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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 05/22/2026 has been entered.
The amendment overcomes the 35 USC 112(b) rejection to claim 4 of the previous Office actions, but a 35 USC 112(b) rejection to claim 20 is made below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant presents arguments against the combination of Niimi and Ajayan for failing to teach the newly-recited claim limitations. While examiner agrees with this characterization, Niimi remains the primary reference as it is still relevant to the claimed invention for teaching the base structure of active material and coating selections, while the new grounds of rejection in view of Zhamu are necessitated by the amendment and RCE. Specific arguments against Ajayan are moot, as Ajayan is no longer relied upon below. Arguments are generally directed to features which were not yet claimed at the time of the previous Office action, but are now addressed below.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/22/2026 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/12/2026 was filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 20 is 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 20, the phrase "optionally" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim Interpretation
Examiner notes that in claim 1, the “when” limitations are interpreted as two alternatives, where only one need be met to satisfy the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niimi et al. (US 2015/0188127 A1, cited in the 12/19/2025 and 03/26/2026 Office actions) in view of Zhamu et al. (US 2018/0287142 A1, cited as relevant in the 03/26/2026 Office action).
Regarding claim 1, Niimi teaches a negative electrode active material (a negative-electrode active material, Niimi [0068]), comprising:
a negative electrode active substance (preferable negative-electrode active material, [0074]) and a coating layer (coated by a carbonaceous substance, [0075]),
wherein the negative electrode active substance comprises at least one of graphite (graphite as carbonaceous substance example listed in [0070]) and a silicon-based material (preferable negative-electrode active material: lithium silicate, SiOx particles, Si particles; [0074-0078])
wherein the coating layer is coated on a surface of the negative electrode active substance (coating a carbonaceous substance onto lithium silicate particles is applicable to a mixture comprising lithium silicate particles and SiOx (where 0<“x”<2) particles or Si particles, so that the coating process makes possible coating a carbonaceous substance onto the respective surfaces of the lithium silicate particles and SiOx particles or Si particles, [0066, 0074]; SiOx particles coated by a carbonaceous substance on at least some of the surface or Si particles coated by a carbonaceous substance on at least some of the surface, [0075-0076]), and
the coating layer comprises at least one of polymethyl methacrylate, sodium maleate, and oleic diethanolamide borate (carbonaceous substance is formed by heating a carbon-containing compound … preferable carbon-containing compound example of polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA), [0016, 0047-0048, 0060]).
Niimi fails to explicitly teach: when the coating layer comprises polymethyl methacrylate formed from methyl methacrylate, a mass ratio of the methyl methacrylate to the negative electrode active substance is 1 to 5. However, Niimi teaches that it is known in the art for a silicon/silicon oxide/lithium-based composite to be turned conductive electrically by coating the surface of silicon/silicon oxide/lithium-based composite particles with carbon in a coating amount of from 5% by mass to 50% by mass ([0005]), and in their process that a solid-content ratio as (the particulate mixture):(the carbon-containing compound)=from 10:1 to 10:100 ([0030, 0066]). Therefore, the carbon-containing coating in the above mass % and solid content ratio is taught to aid in electrical conductivity of the active material, so the coating amount is a result effective variable. Optimization of the mass ratio of the methyl methacrylate to the negative electrode active substance would therefore have been obvious to achieve desired conductivity (MPEP 2144.05 II).
Zhamu is analogous in the art of coated active material (Encapsulated Anode Active Material Particles, title) and teaches coating/encapsulation by a thin layer of a high-elasticity polymer wherein the polymer contains an ultrahigh molecular weight (UHMW) such as poly(methyl methacrylate) (abstract). Zhamu’s recitation of “poly(methyl methacrylate)” means that methyl methacrylate is the monomer unit used to form the polymer of poly(methyl methacrylate). This reads on the claimed “the coating layer comprises polymethyl methacrylate formed from methyl methacrylate”.
Niimi also fails to teach: wherein a thickness of the coating layer is 5 nm to 50 nm. Instead Niimi teaches that coating the carbonaceous substance onto a surface of the exemplary lithium silicate particles in a thickness of from 100 nm to 1,000 nm is possible (Niimi [0063]). As cited above, Niimi teaches in [0060] that polymethyl methacrylate (or PMMA) is a preferable carbon-containing compound.
Zhamu also teaches the layer of UHMW polymer (poly(methyl methacrylate), Zhamu [0016]) preferably has a thickness from 0.5 nm to 10 μm, this embracing polymer layer preferably has a thickness <1 μm, more preferably <100 nm, further more preferably <10 nm, and most preferably from 0.5 nm to 5 nm ([0017]). Zhamu teaches that such thin polymer layer imparts high lithium ion conductivity ([0016-0017]), high-capacity, and high elasticity for recoverable tensile strain at this thickness ([0016, 0067]). Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to decrease the thickness of the PMMA layer of Niimi to be within the range taught by Zhamu, to beneficially use less material while still achieving desirable capacity, tensile recovery, and conductivity effects.
Thereby, claim 1 is rendered obvious.
Regarding claim 2, modified Niimi teaches the limitations of claim 1 above and the thickness of the coating layer is 10 nm to 20 nm (0.5 nm to … preferably <1 μm; Zhamu [0017, 0067] as cited above; in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists, MPEP 2144.05 I).
Regarding claim 3, modified Niimi teaches the limitations of claim 1 above but fails to teach a molecular weight of the polymethyl methacrylate is 500,000 to 2,000,000, Niimi appears silent toward a molecular weight of the PMMA of the carbonaceous coating substance. However, Zhamu as applied above teaches the poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA) encapsulation/coating layer meeting the criterial of being and ultrahigh molecular weight polymer having a molecular weight greater than 0.5×106 grams/mole and up to 9×106 grams/mole (Zhamu [0017]), which encompasses the claimed range. Therefore, selecting the molecular weight of the PMMA in Niimi in view of Zhamu to be UHMW having molecular weight taught toward by Zhamu would be further obvious, for a person having ordinary skill in the art to expect to achieve the beneficial effects of desirable capacity, tensile recovery, and conductivity cited above to Zhamu within modified Niimi.
Regarding claim 4, modified Niimi teaches the limitations of claim 1 above and wherein the silicon-based material comprises at least one of monatomic silicon (Si particles, Niimi [0074]), a silicon-oxygen compound (SiOx, Niimi [0074]).
Regarding claim 15, modified Niimi teaches the limitations of claim 1 above and teaches a negative electrode plate, comprising the negative electrode active material according to claim 1 (a common negative electrode is made by adhering onto a current collector a negative-electrode active-material layer made by binding together the aforementioned negative-electrode active material at least with a binding agent, Niimi [0079]).
Regarding claim 16, modified Niimi teaches the limitations of claim 15 above and teaches a battery cell, comprising the negative electrode plate according to claim 15 (in addition to the above-mentioned negative electrode, a nonaqueous-electrolyte secondary battery further comprises a positive electrode, a separator, and an electrolytic solution, as the battery constituent elements; Niimi [0085] – wherein “battery constituent elements” read on “a battery cell”).
Regarding claim 17, modified Niimi teaches the limitations of claim 16 above and teaches a battery, comprising the battery cell according to claim 16 (nonaqueous-electrolyte secondary battery, Niimi [0001-0002, 0085]).
Regarding claim 18, modified Niimi teaches the limitations of claim 17 above and teaches an electrical device, comprising the battery according to claim 17 (lithium-ion secondary batteries have been used mainly as a power source for portable electronic devices, Niimi [0002]).
Regarding claim 19, modified Niimi teaches the limitations of claim 4 above and teaches the silicon-oxygen compound comprises SiaOb, wherein a=1, 1<b<2 (SiOx where 0<“x”<2, Niimi [0074]).
Regarding claim 20, modified Niimi teaches the limitations of claim 4 above and teaches optionally, optionally, the silicon-carbon compound comprises SicCd, wherein c=1 and d=1 (SiC example of compound comprising an element being capable of alloying with lithium, [0072])
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jessie Walls-Murray whose telephone number is (571)272-1664. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, typically 10-4.
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, Matthew Martin can be reached at (571) 270-7871. 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.
/JESSIE WALLS-MURRAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Prosecution Insights