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 .
Claim Interpretation
Because the phase fraction ratio of claim 1 includes 1.0 to the tenth decimal place, the claim is considered definite because silicon can still be positively recited in a small amount while the phase fraction ratio is still 1.0 to the tenth decimal place.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-5 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deng et al. (PGPub 2025/0273676).
Considering Claim 1, Deng discloses an anode active material for a lithium secondary battery (negative electrode active material [Abstract] for lithium secondary battery [0060, 0215, 0216]) comprising a lithium-silicon oxide particle (negative active material particle [0090], contains Li2SiO3 and Li2Si2O5 [Abstract, 0076, 0077, 0101]), and optionally further includes Li2Si2O5 (contains Li2Si2O5 [Abstract, 0076, 0101]),
wherein a phrase fraction ratio defined by Equation 1 of the lithium-silicon oxide particle is in a range from 0.55 to 1.0:
[Equation 1]
phase fraction = P(LS)/(P(LS)+P(Si))
wherein, in Equation 1, P(LS) is a sum of a phase fraction of Li2SiO3 and a phase fraction of Li2Si2O5 obtained by Rietveld Refinement using an X-ray diffraction (XRD) analysis, P(Si) is a phase fraction of silicon obtained by Rietveld Refinement using the XRD analysis (Li2Si2O5 corresponds to first diffraction XRD peak [0063, Figure 1], Li2SiO3 corresponds to second diffraction peak [0063, Figure 1], and Si corresponds to third diffraction peak [0078, Figure 1], peak intensity ratio of Li2Si2O5 to Li2SiO3 to Si of 40 to 60: 100 to 145: 100, or phase combined as 0.58 to 0.67 [0185]; first, second, and third diffraction peaks have half-peak width of 0.85 to 1.3° [0009], 0.5 to 0.95° [0010], and 1 to 1.5° [0078] respectively or phase combined as 0.47 to 0.69; the distribution of Li2Si2O5 and Li2SiO3 grains helps to alleviate volume expansion of the silicon-based negative electrode active material in a cycle process to improve the initial coulombic efficiency and cycle life in addition to the high energy density [0007], so providing phases within these ranges for a range of 0.55 to 1.0 to achieve such predicted results would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art).
Considering Claim 2, Deng discloses that a crystallite size measured by the XRD analysis of Li2SiO3 is 8 nm or more (Li2SiO3 grain size ranges from 11 nm to 18 nm [0016], concerning crystallites [0115]).
Considering Claim 3, because Deng discloses a grain size range from 11 nm to 18 nm [0016], it appears that a calculation using Equation 2 will produce results of the claimed range of 8 nm or more.
Considering Claim 4, Deng discloses that the crystallite size of Li2SiO3 is 15 nm to 18 nm (Li2SiO3 grain size ranges from 11 nm to 18 nm for improved cycle life [0016], so choosing within this range for a range of 15 to 18 nm to achieve such predicted results would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art).
Considering Claim 5, Deng discloses that Li2SiO3 corresponds to second diffraction peak [0063, Figure 1], and Si corresponds to third diffraction peak [0078, Figure 1], peak intensity ratio of Li2Si2O5 to Li2SiO3 to Si of 40 to 60: 100 to 145: 100, or phase combined as 0.58 to 0.67 [0185]; first, second, and third diffraction peaks have half-peak width of 0.85 to 1.3° [0009], 0.5 to 0.95° [0010], and 1 to 1.5° [0078] respectively or phase combined as 0.47 to 0.69; the distribution of Li2Si2O5 and Li2SiO3 grains helps to alleviate volume expansion of the silicon-based negative electrode active material in a cycle process to improve the initial coulombic efficiency and cycle life in addition to the high energy density [0007], so providing phases within these ranges for a range of 0.60 to 1.0 to achieve such predicted results would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Considering Claim 8, Deng discloses a lithium secondary battery (lithium secondary battery [0060, 0215, 0216]), comprising:
a cathode (positive electrode [0060, 0216]); and
an anode facing the cathode (electrodes separated by interposed separator [0060] after stacked arrangement [0216]) and including the anode active material for a lithium secondary battery of claim 1 (negative electrode made of the negative electrode active material [0060], see claim 1).
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deng et al. (PGPub 2025/0273676) and further in view of Park et al. (PGPub 2025/0062322).
Considering Claims 6 and 7, Deng discloses a carbon material coating layer for improved cycle life [0017]. However, Deng is silent to amorphous carbon or natural/artificial graphite.
Park discloses a silicon-carbon composite that includes silicon particles and carbon layers [Abstract]. The first and second carbon layer may each comprise amorphous carbon and graphite, which would encompass either natural or artificial graphite [0141]. These materials impart conductivity and suppress reactivity with the electrolyte solution [0140].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the negative electrode material of Deng with the carbon layers of Park in order to impart conductivity and suppress reactivity with the electrolyte solution [0140].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-14 allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: considering claim 9, Deng renders the phase fraction ratio obvious as cited above in claim 1. However, Deng forms particles by heating a raw material containing Si and O such as silicon and silicon dioxide by using vapor deposition, then cooling, and subsequently crushing the deposit to obtain a crushed product for particles [0027-0031]. Vapor deposition is performed quickly with uniform dispersion [0116, 0114], and the crushing is performed to meet preset parameters [0117]. Solvent is only considered for the already formed active material for coating purposes [0125]. As the manufacturing method of vapor deposition is done quickly and achieves appropriate crystallinity [0115], one of ordinary skill in the art would not introduce solvent steps and drying steps to add to the manufacturing time while potentially altering the reaction and desired properties as claimed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER P DOMONE whose telephone number is (571)270-7582. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-4:30 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, Basia Ridley can be reached at (571)272-1453. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER P DOMONE/Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights