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 .
DTAILED ACTION
This Office action regarding Application No.17/733,167 to Su et al., assigned to Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd., Shenzhen, China, filed 04/29/2022 and published as U.S. PG Publication 2022/0255055 on 08/11/2022, is in response to applicant’s request for continued examination, RCE, filed on 01/26/2026. Applicant’s response is fully considered.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/26/2026 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
In the after-final response filed on 12/08/2025 applicant has amended the claims of the application. Claim 1 has been amended by incorporating the limitation of claim 2, “…wherein the doping metal elements comprise one or more of gallium, antimony, or germanium, …” Claim 1 is further amended by changing the range of the doping amount of the doping metal from 1 parts per million (ppm) to 1000 ppm" to a new range “from 50 parts per million (ppm) to 1000 ppm”. Claim 2 has been canceled. Claims 6, 7, 12-18 were previously canceled. Claim 19 is amended to recite the silicon material does not have a coating layer, also previously recited in claim 25. Claim 20 has also been amended by addition of the same limitation of claim 2, “…wherein the doping metal elements comprise one or more of gallium, antimony, or germanium, …” in addition to the limitation of claim 25, where “…doped silicon-based material does not have a coating layer on the surface…” Claims 21 was previously canceled. Claim 22 previously reciting “the doping metal element comprise cobalt” has been canceled. New claim 31 and 32 have been added.
The status of the claims as last filed on 12/08/2025 stand as follows
Currently amended 1, 19-20, 23-30
Canceled 2, 6-7, 12-18, 21-22
Previously presented 3-5, 8-11
New 31-32
Claims 1, 3-5, 8-11, 19-20, 23-32 are currently pending in this application.
Withdrawal of Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 102
The amendment of independent claim 1 and 20 by incorporating limitation of claim 2 overcomes the previously presented rejection of Claims 1, 3, 4, 5, 8, 11, 20, 24, 25, 26 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being anticipated by Fukuoka et al. (U.S. PG Publication 2016/0149214). Therefore, the rejection is hereby withdrawn.
Upon further consideration and search a new ground of rejection of the claims 1 and 20 and their dependent claims under 103 over Fukuoka et al. in view of He et al. (U.S. PG Publication 2018/0375094) is made and presented in this Office action.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 102
The text of text of those sections of Title 35 U.S. Code not included in this section can be found in the prior Office Action.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Fukuoka et al. (U.S. PG Publication 2016/0149214).
Regarding Claim 19 Fukuoka also discloses providing a lithium ion battery comprising a positive electrode, negative electrode, a separator, and electrolyte (Fukuoka paragraph 0013, 0043).
Fukuoka discloses silicon oxide as a negative electrode material (Fukuoka Abstract, paragraph 0010, 0011) having silicon oxide particles (Fukuoka paragraph 0012) comprising an inner portion having iron (Fukuoka paragraph 0012) considered equivalent to the doped-silicon-based material, comprising nano-sized silicon (Fukuoka paragraph 0004), equivalent to the nano-silicon. The inner portion of the silicon oxide particles have iron (Fukuoka paragraph 0012) is equivalent to the doping metal element distributed inside the particles. Fukuoka discloses the iron content is 10 to 1,000 ppm (Fukuoka paragraph 0012). This range is included in the claimed range of 1 ppm to 1000 ppm.
The silicon oxide particles in the presence of iron are generate at high temperature followed by cooling for deposition (Fukuda paragraph 0015). Therefore, the iron considered equivalent to the doping metal element will be evenly distributed in the silicon oxide particles.
Fukuoka discloses in an embodiment the nano-silicon anode material may not include the carbon coating layer (Fukuoka paragraph 0011).
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 103
The text of text of those sections of Title 35 U.S. Code not included in this section can be found in the prior Office Action.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 5, 8, 11, 20, 24, 25, 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukuoka et al. (U.S. PG Publication 2016/0149214) in view of He et al. (U.S. PG Publication 2018/0375094)
Regarding Claim 1 and 20 Fukuoka discloses silicon oxide as a negative electrode material (Fukuoka Abstract, paragraph 0010, 0011) and Fukuoka also discloses providing a lithium ion battery comprising a positive electrode, negative electrode, a separator, and electrolyte (Fukuoka paragraph 0013, 0043).
The negative electrode having silicon oxide particles (Fukuoka paragraph 0012) comprising an inner portion having iron (Fukuoka paragraph 0012) considered equivalent to the doped-silicon-based material, comprising nano-sized silicon (Fukuoka paragraph 0004), equivalent to the nano-silicon. The inner portion of the silicon oxide particles have iron (Fukuoka paragraph 0012) is equivalent to the doping metal element distributed inside the particles. Fukuoka discloses the iron content is 10 to 1,000 ppm (Fukuoka paragraph 0012). This range is included in the claimed range of 1 ppm to 1000 ppm.
The silicon oxide particles in the presence of iron are generate at high temperature followed by cooling for deposition (Fukuda paragraph 0015). Therefore, the iron considered equivalent to the doping metal element will be evenly distributed in the silicon oxide particles.
Fukuoka discloses in specific examples 1-4 that the doping metal is iron (Fukuoka Table 2, paragraph 0047-0049, 0055-0058), but is silent that it comprises one or more of gallium, antimony, or germanium.
He discloses a composite silicon anode material, which comprise a nano silicon (He paragraph 0010), and a metal (He paragraph 001), and the metal is selected from metals that include antimony, gallium, and germanium, besides iron and other metals (He paragraph 0021, 0032), which effectively reduces the volume expansion of the silicon oxide (0050).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the silicon oxide active material of Fukuoka by the disclosure of He and to have elected antimony, gallium and germanium from among the other metals since according to the MPEP such a selection would have been obvious to try, and constitutes choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success (MPEP 2143 I E).
Fukuoka also discloses providing a lithium ion battery comprising a positive electrode, negative electrode, a separator, and electrolyte (Fukuoka paragraph 0013, 0043).
Fukuoka discloses batteries using silicon oxide as the negative electrode material are regarded fully effective for use in portable electronic equipment such as mobile phones, lap-top computers and tablets (Fukuoka paragraph 0004), the portable electronic equipment such as mobile phones, lap-top computers and tablets considered equivalent to the terminal. Such devices are known to have such components as housing, circuit boards, and batteries as recited in claim 20.
Fukuoka discloses in an embodiment the nano-silicon anode material may not include the carbon coating layer (Fukuoka paragraph 0011) recited in claim 20.
Regarding claim 3 Fukuoka discloses the inclusion of the iron in the silicon oxide, equivalent to the silicon-based material, causes change to the crystalline structure of the silicon oxide particles (Fukuoka paragraph 0019), considered equivalent to the doping metal element replaces silicon atoms in the crystalline structure of the silicon oxide material. In Fukuoka as modified by He the doping metals can be one or more of the metals gallium, antimony or germanium. Fukuoka discloses in a specific working example of the discloses invention, the iron doped silicon oxide is formed by mixing of metallic silicon containing iron content of 2,000 ppm and fused silicon powder and the mixture heated under reduced pressure in a reaction tube (Fukuoka paragraph 0047). Therefore, such a method allows mixing of the reactant material, and the iron will inherently be distributed in crystal structure and the lattice defects of the silicon oxide formed; and evenly distributed inside the silicon oxide particles.
Regarding claim 4 Fukuoka discloses the inclusion of iron causes change to the crystalline structure of the silicon oxide particles (Fukuoka paragraph 0019), and also in the silicon oxide active material of Fukuoka as modified by the disclosure of He to have elected antimony, gallium and germanium considered equivalent to the doping metal element such a change is different from an alloy phase wherein the silicon oxide totally changes its oxide form.
Regarding claim 5 Fukuoka discloses the nano-size silicon range from several to tens of nanometers (Fukuoka paragraph 0004) and also in the silicon oxide active material of Fukuoka as modified by the disclosure of He to have elected antimony, gallium and germanium considered equivalent to the doping metal element this included in the claimed range of 1 nm to 90 nm.
Regarding claim 8 Fukuoka is silent about the conductivity of the doped silicon-based material ranges from 10 Siemens per meter (S/m) to 1.0x 10⁴ S/m. However, Fukuoka discloses iron doped silicon oxide particle, and the iron is present in amount 10 to 1,000 ppm (Fukuoka paragraph 0012), and the silicon oxide active material of Fukuoka as modified by the disclosure of He to have elected antimony, gallium and germanium considered equivalent to the doping metal element is included in the claimed range. The silicon-based material disclosed in the instant application also have metal such as iron (Instant Specification paragraph 0007) doped inside the particles, and the amount of the doped metal is found in 1 to 1000 ppm (Instant Specification paragraph 0006). The silicon-based material disclosed by Fukuoka has the same composition of silicon-based material and doped metal, and the same content for the doped metal, it will inherently have the same physical properties such as its conductivity as recited in claim 8. According to the MPEP, "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.2d705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658, Fed. Cir. 1990) See MPEP 2112.01 II.
Regarding claim 11 graphite may be added to the silicon oxide particles (Fukuoka paragraph 0041), considered equivalent to the material composited with the doped silicon oxide.
Regarding claim 24 the claimed range of 500 ppm to 800 ppm of the doping iron, and in the silicon oxide active material of Fukuoka as modified by the disclosure of He to have elected antimony, gallium and germanium considered equivalent to the doping metal element equivalent to the doping metal element will also be included in the disclosed range (Fukuoka paragraph 0012).
Regarding claim 25 Fukuoka discloses in an embodiment the nano-silicon anode material may not include the carbon coating layer (Fukuoka paragraph 0011).
Regarding claim 26 Fukuoka discloses in a different embodiment the silicon oxide particle are coated by carbon (Fukuoka paragraph 0037).
Claims 9, 23, 27, 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukuoka et al. (U.S. PG Publication 2016/0149214) in view of He et al. (U.S. PG Publication 2018/0375094) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Joo et al. (U.S. PG Publication 2019/0044143)
The discussion of Fukuoka as applied to claim 1, 11 above is fully incorporated here and is relied upon for the limitation of the claim in this section.
Regarding claim 9 Fukuoka discloses to impart electroconductivity to the resulting silicon oxide particles, carbon may be deposited or coated thereon forming coating layer (Fukuoka paragraph 0037, 0038). But Fukuoka is silent about the thickness of the carbon layer.
Joo discloses an electrode material such as silicon-carbon electrode material in the form of nano- and/or micro- scale particles (Joo paragraph 0010), where the carbon form inclusion of the silicon particles (Joo paragraph 0022), the carbon inclusion is equivalent to the carbon coating. Joo discloses the average thickness of the carbon inclusion/coating is about 20 nm or less (Joo paragraph 0022), and in specific embodiments is about 1 nm or about 1 nm to 10 nm, or about 3-5 nm (Joo paragraph 0022).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the carbon coating of Fukuoka by the disclosure of Joo and made the carbon coating thickness in the ranges disclosed by Joo since such thickness range provides good coverage of the active material according to Joo (Joo paragraph 0012), and according to the MPEP such a modification is the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way (MPEP 2143 IC). The range of the carbon coating thickness disclosed by Joo significantly overlaps with the claimed range of 5 nm to 20 nm.
Regarding claim 23 Fukuoka discloses nano-sized silicon (Fukuoka paragraph 0004), equivalent to the nano-silicon, but is silent about the nano-silicon particles have a diameter of 50 nm to 100 nm. Joo discloses the average dimension of the silicon active material can be less than 200 nm (Joo paragraph 0011). This range overlaps with the claimed range of 30 nm to 100 nm. According to the MPEP "In the case where the claimed ranges "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)" (MPEP 2144.05)
Regarding claim 27 Fukuoka discloses the negative electrode material include graphite, carbon fiber, coke powder, which is amorphous carbon. (Fukuoka paragraph 0041), carbon (Fukuoka paragraph 0037). Joo discloses the carbon inclusion or carbon coating is graphene (Joo paragraph 0012).
Regarding claim 30 Joo discloses the silicon anode active material can be polycrystalline (Joo paragraph 0167).
Claims 10 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukuoka et al. (U.S. PG Publication 2016/0149214) in view of He et al. (U.S. PG Publication 2018/0375094) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Xie et al. (U.S. PG Publication 2021/0296637)
The discussion of Fukuoka and He as applied to claim 1 and 11 is fully incorporated here and is relied upon for the limitation of the claim in this section.
Regarding claim 10 Fukuoka is silent about the negative electrode coating layer is a polymer layer. Xie discloses a negative electrode material elected from silicon and other materials (Xie paragraph 0043) and the negative electrode active material include negative electrode active substance and a coating layer on the surface of the negative electrode active substance, and the coating layer includes a polymer electrolyte (Xie paragraph 0043).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the silicon anode active material of Fukuoka by the disclosure of Xie and included a polymer coating over the silicon anode material for providing adequate protection from the electrolyte solution. Such a modification is considered the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way (MPEP 2143 I C). Xie is silent regarding the thickness of the polymer coating layer. However, such a parameter as the thickness of the polymer layer would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill to have optimized by routine experimentation for optimum protection of the active material.
Regarding claim 28 Fukuoka is silent about the negative electrode material is one or more of cobalt oxide, nickel oxide or manganese oxide. Xie discloses a negative electrode material (Xie paragraph 0004, 0019), and the disclosed negative electrode material is selected from one or more of silicon, cobalt oxide, manganese oxide disclosed among other materials (Xie paragraph 0043).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill to have modified the silicon anode active material oxide of Fukuoka by the disclose of Xie and includes cobalt oxide and manganese oxide since choosing cobalt oxide and manganese oxide from among the other disclosed compounds (Xie paragraph 0043), constitute choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success (MPEP 2143 I E).
Claims 29, 31, 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukuoka et al. (U.S. PG Publication 2016/0149214) in view of He et al. (U.S. PG Publication 2018/0375094) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yamada et al. (U.S. Patent 6,042,969)
The discussion of Fukuoka and He as applied to claim 1 is fully incorporated here and is relied upon for the limitation of the claim in this section.
Regarding claim 29 Fukuoka is silent about the nano-silicon anode active material particles are P-type or N-type. Yamada discloses that negative electrode active materials can be doped with N-type materials or P-type material (Yamada col. 2 line 10-13) to render the active material an N- type or a P-type. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill to have used a P-type or N-type material as doping material of the silicon negative electrode material to render either P-type or N-type monocrystalline silicon. This is considered the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way (MPEP 2143 I C).
Regarding claim 31 Fukuoka discloses the inclusion of the iron in the silicon oxide, equivalent to the silicon-based material, causes change to the crystalline structure of the silicon oxide particles (Fukuoka paragraph 0019), and the silicon oxide active material of Fukuoka as modified by the disclosure of He to have elected antimony, gallium and germanium considered equivalent to the doping metal element replaces silicon atoms in the crystalline structure of the silicon oxide material. Therefore, such a method allows mixing of the reactant material, and the doping metals antimony or gallium or germanium will inherently be distributed in the lattice defects of the silicon oxide formed; and evenly distributed inside the silicon oxide particles.
Fukuoka discloses batteries using silicon oxide as the negative electrode material are regarded fully effective for use in portable electronic equipment such as mobile phones, lap-top computers and tablets (Fukuoka paragraph 0004), the portable electronic equipment such as mobile phones, lap-top computers and tablets considered equivalent to the terminal recited in claim 32 Such devices are known to have such components as housing, circuit boards, and batteries.
Fukuoka discloses the inclusion of iron causes change to the crystalline structure of the silicon oxide particles (Fukuoka paragraph 0019), and also the silicon oxide active material of Fukuoka as modified by the disclosure of He to have elected antimony, gallium and germanium considered equivalent to the doping metal element and such a change is different from an alloy phase wherein the silicon oxide totally changes its oxide form.
Fukuoka discloses the nano-size silicon range from several to tens of nanometers (Fukuoka paragraph 0004). This is included in the claimed range of 1 nm to 90 nm.
Fukuoka is silent about the conductivity of the doped silicon-based material ranges from 10 Siemens per meter (S/m) to 1.0x 10⁴ S/m. However, Fukuoka discloses iron doped silicon oxide particle, and the iron is present in amount 10 to 1,000 ppm (Fukuoka paragraph 0012), which is included in the claimed range. ), and the silicon oxide active material of Fukuoka is modified by the disclosure of He to have elected antimony, gallium and germanium considered equivalent to the doping metal element. The silicon-based material disclosed in the instant application also have metal such as gallium, antimony and germanium (Instant Specification paragraph 0007) doped inside the particles, and the amount of the doped metal is found in 1 to 1000 ppm (Instant Specification paragraph 0006). The silicon-based material disclosed by Fukuoka and modified by He has the same composition of silicon-based material and doped metal, and the same content for the doped metal, it will inherently have the same physical properties such as its conductivity as recited in claim 31. According to the MPEP, "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.2d705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658, Fed. Cir. 1990) See MPEP 2112.01 II.
Fukuoka discloses the negative electrode material include graphite, carbon fiber, coke powder, which is amorphous carbon. (Fukuoka paragraph 0041), carbon (Fukuoka paragraph 0037).
Fukuoka is silent about the nano-silicon anode active material particles are P-type or N-type. Yamada discloses that negative electrode active materials can be doped with N-type materials or P-type material (Yamada col. 2 line 10-13) to render the active material an N- type or a P-type. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill to have used a P-type or N-type material as doping material of the silicon negative electrode material to render either P-type or N-type monocrystalline silicon.
Fukuoka also discloses graphite may be added to the silicon oxide particles (Fukuoka paragraph 0041), considered equivalent to the material composited with the doped silicon oxide recited in claim 32.
Response to Argument
In the after-final response filed 0on 12/08/2025 applicant traverses the rejection of the claims presented in the previous final Office action. Applicant argues that claims 1, 19 and 20 in view of the amendment of the claims are not anticipated by the reference of Fukuoka (et al. (U.S. PG Publication 2016/0149214). Examiner notes that while the amendment to independent claim 1 and 20 overcomes the previously presented anticipation rejection, the amendment of independent claim 19 does not overcome the rejection of the claim under 102(a)(1) over the reference of Fukuoka. Therefore, the previously presented rejection of claim 1 and 20 has been withdrawn. The claims are now rejected under 103 over the combined teaching of Fukuoka and He.
Applicant argues that Fukuoka does not disclose the limitation where the silicon-based material does not have a coating layer on the surface. Examiner disagrees and that Fukuoka discloses an embodiment where the nano-silicon anode material may not include the carbon coating layer (Fukuoka paragraph 0011). In the disclosure in paragraph 0011 of Fukuoka, and cite by applicant in the after-final response, Fukuoka discloses a battery wherein the silicon oxide has no coating on its surface. Applicant’s argument that Fukuoka ‘s invention necessarily include a coating is without support from the disclosure in the reference of Fukuoka, and the outer portion of Fukuoka cannot be interpreted to mean a coating layer, since the silicon cannot coat itself. The inner portion and outer portion are different because of the doping metal content.
Applicant also traverses the rejection of claim 2 under 103 over Fukuoka et al. (U.S. PG Publication 2016/0149214) in view of He et al. (U.S. PG Publication 2018/0375094) , and argues that He discloses a layered nano silicon composite material. Examiner notes that He is relied upon for the use of different metals as doping metals and is not relied upon for the structure of nano composite silicon oxide and metal layer.
Examiner notes that claim 19 is still anticipated by the reference of Fukuoka, the remaining claims are rejected under 103 and the combined teaching of the applied references render the limitations of the claim obvious as presented above in this Office action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMAR M KEKIA whose telephone number is (571)270-5918. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am-5:00 pm,.
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, NIKI BAKHTIARI can be reached at 571-272-3433. 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.
/OMAR M KEKIA/Examiner, Art Unit 1722
/NIKI BAKHTIARI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1722