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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on March 15, 2024 and July 22, 2025 have been considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 lines 2 and 18-19 recite that the negative electrode material powder contains an element Y that is at least one element selected from the group consisting of Cu, Fe, Ni, Cr, Co, Mn, Zr, and Ti. Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “Y” in claim 1 is used by the claim to mean “at least one element selected from the group consisting of Cu, Fe, Ni, Cr, Co, Mn, Zr, and Ti,” while the accepted meaning is “Yttrium”. For the purpose of prosecution, the term is definite and treated inconsistent with the accepted meaning because the specification via claim 1 has clearly redefined the term.
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.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2013/0084498 (IDS dated 03/15/2024), hereinafter Kimura.
Regarding claims 1-4, Kimura teaches a negative electrode active material in which a Si phase is dispersed in a matrix phase that contains an Si-Fe (claimed X is Fe) compound phase crystallized around the Si phase and a Sn-Cu (claimed Y is Cu) compound phase crystallized to surround the Si phase and the Si-Fe compound phase (Abstract) (reads on separate phases). The negative electrode has an active material in the form of a quenched alloy that is pulverized to provide a fine powder (similar to that of the instant specifications [0033]) having an average particle diameter of 1 to 10µm [0093]. This demonstrates an overlap in ranges taught. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a Prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05). The Si phase is contained in a range from 35 to 80% in terms of area ratio with respect to the entire active material [0080] (reads on “a”) and the Si-Fe phase is crystallized in a ratio of 35 to 90% in terms of an area ratio in the entire matrix phase [0049] (reads on “b”). This demonstrates an overlap in ranges taught. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a Prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05).
However, Kimura fails to teach the average particle diameter ratios of mdSi/mdSiX and mdSi/mdSnY (instant claim 4) nor the mass content ratios of the SnY phase (“c”) in instant formula (1) (instant claims 1-3).
Kimura teaches when the crystallization of the Si-Fe compound phase is less than 35%, the function of the phase that suppresses the expansion of the Si phase is insufficient, while when the crystallization ratio exceeds 90%, the cycling characteristics deteriorates [0053]. The Sn phase, which is solely crystallized without formation of a compound, undergoes large expansion upon absorbing Li, and when the amount thereof exceeds 1% in terms of the area ratio, the Sn phase diminishes the aforementioned advantages provided by the matrix phase. In the invention, accordingly, the amount of the Sn phase is 15% or less in terms of the area ratio [0057]. When the area ratio of the Si phase is less than 35%, the capacity of the negative electrode active material is decreased to fail to provide the target initial discharge capacity and thus the resulting battery may not have a large capacity. When the area ratio of the Si phase exceeds 80% on the other hand, the relative amount of the matrix phase is decreased, and the aforementioned advantages of the matrix phase are reduced, thereby deteriorating the cycling characteristics [0059]-[0060]. Additionally, as the average particle diameter of from 1 to 10 µm increases the, the contact area with the binder through miniaturization of the active material, and the synergistic effect with the use of the polyimide binder favorably suppresses breakage of the binder, thereby enhancing the cycling characteristics [0069]. Therefore, crystallization, area ratios, and average particle diameter of the phases are considered an art recognized result effective variable.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have optimized the crystallization and area ratios, as well as the average particle diameter in order to maintain cycling characteristics, as taught by Kimura. One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the mass percent of each phase will increase and decrease in a way that is directly proportional to the crystallization and area ratios. In optimizing the ratios of the Si phase and the Si-Fe phase, one would arrive at the claimed range for variable “c” in instant’s formula (1), barring evidence to criticality or unexpected results. Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that optimizing the ratios of each phase and the average particle diameter would result in the claimed average particle diameter ratio expressed by mdSi/mdSiX and mdSi/mdSnY, barring evidence to criticality or unexpected results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mia K Holbrook whose telephone number is (571)272-9253. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30-5.
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, Miriam Stagg can be reached at (571) 270-5256. 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.K.H./Examiner, Art Unit 1724
/MIRIAM STAGG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1724
Prosecution Insights