than 0 and less than or equal to 40 wt%” that should be corrected to “is greater than 0 wt% and less than or equal to 40 wt%”.
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 9 and 14 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.
Regarding claim 9, claim 9 includes the limitation “the silicon-based material comprises a vapor-deposited silicon-based material” in line 11. It is unclear if the “silicon-based material” is in reference to the first silicon-based material, the second silicon-based material, or both the first and second silicon-based materials.
Regarding claim 14, claim 14 includes the limitations “wherein the negative electrode active material further comprises other element(s) comprising one or more of oxygen element, metal element and nitrogen element, optionally, a sum of mass percentage amount(s) of other element(s) in the negative electrode active material is from 0 wt% to 20 wt%, more optionally from 0 wt% 10 wt%.” It is unclear how the negative electrode active material both comprises other elements, but can also optionally include a sum mass percentage amount of other elements from 0 wt%. For the sake of examination, the claim will be interpreted as the negative electrode active material comprising other element(s) comprising one or more of oxygen element, metal element, and nitrogen element in some amount greater than 0 wt% due to the sum of mass percentage amounts being optional, and therefore non-limiting, language.
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.
Claims 1-2, 7-9, 11-14, and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (CN-110380029-A), hereinafter Liu, as cited in the IDS.
Regarding claim 1, Liu teaches a negative electrode active material, wherein the negative electrode active material comprises a matrix material and a silicon-based material ([0020] silicon in a carbon source), the matrix material comprises a plurality of pore structures, at least a part of the silicon-based material is located in pore structures of the matrix material ([0020] silicon densely distributed in the voids of the carbon source), at least a part of the silicon-based material has a crystalline structure ([0021] crystalline silicon), the silicon-based material comprises a first silicon-based material and a second silicon- based material with different grain sizes ([0021]; [0028]), and a ratio of grain size of the first silicon-based material to grain size of the second silicon-based material is greater than or equal to 1.6:1 ([0028]; [0021]; silicon source includes polycrystalline silicon powder with a particle size of 10-50 µm, crystalline silicon with a particle size of 100-500 nm, and crystalline silicon with a particle size of 10-50 nm; depending on what is considered the first and second silicon based material, the silicon of Liu overlaps the claimed ratio range). In the case where the claimed ranges "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 2, Liu teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Liu also teaches wherein, the ratio of grain size of the first silicon-based material to grain size of the second silicon- based material is (1.6-4):1, optionally (2-4):1 ([0021] the particle sizes overlap the claimed range) In the case where the claimed ranges "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).;
and/or, grain size of the second silicon-based material is greater than 0 nm and less than or equal to 12 nm, optionally from 1 nm to 12 nm ([0021] 10 to 50 nm overlaps the claimed range).
Regarding claim 7, Liu teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Liu also teaches wherein mass percentage amount of the first silicon-based material in the silicon-based material is greater than 0 and less than or equal to 40 wt%, optionally from 10 wt% to 30 wt% ([0028] mass ratio of 1-3:5-7:2-5 giving a range of the first silicon-based material, interpreted as the crystalline silicon with a particle size of 100-500 nm, of 5/13 to 7/10, overlapping the claimed range). In the case where the claimed ranges "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 8, Liu teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Liu also teaches wherein at least a part of the silicon-based material is located in the pore structures of the matrix material ([0020]), and there is/are internal void(s) between the silicon-based material and the matrix material ([0012] porous silicon; [0030]).
Regarding claim 9, Liu teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Liu also teaches wherein the first silicon-based material comprises one or more of elemental silicon, silicon oxide, silicon-carbon material, silicon-nitrogen composite, and silicon alloy, optionally comprises elemental silicon ([0021] either polycrystalline or crystalline silicon);
and/or, the second silicon-based material comprises one or more of elemental silicon, silicon oxide, silicon-carbon material, silicon-nitrogen composite, and silicon alloy, optionally comprises elemental silicon ([0021] crystalline silicon);
and/or, the materials of the first silicon-based material and the second silicon-based material are the same, and optionally, both the first silicon-based material and the second silicon-based material are elemental silicon ([0021] either polycrystalline or crystalline silicon).
Regarding claim 11, Liu teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Liu also teaches wherein the matrix material satisfies at least one of the following (1) to (3):
(2) the matrix material comprises one or more of carbon material, graphite material and transition metal oxide material ([0020] carbon source material; [0038] equal parts of graphite and graphene).
Regarding claim 12, Liu teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Liu also teaches wherein the negative electrode active material further comprises a coating layer which is located on at least part of surface of the matrix ([0032] graphene coated – graphene is interpreted as the coating layer while the graphite is interpreted as the carbon matrix), optionally, the coating layer satisfies at least one of the following conditions (1) to (3):
(1) the coating layer comprises one or more of carbon materials, conductive polymers, metal oxides and metal sulfides ([0032] graphene is a carbon material);
(2) the coating layer comprises carbon material, and optionally, the carbon material comprises one or more of hard carbon, soft carbon, graphene, carbon fiber, and carbon nanotube ([0032] graphene).
Regarding claim 13, Liu teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Liu also teaches wherein the negative electrode active material comprises carbon element and silicon element ([0012] carbon and silicon composite),
optionally, mass percentage amount of carbon element in the negative electrode active material is from 40 wt% to 60 wt%, more optionally from 45 wt% to 50 wt% ([0031] 5-8 parts by mass to 1-3 parts by mass graphite and 1-3 parts by mass graphene);
optionally, mass percentage amount of silicon element in the negative electrode active material is from 38 wt% to 58 wt%, more optionally from 40 wt% 55 wt% ([0031] 5-8 parts by mass to 1-3 parts by mass graphite and 1-3 parts by mass graphene).
Regarding claim 14, Liu teaches all of the limitations of claim 13. Liu also teaches wherein the negative electrode active material further comprises other element(s) comprising one or more of oxygen element, metal element and nitrogen element ([0040] silver is deposited on the mixed silicon source).
Regarding claim 22, Liu teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Liu also teaches a secondary battery, comprising a negative electrode plate ([0014] anode), wherein the negative electrode plate comprises a negative electrode active material according to claim 1 ([0014] lithium-ion battery).
Regarding claim 23, Liu teaches all of the limitations of claim 22. Liu does not explicitly teach an electrical device, comprising the secondary battery according to claim 22. However, it would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that a battery such as in Liu ([0014] lithium-ion battery) can be utilized in an electrical device with an expectation of success.
Claims 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (KR-20160034512-A), hereinafter Kim, as cited in the IDS.
Regarding claim 3, Liu teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Liu fails to teach wherein, a region formed by extending from outer surface of particle of the negative electrode active material to inside of the particle by a distance of 0.5 times a length between any point on the outer surface of the particle of the negative electrode active material and a core of particle is recorded as an outer region, and a region inside the outer region is recorded as an inner region, and in cross-sectional image of the negative electrode active material, total cross-sectional area of the first silicon-based material in the outer region is smaller than total cross-sectional area of the first silicon-based material in the inner region; and total cross-sectional area of the second silicon-based material in the inner region is smaller than total cross-sectional area of the second silicon-based material in the outer region,
Kim is considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of negative electrodes for secondary batteries ([0001]). Kim teaches wherein, a region formed by extending from outer surface of particle of the negative electrode active material to inside of the particle by a distance of 0.5 times a length between any point on the outer surface of the particle of the negative electrode active material and a core of particle is recorded as an outer region, and a region inside the outer region is recorded as an inner region, and in cross-sectional image of the negative electrode active material, total cross-sectional area of the first silicon-based material in the outer region is smaller than total cross-sectional area of the first silicon-based material in the inner region; and total cross-sectional area of the second silicon-based material in the inner region is smaller than total cross-sectional area of the second silicon-based material in the outer region ([0041] a second particle with a relatively small size is distributed on the surface of the particle while the first particle with a relatively large size can be embedded within the particle, inherently satisfying the limitation claimed).
Therefore, it would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Liu such that in cross-sectional image of the negative electrode active material, total cross-sectional area of the first silicon-based material in the outer region is smaller than total cross-sectional area of the first silicon-based material in the inner region; and total cross-sectional area of the second silicon-based material in the inner region is smaller than total cross-sectional area of the second silicon-based material in the outer region. Doing so improves the capacity, lifespan, and reliability of the lithium secondary battery (Kim [0091]).
Regarding claim 4, modified Liu teaches all of the limitations of claim 3. Modified Liu also teaches wherein the cross-sectional image of the negative electrode active material comprises a cross-sectional image passing through the core of particle of the negative electrode active material (Kim [0041] a second particle with a relatively small size is distributed on the surface of the particle while the first particle with a relatively large size can be embedded within the particle, inherently satisfying the limitation claimed even when the image passes through the core of the particle).
Regarding claim 5, modified Liu teaches all of the limitations of claim 3. Modified Liu also teaches wherein, in the outer region of the cross-sectional image of the negative electrode active material, a ratio β1 of the total cross-sectional area of the first silicon-based material to the total cross-sectional area of the second silicon-based material is (0-25):100, optionally (0-5):100, and more optionally the total cross-sectional area of the first silicon-based material is 0;
and/or in inner region of the cross-sectional image of the negative electrode active material, a ratio β2 of the total cross-sectional area of the first silicon-based material to the total cross- sectional area of the second silicon-based material is 100:(0-250), optionally 100:(0-100) (Kim [0041] the second particle with the relatively small size is on the surface of the oxide, meaning there is no second particle embedded within the particle that would fall within the inner region).
Regarding claim 6, modified Liu teaches all of the limitations of claim 3. Modified Liu does not explicitly teach wherein in cross-sectional image of the negative electrode active material, a ratio γ1 of the total cross-sectional area of the first silicon-based material to the total cross-sectional area of the negative electrode active material is greater than 0 and less than or equal to 25%, and optionally from 5% to 20%;
and/or, in cross-sectional image of the negative electrode active material, a ratio γ2 of the total cross-sectional area of the second silicon-based material to the total cross-sectional area of the negative electrode active material is greater than 35% and less than 100%, and optionally from 40% to 60%.
However, Liu does teach that the weight ratio of the polycrystalline silicon, crystalline silicon with a particle size of 100-500nm, and crystalline silicon with a particle size of 10-50 nm are mixed in a mass ratio of 1-3:5-7:2-5 ([0028]) and that the silicon material, graphite, graphene, polyvinyl alcohol, and ultrapure aqueous solution are mixed in a mass ratio of 5-8:1-3:1-3:3-1:2-1 ([0031]) when forming the negative electrode active material. It would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Liu and modified the weight ratio of the first and second silicon-based materials, and by extension modify the total cross-sectional area of the first and second silicon-based materials to the total cross-sectional area of the negative electrode active material, in order to achieve increasing tap density and improved volumetric specific capacity of the anode (Liu [0039]-[0040]).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nakanishi et al. (US-20150380726-A1), hereinafter Nakanishi.
Regarding claim 10, Liu teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Liu also teaches wherein, the first silicon-based material comprises elemental silicon ([0021] polycrystalline or crystalline silicon).
Liu fails to explicitly teach the grain size of the first silicon-based material is greater than 0 nm and less than or equal to 8 nm, optionally from 2 nm to 8 nm; and/or the grain size of the first silicon-based material is greater than 0 nm and less than or equal to 5 nm, optionally from 1 nm to 5 nm, as the larger crystalline silicon has a particle size of 100 to 500 nm, and the polycrystalline silicon does not explicitly teach a grain size, only the particle size of 10 to 50 μm (Liu [0021]).
Nakanishi is considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of silicon-containing particles for a negative electrode active material ([0027]). Nakanishi teaches that a ratio of the volume median diameter of a particle size of the silicon-containing particles to the crystal grain size preferably ranges from 1 to 5000 ([0031]) in order to inhibit volume expansion ([0032]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Liu such that a ratio of the volume median diameter of a particle size of the silicon-containing particles to the crystal grain size preferably ranges from 1 to 5000 such as in Nakanishi. With such a ratio, the polycrystalline particles of Liu with a particle size of 10-50 µm would have a grain size falling within a range of 2 nm to 50 µm, overlapping the claimed ranges, and inhibition of volume expansion can be achieved (Nakanishi [0032]).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gao et al. (CN-114695865-A), hereinafter Gao, as cited in the IDS.
Regarding claim 15, Liu teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Liu fails to explicitly teach wherein, the negative electrode active material has a pore volume of from 0.001 cm3/g to 0.02 cm3/g, optionally from 0.01 cm3/g to 0.02 cm3/g;
and/or, the negative electrode active material has an average particle size Dv50 of from 4 μm to 12 μm;
and/or, the negative electrode active material has a BET specific surface area of from 1 m2/g to 15 m2/g.
Gao is considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of silicon negative electrode battery materials ([0001]). Gao teaches wherein,
the negative electrode active material has an average particle size Dv50 of from 4 μm to 12 μm ([0023] median particle size of the anode material is 5 to 25 μm). In the case where the claimed ranges "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).
Therefore, it would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Liu such that the negative electrode active material has an average particle size Dv50 of from 4 μm to 12 μm. Doing so provides a silicon anode material with a suitable particle size suitable for application in current production processes and with good processing performance (Gao [0023]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MADISON L KYLE whose telephone number is (571)272-0164. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9 AM - 5 PM ET.
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, Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at (571) 272-3433. 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.
/M.L.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1722
/ANCA EOFF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722
Prosecution Insights