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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 15 January 2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims and Other Notes
Claims 1 and 5–27 are pending.
Claims 1, 5–11, and 27 are being treated on their merits.
Claims 12–26 are withdrawn from consideration.
Claims 2–4 are canceled.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The paragraph numbers cited in this Office Action in reference to the instant application are referring to the paragraph numbering of the PG-Pub of the instant application. See US 2022/0246906 A1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 8 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.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "a silicon-based core." Claim 1, which claim 8 is directly dependent, recites the limitation "said silicon-based core." It is unclear if "a silicon-based core" recited in claim 8 is further limiting or referencing "said silicon-based core" recited in claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1, 5, 7-9, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mao et al. (CN 106941170 A, hereinafter Mao) in view of Andersen et al. (WO 2017/207525 A1, hereinafter Andersen), Park et al (US 2013/0071750 A1, hereinafter Park), and Suzuki et al. (JP 2011-198614 A, hereinafter Suzuki).
Regarding claims 1 and 27, Mao discloses an electrical energy storage device comprising an anode, a cathode, separator and electrolyte (see battery, [0099]), wherein said anode comprises particles (TABLE 1, [0038]–[0088]) comprising, in this order:
an amorphous and/or crystalline silicon-based core (TABLE 1, [0094]),
a continuous or non-continuous first carbon-containing shell (TABLE 1, [0094]), and
a continuous or non-continuous second carbon-containing shell (TABLE 1, [0094]),
whereby, said second carbon-containing shell has a higher density than said continuous or non-continuous first carbon-containing shell (TABLE 1, [0094]), wherein said first carbon-containing shell is porous (TABLE 1, [0094]); and
wherein said first carbon-containing shell is annealed and said second carbon-containing shell is annealed (see carbonized, [0038]–[0088]).
Mao discloses a first carbon-containing shell having a porosity of 0% (TABLE 1, [0039]) and a second carbon-containing shell having a porosity from 1 to 80% (TABLE 1, [0094]). The first carbon-containing shell of Examples 1 to 13 is identical to the buffer layer of the Comparative Example (e.g., TABLE 1, [0034], [0039]). The bulk density is related to the porosity by the following equation P = 1 – ρbulk/ρparticle. Based on the relationship between the bulk density and porosity, the density of the second carbon-containing shell is higher than the density first carbon-containing shell.
Mao does not explicitly disclose:
wherein said silicon-based core comprises non-stochiometric silicon nitride.
Andersen discloses an anode particle an amorphous and/or crystalline silicon-based core (FIG. 2, P19/L23–P20/L12), a continuous or non-continuous carbon-containing shell (FIG. 2, P19/L23–P20/L12), and wherein said silicon-based core comprises non-stochiometric silicon nitride (FIG. 2, P19/L23–P20/L12) to improve the capacity of the electrode (FIG. 6, P21/L13–21) and cycle stability (FIG. 4, P20/L17–34). Mao and Andersen are analogous because they are directed to silicon carbon composite particles anode active materials. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to make the silicon-based core of Mao with the silicon nitride of Andersen in order to improve the capacity of the electrode and cycle stability.
Modified Mao does not explicitly disclose:
wherein at least one of said first carbon-containing shell and said second carbon-containing shell is non-continuous; and
wherein both said first carbon-containing shell and said second carbon-containing shell are non-continuous.
Park discloses an anode particle an amorphous and/or crystalline silicon-based core (FIG. 1, [0025]), a continuous or non-continuous carbon-containing shell (FIG. 1, [0025]), and wherein said carbon-containing shell is non-continuous (see discontinuously, [0025]) to improve cycle-life characteristics without deteriorating the capacity or efficiency characteristics (TABLE 1, [0026]). Mao and Park are analogous because they are directed to silicon carbon composite particles anode active materials. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to make the first carbon-containing shell and the second carbon-containing shell of modified Mao non-continuous as taught by Park in order to improve cycle-life characteristics without deteriorating the capacity or efficiency characteristics.
Further modified Mao does not explicitly disclose:
a plurality of carbon fibers extending between the silicon-based core and the second carbon-containing shell.
Suzuki discloses an anode particle comprising a first carbon-containing shell (21) a plurality of carbon fibers extending between a silicon-based core (10) and a second carbon-containing shell (22, [0068]) to improve the cycle characteristics (FIGS. 7–9, [0083]). Mao and Suzuki are analogous because they are directed to silicon carbon composite particles anode active materials. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to make the first carbon-containing shell of further modified Mao with the carbon fibers of Suzuki in order to improve the cycle characteristics.
Regarding claim 5, modified Mao discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above and further discloses an electrical energy storage device:
wherein said silicon-based core is modified with at least one of the following modifying elements: phosphorus, boron, carbon, oxygen, sulphur, selenium, arsenic, tin, magnesium, aluminium, iron, germanium, antimony or hydrogen (see nuclear structure, [0038]–[0088]).
Regarding claim 7, modified Mao discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above and further discloses an electrical energy storage device:
wherein said first carbon-containing shell and said second carbon-containing shell each have a maximum thickness of up to 100 nm (TABLE 1, [0038]–[0088])
Regarding claim 8, modified Mao discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above and further discloses an electrical energy storage device:
wherein said particles comprise a silicon-based core, with a diameter of 20 nm to 2 μm for spherical particles, or a minimum transverse dimension of 20 nm to 2 μm for non-spherical particles (see nuclear structure, [0038]–[0088]).
Regarding claim 9, modified Mao discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above and further discloses an electrical energy storage device:
wherein particles comprise two or more of said silicon-based cores, wherein said silicon-based cores are aggregated (see nuclear structure, [0038]–[0088]).
Claims 6, 10, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mao '170 (CN 106941170 A) in view of Andersen (WO 2017/207525 A1), Park (US 2013/0071750 A1), and Suzuki (JP 2011-198614 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chu et al. (WO 2019/059438 A1, hereinafter Chu).
Regarding claims 6, 10, and 11, modified Mao discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, but does not explicitly disclose an electrical energy storage device:
wherein said first carbon-containing shell, and/or said second carbon-containing shell are non-annealed;
wherein said particles comprise at least one additional continuous or non-continuous, annealed or non-annealed shell;
wherein anode comprises agglomerates of said particles, said agglomerates covered by a third carbon-containing shell, wherein said third carbon-containing shell is continuous or non-continuous, and annealed or non-annealed;
wherein said third carbon-containing shell has a maximum average thickness of 500 nm.
Chu discloses particles (100, [0031]) comprising an amorphous and/or crystalline silicon-based core (110), a continuous or non-continuous first carbon-containing shell (120), a continuous or non-continuous second carbon-containing shell (130), and a continuous or non-continuous third carbon-containing shell (140, [0031]), wherein said first carbon-containing shell (120), and/or said second carbon-containing shell (130) are non-annealed (FIG. 2, [0054]); wherein anode comprises agglomerates of said particles (100), said agglomerates covered by a third carbon-containing shell (140), wherein said third carbon-containing shell (140) is continuous or non-continuous, and annealed or non-annealed (FIG. 2, [0054]); wherein said third carbon-containing shell (140) has a maximum average thickness of 500 nm (FIG. 1, [0054]) to improve the electrical conductivity of the particles (FIG. 6, [0068]). Mao and Chu are analogous because they are directed to silicon carbon composite particles anode active materials. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to make the particles of modified Mao with the third carbon-containing shell of Chu in order to improve the electrical conductivity of the particles.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 15 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants argue the shells of the particle in Mao must be continuous in order to achieve an anode material with excellent electrochemical performance (P8/¶1). It is noted that "the arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence in the record", In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965). It is the examiner’s position that the arguments provided by the applicant regarding the shells of the particle in Mao must be continuous in order to achieve an anode material with excellent electrochemical performance must be supported by a declaration or affidavit. As set forth in MPEP 716.02(g), "the reason for requiring evidence in a declaration or affidavit form is to obtain the assurances that any statements or representations made are correct, as provided by 35 U.S.C. 24 and 18 U.S.C. 1001." Mao does not disclose the shells must be continuous, fully/completely cover, be dense without any discontinuity, nor a ratio of coverage of the shells. Mao discloses an anode material with excellent electrochemical performance includes a layer having a porous structure with porosities as high as 80% (TABLE 1, [0095]). A layer having a porous structure with porosities as high as 80% can be considered discontinuous (i.e., having intervals or gaps) because the pores are gaps in the layer. Therefore, the shells of the particle in Mao are not required to be continuous in order to achieve an anode material with excellent electrochemical performance.
Applicants argue the core and the shell structures would not remain tightly connected and would fail to protect the core from the adverse interactions with the electrolyte if the shells were discontinuous (P8/¶1). It is noted that "the arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence in the record", In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965). It is the examiner’s position that the arguments provided by the applicant regarding the core and the shell structures would not remain tightly connected and would fail to protect the core from the adverse interactions with the electrolyte if the shells were discontinuous must be supported by a declaration or affidavit. As set forth in MPEP 716.02(g), "the reason for requiring evidence in a declaration or affidavit form is to obtain the assurances that any statements or representations made are correct, as provided by 35 U.S.C. 24 and 18 U.S.C. 1001." Mao does not disclose the shells must be continuous, fully/completely cover, be dense without any discontinuity, nor a ratio of coverage of the shells. Mao discloses the core and the shell structures would not remain tightly connected and would fail to protect the core from the adverse interactions with the electrolyte in an anode material including a layer having a porous structure with porosities as high as 80% (TABLE 1, [0095]). A layer having a porous structure with porosities as high as 80% can be considered discontinuous (i.e., having intervals or gaps) because the pores are gaps in the layer. Therefore, the core and the shell structures would remain tightly connected and would protect the core from the adverse interactions with the electrolyte if the shells were discontinuous.
Applicants argue Mao teaches that when the surface coating layer is damage or discontinuous the overall performance of the silicon-carbon anode material is degraded (P8/¶1). Mao discloses that when the surface coating layer is destroyed the overall performance of the silicon-carbon anode material is degraded. The destruction of a coating layer does not correspond to a discontinuous layer. To destroy a layer is put an end to the existence of a layer. Mao discloses an anode material with excellent overall performance includes a layer having a porous structure with porosities as high as 80% (TABLE 1, [0095]). A layer having a porous structure with porosities as high as 80% can be considered discontinuous (i.e., having intervals or gaps) because the pores are gaps in the layer. Therefore, Mao does not teach that when the surface coating layer is discontinuous the overall performance of the silicon-carbon anode material is degraded.
Applicants argue the skilled reader would not be motivated to deviate from this continuous-shell design because Mao explicitly establishes a causal relationship between continuous shells and excellent electrochemical performance (P8/¶2, P9/¶4). Mao does not explicitly establish a causal relationship between continuous shells and excellent electrochemical performance as detailed above.
Applicants argue silicon nitride cores have significantly different mechanical and expansion properties compared to pure silicon (P8/¶3). It is noted that "the arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence in the record", In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965). It is the examiner’s position that the arguments provided by the applicant regarding silicon nitride cores have significantly different mechanical and expansion properties compared to pure silicon must be supported by a declaration or affidavit. As set forth in MPEP 716.02(g), "the reason for requiring evidence in a declaration or affidavit form is to obtain the assurances that any statements or representations made are correct, as provided by 35 U.S.C. 24 and 18 U.S.C. 1001." The comparison between pure silicon and the silicon nitride found in the instant specification states, "[t]he degradation is slower than for pure silicon, but still too large for most commercial applications." (see SiNx, [0079]). Therefore, it has not been demonstrated that silicon nitride cores have significantly different mechanical and expansion properties compared to pure silicon.
Applicants argue Mao does not suggest non-continuous shells allows the core material to tolerate greater active material volume expansion increasing the potential lithium intake capacity of the active material (P8/¶3). Nonobviousness cannot be shown by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Andersen provides no motivation or suggestion that this substitution would permit the use of non-continuous shells (P9/¶1). Note that while Andersen does not disclose all the features of the present claimed invention, Andersen is used as teaching reference, and therefore, it is not necessary for this secondary reference to contain all the features of the presently claimed invention, In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 179 USPQ 224, 226 (CCPA 1973), In re Keller 624 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). Rather this reference teaches a certain concept, namely non-stoichiometric silicon nitride, and in combination with the primary reference, discloses the presently claimed invention.
Andersen discloses a coated particle with what appears to be a continuous coating (P9/¶1). Note that while Andersen does not disclose all the features of the present claimed invention, Andersen is used as teaching reference, and therefore, it is not necessary for this secondary reference to contain all the features of the presently claimed invention, In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 179 USPQ 224, 226 (CCPA 1973), In re Keller 624 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). Rather this reference teaches a certain concept, namely non-stoichiometric silicon nitride, and in combination with the primary reference, discloses the presently claimed invention. Further, disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971).
Anderson provides no guidance on whether or how discontinuous coatings might function with a silicon nitride core (P9/¶1). Nonobviousness cannot be shown by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicants argue a silicon grain embedded in a silicon dioxide matrix is fundamentally different from a pure non-stoichiometric silicon nitride core (P9/¶2). The instant application discloses suitable materials for the core include Si, SiNx, SiCx, or SiOx (see silicon-based core, [0018]). The instant application does not describe that Si, SiNx, SiCx, and SiOx are fundamentally different.
Applicants argue the Si/SiO2 composite structure in Park presents different mechanical properties, stress distributions, and expansion characteristics than a non-stoichiometric silicon nitride core (P9/¶3). It is noted that "the arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence in the record", In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965). It is the examiner’s position that the arguments provided by the applicant regarding the Si/SiO2 composite structure in Park presents different mechanical properties, stress distributions, and expansion characteristics than a non-stoichiometric silicon nitride core must be supported by a declaration or affidavit. As set forth in MPEP 716.02(g), "the reason for requiring evidence in a declaration or affidavit form is to obtain the assurances that any statements or representations made are correct, as provided by 35 U.S.C. 24 and 18 U.S.C. 1001." The instant application discloses suitable materials for the core include Si, SiNx, SiCx, or SiOx (see silicon-based core, [0018]). The instant application does not describe that Si/SiO2 composite structure presents different mechanical properties, stress distributions, and expansion characteristics than a non-stoichiometric silicon nitride core.
Applicants argue the skilled person would not modify the buffer layer or the shell structure of Mao's particles to make them discontinuous without hindsight (P9/¶4). It must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). Park discloses an anode particle comprising an amorphous and/or crystalline silicon-based core (FIG. 1, [0025]) and a non-continuous carbon-containing shell (see discontinuously, [0025]) improve cycle-life characteristics (TABLE 1, [0025]). Therefore, the skilled person would not modify the buffer layer or the shell structure of Mao's particles to make them discontinuous to improve cycle-life characteristics.
Applicants argue Park does not disclose non-continuous shells improve cycle-life characteristics without deteriorating capacity or efficiency (P10/¶2). Park discloses SiC improves cycle-life characteristics but has an adverse effect on capacity or efficiency (see SiC, [0025]). Park discloses the negative active material with the coating layer is needed to improve cycle-life characteristics without deteriorating capacity or efficiency (see negative active material, [0026]). Therefore, Park discloses non-continuous shells improve cycle-life characteristics without deteriorating capacity or efficiency.
Applicants argue a "sponge-like porous structure" is fundamentally incompatible with the claimed oriented carbon fiber architecture (P10/¶4). It is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., oriented carbon fiber architecture) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Claim 1 recites inter alia "a plurality of carbon fibers extending between the silicon-based core and the second carbon-containing shell." Claim 1 does not include any other limitations related to "carbon fibers." Claim 1 does not require any oriented carbon fiber architecture.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sean P Cullen, Ph.D. whose telephone number is (571)270-1251. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 6:00 am to 4:00 pm CT, Friday 6:00 am to 12:00 pm CT.
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, Basia A Ridley can be reached at (571)272-1453. 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.
/Sean P Cullen, Ph.D./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725