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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1, 3-7, and 11-16, in the reply filed on 06/05/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 8-10 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 06/05/2026.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 6, 11, 13-14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hirose et al (US 20170062814 A1, which is an English equivalent to JP2013131324A given in the 01/07/2026 IDS).
Regarding claim 1, Hirose discloses a negative electrode active material (negative electrode active material 200 in Fig. 2B; see entire disclosure and especially P64) comprising:
a silicon-based active material (core portion 201 in Fig. 2B; core portion can include a silicon based material (SiOx: 0≦x≦0.5); see entire disclosure and especially P64, 66); and
a silicon oxide coating layer covering at least a portion of an outer surface of the silicon-based active material (coating portion 202; coating portion can include a silicon based material (SiOy: 0.5≦y≦1.8); see entire disclosure and especially P64, 74-75),
wherein a content of oxygen (O) atom in the silicon oxide coating layer is 40 % or more based on total 100 % of all atoms included in the silicon oxide coating layer (in SiOy, y=1.2 is preferred as stated in P78; 1 oxygen + 1.2 silicon = 2.2 of atoms total; 1.2 oxygen / 2.2 atoms total = 54.55%),
wherein the silicon oxide coating layer has a thickness of 1 nm or more and 3 µm or less (“In addition, the average thickness of the coating portion 202 is not particularly limited; however, among these, as thin as possible is preferable, and 1 nm to 3000 nm is more preferable”, P90), and
the silicon-based active material includes one or more selected from the group consisting of SiOx (x=0) and SiOx (0<x<2) (core portion can include a silicon based material (SiOx: 0≦x≦0.5); “As is clear from the above-described composition (atom ratio x), the forming material of the core portion 201 may be Si alone (x=0), or may be an oxide of Si (SiOx: 0<x<0.5)”, P67; see entire disclosure and especially P64, 66), and
SiOx (x=0) is comprised in an amount of 70 parts by weight or more based on 100 parts by weight of the silicon-based active material (the core portion can be chosen to be SiOx (x=0), therefore, the entire core can be 100 parts by weight SiOx (x=0)).
Regarding claim 6, Hirose ‘814 discloses wherein an arrangement area of the silicon oxide coating layer is 90% or more based on the outer surface of the silicon-based active material (the coating portion 202 can coat the entire surface of the core portion 201; see entire disclosure and especially P74).
Regarding claim 11, Hirose ‘814 discloses a negative electrode composition comprising: the negative electrode active material according to claim 1; a negative electrode conductive material; and a negative electrode binder (negative electrode active material, negative electrode binding agent, and negative electrode conductive agent; see entire disclosure and especially P43, 48, 64, 112-114, 129).
Regarding claim 13, Hirose ‘814 discloses wherein the negative electrode conductive material comprises one or more selected from the group consisting of a particulate conductive material; a planar conductive material; and a linear conductive material (“For example, the negative electrode conductive agent includes one type or two or more types of any of carbon material such as graphite, carbon black, acetylene black or Ketjen black”, P91).
Regarding claim 14, Hirose ‘814 discloses a negative electrode for a lithium secondary battery, comprising: a negative electrode current collector layer (negative electrode current collector 1 in Fig.1; see entire disclosure and especially P43); and a negative electrode active material layer provided on one surface or both surfaces of the negative electrode current collector layer (negative electrode active material layer 2 in Fig. 1; see entire disclosure and especially P43), wherein the negative electrode active material layer comprises the negative electrode composition according to claim 11 or a cured product thereof (see entire disclosure and especially P48, 64, 129).
Regarding claim 16, Hirose ‘814 discloses a lithium secondary battery comprising: a positive electrode; the negative electrode according to claim 14; a separator between the positive electrode and the negative electrode; and an electrolyte (for example, square type rechargeable battery including a positive electrode 21, negative electrode 22, separator 23, and an electrolytic solution; see Fig. 8; see entire disclosure and especially P36, 138, 145, 152, 160-161).
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirose et al (US 20170062814 A1, which is an English equivalent to JP2013131324A given in the 01/07/2026 IDS) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Jo et al (US 20170309902 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Hirose ‘814 does not disclose wherein the silicon-based active material has a crystal grain size of 200 nm or less.
In a similar field of endeavor, Jo teaches a negative electrode active material for a lithium secondary battery can include silicon nanograins having an average grain size of 3 nm to 300 nm (P29). Jo teaches a better effect of improving battery characteristics may be obtained by including the nanoscale silicon grains (P29).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the teaching of Jo and substituted the silicon-based active material of Hirose ‘814 with the silicon nanograins of Jo, given Jo teaches a better effect of improving battery characteristics may be obtained by including the nanoscale silicon grains, and the simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
The crystal grain size range of 3 nm or 300 nm overlaps the claimed range of 200 nm or less, and 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) (See MPEP § 2144.05).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirose et al (US 20170062814 A1, which is an English equivalent to JP2013131324A given in the 01/07/2026 IDS) as applied to claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, Hirose ‘814 discloses wherein the silicon-based active material has an average particle diameter (D50) of 0.1 µm to 20 µm (P73). The average particle diameter range of 0.1 µm to 20 µm overlaps the claimed range of 3 µm to 10 µm, and 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) (See MPEP § 2144.05).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirose et al (US 20170062814 A1, which is an English equivalent to JP2013131324A given in the 01/07/2026 IDS) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Han et al (US 20140308585 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Hirose ‘814 does not disclose wherein the silicon oxide coating layer comprises one or more selected from the group consisting of crystalline silicon and amorphous silicon.
In a similar field of endeavor, Han teaches nanoscale elemental silicon can contribute a very high specific capacity component to composite compositions incorporating the silicon (P65). Han teaches the nanoscale elemental silicon can be provided by submicron silicon particles (P65). Han teaches the submicron silicon particles can be amorphous or crystalline (P66).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added the amorphous or crystalline submicron silicon particles of Han into the silicon oxide coating layer of Hirose ‘814, given Han teaches this can contribute a very high specific capacity component to a composite the submicron silicon particles are used within.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirose et al (US 20170062814 A1, which is an English equivalent to JP2013131324A given in the 01/07/2026 IDS) as applied to claim 11, further in view of Inoue (US 20140077128 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Hirose ‘814 does not disclose wherein the negative electrode composition comprises the negative electrode active material in an amount of 60 parts by weight or more based on 100 parts by weight of the negative electrode composition.
In a similar field of endeavor, Inoue teaches a content of negative electrode active material in a negative electrode active material layer is preferably between 70 wt % and 99 wt % (P55). Inoue teaches if the content of the negative electrode active material is 70 wt % or more, the energy density of an electrode may be increased (P55). Inoue further teaches if the content is not more than 99 wt %, adhesion between negative electrode active materials and between the negative electrode active materials and the current collector may be enhanced (P55).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the teaching of Inoue and modified Hirose ‘814 such that the negative electrode composition comprises the negative electrode active material in an amount of 60 parts by weight or more based on 100 parts by weight of the negative electrode composition, such as using the range of 70 wt % to 99 wt % as taught by Inoue, given Inoue teaches this allows the energy density of an electrode to be increased while allowing adhesion between negative electrode active materials and negative electrode active materials and a current collector to be enhanced.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirose et al (US 20170062814 A1, which is an English equivalent to JP2013131324A given in the 01/07/2026 IDS) as applied to claim 14, further in view of Asano et al (US 20160344060 A1).
Regarding claim 15, in Hirose ‘814’s examples, a negative electrode current collector layer is chosen to be a Cu foil having a thickness of 15 μm (P239-240, 243).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of oridinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the negative electrode current collector layer of Hirose ‘814 to be a Cu foil having a thickness of 15 µm, given this is a known negative electrode current collector layer of Hirose ‘814, and the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07).
Therefore, modified Hirose ‘814 meets the limitation wherein the negative electrode current collector layer has a thickness of 1 µm or more and 100 µm or less (15 µm).
However, modified Hirose ‘814 does not meet the limitation wherein the negative electrode active material layer has a thickness of 20 µm or more and 500 µm or less.
In a similar field of endeavor, Asano teaches a thickness of a negative electrode active material layer can be 1 µm or more to keep sufficient capacity (P75). Asano teaches a thickness of a negative electrode active material layer can be 300 µm or less to keep high flexibility (P75).
The range of 1 µm or more and 300 µm or less, as taught by Asano, overlaps the claimed range of a thickness of 20 µm or more and 500 µm or less, and 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) (See MPEP § 2144.05).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the teaching of Asano and selected a thickness of the negative electrode active material layer of modified Hirose ‘814 within the claimed range, given Asano teaches thicknesses within their taught range keep sufficient capacity and high flexibility.
Claims 1, 5-6, 11, 13-14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirose et al (US 20110159368 A1, hereinafter referred to as Hirose ‘368).
Regarding claim 1, Hirose ‘368 discloses a negative electrode active material (anode active material particles 200 in Figs. 2-3; see entire disclosure and especially P43) comprising:
a silicon-based active material (core section 201 in Figs. 2-3 which can be the simple substance silicon (SiOx wherein x=0); see entire disclosure and especially P44-46); and
a silicon oxide coating layer covering at least a portion of an outer surface of the silicon-based active material (coating section 202 in Figs. 2-3 which includes silicon oxide; see entire disclosure and especially P45, 47),
wherein a content of oxygen (O) atom in the silicon oxide coating layer is 40 wt% or more based on total 100 wt% of all atoms included in the silicon oxide coating layer (the silicon oxide of coating section 202 has a formula of SiOy, wherein 0.5 ≤ y ≤1.8, P45, 47; therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art could choose y = 1.8 thereby making the silicon oxide SiO1.8; 1 oxygen + 1.8 silicon = 2.8 of atoms total; 1.8 oxygen / 2.8 atoms total = 64.29%),
wherein the silicon oxide coating layer has a thickness of 1 nm or more and 3 µm or less (the average thickness of the coating section 202 is preferable within a range of 1 nm to 5000nm (1 nm to 5 µm), P71; the range of 1 to 5000 nm (1 nm or 5 µm) overlaps the claimed range of 1 nm ore more and 3 µm or less, and 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) (See MPEP § 2144.05)), and
the silicon-based active material includes one or more selected from the group consisting of SiOx (x=0) and SiOx (0<x<2) (core section 201 in Figs. 2-3 which can be the simple substance silicon (SiOx wherein x=0); see entire disclosure and especially P46), and
SiOx (x=0) is comprised in an amount of 70 parts by weight or more based on 100 parts by weight of the silicon-based active material (the core section 202 can be the simple substance silicon (SiOx wherein x=0), therefore, the entire core section 202 can be 100 parts by weight simple substance silicon (SiOx wherein x=0)).
Regarding claim 5, Hirose ‘368 discloses wherein a content of oxygen (O) atom in the silicon oxide coating layer is 60 wt% or more based on total 100 wt% of all atoms included in the silicon oxide coating layer (the silicon oxide of coating section 202 has a formula of SiOy, wherein 0.5 ≤ y ≤1.8, P45, 47; therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art could choose y = 1.8 thereby making the silicon oxide SiO1.8; 1 oxygen + 1.8 silicon = 2.8 of atoms total; 1.8 oxygen / 2.8 atoms total = 64.29%).
Regarding claim 6, Hirose ‘368 discloses wherein an arrangement area of the silicon oxide coating layer is 90% or more based on the outer surface of the silicon-based active material (the coating section 202 can be applied to a whole surface of the core section; see entire disclosure and especially P52).
Regarding claim 11, Hirose ‘368 discloses a negative electrode composition comprising: the negative electrode active material according to claim 1; a negative electrode conductive material; and a negative electrode binder (anode active material, anode binder, and anode conductor; see entire disclosure and especially P36, 43-46, 90-91, 94).
Regarding claim 13, Hirose ‘368 discloses wherein the negative electrode conductive material comprises one or more selected from the group consisting of a particulate conductive material; a planar conductive material; and a linear conductive material (“As an anode conductor, for example, one kind or two or more kinds of carbon materials such as graphite, carbon black, acetylene black and ketjen black are used”, P91).
Regarding claim 14, Hirose ‘368 discloses a negative electrode for a lithium secondary battery, comprising: a negative electrode current collector layer (anode current collector 1 in Fig. 1; see entire disclosure and especially P36); and a negative electrode active material layer provided on one surface or both surfaces of the negative electrode current collector layer (anode active material layer 2 in Fig. 1; see entire disclosure and especially P36), wherein the negative electrode active material layer comprises the negative electrode composition according to claim 11 or a cured product thereof (see entire disclosure and especially P43-46, 94).
Regarding claim 16, Hirose ‘368 discloses a lithium secondary battery comprising: a positive electrode; the negative electrode according to claim 14; a separator between the positive electrode and the negative electrode; and an electrolyte (for example, prismatic type secondary battery including a cathode 21, anode 22, separator 23, and an electrolytic solution; see Fig. 7; see entire disclosure and especially P36, 112, 115-116, 123-124, 131-132, 140-143).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirose et al (US 20110159368 A1, hereinafter referred to as Hirose ‘368) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Jo et al (US 20170309902 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Hirose ‘368 does not disclose wherein the silicon-based active material has a crystal grain size of 200 nm or less.
In a similar field of endeavor, Jo teaches a negative electrode active material for a lithium secondary battery can include silicon nanograins having an average grain size of 3 nm to 300 nm (P29). Jo teaches a better effect of improving battery characteristics may be obtained by including the nanoscale silicon grains (P29).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the teaching of Jo and substituted the silicon-based active material of Hirose ‘368 with the silicon nanograins of Jo, given Jo teaches a better effect of improving battery characteristics may be obtained by including the nanoscale silicon grains, and the simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
The crystal grain size range of 3 nm or 300 nm overlaps the claimed range of 200 nm or less, and 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) (See MPEP § 2144.05).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirose et al (US 20110159368 A1, hereinafter referred to as Hirose ‘368) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Han et al (US 20140308585 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Hirose ‘368 does not disclose wherein the silicon oxide coating layer comprises one or more selected from the group consisting of crystalline silicon and amorphous silicon.
In a similar field of endeavor, Han teaches nanoscale elemental silicon can contribute a very high specific capacity component to composite composition (P65). Han teaches the nanoscale elemental silicon can be provided by submicron silicon particles (P65). Han teaches the submicron silicon particles can be amorphous or crystalline (P66).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added the amorphous or crystalline submicron silicon particles of Han into the silicon oxide coating layer of Hirose ‘368, given Han teaches this can contribute a very high specific capacity component to a composite the submicron silicon particles are used within.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirose et al (US 20110159368 A1, hereinafter referred to as Hirose ‘368) as applied to claim 11, further in view of Inoue (US 20140077128 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Hirose ‘368 does not disclose wherein the negative electrode composition comprises the negative electrode active material in an amount of 60 parts by weight or more based on 100 parts by weight of the negative electrode composition.
In a similar field of endeavor, Inoue teaches a content of negative electrode active material in a negative electrode active material layer is preferably between 70 wt % and 99 wt % (P55). Inoue teaches if the content of the negative electrode active material is 70 wt % or more, the energy density of an electrode may be increased (P55). Inoue further teaches if the content is not more than 99 wt %, adhesion between negative electrode active materials and between the negative electrode active materials and the current collector may be enhanced (P55).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the teaching of Inoue and modified Hirose ‘368 such that the negative electrode composition comprises the negative electrode active material in an amount of 60 parts by weight or more based on 100 parts by weight of the negative electrode composition, such as using the range of 70 wt % to 99 wt % as taught by Inoue, given Inoue teaches this allows the energy density of an electrode to be increased while allowing adhesion between negative electrode active materials and negative electrode active materials and a current collector to be enhanced.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirose et al (US 20110159368 A1, hereinafter referred to as Hirose ‘368) as applied to claim 14, further in view of Asano et al (US 20160344060 A1).
Regarding claim 15, in Hirose ‘368’s examples, a negative electrode current collector layer is chosen to be a rolled copper foil with a thickness of 15 µm (P207-208, 210).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the negative electrode current collector layer of Hirose ‘368 to be a rolled copper foil having a thickness of 15 µm, given this is a known negative electrode current collector layer of Hirose ‘814, and the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07).
Therefore, modified Hirose ‘368 meets the limitation wherein the negative electrode current collector layer has a thickness of 1 µm or more and 100 µm or less (15 µm).
However, modified Hirose ‘368 does not meet the limitation wherein the negative electrode active material layer has a thickness of 20 µm or more and 500 µm or less.
In a similar field of endeavor, Asano teaches a thickness of a negative electrode active material layer can be 1 µm or more to keep sufficient capacity (P75). Asano teaches a thickness of a negative electrode active material layer can be 300 µm or less to keep high flexibility (P75).
The range of 1 µm or more and 300 µm or less, as taught by Asano, overlaps the claimed range of a thickness of 20 µm or more and 500 µm or less, and 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) (See MPEP § 2144.05).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the teaching of Asano and selected a thickness of the negative electrode active material layer of modified Hirose ‘368 within the claimed range, given Asano teaches thicknesses within their taught range keep sufficient capacity and high flexibility.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mary Harris whose telephone number is (571)272-0690. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am-5 pm EST.
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, Ula Ruddock can be reached at (571)272-1481. 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.
/MARY GRACE HARRIS/Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights