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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/09/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 02/09/2026 does not place the application in condition for allowance.
In view of the amendment, the rejection of claims 1-3, 4-7 and 17-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 are withdrawn.
New analysis follows.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and claims dependent on claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claims 1-3, 6-7, 17, and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho (US20140234714A1) in view of Niu (US20110039690A1) and supporting evidence Roumi (US20130224632A1).
Regarding claim 1, Cho discloses a nano-silicon agglomerate composite negative electrode material (¶[0028]), characterized in that it comprises
nano-sized core particles (i.e. carbonaceous base with an average diameter of 1 µm -10 µm, ¶[0049]). Roumi, related to the electrochemical systems, teaches the term nano-sized includes particles up to 1 µm (¶[0058] of Roumi). Furthermore, the particle size of 1 µm in Cho is an average where one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the size distribution resulting in this average would include particles less than 1 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, 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.
a nano-silicon agglomerate of pine needle and branch-shaped three-dimensional network structure growing around the nano-sized core particles (¶[0095), and
a composite coating layer over the nano-silicon agglomerate (¶[0105]) of pine needle and branch-shaped three-dimensional network structure (¶[0053], Fig. 2, see needle and branch shapes), wherein
the nano-sized core particles comprise metal particles and carbon particles (¶[0095], see spherical graphite and Ag catalyst on surface);
the nano-silicon agglomerate of pine needle and branch-shaped three-dimensional network structure is formed by interconnected silicon nanowires (Fig. 2) having a diameter of 30 to 50 nm and a length of 1.5 micrometers (¶[0099]); and
the composite coating layer comprises carbon and an inorganic metal oxide (¶[0105]-[0106] see carbon and titanium dioxide) which improves conductivity (¶[0043]),
but does not disclose wherein the nano-silicon agglomerate of pine needle and branch-shaped three-dimensional network structure is present in an amount of 90.6 to 96.17 wt % and wherein, in the nano-silicon agglomerate of pine needle and branch-shaped three-dimensional network structure, chemical cross-linking is formed between at least a portion of the silicon nanowires.
He, related to anode materials, teaches a silicon-graphene composite material where the silicon is present in a range of 10% to 99%, resulting in high capacity and good cycle stability (¶[0010) in part due to the high theoretical capacity of silicon (¶[0004]).
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.
Cho further discloses the silicon nanowires may be grow from a carbonaceous base using vapor-liquid-solid(VLS)(¶[0095])
Niu, related to nano silicon-and carbon composites for electronic devices and electrodes(¶[0008]), teaches a silicon nanowires on a carbon core via a vapor-liquid-solid(VLS) method (¶[0164) and that the silicon nanowires may be chemically crosslinked(¶[0084]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized chemically crosslinking the nanowires of Cho would result in protection from breakage(¶[0146]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to chemically crosslinking the nanowires of Cho would result in protection from breakage(¶[0146]).
Applying a known technique to a known product ready for improvement to yield predictable results is likely to be obvious. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, D.).
Regarding claim 2, modified Cho discloses a nano-silicon agglomerate composite negative electrode material according to claim 1 and additionally discloses that the metal particles are particles of at least one selected from the group consisting of silver, copper, iron, nickel, and cobalt (¶[0058).
Regarding claim 3, modified Cho discloses a nano-silicon agglomerate composite negative electrode material according to claim 1 and additionally discloses that the inorganic metal oxide includes titanium dioxide and/or zirconium dioxide (¶[0035]).
Regarding claim 6, Cho discloses a nano-silicon agglomerate composite negative electrode material according to claim 1 and additionally discloses within the composite coating layer, the electrically conductive carbon is present in an amount of 0.1 to 30% by weight(¶[0042]), and the inorganic metal oxide is present in an amount of 0.1 to 10% by weight (¶[0037]).
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 7, modified Cho discloses a nano-silicon agglomerate composite negative electrode material according to claim 1 and additionally discloses that the nano-silicon agglomerate composite negative electrode material has an average particle size between 5 to 20 μm as shown in the SEM image in Fig. 4 which is representative of the particles average size present in the negative material (¶[0102]) where the core may be 1-30 µm(¶[0049]) with a nanoscale coating. Drawings and pictures can anticipate claims if they clearly show the structure which is claimed. In re Mraz, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (CCPA 1972). MPEP §2125.I.
Regarding claim 17, modified Cho discloses a nano-silicon agglomerate composite negative electrode material according to claim 1 and additionally discloses that the inorganic metal oxide includes titanium dioxide and/or zirconium dioxide (¶[0035]).
Regarding claim 20, modified Cho discloses a nano-silicon agglomerate composite negative electrode material according to claim 1 and additionally discloses within the composite coating layer, the electrically conductive carbon is present in an amount of 0.1 to 30% by weight(¶[0042]), and the inorganic metal oxide is present in an amount of 0.1 to 10% by weight (¶[0037]).
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 21, modified Cho discloses a nano-silicon agglomerate composite negative electrode material according to claim 1 and Niu further teaches the crosslinking may be accomplished with Si which one of ordinary skill would recognize as forming Si-Si covalent bonds between the silicon nanowires(¶[0079]).
Claims 5 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho (US20140234714A1) in view of Niu (US20110039690A1) and further in view of He (CN102306757, reference made to attached English translation).
Regarding claim 5, modified Cho discloses a nano-silicon agglomerate composite negative electrode material according to claim 1 and additionally discloses in example 1 a composite carbon core with carbon being 92% of the core (¶[0099]), then the material is coated in 10% pitch and 0.5% titanium before being made into the negative electrode active material in Example 9 ([¶[0122] and ¶[0114]) where additional 75 parts of graphite and 2 parts binder area added to the mixture. The preparation may be further modified where the wt. % of carbon may be as low as 60 wt% relative to the silicon, the binder may be up to 50% (¶[0065) of the active material, the carbon coating may be present in up to 30% (¶[0042]) and the metal oxide coating may be present in up to 10% (¶[0037]) leading to metal particles and carbon particles within the core within the claimed ranges within claim 5.
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.
In the alternative, He, related to anode materials, teaches a silicon-graphene composite material where the silicon is present in a range of 10% to 99%, resulting in high capacity and good cycle stability (¶[0010) in part due to the high theoretical capacity of silicon (¶[0004]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized increasing the Si content of the negative electrode material of Cho would reduce the content of the metal and carbon within the core particles to within 0 to 2.6 wt% and 0 to 2.7 wt% respectively while improving the capacity and stability of the electrode material.
Therefore, is would have been obvious to have increased the Si content of the negative electrode material of Cho to the levels reported in He to improve the capacity and stability of the electrode material.
Regarding claim 18, modified Cho discloses a nano-silicon agglomerate composite negative electrode material according to claim 2, but does not disclose wherein the nano-silicon agglomerate of pine needle and branch-shaped three-dimensional network structure is present in an amount of 90.6 to 96.17 wt %.
He, related to anode materials, teaches a silicon-graphene composite material where the silicon is present in a range of 10% to 99%, resulting in high capacity and good cycle stability (¶[0010) in part due to the high theoretical capacity of silicon (¶[0004]).
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 19, modified Cho discloses a nano-silicon agglomerate composite negative electrode material according to claim 2 and additionally discloses in example 1 a composite carbon core with carbon being 92% of the core (¶[0099]), then the material is coated in 10% pitch and 0.5% titanium before being made into the negative electrode active material in Example 9 ([¶[0122] and ¶[0114]) where additional 75 parts of graphite and 2 parts binder area added to the mixture. The preparation may be further modified where the wt. % of carbon may be as low as 60 wt% relative to the silicon, the binder may be up to 50% (¶[0065) of the active material, the carbon coating may be present in up to 30% (¶[0042]) and the metal oxide coating may be present in up to 10% (¶[0037]) leading to metal particles and carbon particles within the core within the claimed ranges within claim 5.
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.
In the alternative, He, related to anode materials, teaches a silicon-graphene composite material where the silicon is present in a range of 10% to 99%, resulting in high capacity and good cycle stability (¶[0010) in part due to the high theoretical capacity of silicon (¶[0004]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized increasing the Si content of the negative electrode material of Cho would reduce the content of the metal and carbon within the core particles to within 0 to 2.6 wt% and 0 to 2.7 wt% respectively while improving the capacity and stability of the electrode material.
Therefore, is would have been obvious to have increased the Si content of the negative electrode material of Cho to the levels reported in He to improve the capacity and stability of the electrode material.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAREN J. ARMSTRONG whose telephone number is (703)756-1243. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10 am-6 pm EST.
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, Jeffrey Barton can be reached at (571) 272-1307. 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.
/K.J.A./Examiner, Art Unit 1726 /RYAN S CANNON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726
Prosecution Insights