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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/29/2026 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS filed on 11/19/2026 containing NPL reference Report on Advances in Chemistry has not been considered as the quality of the images provided is too low to clearly read the provided information. Below the examiner has provided screen shots from the NPL documents to show the illegibility of the provided documents.
PNG
media_image1.png
461
1042
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
761
919
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-6, 9, 16, 23, and 28-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (CN 108807861 A) and in view of Akasaka (JP 6432520 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Li discloses a method of fabricating an anode for a lithium-ion battery [0016-0020, Li], comprising the steps of: milling a mixture of nano-silicon [0026-0030, Li], one or more carbonaceous materials and one or more solvents [0029-0032, Li], wherein the mixture is retained as a wet slurry during milling [0026-0035, 0077, a drying step occurs after milling]; carbonizing the mixture at a carbonization temperature to produce a silicon thinly coated with carbon (Si@C) material [0036-0037, 0077, Li], wherein the carbonization temperature ranges from 500-1400oC [0037, Li’s disclosed range overlaps with the applicant’s claimed range of 925-1000oC]; mixing a second mixture of the Si@C material [0042, 0077, Li], one or more second carbonaceous materials and one or more second solvents [0042-0044, Li], wherein the second mixture is retained as a second wet slurry during milling [0045-0046, 0078, Li discloses a drying step after mixing]; carbonizing the second mixture at a second carbonization temperature to produce a Si@C/graphite/carbon material [0046, 0078, Li], wherein the second carbonization temperature ranges from 500-1400oC [0046, Li’s disclosed range overlaps with the applicant’s claimed range of 925-1000oC]; and forming the anode from the Si@C/graphite/carbon material [0048, 0080, Li].
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 (see MPEP 2144.05).
Li is silent to milling a second mixture of Si@C material where in the second mixture contains graphite.
Akasaka however, discloses using milling [0295, Akasaka] in a second mixture of Si@C material with graphite and a carbonaceous material[0257-0260, Akasaka].
Prior to the effective filing date, one of ordinary skill within the arts would find it obvious to modify Li to include the second milling step with a graphite material as this can allow for uniformly mixing the two materials [0295, Akasaka] and graphite has high capacity and excellent flatness of discharge potential [0003, Akasaka].
In an effort to expedite prosecution the examiner notes that Akasaka discloses a preferred firing range for carbonizing a silicon carbon composite of 900-1200oC [0149, Akasaka]. This disclosed range also overlaps with the applicant’s claimed range of 925-1000oC.
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 (see MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 2, Li as modified above discloses a method, further comprising the step of drying the wet slurry at a drying temperature prior to carbonizing the mixture [0022, Li].
Li is silent to the drying temperature being between 70-150oC.
However, Akasaka discloses dry a slurry at 150oC prior to carbonization [0386-0388, Akasaka’s disclosure anticipates the applicants claimed range of a drying temperature equal to or between 70-150oC].
Prior to the effective filing date, one of ordinary skill within the arts would find it obvious to dry a wet slurry at a temperature of 150oC as this is a known temperature to dry a slurry prior to carbonization [0386-0388, Akasaka]
Regarding claim 3, Li as modified above discloses a method, further comprising the step of drying the second wet slurry at a second drying temperature prior to carbonizing the second mixture [0078, Li].
Li discloses spray-drying the second wet slurry prior to carbonization [0077-0078, Li], but is silent to the drying temperature being between 70-150oC.
However, Akasaka discloses dry a slurry at 150oC prior to carbonization [0386-0388, Akasaka’s disclosure anticipates the applicants claimed range of a drying temperature equal to or between 70-150oC].
Prior to the effective filing date, one of ordinary skill within the arts would find it obvious to dry a second wet slurry at a temperature of 150oC as this is a known temperature to dry a slurry prior to carbonization [0386-0388, Akasaka].
Regarding claim 5, Li as modified above discloses a method, wherein the nano-silicon and the one or more carbonaceous materials are mixed in a mass ratio (nano-silicon : carbonaceous material) of equal to or between 40:60 to 70:30 [0077-0078, Li discloses that 1000 g of silicon is mixed with 290 g of a first carbonaceous material (CNT, ketjen black, glucose). This first mixture has 77.5% silicon, of this first mixture 536 g is taken and mixed with 429 g of the second carbonaceous material. Therefore, 415.5 g of silicon is mixed with 120.5 g of the first carbonaceous material and 429 g of the second carbonaceous material. The ratio of nano-silicon : carbonaceous material is 43:57 which anticipates the applicants range].
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 (see MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 6, Li as modified above discloses a method, wherein the average particle size of the nano-silicon is equal to or between 50 nm and 500 nm [0077, Li discloses that silicon powder was milled to a size of 0.4 µm prior to mixing with a carbonaceous material, which anticipates the applicants claimed range].
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 (see MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 9, Li as modified above discloses a method, wherein the graphite is flake graphite or graphite particles (“microspheres”) having an average size of 1µm to 50µm [0176-0177, 0258-0260, Akasaka discloses using graphite particles which overlap with the applicant’s claimed range of 1-20 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. In re Wertheim (see MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 13, Li as modified above discloses a method, wherein the carbonization temperature is 500 °C to 1400 °C [0037, Li discloses a carbonization temperature which overlaps with the applicants disclosed range of 900-1200 oC,].
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 (see MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 16, Li as modified above is silent to the mass ratio of the Si@C material : graphite : second carbonaceous material.
However, Akasaka discloses wherein the Si@C material, the graphite and the one or more second carbonaceous materials are mixed in a mass ratio (Si@C material : graphite : second carbonaceous material) of 10-30:40-80:10-30 [0272, 0293, Akasaka].
Akasaka discloses that the composite graphite particles (B) to silicon composite carbon particles (A) are present in a mass % (B:A) of 0-90 [0293, Akasaka]. Therefore, if A is present in 30 mass % then B will be present in 70 mass % (A:B; 30:70). In B, the carbonaceous material to graphite particles are present in a mass ratio of 0.01-20 mass %. Therefore, if 20 mass % of B is carbonaceous material, then the 70 mass% of B used in the composite above becomes 30:56:14 (Si@C:graphite:second carbonaceous material). Which overlaps with the applicants claimed range.
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 (see MPEP 2144.05).
Prior to the effective filing date, one of ordinary skill within the arts would find it obvious to further modify Li to include the active material ratios disclosed by Akasaka as if the content of carbonaceous material is too high then when rolling is performed with sufficient pressure the carbon material is damaged and material destruction occurs, which tends to lead to an increase in irreversible charge/discharge capacity during the initial cycles and a decrease in initial efficiency. On the other hand, if the content is too small, it tends to be difficult to obtain the effect of the coating [0273-0274, Akasaka]. Additionally, if the ratio of Si@C is too high the initial efficiency of the nonaqueous secondary battery tends to decrease, and the electrode plate strength tends to decrease. Moreover, if the ratio of Si@C is too small then the capacity tends to decrease.
Furthermore, the ratios in which the active ingredients are present is a matter of mere routine optimization baring any criticality or unexpected results, see MPEP 2144.05.II.
Regarding claim 19, Li as modified above discloses a method, wherein the second carbonization temperature is 500 °C to about 1400 °C [0046, Li discloses a carbonization temperature which overlaps with the applicants disclosed range of 900-1200 oC].
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 (see MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 23, modified Li discloses mixing the Si@C/graphite/carbon material with a binder [0080, Li] but is silent to it being a polymeric binder.
Akasaka however, discloses using a polymeric binder [0312-0313, Akasaka discloses using styrene-butadiene rubber]
Prior to the effective filing date, on of ordinary skill within the arts would find it obvious to further modify Li to include the binder disclosed by Akasaka as using styrene-butadiene rubber can reduce the swelling property of the active material layer and is readily available [0313, Akasaka].
Regarding claim 28, Li as modified above discloses an anode for a lithium-ion battery, produced by the method according to claim 1 [abstract, 0048-0050, Li; 0016-0018, Akasaka].
Li and Akasaka disclose a silicon-carbon composite anode for a lithium-ion battery. The method of which was discussed in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 29, Li as modified above discloses a lithium-ion battery [abstract, 0048-0050, Li; 0020, Akasaka], comprising: an anode [abstract, 0048-0050, Li ; 0020, Akasaka; a cathode [0082, Li; 0020, Akasaka]; and an electrolyte and/or a separator positioned between the anode and the cathode [0082, Li; 0357, Akasaka].
Claim(s) 24 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Li as applied to claim 23 above, and further in view of Cao (CN 107785560 A) and Kim (KR 20190123565 A).
Regarding claim 24, modified Li discloses a method wherein the one or more polymer binders one or more rubber polymers [0313, Akasaka discloses using a styrene-butadiene rubber binder].
However, modified Li is silent to the use of a linear polymer, conductive and self-healing polymer
Cao however, discloses using a polymeric binder include one or more linear polymers [0091, Cao discloses using a sodium carboxymethyl cellulose binder], and styrene-butadiene rubber [0091]
Prior to the effective filing date, one of ordinary skill within the arts would find it obvious to further modify Li to include the polymeric binder disclosed by Cao as it was found suitable for binding a silicon-carbon compositive negative electrode material to a current collector [0091, Cao].
Modified Li and Cao however, are silent to the use of a conductive and self-healing polymer.
Kim however, discloses using a binder with one or more conductive polymers [0059, fig. 1, Kim discloses using polyaniline], one or more self- healing polymers [0052-0058, fig. 1, Kim discloses using a morphine modified polyacrylic acid].
Prior to the effective filing date, one of ordinary skill within the arts would find it obvious to further modify Li to include the conductive and self-healing polymers disclosed by Kim as they are able to rapidly promote the electrochemical conversion reaction of the electrode and are effective for solving the problem of volume change of the silicon that occurs when used as an active material [0056, 0059, Kim]
The examiner is interpreting the dopamine modified polyacrylic acid described by Kim to be equivalent to a self-healing polymer for the following reasons. A polymer can be considered self-healing/repairing if it contains strong hydrogen or ionic bonding sites as these bonding sites can be continuously broken and formed as described by Fu in patent CN 110010896 A [abstract, 0005, Fu]. This continuous breaking and reforming can be a result of volume expansion, whereas the active material (e.g. silicon) expands as it absorbs lithium the ionic/hydrogen bonding sites move further away and break, however when lithium leaves the active sites the ionic/hydrogen bonding sites move closer together and naturally reform, thus making it self-healing. Kim shows in fig. 1 that the dopamine modified polyacrylamide is capable of such ionic and hydrogen bonding.
Regarding claim 25, modified Li as further modified above discloses a method, wherein the anode is formed by: mixing the Si@C/graphite/carbon material and the one or more polymer binders to produce a slurry; coating the slurry onto a metallic member; and drying the metallic member with coated slurry to form the anode [0080, Li].
Claim(s) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (CN 108807861 A) and in view of Akasaka (JP 6432520 B2) and Cao (CN 107785560 A) and Kim (KR 20190123565 A).
Regarding claim 26, Li discloses a method of fabricating an anode for a lithium-ion battery [0077, Li], comprising the steps of: mixing micro-silicon and one or more inert solvents to produce a wet slurry mixture [0077, Li]; and milling the wet slurry mixture of the micro-silicon and the one or more inert solvents to obtain nano-silicon [0077, Li], wherein the mixture is retained as a wet slurry mixture during milling [0077, Li discloses a drying step occurs after milling]; milling a mixture of the nano-silicon [0077, Li], one or more carbonaceous materials and one or more solvents [0029-0032, Li], wherein the mixture is retained as a wet slurry during milling [0026-0035, 0077, a drying step occurs after milling]; carbonizing the mixture at a carbonization temperature to produce a silicon coated with carbon (Si@C) material [0036-0037, 0077, Li]; mixing a second mixture of the Si@C material [0042, 0077, Li], wherein the carbonization temperature ranges from 500-1400oC [0037, Li’s disclosed range overlaps with the applicant’s claimed range of 925-1000oC], one or more second carbonaceous materials and one or more second solvents [0042-0044, Li], wherein the second mixture is retained as a second wet slurry during milling [0045-0046, 0078, Li discloses a drying step after mixing]; carbonizing the second mixture at a second carbonization temperature to produce a Si@C/graphite/carbon material [0046, 0078], wherein the second carbonization temperature ranges from 500-1400oC [0046, Li’s disclosed range overlaps with the applicant’s claimed range of 925-1000oC]; mixing the Si@C/graphite/carbon material with a binder [0080, Li] to produce a slurry [0080, Li]; coating the slurry [0080, Li]; and drying [0080, Li] the slurry to form the anode [0080, Li].
However, Li is silent to a second milling step, using graphite, disposing the slurry containing the electrode active material onto a metallic member, and the nature of the binder used.
Akasaka however, discloses using milling [0295, Akasaka] in a second mixture of Si@C material with graphite and a carbonaceous material[0257-0260, Akasaka]. As well as, dispensing a slurry containing a rubber polymer as a binder [0313, Akasaka] of the Si@C/graphite/carbonaceous material onto a metallic member [0325, Akasaka].
Prior to the effective filing date, one of ordinary skill within the arts would find it obvious to modify Li to include the second milling step with a graphite material as this can allow for uniformly mixing the two materials [0295, Akasaka], graphite has high capacity and excellent flatness of discharge potential [0313, Akasaka], the use of styrene-butadiene as a rubber is readily available and can reduce the swelling of the active material, and dispensing the electrode active material onto a metal member, such as a current collector is common and known in the art [0325, Akasaka].
In an effort to expedite prosecution the examiner notes that Akasaka discloses a preferred firing range for carbonizing a silicon carbon composite of 900-1200oC [0149, Akasaka]. This disclosed range also overlaps with the applicant’s claimed range of 925-1000oC.
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 (see MPEP 2144.05).
Li and Akasaka are silent to the use of a linear, conductive, and self-healing polymer.
Cao however, discloses using a polymeric binder include one or more linear polymers [0091, Cao discloses using a sodium carboxymethyl cellulose binder], and styrene-butadiene rubber [0091, Cao]
Prior to the effective filing date, one of ordinary skill within the arts would find it obvious to further modify Li to include the polymeric binder disclosed by Cao as it was found suitable for binding a silicon-carbon compositive negative electrode material to a current collector [0091, Cao].
Li, Akasaka, and Cao are silent to the use of a conductive, and self-healing polymer.
Kim however, discloses using a binder with one or more conductive polymers [0059, fig. 1, Kim discloses using polyaniline], one or more self- healing polymers [0052-0058, fig. 1, Kim discloses using a morphine modified polyacrylic acid].
Prior to the effective filing date, one of ordinary skill within the arts would find it obvious to further modify Li to include the conductive and self-healing polymers disclosed by Kim as they are able to rapidly promote the electrochemical conversion reaction of the electrode and are effective for solving the problem of volume change of the silicon that occurs when used as an active material [0056, 0059, Kim]
The examiner is interpreting the dopamine modified polyacrylic acid described by Kim to be equivalent to a self-healing polymer for the following reasons. A polymer can be considered self-healing/repairing if it contains strong hydrogen or ionic bonding sites as these bonding sites can be continuously broken and formed as described by Fu in patent CN 110010896 A [abstract, 0005, Fu]. This continuous breaking and reforming can be a result of volume expansion, whereas the active material (e.g. silicon) expands as it absorbs lithium the ionic/hydrogen bonding sites move further away and break, however when lithium leaves the active sites the ionic/hydrogen bonding sites move closer together and naturally reform, thus making it self-healing. Kim shows in fig. 1 that the dopamine modified polyacrylamide is capable of such ionic and hydrogen bonding.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. See below.
Applicant first argues the following:
PNG
media_image3.png
142
719
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Li teaches a disclosed range 500-1400oC which overlaps with the applicant’s claimed range. Additionally, Akasaka teaches a narrower range for carbonization of 900-1200oC [0149, 0271, Akasaka]. To expedite prosecution the examiner has provided additional prior art’s that are cited but not relied upon that teach of carbonization of silicon-carbon compounds overlapping with the applicant’s claimed range.
Additionally, the examiner notes that the applicant’s arguments of lower carbonization temperatures resulting in “expansion and side reactions” are only argued but do not have any evidence presented to support their argument.
Next applicant argues the following:
PNG
media_image4.png
120
698
media_image4.png
Greyscale
This second coating step is not mentioned in claim 1 or 26 rather the limitation is “milling a second mixture of the Si@C material, graphite, one or more second carbonaceous materials and one or more second solvents”. This does not require a second coating rather just a mixing. Additionally pointing to examples of the present application.
"Though understanding the claim language may be aided by explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into a claim limitations that are not part of the claim. For example, a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment.", see MPEP 2111.01.II.
"Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims.", see MPEP 2145.VI.
Next applicant argues the following:
PNG
media_image5.png
214
718
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Claim 1 lines 3-4 recite the following:
PNG
media_image6.png
54
645
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Li teaches the following:
PNG
media_image7.png
142
1006
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
383
1001
media_image8.png
Greyscale
This description reads on the applicant’s claimed limitations, the examiner also notes the following:
"The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain.", see MPEP 2123.I
"Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments." see MPEP 2123.II
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness 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).
Finally, applicant argues the following:
PNG
media_image9.png
419
708
media_image9.png
Greyscale
The examiner notes the following:
Arguments presented by applicant cannot take the place of evidence in the record. See In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705, 222 USPQ 191, 196 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ("An assertion of what seems to follow from common experience is just attorney argument and not the kind of factual evidence that is required to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness."), see MPEP 2145.I
Again the examiner notes that this argument hinges on the applicant attacking the references individually and does not consider the modification of the present office action.
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
The examiner maintains their rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Wegener (US20190305366A1) discloses a carbon-coated silicon particle carbonized at 1000oC. Lee (US20050233213A1) discloses a carbon-coated silicon material carbonized at 800-1000oC. Kepler (US20090208844A1) discloses carbonization of carbon coated silicon at a range of 800-1000oC. Kouzu (US20150263339A1) discloses carbonization of a carbon coated silicon at range of 900-1100oC.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QUINTIN DALE ELLIOTT whose telephone number is (703)756-5423. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-6pm (MST).
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, Miriam Stagg can be reached on 5712705256. 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.
/QUINTIN D. ELLIOTT/Examiner, Art Unit 1724
/BRIAN R OHARA/Examiner, Art Unit 1724