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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Korea on 03/21/2024. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the foreign application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of claims 1-8 in the reply filed on 08/05/2026 is acknowledged. Applicant further elected the buffer layer species SiO and SEI Layer Species Li2Si2O5. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the species for the SEI layer refer to different cycled phases from charge/discharge cycles formed with the SiO layer.
The arguments regarding the species election requirement are found persuasive and the species restriction made of record in the office action mailed on 03/19/2025 is therefore withdrawn. Claims 1-8 are therefore being examined in their entirety.
Claims 9-18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-8 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.
Claim 1 contains the limitation “an oxide of the SEI layer is formed preferentially over a fluorides”. It is unclear what “is formed” refers to with respect to the “oxide of the of the SEI layer” refers to given that SEI layer already contains an oxide of at least one of Li2Si2O5, Li4SiO4 and Li2SiO3. Furthermore, the limitation “preferentially” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. Does “preferentially” refer to a preferred embodiment that is optional? Finally, “a fluorides” is unclear as not specifying what “fluorides” refers to or what mechanism or reactant is used to form the “oxide” or “fluorides”.
Claim 1 further contains the limitation “and comprises a solid electrolyte interphase (SEI) layer”. It is unclear what structure “comprises” the layer: the silicon composite or the buffer layer. In other words, is the SEI layer part of the buffer layer or a separate layer distinct from the buffer layer.
Claims 2-8 are rejected as being dependent on claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, the limitation “having an average particle size” in combination with “and having an average diameter or thickness” is unclear. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. “Particle size” would include both an “average diameter” and “thickness” since “average particle size” is synonymous with “diameter” or thickness”. A particle having an average diameter or thickness of 20 to 250 nm would have an average particle size in the same range. It is therefore unclear how it can also have an average particle size of 10 to 1000 nm which lies outside the 20 to 250 nm range.
Regarding claim 6, the claim recites the limitation "the silicon grains" in claim 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Furthermore, the use of the term “grain size” in the specification of the application as presently filed appears to synonymous with “particle size” despite the term referring a subsection of a polycrystalline material (i.e. crystal grain size, see reference drawing below):
PNG
media_image1.png
559
824
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It is therefore not clear if Applicant’s use of the word “grain size” refers to a particle size or the crystal grains within the particles. Appropriate clarification is required. For purposes of examination, the Examiner is interpreting the term “grain size” as being interchangeable with “particle size”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 1-4 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pang et al. (U.S. App. Pub. No. 2022/0115652).
Regarding claim 1, Pang et al. discloses a silicon-oxygen composite negative electrode material comprising SiOx, non-Li2Si2O5 lithium-containing compound and Li2Si2O5 lithium containing compound coated on the surface of the non-Li2Si2O5 lithium-containing compound. (Abstract and Fig. 1). The non-Li2Si2O5 lithium containing compound includes non-stoichiometric SiOx inside the non-Li2Si2O5 lithium-containing compound (par. [0089]) and is therefore on the surface of the SiOx silicon particles. The non-Li2Si2O5 lithium-containing compound would meet the limitation of a “non-stoichiometric buffer layer” and the Li2Si2O5 lithium containing compound coated on the surface of the non-Li2Si2O5 lithium-containing compound would meet the limitation of the “SEI layer”.
With respect to the limitations “by chemically treating the surface with an oxidizing agent added in a molar ratio of 0.05 to 0.2 mole per 1 mole of silicon” and “formed by prelithiation, an initial formation process, or initial charge/discharge”, the method of forming the product is not germane to the issue of patentability of the product itself, unless Applicant presents evidence from which the Examiner could reasonably conclude that the claimed product differs in kind from those of the prior art. MPEP 2113. Given that Pang et al. discloses a silicon-oxygen composite negative material having all the claimed structural features of claim 1 and the process limitations to not impart clear additional structure to the silicon composite, Pang et al. anticipates the limitations of claim 1.
With respect to the limitation “an oxide of the SEI layer is formed preferentially over a fluorides”, since the composite includes a Li2Si2O5 layer on the surface of the composite, it would have the same material properties as presently claimed including the ability to preferentially form an oxide over a fluoride.
Regarding claims 2-4, the non-Li2Si2O5 lithium-containing compound meets the limitation of a silicon oxide thin film composite since it can be lithium silicate (Li2SiO3) (par. [0149]) which is a composite of silicon oxide composite. Alternatively, the non-Li2Si2O5 lithium-containing compound includes SiO0.8 (par. [0089] and [0149]) particles inside the material.
Regarding claims 7-8, Pang et al. teaches a stabilization layer on the outer surface of the composite made of carbon. (par. [0094]-[0096]).
Claims 1-2, 4 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yang et al. (CN 112366301).
Citations to Yang et al., below, refer to the machine translation document provided with this office action.
Regarding claims 1-2 and 4, Yang et al. discloses a negative electrode material for lithium-ion battery having a double-core-shell structure with a core of nano-silicon particles, an inner SiOx buffer layer and an outer carbon layer. (Abstract, page 4). The buffer layer therefore includes a non-stoichiometric silicon (SiOx) buffer. The SiOx buffer layer further includes a portion thereof that is converted to Li4SiO4 SEI film (page 16, 4th paragraph).
With respect to the limitations “by chemically treating the surface with an oxidizing agent added in a molar ratio of 0.05 to 0.2 mole per 1 mole of silicon” and “formed by prelithiation, an initial formation process, or initial charge/discharge”, the method of forming the product is not germane to the issue of patentability of the product itself, unless Applicant presents evidence from which the Examiner could reasonably conclude that the claimed product differs in kind from those of the prior art. MPEP 2113. Given that Yang et al. discloses a silicon-oxygen composite negative material having all the claimed structural features of claim 1 and the process limitations to not impart clear additional structure to the silicon composite, Yang et al. anticipates the limitations of claim 1.
With respect to the limitation “an oxide of the SEI layer is formed preferentially over a fluorides”, since the composite includes a Li2Si2O5 layer on the surface of the composite, it would have the same material properties as presently claimed including the ability to preferentially form an oxide over a fluoride.
Regarding claims 7-8, Yang et al. teaches a stabilization layer on the outer surface of the composite made of carbon. (Abstract).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (CN 112366301) in view of Wei et al. (U.S. App. Pub. No. 2023/0124703).
Yang et al. is relied upon as described in the rejection of claim 1, above.
Yang et al. does not teach the value of x for the SiOx inner coating layer.
Wei et al. teaches a negative electrode plate material containing a silicon-based material having a molar ratio of O to Si in the range of 0.5 to 1.5. (Abstract). Wei et al. teaches that when the molar ratio is in the range of 0.5 to 1.5, the silicon-based material has improved life-cycle, Coulombic efficiency and energy density. (par. [0040]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to tune the synthesis of the first coating layer to have an SiOx composition where x lies in the range of 0.5 to 1.5, overlapping with the presently claimed range. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “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).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to optimize the x value in the range of 0.5 to 1.5 in order to have a reasonable expectation of success in producing a silicon-based material for a negative electron material having improved properties such as life-cycle, Coulombic efficiency and energy density as disclosed in Yang et al.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (CN 112366301) in view of Ashuri et al. (Silicon as a potential anode material for Li-ion batteries: where size, geometry and structure matter, Nanoscale, 2016, 8, pp. 74-103).
Yang et al. is relied upon as described in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Yang et al. does not teach that 85% or more of the particles have an average particle size of 10-1000nm and have an average diameter or thickness of 20 to 250 nm. Yang et al. teaches that suitable diameters for the silicon-based particles may be in the range of 20-300 nm. (page 4, 3rd paragraph from the bottom).
Ashuri et al. teaches silicon anode materials for Li-ion batteries and in particular the effect of size, shape and structure affect the properties thereof. (Abstract and Section III. Particle-based structures). Si nanospheres are known to be effective anode materials due to the formation of void structure and core/shell anode materials for lithiation of the anode material. (Section III, Fig. 5, 13, Fig. 25). Ashuri et al. further discloses that there is a critical diameter range for the silicon particles where above 20nm, 150 nm 300 nm the materials tend to crack due to expansion during lithiation. (page 76, left col.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use spherical nanoparticles having diameters such that over 85% of them would lie in range disclosed in Ashuri et al.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use spherical properties in the of the ability to form voided structures and nanostructured anode-based materials to improve the conductive properties of the anode as taught by Ashuri et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to control the particle diameter such that 85% or more of the particles having diameters in the range disclosed in Ashuri et al. in order to prevent cracking due to lithiation of the particles. Furthermore, the prior art explicitly recognizes the result effective nature of the diameter of the nanoparticles for producing an anode material that has improved utility/reduced cracking. It would therefore have been obvious to optimize the particle size distribution of the silicon nanoparticle of Yang et al. for controlling the properties of the silicon nanoparticles.
Regarding claim 6, Yang in view of Ashuri et al. does not teach a particle size distribution as presently claimed. However, "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955). MPEP 2144.05 (II).
Since the instant specification is silent to unexpected results, the specific particle size distribution of the silicon nanoparticles is not considered to confer patentability to the claims. In view of the teachings in Ashuri et al. regarding the particle size and particle size distribution of silicon nanoparticles for use of an anode material, the precise distribution would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed amount cannot be considered critical.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDRE F FERRE whose telephone number is (571)270-5763. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8 am to 4 pm ET.
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, Alicia Chevalier can be reached at 5712721490. 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.
/ALEXANDRE F FERRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1788 09/01/2026
