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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 07/20/2026 does not place the application in condition for allowance.
The basis of the rejection of claims 1-3, 4-7 and 17-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 is maintained.
The cancellation of claim 21 is acknowledged.
Additional supporting evidence is provided.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues they use a dynamic process of manufacture resulting in the claimed structure and improved compressive strength and a good electric conduction state and that Cho does not solve these problems nor use this method, however the claims are drawn to a composite material rather than a method and modified Cho contains all of the structural limitations of claim 1 nor is strength of electrical conduction in the claims therefore this argument is not found persuasive.
Applicant also argues the Si crosslinks found in Nui may be polymer based in addition to Si based and are formed by a different method than in the instant application and further argues a “glue” rather than a chemical bond is formed. However applicant acknowledges the alleged “Si glue” is deposited by chemical vapor deposition via silane gas onto the Si nano-silicon agglomerate to form Si crosslinks and the examiner notes this method is well known in the art to form Si-Si covalent bonds with the Si substrate as well as within the Si-based crosslinks by forming a new silicon branch between the branches nano-silicon agglomerate already present (see current rejection of claim 1 citing chemical bond formation in Tao Fig. 3 and crystal growth mechanisms ¶[2]-[4]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 18 recites "based on the weight of the nano-silicon agglomerate composite negative electrode material, 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. %" which is already present in claim 1 from which claim 18 depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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, 5-7, 17-19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho (US20140234714A1) in view of He (CN102306757, reference made to English translation) and Niu (US20110039690A1) and supporting evidence Roumi (US20130224632A1) and Tao (Crystal Growth in Silicon Chemical Vapor Deposition from Silane: The Role of Hydrogen).
Regarding claim 1 and 18, 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, Si-Si covalent bonding 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 crosslinked with Si using silane gas(¶[0079]) which one of ordinary skill would recognize as forming Si-Si covalent bonds between the silicon nanowires as evidenced by Tao (see bond formation of the newly assed Si atoms in Fig. 3 and Crystal Growth Mechanisms section ¶[2]-[4].
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized crosslinking the nanowires of Cho with Si Si covalent bonds of Niu would have resulted in protection from breakage(¶[0146]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to crosslink the nanowires of Cho with Si Si covalent bonds of Niu to provide protection from breakage.
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 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, it 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 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 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, it 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 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.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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