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 . 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 RCE is accepted.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 29 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. There is no disclosure of silicone. Rather, silicon is disclosed.
Claims 17, 28-30 are 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 17 is unclear whether it is intended to be a composition or process; and if a process, what the steps are.
Claim 28 is unclear how it is possible for two things to be together yet injected in two separate locations.
Claim 29 is unclear which of the two values of s limits the claim. It is unclear what pm means and why it is in quotes. Finally, the equation does not make sense because even a single atom has a size of about 0.25 Angstroms, which is 25 picometers. Thus, even the smallest configuration possible- a single atom inside a C60 cage (size of about 1.5 nm, which is 1500 picometers- would yield a value of 25 x (96/4)= 600 which is far above either s value (assuming Si atom is the core). Thus it appears that it is physically impossible for anything to not meet the limitation. Clarification is requested. Why is s called a safety parameter?
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 29, 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a2 as being anticipated by Jang 20200119353.
Jang teaches, especially in ex. 10 and para 17, tin nanoparticles surrounded by a carbon shell. Fig. 7 teaches a nonporous material. Thus, there are no accessible regions for xylene. It is spherical.
As noted above, the s value is met; the core is preferably 50 to 95% of the weight, so the second term is 50/50=1 or 5/95=0.052. The first term cannot be less than 1 because atoms aren’t that small.
For claim 30, an anode material is taught in para. 2.
Applicant's arguments filed 1/20/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claim 28 does not explain how one material can be dispersed in another when they are fed in separate regions in opposite ends of a reactor. In so far as they meet in the middle, dispersion would merely be an inherent result. Claim 16 requires they be together prior to injection. Thus, 28 should be cancelled as being a direct contradiction to claim 16. The amendment to claim 28 to add another gas stream does not address or solve this issue.
Jang figures are noted in teaching silicon surrounded by a layer of carbon. Claim 16 is allowed because of the new specific limitations added. Claims 1-8 of U.S. Patent No. 11843112 are noted. Applicant is reminded of their duty of disclosure.
/STUART L HENDRICKSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1736