DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claims 1-4 are amended. Claims 1-28 are being examined on the merits in this office action.
Remarks
Applicant’s amendments and arguments have been entered. A reply to the Applicant’s remarks/arguments is presented after addressing the claims.
Any rejections and/or objections made in the previous Office Action and not repeated below, are hereby withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments or/and arguments.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. References cited in the current Office action can be found in a prior Office action.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on April 18, May 21 and July 15, 2025 have been considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
1) Claim 1 recites “the positive electrode active material comprises titanium, magnesium, and oxygen at a surface portion of thereof”. However, the specification as originally filed, for example, in paragraph [0166], recites “The surface portion of the positive electrode active material may include a crystal containing titanium, magnesium, and oxygen”. These two recitations are inconsistent and have different scopes. The claimed scope is broader than that as originally filed in the specification.
This issue applies similarly to at least claims 2-4.
2) Claim 1 recites a ratio of “greater than or equal to 0.30”. It is unclear as to what unit for the ratio, rendering the claim indefinite. For purposes of examination, any unit will be applied in meeting the claim.
Claims 1-28 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.
1) As addressed in the 112(a) rejection above, the claimed limitation “the positive electrode active material comprises titanium, magnesium, and oxygen at a surface portion of thereof” in claim 1 is inconsistent with the specification, which renders the claim indefinite since the scope of the claim is unascertainable. The “a crystal containing titanium, magnesium, and oxygen” appears to be another substance in addition to, e.g., lithium cobalt oxide. A claim, although clear on its face, may also be indefinite when a conflict or inconsistency between the claimed subject matter and the specification disclosure renders the scope of the claim uncertain as inconsistency with the specification disclosure or prior art teachings may make an otherwise definite claim take on an unreasonable degree of uncertainty. In re Moore, 439 F.2d 1232, 1235-36 (CCPA 1971); In re Cohn, 438 F.2d 989, 169 USPQ 95 (CCPA 1971); In re Hammack, 427 F.2d 1378, 166 USPQ 204 (CCPA 1970). See MPEP § 2173.03.
2) Claim 1 is indefinite because of the ambiguity of the structural relationship of claimed components. For instance, based on claim languages, the positive electrode active material can be interpreted in at least the following two ways, which renders the claim indefinite: i) the positive electrode active material comprises two materials: one is lithium cobalt oxide and the other (a crystal (?) containing titanium, magnesium, and oxygen) at (e.g., by adsorption? etc.) a surface portion of the lithium cobalt oxide whose crystal structure remains unchanged; and ii) the positive electrode active material comprises lithium cobalt oxide whose metal sites in the crystal structure at surface portion are replaced by titanium, magnesium, and oxygen and whose crystal structure is thus changed.
This issue applies similarly to at least claims 2-4.
For purposes of examination, either of the above two interpretations may be applied in meeting the claim(s).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-2, 19-20 and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhamu et al. (US 20120064409 A1, hereafter Zhamu) in view of Axelbaum et al. (US 20120282522 A1, hereafter Axelbaum).
Regarding claim 1, Zhamu teaches a lithium-ion secondary battery comprising a positive electrode, a negative electrode, an electrolyte solution, and a separator (at least: [0109]),
wherein the negative electrode comprises a first negative electrode active material comprising silicon and a second negative electrode active material comprising a graphite (See, at least: [0071], Fig. 3B),
wherein the negative electrode further comprises graphene or graphene compound (“graphene sheet”, [0072], Fig. 3B),
wherein the first negative electrode active material is in contact with the second negative electrode active material (Fig. 3B), and
wherein the graphene or the graphene compound is in contact with the first negative electrode active material and the second negative electrode active material (Fig. 3B).
Zhamu further teaches the weight ratio of graphene or graphene compound to silicon may be in the range of 0.1 to 990 ([0039]), overlapping the range as claimed. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP § 2144.05 (I).
Zhamu further teaches the positive electrode comprises a positive electrode active material such as lithium cobalt oxide ([0112]), but is silent as to that as instantly claimed. However, in the same field of endeavor, Axelbaum discloses that lithium cobalt oxide as a positive electrode active material has such disadvantages as “toxic” and “less abundant” of cobalt ([0004]). Axelbaum also discloses a lithium cobalt oxide positive electrode active material represented by Li1+α(NixCoyMnz)1-zMzO2-dRd comprising titanium, magnesium, oxygen (M = Ti and Mg), wherein R may be fluorine (F) which exists in oxygen sites (at least: [0045]). The M (Ti, Mg) replaces some sites of Ni, Co and Mn including those surface sites in the crystal structure of the positive electrode active material. Axelbaum also discloses that the preparation of the positive electrode active material is “simpler, easier to control, faster, less energy intensive, less costly, more reproducible, and with less waster” ([0008]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have replaced the lithium cobalt oxide of Zhamu with Axelbaum’s Li1+α(NixCoyMnz)1-zMzO2-dFd comprising titanium, magnesium, oxygen (M = Ti, Mg) as an alternative to the positive electrode active material of Zhamu in order to achieve high energy density and high-rate capability of a battery ([0045], Axelbaum) and other advantages stated above.
The claimed “the positive electrode active material comprises a pseudo-spinel crystal structure due to an extraction of lithium ion in a charged state” represents a characteristic or property of the positive electrode active material. Since Zhamu in view of Axelbaum teaches the same positive electrode active material as claimed, the characteristic or property as claimed is necessarily present. Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 2, Zhamu teaches a lithium-ion secondary battery comprising a positive electrode, a negative electrode, an electrolyte solution, and a separator (at least: [0109]),
wherein the negative electrode comprises a first negative electrode active material comprising a silicon compound (e.g., oxide of Si, [0075]) and a second negative electrode active material comprising a graphite (See, at least: [0071], Fig. 3B),
wherein the negative electrode further comprises graphene or graphene compound (“graphene sheet”, [0072], Fig. 3B),
wherein the first negative electrode active material is in contact with the second negative electrode active material (Fig. 3B), and
wherein the graphene or the graphene compound is in contact with the first negative electrode active material and the second negative electrode active material (Fig. 3B).
Zhamu further teaches the weight ratio of graphene or graphene compound to silicon may be in the range of 0.1 to 990 ([0039]), overlapping the range as claimed. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP § 2144.05 (I).
Zhamu further teaches the positive electrode comprises a positive electrode active material such as lithium cobalt oxide ([0112]), but is silent as to that as instantly claimed. However, in the same field of endeavor, Axelbaum discloses that lithium cobalt oxide as a positive electrode active material has such disadvantages as “toxic” and “less abundant” of cobalt ([0004]). Axelbaum also discloses a lithium cobalt oxide positive electrode active material represented by Li1+α(NixCoyMnz)1-zMzO2-dRd comprising titanium, magnesium, oxygen (M = Ti and Mg), wherein R may be fluorine (F) which exists in oxygen sites (at least: [0045]). The M (Ti, Mg) replaces some sites of Ni, Co and Mn including those surface sites in the crystal structure of the positive electrode active material. Axelbaum also discloses that the preparation of the positive electrode active material is “simpler, easier to control, faster, less energy intensive, less costly, more reproducible, and with less waster” ([0008]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have replaced the lithium cobalt oxide of Zhamu with Axelbaum’s Li1+α(NixCoyMnz)1-zMzO2-dFd comprising titanium, magnesium, oxygen (M = Ti, Mg) as an alternative to the positive electrode active material of Zhamu in order to achieve high energy density and high-rate capability of a battery ([0045], Axelbaum) and other advantages stated above.
The claimed “the positive electrode active material comprises a pseudo-spinel crystal structure due to an extraction of lithium ion in a charged state” represents a characteristic or property of the positive electrode active material. Since Zhamu in view of Axelbaum teaches the same positive electrode active material as claimed, the characteristic or property as claimed is necessarily present. Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 19, Zhamu teaches the lithium-ion secondary battery according to claim 1, wherein the negative electrode comprises a negative electrode current collector, and the negative electrode current collector comprises copper ([0100], Zhamu).
Regarding claim 20, Zhamu teaches the lithium-ion secondary battery according to claim 2, wherein the negative electrode comprises a negative electrode current collector, and the negative electrode current collector comprises copper ([0100], Zhamu).
Regarding claim 23, Zhamu teaches the lithium-ion secondary battery according to claim 1, wherein the graphene or the graphene compound is in contact with the first negative electrode active material and the second negative electrode active material so as to cover, surround, or cling to the first negative electrode active material and the second negative electrode active material (See Fig. 3B).
Regarding claim 24, Zhamu teaches the lithium-ion secondary battery according to claim 2, wherein the graphene or the graphene compound is in contact with the first negative electrode active material and the second negative electrode active material so as to cover, surround, or cling to the first negative electrode active material and the second negative electrode active material (See Fig. 3B).
Claims 3-4, 11-15, 17-18, 21-22 and 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhamu in view of Axelbaum and Okai et al. (WO 2015029128 A1, whose English machine translation is being employed for citation purposes, hereafter Okai).
Regarding claim 3, Zhamu teaches a lithium-ion secondary battery comprising a positive electrode, a negative electrode, an electrolyte solution, and a separator (at least: [0109]),
wherein the negative electrode comprises a first negative electrode active material comprising silicon and a second negative electrode active material (e.g., graphite) (See, at least: [0071], Fig. 3B),
wherein the negative electrode further comprises graphene or graphene compound (“graphene sheet”, [0072], Fig. 3B),
wherein the first negative electrode active material is in contact with the second negative electrode active material (Fig. 3B), and
wherein the graphene or the graphene compound is in contact with the first negative electrode active material and the second negative electrode active material (Fig. 3B).
Zhamu is silent as to a particle diameter of the second negative electrode active material being larger than a particle diameter of the first negative electrode active material.
However, a selection of different sizes of a particle involves merely ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art and is not patentably distinguishable. For instance, in the same field of endeavor, Okai discloses a similar negative electrode active material comprising a first negative electrode active material (e.g., silicon, 902, Fig. 9), a second negative electrode active material (e.g., graphite, 901, Fig. 9) and graphene (903, Fig. 9), wherein a particle size of graphite is about 100 µm (bottom, page 7/15) and a particle diameter of silicon is 100 nm or less (top, page 8/15), which benefits for a strong bonding force and a good electrical conduction characteristics between the silicon and graphite particles (paragraph 2, page 8/15). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have incorporated the teachings of Okai into Zhamu in order to achieve advantages stated above.
Zhamu further teaches the positive electrode comprises a positive electrode active material such as lithium cobalt oxide ([0112]), but is silent as to that as instantly claimed. However, in the same field of endeavor, Axelbaum discloses that lithium cobalt oxide as a positive electrode active material has such disadvantages as “toxic” and “less abundant” of cobalt ([0004]). Axelbaum also discloses a lithium cobalt oxide positive electrode active material represented by Li1+α(NixCoyMnz)1-zMzO2-dRd comprising titanium, magnesium, oxygen (M = Ti and Mg), wherein R may be fluorine (F) which exists in oxygen sites (at least: [0045]). The M (Ti, Mg) replaces some sites of Ni, Co and Mn including those surface sites in the crystal structure of the positive electrode active material. Axelbaum also discloses that the preparation of the positive electrode active material is “simpler, easier to control, faster, less energy intensive, less costly, more reproducible, and with less waster” ([0008]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have replaced the lithium cobalt oxide of Zhamu with Axelbaum’s Li1+α(NixCoyMnz)1-zMzO2-dFd comprising titanium, magnesium, oxygen (M = Ti, Mg) as an alternative to the positive electrode active material of Zhamu in order to achieve high energy density and high-rate capability of a battery ([0045], Axelbaum) and other advantages stated above.
Regarding claim 4, Zhamu teaches a lithium-ion secondary battery comprising a positive electrode, a negative electrode, an electrolyte solution, and a separator (at least: [0109]),
wherein the negative electrode comprises a first negative electrode active material comprising a silicon compound (e.g., oxide of Si, [0075]) and a second negative electrode active material (e.g., graphite) (See, at least: [0071], Fig. 3B),
wherein the negative electrode further comprises graphene or graphene compound (“graphene sheet”, [0072], Fig. 3B),
wherein the first negative electrode active material is in contact with the second negative electrode active material (Fig. 3B), and
wherein the graphene or the graphene compound is in contact with the first negative electrode active material and the second negative electrode active material (Fig. 3B).
Zhamu is silent as to a particle diameter of the second negative electrode active material being larger than a particle diameter of the first negative electrode active material.
However, a selection of different sizes of a particle involves merely ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art and is not patentably distinguishable. For instance, in the same field of endeavor, Okai discloses a similar negative electrode active material comprising a first negative electrode active material (e.g., silicon, 902, Fig. 9), a second negative electrode active material (e.g., graphite, 901, Fig. 9) and graphene (903, Fig. 9), wherein a particle size of graphite is about 100 µm (bottom, page 7/15) and a particle diameter of silicon is 100 nm or less (top, page 8/15), which benefits for a strong bonding force and a good electrical conduction characteristics between the silicon and graphite particles (paragraph 2, page 8/15). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have incorporated the teachings of Okai into Zhamu in order to achieve advantages stated above.
Zhamu further teaches the positive electrode comprises a positive electrode active material such as lithium cobalt oxide ([0112]), but is silent as to that as instantly claimed. However, in the same field of endeavor, Axelbaum discloses that lithium cobalt oxide as a positive electrode active material has such disadvantages as “toxic” and “less abundant” of cobalt ([0004]). Axelbaum also discloses a lithium cobalt oxide positive electrode active material represented by Li1+α(NixCoyMnz)1-zMzO2-dRd comprising titanium, magnesium, oxygen (M = Ti and Mg), wherein R may be fluorine (F) which exists in oxygen sites (at least: [0045]). The M (Ti, Mg) replaces some sites of Ni, Co and Mn including those surface sites in the crystal structure of the positive electrode active material. Axelbaum also discloses that the preparation of the positive electrode active material is “simpler, easier to control, faster, less energy intensive, less costly, more reproducible, and with less waster” ([0008]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have replaced the lithium cobalt oxide of Zhamu with Axelbaum’s Li1+α(NixCoyMnz)1-zMzO2-dFd comprising titanium, magnesium, oxygen (M = Ti, Mg) as an alternative to the positive electrode active material of Zhamu in order to achieve high energy density and high-rate capability of a battery ([0045], Axelbaum) and other advantages stated above.
Regarding claim 11, Zhamu as modified teaches the lithium-ion secondary battery according to claim 1, but is silent as to a particle size of the second negative electrode active material is 10 times or more a size of the first negative electrode active material.
However, a selection of different sizes of a particle involves merely ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art and is not patentably distinguishable. For instance, in the same field of endeavor, Okai discloses a similar negative electrode active material comprising a first negative electrode active material (e.g., silicon, 902, Fig. 9), a second negative electrode active material (e.g., graphite, 901, Fig. 9) and graphene (903, Fig. 9), wherein a particle size of graphite is about 100 µm (bottom, page 7/15) and a particle diameter of silicon is 100 nm or less (top, page 8/15), which benefits for a strong bonding force and a good electrical conduction characteristics between the silicon and graphite particles (paragraph 2, page 8/15). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have incorporated the teachings of Okai into Zhamu in order to achieve advantages stated above. As a result, the above sizes meet the instantly claimed limitation.
Regarding claim 12, Zhamu as modified teaches the lithium-ion secondary battery according to claim 2, but is silent as to a particle size of the second negative electrode active material is 10 times or more a size of the first negative electrode active material.
However, a selection of different sizes of a particle involves merely ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art and is not patentably distinguishable. For instance, in the same field of endeavor, Okai discloses a similar negative electrode active material comprising a first negative electrode active material (e.g., silicon, 902, Fig. 9), a second negative electrode active material (e.g., graphite, 901, Fig. 9) and graphene (903, Fig. 9), wherein a particle size of graphite is about 100 µm (bottom, page 7/15) and a particle diameter of silicon is 100 nm or less (top, page 8/15), which benefits for a strong bonding force and a good electrical conduction characteristics between the silicon and graphite particles (paragraph 2, page 8/15). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have incorporated the teachings of Okai into Zhamu in order to achieve advantages stated above. As a result, the above sizes meet the instantly claimed limitation.
Regarding claim 13, Zhamu as modified teaches the lithium-ion secondary battery according to claim 3, but is silent as to a particle size of the second negative electrode active material is 10 times or more a size of the first negative electrode active material.
However, a selection of different sizes of a particle involves merely ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art and is not patentably distinguishable. For instance, in the same field of endeavor, Okai discloses a similar negative electrode active material comprising a first negative electrode active material (e.g., silicon, 902, Fig. 9), a second negative electrode active material (e.g., graphite, 901, Fig. 9) and graphene (903, Fig. 9), wherein a particle size of graphite is about 100 µm (bottom, page 7/15) and a particle diameter of silicon is 100 nm or less (top, page 8/15), which benefits for a strong bonding force and a good electrical conduction characteristics between the silicon and graphite particles (paragraph 2, page 8/15). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have incorporated the teachings of Okai into Zhamu in order to achieve advantages stated above. As a result, the above sizes meet the instantly claimed limitation.
Regarding claim 14, Zhamu as modified teaches the lithium-ion secondary battery according to claim 4, but is silent as to a particle size of the second negative electrode active material is 10 times or more a size of the first negative electrode active material.
However, a selection of different sizes of a particle involves merely ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art and is not patentably distinguishable. For instance, in the same field of endeavor, Okai discloses a similar negative electrode active material comprising a first negative electrode active material (e.g., silicon, 902, Fig. 9), a second negative electrode active material (e.g., graphite, 901, Fig. 9) and graphene (903, Fig. 9), wherein a particle size of graphite is about 100 µm (bottom, page 7/15) and a particle diameter of silicon is 100 nm or less (top, page 8/15), which benefits for a strong bonding force and a good electrical conduction characteristics between the silicon and graphite particles (paragraph 2, page 8/15). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have incorporated the teachings of Okai into Zhamu in order to achieve advantages stated above. As a result, the above sizes meet the instantly claimed limitation.
Regarding claim 15, Zhamu as modified teaches the lithium-ion secondary battery according to claim 1, but is silent as to the instantly claimed limitations.
However, a selection of different sizes of a particle involves merely ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art and is not patentably distinguishable. For instance, in the same field of endeavor, Okai discloses a similar negative electrode active material comprising a first negative electrode active material (e.g., silicon, 902, Fig. 9), a second negative electrode active material (e.g., graphite, 901, Fig. 9) and graphene (903, Fig. 9), wherein a particle size of graphite is about 10 to 100 µm (See bottom, page 7/15 and lower part of page 9/15) and a particle diameter of silicon is 100 nm or less (top, page 8/15), which benefits for a strong bonding force and a good electrical conduction characteristics between the silicon and graphite particles (paragraph 2, page 8/15). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have incorporated the teachings of Okai into Zhamu in order to achieve advantages stated above. As a result, the above 100 nm reads on the range of 50 nm to 250 nm as claimed, and the range of 10 µm to 100 µm overlaps the instantly claimed 10 µm to 20 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. See MPEP § 2144.05 (I).
Regarding claim 17, Zhamu as modified teaches the lithium-ion secondary battery according to claim 3, but is silent as to the instantly claimed limitations.
However, a selection of different sizes of a particle involves merely ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art and is not patentably distinguishable. For instance, in the same field of endeavor, Okai discloses a similar negative electrode active material comprising a first negative electrode active material (e.g., silicon, 902, Fig. 9), a second negative electrode active material (e.g., graphite, 901, Fig. 9) and graphene (903, Fig. 9), wherein a particle size of graphite is about 10 to 100 µm (See bottom, page 7/15 and lower part of page 9/15) and a particle diameter of silicon is 100 nm or less (top, page 8/15), which benefits for a strong bonding force and a good electrical conduction characteristics between the silicon and graphite particles (paragraph 2, page 8/15). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have incorporated the teachings of Okai into Zhamu in order to achieve advantages stated above. As a result, the above 100 nm reads on the range of 50 nm to 250 nm as claimed, and the range of 10 µm to 100 µm overlaps the instantly claimed 10 µm to 20 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. See MPEP § 2144.05 (I).
Regarding claim 18, Zhamu as modified teaches the lithium-ion secondary battery according to claim 4, but is silent as to the instantly claimed limitations.
However, a selection of different sizes of a particle involves merely ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art and is not patentably distinguishable. For instance, in the same field of endeavor, Okai discloses a similar negative electrode active material comprising a first negative electrode active material (e.g., silicon, 902, Fig. 9), a second negative electrode active material (e.g., graphite, 901, Fig. 9) and graphene (903, Fig. 9), wherein a particle size of graphite is about 10 to 100 µm (See bottom, page 7/15 and lower part of page 9/15) and a particle diameter of silicon is 100 nm or less (top, page 8/15), which benefits for a strong bonding force and a good electrical conduction characteristics between the silicon and graphite particles (paragraph 2, page 8/15). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have incorporated the teachings of Okai into Zhamu in order to achieve advantages stated above. As a result, the above 100 nm reads on the range of 50 nm to 250 nm as claimed, and the range of 10 µm to 100 µm overlaps the instantly claimed 10 µm to 20 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. See MPEP § 2144.05 (I).
Regarding claim 21, Zhamu as modified teaches the lithium-ion secondary battery according to claim 3, wherein the negative electrode comprises a negative electrode current collector, and the negative electrode current collector comprises copper ([0100], Zhamu).
Regarding claim 22, Zhamu as modified teaches the lithium-ion secondary battery according to claim 4, wherein the negative electrode comprises a negative electrode current collector, and the negative electrode current collector comprises copper ([0100], Zhamu).
Regarding claim 25, Zhamu as modified teaches the lithium-ion secondary battery according to claim 3, wherein the graphene or the graphene compound is in contact with the first negative electrode active material and the second negative electrode active material so as to cover, surround, or cling to the first negative electrode active material and the second negative electrode active material (See Fig. 3B, Zhamu).
Regarding claim 26, Zhamu as modified teaches the lithium-ion secondary battery according to claim 4, wherein the graphene or the graphene compound is in contact with the first negative electrode active material and the second negative electrode active material so as to cover, surround, or cling to the first negative electrode active material and the second negative electrode active material (See Fig. 3B, Zhamu).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhamu in view of Axelbaum, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bachrach et al. (US 20110129732 A1, hereafter Bachrach).
Regarding claim 5, Zhamu as modified teaches the lithium-ion secondary battery according to claim 1, but is silent as to the first negative electrode active material silicon being amorphous or polycrystalline silicon.
However, either amorphous or polycrystalline silicon is well known in the art to be used as a negative electrode active material, as evidenced by Bachrach ([0057]). One of ordinary skill in the art would readily appreciate that the silicon used in Zhamu can be amorphous or polycrystalline.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhamu in view of Axelbaum and Okai, as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Bachrach.
Regarding claim 6, Zhamu as modified teaches the lithium-ion secondary battery according to claim 1, but is silent as to the first negative electrode active material silicon being amorphous or polycrystalline silicon.
However, either amorphous or polycrystalline silicon is well known in the art to be used as a negative electrode active material, as evidenced by Bachrach ([0057]). One of ordinary skill in the art would readily appreciate that the silicon used in Zhamu can be amorphous or polycrystalline.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhamu in view of Axelbaum, as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Choi et al. (US 20180342757 A1, hereafter Choi).
Regarding claim 7, Zhamu as modified teaches the lithium-ion secondary battery according to claim 2, but is silent as to the SiOx as claimed.
However, it is well known in the art that silicon, silicon oxide represented by SiOx, where 0<x<2, or the combination of the two is common negative electrode active material as evidenced by Choi ([0061], [0063]). One of ordinary skill in the art would readily appreciate that SiOx, where 0<x<2, can be used as the oxide of silicon of Zhamu.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhamu in view of Axelbaum and Choi.
Regarding claim 8, Zhamu as modified teaches the lithium-ion secondary battery according to claim 4, but is silent as to the SiOx as claimed.
However, it is well known in the art that silicon, silicon oxide represented by SiOx, where 0<x<2, or the combination of the two is common negative electrode active material as evidenced by Choi ([0061], [0063]). One of ordinary skill in the art would readily appreciate that SiOx, where 0<x<2, can be used as the oxide of silicon of Zhamu.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhamu in view of Axelbaum, as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Matsuno et al. (US 20180287193 A1, hereafter Matsuno).
Regarding claim 9, Zhamu as modified teaches the lithium-ion secondary battery according to claim 2, but is silent as to the silicon compound comprising Li2SiO3 or Li4SiO4, as claimed.
Matsuno discloses that a negative electrode active material comprising Li2SiO3 or Li4SiO4 in addition to silicon oxide can improve the initial charge/discharge characteristics and cycle characteristics of a secondary battery (at least: Abstract). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have included Li2SiO3 or Li4SiO4 in the silicon compound of Zhamu in view of Axelbaum in order to improve the initial charge/discharge characteristics and cycle characteristics of the lithium-ion secondary battery.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhamu in view of Axelbaum and Okai, as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Matsuno.
Regarding claim 10, Zhamu as modified teaches the lithium-ion secondary battery according to claim 4, but is silent as to the silicon compound comprising Li2SiO3 or Li4SiO4, as claimed.
Matsuno discloses that a negative electrode active material comprising Li2SiO3 or Li4SiO4 in addition to silicon oxide can improve the initial charge/discharge characteristics and cycle characteristics of a secondary battery (at least: Abstract). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have further included Li2SiO3 or Li4SiO4 in the silicon compound of the modified Zhamu in order to improve the initial charge/discharge characteristics and cycle characteristics of the lithium-ion secondary battery.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhamu in view of Axelbaum, as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Okai.
Regarding claim 16, Zhamu as modified teaches the lithium-ion secondary battery according to claim 2, but is silent as to the instantly claimed limitations.
However, a selection of different sizes of a particle involves merely ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art and is not patentably distinguishable. For instance, in the same field of endeavor, Okai discloses a similar negative electrode active material comprising a first negative electrode active material (e.g., silicon, 902, Fig. 9), a second negative electrode active material (e.g., graphite, 901, Fig. 9) and graphene (903, Fig. 9), wherein a particle size of graphite is about 10 to 100 µm (See bottom, page 7/15 and lower part of page 9/15) and a particle diameter of silicon is 100 nm or less (top, page 8/15), which benefits for a strong bonding force and a good electrical conduction characteristics between the silicon and graphite particles (paragraph 2, page 8/15). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have further incorporated the teachings of Okai into the modified Zhamu in order to achieve advantages stated above. As a result, the above 100 nm reads on the range of 50 nm to 250 nm as claimed, and the range of 10 µm to 100 µm overlaps the instantly claimed 10 µm to 20 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. See MPEP § 2144.05 (I).
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhamu in view of Axelbaum, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Okai.
Regarding claim 27, Zhamu as modified teaches the lithium-ion secondary battery according to claim 1, but is silent as to a particle diameter of the second negative electrode active material being larger than a particle diameter of the first negative electrode active material.
However, a selection of different sizes of a particle involves merely ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art and is not patentably distinguishable. For instance, in the same field of endeavor, Okai discloses a similar negative electrode active material comprising a first negative electrode active material (e.g., silicon, 902, Fig. 9), a second negative electrode active material (e.g., graphite, 901, Fig. 9) and graphene (903, Fig. 9), wherein a particle size of graphite is about 100 µm (bottom, page 7/15) and a particle diameter of silicon is 100 nm or less (top, page 8/15), which benefits for a strong bonding force and a good electrical conduction characteristics between the silicon and graphite particles (paragraph 2, page 8/15). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have further incorporated the teachings of Okai into the modified Zhamu such that a particle diameter of the second negative electrode active material is larger thana particle diameter of the first negative electrode active material, in order to achieve advantages stated above.
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhamu in view of Axelbaum, as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Okai.
Regarding claim 28, Zhamu as modified teaches the lithium-ion secondary battery according to claim 2, but is silent as to a particle diameter of the second negative electrode active material being larger than a particle diameter of the first negative electrode active material.
However, a selection of different sizes of a particle involves merely ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art and is not patentably distinguishable. For instance, in the same field of endeavor, Okai discloses a similar negative electrode active material comprising a first negative electrode active material (e.g., silicon, 902, Fig. 9), a second negative electrode active material (e.g., graphite, 901, Fig. 9) and graphene (903, Fig. 9), wherein a particle size of graphite is about 100 µm (bottom, page 7/15) and a particle diameter of silicon is 100 nm or less (top, page 8/15), which benefits for a strong bonding force and a good electrical conduction characteristics between the silicon and graphite particles (paragraph 2, page 8/15). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have further incorporated the teachings of Okai into the modified Zhamu such that a particle diameter of the second negative electrode active material is larger than a particle diameter of the first negative electrode active material, in order to achieve advantages stated above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on Aug. 18, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's arguments are based on the claims as amended. The amended claims have been addressed in the new rejections above.
In addition, in response to Applicant’s argument about the term “diameter”, it is noted that the term does not have to apply only spherical particles. In plain meaning, the term “diameter” can be defined as a length of a straight line passing from side to side of any figure or body, through its center, see, e.g., www.dictionary.com).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZHONGQING WEI whose telephone number is (571)272-4809. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:30 - 6:00.
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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at (571)272-1330. 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.
/ZHONGQING WEI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1727