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 .
Status of Claims
This is a second non final office action for application 19/010,819 in response to the amendment(s) filed on 07/29/2026. Claims 1 and 3-20 are under examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/29/2026 is being considered by the examiner.
Withdrawn Objections
The amendment(s) to the claim(s), specification, and/or drawing(s) filed 07/29/2026 is acknowledged and the previous claim objections are withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 07/29/20256 have been fully considered and are persuasive in part.
Regarding the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), Applicant’s amendment to claim 1 and argument regarding claim 5 are persuasive. The rejections of claims 1 and 5 are thus withdrawn. The amendments to claims 3, 4, 10 resolve the previously identified ambiguity resulting from “and/or" and thus the previous rejection is withdrawn
Applicant’s arguments in regards to α are not persuasive. Even assuming that the international publication states that “any” 10 µm × 10 µm region may be selected, “any” does not establish a random selection procedure of the selected region. A person of ordinary skill in the art can still select regions having different pore concentrations, which may produce different α values.
Applicant additionally states that the sectioning method actually used was focused ion beam sectioning and that pore diameter was actually determined using equivalent circle diameter. These procedures, however, are not identified in claim 1 or in the instant specification. Applicant acknowledges that several different sectioning and pore diameter measurement methods are used. Because those methods may identify different pores as being greater than 50 nm, the argued procedures cannot be supplied to the claim through attorney argument. Accordingly, the 112(b) rejection concerning the determination of α is maintained as revised below.
Regarding the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103, Applicant is persuasive that the previous office action did not establish the claimed Raman intensity relationship. The rejection based on that calculation is therefore withdrawn. Applicant is also persuasive that the previous general statement that conventional porosity optimization would “inherently or predictably” result in α<10% was insufficient and thus the rejection based on this is withdrawn.
However, in light of the arguments/amendments a new search was conducted and new prior art identified that renders the previous arguments moot. See new claims 1 and 3-20 rejections below.
Finally, Applicant’s experimental evidence is insufficient to establish unexpected result over the full claimed scope (see MPEP 716.02(d)). The data may show that pore structure and oxidation affect performance, but the instant specification does not contain a controlled comparison establishing that satisfying both limitations produces more than their expected individual results. The instant specification also lacks data near the α=10% boundary, near the upper Raman ratio boundary of 0.6, or above that boundary. Furthermore, claim 1 encompasses materials prepared by methods substantially broader than the particular pressing, impregnation, vapor deposition, preoxidation, and coating processes used in the examples. The evidence therefore does not establish criticality of the entire claimed ranges or unexpected results commensurate in scope with claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1 and 3-20 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 1, the claimed value α depends on selecting a 10 µm × 10 µm region from an SEM cross section of a particle. The claim does not provide a specific process for selecting that region, such as random selection, selection at the particle center, or another reproducible location. Different selected regions may contain different numbers and sizes of pores and therefore produce different α values. Claim 1 also does not define the “SEM section processing” used to prepare the particle cross section. Applicant acknowledges that different techniques, including mechanical polishing, focused ion beam sectioning, and fracturing, are available but states that focused ion beam sectioning was actually used. That limitation is not recited in the claim. Claim 1 further does not define how the “pore diameter” is determined for an irregular two dimensional pore. Applicant acknowledges that equivalent circle diameter, Feret diameter, and other measurements are available but states that equivalent circle diameter was actually used. Because the selected measurement can affect whether a pore near 50 nm is included in S1, the claim does not provide sufficient boundaries for determining whether α<10%. Claims 3-20 depend from claim 1 and are rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding Claim 12, claim 12 is indefinite because the unnumbered limitation that “the other active particles comprise elemental particles and alloys” follows feature 2 using “and/or.” It is unclear whether that language is a third alternative, an optional part of feature 2, or a limitation that must be satisfied together with feature 2.
Regarding Claim 20, claim 20 recites the limitation "the coating layer". However, “a coating layer” is never properly introduced in claim 20 or claims 1 and 18 upon which it depends. Thus there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1, 4, 6-8, 11, and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US-20230110233-A1) in view of Ikeda et al. (US-20130256591-A1), and further in view of Moeremans et al. (US-20220352493-A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Park discloses an anode material (see e.g. "anode active material" in paragraph [0009]) comprising a carbon matrix (see e.g. "carbon-based particle including pores therein" in paragraph [0011]) and silicon particles (see e.g. "a silicon-containing coating layer" in paragraph [0011]), wherein the silicon particles are dispersed in the carbon matrix (see e.g. " silicon-containing coating layer formed at an inside the pores of the carbon-based particle" in paragraph [0011]);
wherein the anode material is tested with Raman spectroscopy (see e.g. "Raman spectrum" in paragraph [0053]), wherein the anode material has a first characteristic peak at 520± 10 cm-1, and the peak intensity of the first characteristic peak is IA (see e.g. "(515) is a peak intensity of silicon included in the silicon-containing coating layer in a region having a wavenumber of 515 cm−1 in the Raman spectrum," in paragraph [0055]); there is a third characteristic peak at 480±10 cm-1, the peak intensity of said third characteristic peak being IC (see e.g. " I(480) is a peak intensity of silicon included in the silicon-containing coating layer in a region having a wavenumber of 480 cm−1 in the Raman spectrum" in paragraph [0055]), and I(515)/I(480) = 0.581 (see e.g. Example 1 in Table 2).
Park does not disclose that there is a second characteristic peak at 960±10 cm-1, the peak intensity of said second characteristic peak being IB; and the following relationships exist between IA, IB and IC: 0.3 <IA/(IB+IC)< 0.6;
Ikeda, however, in the same field of endeavor, silicon based negative electrode active materials, discloses a Raman peak at 950±30 cm−1 and a Raman peak at 480±30 cm−1 (see e.g. "a peak A corresponding to 950±30 cm−1 and a peak B corresponding to 480±30 cm−1" in paragraph [0008] of Ikeda). Ikeda further discloses that the intensity ratio of the 480 cm−1 peak to the 950 cm−1 peak is from 1 to 10, preferably from 3.5 to 5.9 (see e.g. paragraphs [0008] and [0030] and Table 1 of Ikeda).
Thus, Park and Ikeda therefore teach controlling both IA/IC and IC/IB. Applying Park’s measured IA/IC value of 0.581 and Ikeda’s preferred IC/IB range of 3.5-5.9 results in:
IA/(IB+IC)
= (IA/IC)/[(IB/IC)+1]
= 0.581/[1+1/(3.5 to 5.9)]
= approximately 0.452-0.497.
Thus Park in view of Ikeda disclose a range that lies within the range claimed by the instant application. In the case where the prior art discloses a range within the claimed range, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Ikeda also teaches that a negative electrode active material with this structure can have sufficient diffusion paths for lithium and sufficiently high discharge capacity at high rate (see e.g. paragraph [0014] of Ikeda). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the anode material of Park et al. such that it includes a Raman characteristic peak at 950±30 cm-1 and 480±30 cm-1 as taught by Ikeda et al. in order to have a negative electrode active material with sufficient diffusion paths for lithium and sufficiently high discharge capacity at high rate a suggested by Ikeda.
Park in view of Ikeda does not disclose that the anode material satisfies: a<10%; wherein the a is obtained by the following test method: in an electron microscope image shown by SEM section processing of a single anode material particle, a 10µm x 10µm square region is selected, a sectional area of the single anode material particle in the square region is recorded as S, a sum of sectional areas of all pores with a pore diameter of greater than 50 nm in the region of the section of the single anode material particle in the square region is recorded as Si, a'=Si/S, and the a is an arithmetic mean value of a' values of at least 10 anode material particles.
Moeremans, however, in the same field of endeavor, silicon carbon anode materials, discloses particles comprising silicon based domains dispersed in a carbonaceous matrix and pores characterized using electron microscope cross sectional image analysis. Moeremans measures the individual areas and Feret diameters of at least 1,000 pore cross sections and calculates F=Sp/Sc, where Sp is the sum of the cross sectional areas of the pores and Sc is the cross sectional area of the particles containing the pores (see e.g. paragraphs [0015]-[0025] of Moeremans).
Example E1 of Moeremans has an average total pore area fraction F of 0.023, or 2.3%, with a maximum Feret diameter d50 of 33 nm and d95 of 82 nm (see e.g. paragraph [0160] and Table 2 of Moeremans). Because the 2.3% fraction includes the cross sectional areas of all pores, the fraction only to pores having diameters greater than 50 nm necessarily cannot exceed the total 2.3% pore area fraction and is therefore below the claimed 10% threshold.
Moeremans discloses a point that lies within the range claimed by the instant application. In the case where the prior art discloses a point within the claimed range, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Moeremans does not explicitly state that a 10 µm×10 µm region is selected separately from each of at least ten particles and that the resulting individual ratios are arithmetically averaged. However, Moeremans already teaches obtaining a representative cross sectional pore area value using multiple selected electron microscope images and at least 1,000 individual pore cross sections. Selecting a fixed image area from at least ten particles and arithmetically averaging the resulting values would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art as a known SEM sampling and averaging technique. The particular sampling protocol does not impart a structural distinction to the claimed anode material.
Moeremans also teaches that excessive and overly large pores reduce volumetric capacity, act as stress concentrators and crack initiation sites, increase SEI formation, and reduce cycle life (see e.g. paragraphs [0030]-[0033] of Moeremans). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to control the cross sectional pore area fraction of the anode material of Park et al. in view of Ikeda et al. such that the anode material satisfies a<10% as taught by Moeremans et al in order to suppress cracking and swelling while improving cycle life and maintaining capacity as suggested by Moeremans.
Regarding Claim 4, Park in view of Ikeda and further in view of Moeremans discloses the anode material of claim 1 (see e.g. claim 1 rejection above).
Park further discloses that the average pore size of the pores of the anode material with silicon particles removed is in a range from 0.1 nm to 10 nm (see e.g. "the pore size of the carbon-based particle may be in a range from 0.1 nm to 20 nm, or from 0.1 nm to 10 nm." in paragraph [0041]).
Park discloses a range that overlaps with the range claimed by the instant application. In the case where the prior art discloses a range that overlaps with the claimed range, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding Claim 6, Park in view of Ikeda and further in view of Moeremans discloses the anode material of claim 1 (see e.g. claim 1 rejection above).
Park further discloses that at least part of the silicon particles are located inside the particles of the carbon matrix (see e.g. "a silicon-containing coating layer formed at an inside the pores of the carbon-based particle" in paragraph [0011]).
Regarding Claim 7, Park in view of Ikeda and further in view of Moeremans discloses the anode material of claim 1 (see e.g. claim 1 rejection above).
Park further discloses that the carbon matrix comprises porous carbon (see e.g. " porous carbon" in paragraph [0014]), the porous carbon comprises at least one of activated carbon (see e.g. "activated carbon" in paragraph [0014]), carbon black (see e.g. "carbon black" in paragraph [0014]), and a carbon nanotube (see e.g. "a carbon nanotube" in paragraph [0014]))
Regarding Claim 8, Park in view of Ikeda and further in view of Moeremans discloses the anode material of claim 1 (see e.g. claim 1 rejection above).
Park further discloses that the silicon particles comprise amorphous silicon (see e.g. "silicon having an amorphous structure" in paragraph [0056])
Regarding Claim 11, Park in view of Ikeda and further in view of Moeremans discloses a battery (see e.g. "a lithium secondary battery " in paragraph [0011] of Park), wherein the battery comprises the anode material (see e.g. "an anode active material" in paragraph [0010] of Park) according to claim 1 (see e.g. claim 1 rejection above).
Regarding Claim 13, Park in view of Ikeda and further in view of Moeremans discloses the anode material of claim 8 (see e.g. claim 8 rejection above).
Park does not disclose that the silicon oxide comprises a silicon element and an oxygen element, an atomic ratio of the silicon element to the oxygen element is 0-2:1, and does not include 0:1.
Ikeda, however discloses that the silicon oxide comprises a silicon element and an oxygen element (see e.g. "As silicon oxide, for example, silicon monoxide (SiO)" in paragraph [0026] of Ikeda), an atomic ratio of the silicon element to the oxygen element is 1:1 (see e.g. "SiO" in paragraph [0026] of Ikeda).
Ikeda discloses a point that lies within the range claimed by the instant application. In the case where the prior art discloses a point within the claimed range, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Ikeda also teaches that a negative electrode active material with this structure can have sufficient diffusion paths for lithium and sufficiently high discharge capacity at high rate (see e.g. paragraph [0014] of Ikeda). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the anode material of Park et al. such that it includes SiO as taught by Ikeda et al. in order to have a negative electrode active material with sufficient diffusion paths for lithium and sufficiently high discharge capacity at high rate as suggested by Ikeda.
Regarding Claim 14, Park in view of Ikeda and further in view of Moeremans discloses the anode material of claim 13 (see e.g. claim 13 rejection above).
Park further discloses the silicon oxide has the general chemical formula SiOx, where 0<x<2 (see e.g. " the silicon-containing coating layer may further contain at least one of SiOx (0<x<2) " in paragraph [0021]).
Regarding Claim 15, Park in view of Ikeda and further in view of Moeremans discloses the anode material of claim 8 (see e.g. claim 8 rejection above).
Park further discloses that the average particle size of the silicon particles is 4 nm (see e.g. Example 2 in Table 2).
Park discloses a point that lies within the range claimed by the instant application. In the case where the prior art discloses a point within the claimed range, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding Claim 16, Park in view of Ikeda and further in view of Moeremans discloses the anode material of claim 15 (see e.g. claim 15 rejection above).
Park further discloses that the average particle size of the silicon particles is 4 nm (see e.g. Example 2 in Table 2).
Park discloses a point that lies within the range claimed by the instant application. In the case where the prior art discloses a point within the claimed range, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding Claim 17, Park in view of Ikeda and further in view of Moeremans discloses the anode material of claim 7 (see e.g. claim 7 rejection above).
Park in view of Ikeda does not disclose that the mass ratio of silicon element to carbon element in the anode material is 0.8-2.0:1.
Moeremans, however, discloses that the mass ratio of silicon element to carbon element in the anode material is 1:1 (see e.g. "the weight ratio carbon to silicon is equal to 1" in paragraph [0142] of Moeremans).
Moeremans discloses a point that lies within the range claimed by the instant application. In the case where the prior art discloses a point within the claimed range, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Moeremans also teaches that type of anode active material allows a battery to be used during more charge-discharge cycles, thereby extending the life of the battery (see e.g. paragraph [0029] of Moeremans). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the anode material of Park et al. in view of Ikeda et al. such that the mass ratio of silicon element to carbon element in the anode material is 0.8-2.0:1 as taught by Moeremans et al in order to allow a battery to be used during more charge-discharge cycles, thereby extending the life of the battery as suggested by Moeremans.
Regarding Claim 18, Park in view of Ikeda and further in view of Moeremans discloses the anode material of claim 1 (see e.g. claim 1 rejection above).
Park in view of Ikeda does not disclose that the median particle size of the anode material is less than or equal to 25 µm.
Moeremans, however, discloses that he median particle size of the anode material is 8.3 µm (see e.g. example E1 in Table 1 of Moeremans).
Moeremans also teaches that type of anode active material allows a battery to be used during more charge-discharge cycles, thereby extending the life of the battery (see e.g. paragraph [0029] of Moeremans). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the anode material of Park et al. in view of Ikeda et al. such that the median particle size of the anode material is less than or equal to 25 µm as taught by Moeremans et al in order to allow a battery to be used during more charge-discharge cycles, thereby extending the life of the battery as suggested by Moeremans.
Regarding Claim 19, Park in view of Ikeda and further in view of Moeremans discloses the anode material of claim 1 (see e.g. claim 1 rejection above).
Park further discloses that the anode material comprises a coating layer distributed on at least a part of the surface of the carbon matrix (see e.g. "a silicon-containing coating layer formed at an inside the pores of the carbon-based particle or on a surface of the carbon-based particle, and a carbon coating layer formed on the silicon-containing coating layer" in paragraph [0011] of Park).
Regarding Claim 20, Park in view of Ikeda and further in view of Moeremans discloses the anode material of claim 18 (see e.g. claim 18 rejection above).
Park further discloses that the coating layer comprises a carbon layer (see e.g. "a carbon coating layer" in paragraph [0011]), and the material of the carbon layer comprises at least one of a conductive polymer (see e.g. "the carbon coating layer may include carbon or a conductive polymer" in paragraph [0022]).
Claims 3 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US-20230110233-A1) in view of Ikeda et al. (US-20130256591-A1), in view of Moeremans et al. (US-20220352493-A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Liang (WO-2022193123-A1).
Regarding Claim 3, Park in view of Ikeda and further in view of Moeremans discloses the anode material of claim 1 (see e.g. claim 1 rejection above).
Park in view of Ikeda and further in view of Moeremans does not disclose that the anode material satisfies at least one of the following features 1)-2): 1) the anode material has pores, wherein a volume proportion of mesopores in a total pore volume of the anode material is 25%-95%; 2) the anode material has pores, a total pore volume of the anode material is 0.001 cm3/- 0.1 cm3/g.
Liang, however, in the same field of endeavor, silicon carbon composite anode materials, discloses an anode material that has pores (see e.g. " the silicon-containing material layer is located on the pore walls of the nitrogen-doped porous carbon" in paragraph [3] on page 4 of Liang) wherein a total pore volume of the anode material is 0.001 cm3/g-0.1 cm3/g (see e.g. "the pore volume of the negative electrode material is 0.001 cm 2 /g to 0.1 cm 2 /g" in paragraph [60] on page 10 of Liang).
Liang discloses the same range as the range claimed by the instant application. In the case where the prior art discloses the same range as the claimed range, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Liang also teaches that structure improves cycle life and structural stability by mechanically confining silicon expansion within a porous carbon framework, thereby preventing electrode cracking and capacity fade during cycling (see e.g. paragraph [88] on page 1 1of Liang). Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the anode material of Park et al. in view of Ikeda et al. and further in view of Moeremans et al. such that it has pores and a total pore volume of the anode material is 0.001 cm3/g-0.1 cm3/g as taught by Liang in order to improve cycle life and structure stability of the anode material as suggested by Liang. Regarding Claim 9, Park in view of Ikeda and further in view of Moeremans discloses the anode material of claim 1 (see e.g. claim 1 rejection above).
Park in view of Ikeda and further in view of Moeremans does not disclose that the specific surface area of the anode material is 1 m2/g-500 m2/g and the specific surface area of the anode material with silicon particles removed is 800 m2/g-2500 m2/g.
Liang, however, discloses that the specific surface area of the anode material is 1 m2/g - 50 m2/g (see e.g. "The specific surface area of the negative electrode material is 1 m 2 /g to 50 m 2 /g" in paragraph [59] on page 10 of Liang) and the specific surface area of the anode material with silicon particles removed is 2000 m2/g-3500 m2/g (see e.g. "he specific surface area of the nitrogen-doped porous carbon is 2000 m 2 / g to 3500m 2 / g" in paragraph [106] on page 13 of Liang).
Liang also teaches that this structure improves cycle life and structural stability by mechanically confining silicon expansion within a porous carbon framework, thereby preventing electrode cracking and capacity fade during cycling (see e.g. paragraph [88] on page 1 1of Liang). Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the anode material of Park et al. in view of Ikeda et al. and further in view of Moeremans et al. such that the specific surface area of the anode material is 1 m2/g - 50 m2/g and the specific surface area of the anode material with silicon particles removed is 2000 m2/g-3500 m2/g as taught by Liang in order to improve cycle life and structure stability of the anode material as suggested by Liang.
Regarding Claim 10, Park in view of Ikeda and further in view of Moeremans discloses the anode material of claim 1 (see e.g. claim 1 rejection above).
Park in view of Ikeda and further in view of Moeremans does not disclose that the anode material satisfies at least one of the following features 1)-2): 1) a compaction density of the anode sheet made of the anode material is 1.3 g/cm3-1.9g/cm3. 2) a withstand voltage critical pressure P of the anode sheet made of the anode material is greater than or equal to 100 MPa.
Liang, however, discloses that a compaction density of the anode sheet made of the anode material is 1.5 g/cm3-2.0 g/cm3 (see e.g. "the compaction density of the negative electrode active material layer is 1.5g/cm 3 to 2.0g/cm 3" in paragraph [83] on page 11 of Liang).
Liang also teaches that this structure improves cycle life and structural stability by mechanically confining silicon expansion within a porous carbon framework, thereby preventing electrode cracking and capacity fade during cycling (see e.g. paragraph [88] on page 1 1of Liang). Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the anode material of Park et al. in view of Ikeda et al. and further in view of Moeremans et al. such that a compaction density of the anode sheet made of the anode material is 1.5 g/cm3-2.0 g/cm3 as taught by Liang in order to improve cycle life and structure stability of the anode material as suggested by Liang.
Claims 5 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US-20230110233-A1) in view of Ikeda et al. (US-20130256591-A1), in view of Moeremans et al. (US-20220352493-A1) as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, and further in view of Fujita et al. (US-20230234852-A1).
Regarding Claim 5, Park in view of Ikeda and further in view of Moeremans discloses the anode material of claim 1 (see e.g. claim 1 rejection above).
Park further discloses that at least a part of a surface of the anode material has a carbon layer (see e.g. "a carbon coating layer formed on the silicon-containing coating layer" in paragraph [0011]).
Park in view of Ikeda and further in view of Moeremans does not disclose that when testing the surface of the anode material with Raman spectroscopy, the anode material has a characteristic peak D at 1350± 10 cm-1, the peak intensity of said characteristic peak D is ID, having a characteristic peak G at 1580±10 cm-1, the peak intensity of said characteristic peak G being IG, then there is the following relationship between IA, ID, IG: (ID+IG)/IA ≥ 10.
Fujita, however, in the same field of endeavor, silicon carbon composite anode materials, discloses Si-C composite particles having a carbonaceous layer covering at least part of their surfaces (see e.g. paragraph [0047] of Fujita). Fujita further discloses that Raman spectroscopy of the carbon coated Si-C composite particles produces a D band in the vicinity of 1360 cm⁻¹ having an intensity ID and a G band in the vicinity of 1600 cm⁻¹ having an intensity IG (see e.g. paragraph [0048] of Fujita).
The D band at 1360 cm⁻¹ falls within the claimed range of 1350±10 cm⁻¹. Further, Fujita’s disclosure of a G band “in the vicinity of 1600 cm⁻¹” reasonably encompasses a G band position of 1590 cm⁻¹, which falls within the claimed range of 1580±10 cm⁻¹. Alternatively, a G band position in the vicinity of 1600 cm⁻¹ is sufficiently close to the claimed upper endpoint of 1590 cm⁻¹ that a person of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably have expected the carbon material to possess the same Raman characteristics. Where prior art values are sufficiently close to the claimed range, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Fujita additionally discloses in Comparative Example 4 carbon coated Si-C composite particles having 100% carbon coverage, a silicon Raman peak at 520 cm⁻¹, an ID/IG value of 0.95, and an I-Si/IG value of 0.08 (see e.g. paragraphs [0278]-[0280] and Table 1 of Fujita). The silicon peak intensity ISi of Fujita corresponds to the claimed IA. Therefore, Fujita discloses:
I
D
+
I
G
I
A
=
I
D
I
G
+
1
I
A
I
G
=
0.95
+
1
0.08
=
24.375
Thus Fujita discloses a point that lies within the range claimed by the instant application. In the case where the prior art discloses a point within the claimed range, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Fujita also teaches that coating the Si-C composite particles with carbon suppresses oxidation of silicon and that reducing the amount of silicon exposed near the particle surface reduces direct contact between silicon and the electrolyte, thereby improving cycle characteristics (see e.g. paragraphs [0047] and [0051] of Fujita). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the anode material of Park et al. in view of Ikeda et al. and further in view of Moeremans et al. such that when testing the surface of the anode material with Raman spectroscopy, the anode material has a characteristic peak D at 1350± 10 cm-1, the peak intensity of said characteristic peak D is ID, having a characteristic peak G at 1580±10 cm-1, the peak intensity of said characteristic peak G being IG, then there is the following relationship between IA, ID, IG: (ID+IG)/IA ≥ 10 as taught by Fujita et al. in order to suppress oxidation, reduce direct contact between silicon and the electrolyte, and improve cycle characteristics as suggested by Fujita.
Regarding Claim 12, Park in view of Ikeda and further in view of Moeremans discloses the anode material of claim 8 (see e.g. claim 8 rejection above).
Park in view of Ikeda and further in view of Moeremans does not disclose that the anode material satisfies at least one of the following features 1)-2): 1) the other active particles comprise at least one of Sn particles, Ge particles, Al particles; 2) the other active particles comprise at least one of a silicon-lithium alloy, a silicon- magnesium alloy; and/or, the other active particles comprise elemental particles and alloys.
Fujita, however, discloses that the other active particles comprise Sn particles (see e.g. "In a case where another negative electrode material is used, it is usually used by mixing the carbon-coated Si-C composite particles or the polymer coated carbon coated Si-C composite particles with another negative electrode material" in paragraph [0140] and "Examples of other negative electrode materials include... alloy-based active materials such as tin (Sn)" in paragraph [0141] of Fujita).
Fujita also teaches that including other active particles with the Si-C composite particles leads to a negative electrode material that has a higher silicon utilization rate and has a high initial coulombic efficiency than the conventional technique (see e.g. paragraph [0255] of Fujita). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the anode material of Park et al. in view of Ikeda et al. and further in view of Moeremans et al. such that it comprises other active particles such as tin as taught by Fujita et al. in order to have a negative electrode active material that has a higher silicon utilization rate and has a high initial coulombic efficiency than the conventional technique as suggested by Fujita.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSE EFYMOW whose telephone number is (571)270-0795. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 10:30 am - 8:30 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, 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.
/J.J.E./Examiner, Art Unit 1723
/NICHOLAS P D'ANIELLO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights