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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/27/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claim 7 is withdrawn.
Claims 1-6, and 8-21 are rejected.
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 1-6, 8-10, 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakshaug et al. (US 20170346084 A1, “Sakshaug”) in view of Ishii et al. (WO 2019031597 A1, “Ishii”). The machine translation is used herein for citation purposes.
Regarding claim 1 and claim 14, Sakshaug discloses carbon-coated Si-C composite particles, comprising: Si-C composite particles containing a carbon material and silicon (see [0073] “composite material” & “both carbon and an electrochemical modifier” & “such as silicon”); and a carbonaceous layer present on surfaces of the Si-C composite particles, said carbonaceous layer having an average thickness of 5 nm to 100 nm (see [0354] “thickness of the carbon layer deposited by vapor deposition of hydrocarbon decomposition measured by HRTEM is between 1 nm and 100 nm”), wherein: a coverage (carbon coverage) by the carbonaceous layer on the surfaces of the Si-C composite particles is 80% or more (see [0200] “composite materials may also comprise varying amounts of carbon” & “carbon content ranges from 80 to 90 wt.% of the total mass” & see [0194] “carbon materials” & “surface”); a BET specific surface area is 200 m2/g or less (see [0426] “specific surface area using the standard BET approach was in the range of about 150 to 200 m2/g”); R value (ID/IG) is 0.30 or more and 1.10 or less (see FIG. 4 & [0037] describes Raman spectra of carbon materials; see [0189] “Disorder, as recorded by RAMAN spectroscopy” & “R=ID/IG” & [0190] “R ranges from about 0 to about 1 or from about 0.50 to about 0.95” which lies within the claimed range).
Regarding the limitation ISi/IG is 0.15 or less when a peak attributed to Si is present at 450 to 495 cm-1 and an intensity of the peak is defined as ISi, in a Raman spectrum of the carbon-coated Si-C composite particles, the specification of the instant application provides evidence on P56 [0107] that the ratio is calculated and is used “as an index for coating the carbonaceous material.” Sakshaug discloses a similar structure as the claimed invention and would exhibit similar properties including ISi/IG ratio because the weight percentage of the composition is similar as the claimed invention.
Regarding the limitation and a full width at half maximum of a peak of a 111 plane of Si is 3.00 deg. or more, Sakshaug does not explicitly disclose.
Ishii teaches “the full width at half maximum of the 111 diffraction peak, as a scattering angle 2θ, is preferably 0.3° or more” (see [0019]) which overlaps the claimed range of 3.00 deg. or more. Ishii teaches this range is preferable in respect to “when a particularly high cycle retention is desired” (see [0019]).
Ishii and Sakshaug are analogous to the current invention because they are related to the same field of endeavor, namely carbon-coated composite material containing silicon (see Abstract).
Ishii teaches a range of 0.3° or more, which overlaps with the claimed range of 3.00 deg. or more. MPEP 2144.05 I states that '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)'.
Regarding the limitation and (peak intensity of a 111 plane of SiC)/(peak intensity of the 111 plane of Si) is 0.01 or less, in an XRD pattern measured by power XRD using a Cu-Kα ray of the carbon-coated Si-C composite particles, Sakshaug does not explicitly disclose, however, the peak intensity of the composite ratio is a material property.
Ishii teaches “X-ray diffraction using CuKα” (see [0019]). Ishii teaches “when a particularly high initial charge/discharge efficiency is desired in a lithium ion secondary battery, the full width at half maximum of the 111 diffraction peak, as a scattering angle 2θ, is preferably 0.5° or less” (see [0019]).
Ishii teaches a range of 0.5° or less, which overlaps with the claimed range of 0.01 deg. or less. MPEP 2144.05 I states that '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)'.
Regarding claim 14, Sakshaug discloses the method for producing carbon-coated Si-C composite particles of claim 12 (see [0018] “methods for preparing the composite materials”) and further discloses wherein the carbon-coated Si-C composite particles comprise: the Si-C composite particles containing the porous carbon and the silicon (see claim 33).
Regarding claim 2, Sakshaug discloses the carbon-coated Si-C composite particles of claim 1 and further discloses wherein a true density as measured by a He pycnometer (see [0164] “helium pycnometry” & “1.5 g/cc to about 2.3 g/cc”).
Sakshaug discloses a range of 1.5 g/cc to about 2.3 g/cc, which overlaps with the claimed range of 2.00 to 2.20 g/cm3. MPEP 2144.05 I states that '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)'.
Regarding claim 3, Sakshaug discloses the carbon-coated Si-C composite particles of claim 1. Regarding the limitation wherein a 50% particle size Dv50 in a volume-based cumulative particle size distribution is 2.0 to 30.0 µm, Sakshaug discloses in [0353] “D50 of the particle size distribution” & “1 µm” & “about 30 µm”; see [0462] “Si-C” & “Si/C composite” & “average particle size of the silicon powder ranges from 10 nm to 50 µm while the carbon powder particle ranges from 1 µm – 50 µm”; see [0485] “particles” & “micron sized”.
Sakshaug discloses a range of 1 µm and about 30 µm, which overlaps with the claimed range of 2.0 to 30.0 µm. MPEP 2144.05 I states that '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)'.
Regarding claim 4, Sakshaug discloses the carbon-coated Si-C composite particles of claim 1 and further discloses wherein a content of silicon in [0216] “composite materials comprise carbon and silicon” & “silicon is present in about 1% to about 75% by weight of the composite material” & “silicon content ranges from about 40% to about 60%, for example about 45% to about 55% which lies within the claimed range of 20 to 70% by mass.
Sakshaug discloses a range of 45% to about 55%, which lies inside the claimed range of 20 to 70% by mass. MPEP 2144.05 I states that '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)'.
Regarding claim 5, Sakshaug discloses the carbon-coated Si-C composite particles of claim 1 and further discloses wherein an oxygen content is 6.90% (see [0437] “6.90% oxygen content” & “composition of the hard carbon may also be measured through XPS”) which lies within the claimed range of 10.0% by mass or less.
Sakshaug discloses a range of 6.90%, which lies inside the claimed range of 10.0% by mass or less. MPEP 2144.05 I states that '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)'.
Regarding claim 6, Sakshaug discloses the carbon-coated Si-C composite particles of claim 1 and further discloses oxygen content is 3.44 (see Table 5) which lies within the claimed range of 4.0% by mass or less.
Sakshaug discloses a range of 3.44, which lies inside the claimed range of 4.0% by mass or less. MPEP 2144.05 I states that '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)'.
Regarding claim 8, Sakshaug discloses the carbon-coated Si-C composite particles of claim 1 and further discloses wherein R value (ID/IG) is 0.30 or more and 1.10 or less (see FIG. 4 & [0037] describes Raman spectra of carbon materials; see [0189] “Disorder, as recorded by RAMAN spectroscopy” & “R=ID/IG” & [0190] “R ranges from about 0 to about 1 or from about 0.50 to about 0.95” which lies within the claimed range).
Regarding claim 9, Sakshaug discloses the carbon-coated Si-C composite particles of claim 1 and further discloses wherein a BET specific surface area is 6.0 m2/g or less (see Table 2 “BET surface area (m2/g) After surface treatment” & “0.580” which lies within the claimed range).
Sakshaug discloses a range of 0.580, which lies inside the claimed range of 6.0 m2/g or less. MPEP 2144.05 I states that '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)'.
Regarding claim 10, Sakshaug discloses the carbon-coated Si-C composite particles of claim 1 and further discloses wherein a BET specific surface area is 150 to 200 m2/g (see [0426] “specific surface area using the standard BET approach was in the range of about 150 to 200 m2/g” which overlaps the claimed range of 5.0 to 200.0 m2/g).
Sakshaug discloses a range of 150 to 200 m2/g, which overlaps the claimed range of 5.0 to 200.0 m2/g. MPEP 2144.05 I states that '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)'.
Regarding claim 15, Sakshaug discloses the carbon-coated Si-C composite particles of claim 1 and further discloses a negative electrode mixture layer (see [0027], [0391] “anode comprising any of the composite materials disclosed herein” & see [0124] “composite materials useful as anode materials in lithium based” & “other electrical storage devices”).
Regarding claim 16, Sakshaug discloses the polymer-coated carbon-coated Si-C composite particles of claim 11 and further discloses a negative electrode mixture layer (see [0027], [0391] “anode comprising any of the composite materials disclosed herein” & see [0124] “composite materials useful as anode materials in lithium based” & “other electrical storage devices).
Regarding claim 17 and claim 18, Sakshaug discloses the negative electrode mixture layer of claim 15 and claim 16 and further discloses a lithium-ion secondary battery (see [0125] “lithium ion battery”).
Regarding claim 19, Sakshaug discloses the carbon-coated Si-C composite particles of claim 1 and further discloses wherein the coverage (carbon coverage) by the carbonaceous layer on the surfaces of the Si-C composite particles is 99.9% (see [0200] “composite materials may also comprise varying amounts of carbon” & “carbon content is greater than 98 wt.% as measured by XPS analysis” & see [0194] “carbon materials” & “surface”; see [0021] “carbon content in the composite ranges from 10 to 99.9%” and 99.9 reads on 100%).
The amount of carbonaceous layer disclosed by Sakshaug is close to the claimed range and similar properties are expected. It is the Office’s position that the values are close enough that one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected similar properties. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2144.05.
Claims 11-13, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakshaug et al. (US 20170346084 A1, “Sakshaug”).
Regarding claim 11, Sakshaug discloses a polymer-coated carbon-coated Si-C composite particles (see [0071] “pyrolyzed dried polymer gels” & see [0124] “composite material is a pyrolyzed polymer gel with a high silicon content”), comprising: a polymer coating layer on at least a part of the surfaces of the carbon-coated Si-C composite particles (see [0230] “composite” & “is covered by an ionically conductive polymer”), wherein: the polymer coating layer comprises inorganic particles (see [0088] “inorganic matter”) comprising graphite (see [0279] “composite materials may comprise one or more additional forms (i.e., allotropes) of carbon” & “graphite”) and a polymer (see [0279] “polymerized polymer gel containing the second carbon form is then processed according to the general techniques described herein to obtain a carbon material containing a second allotrope of carbon”); and a polymer content is 10.0% by mass (see [0281] “solids concentration of the organic polymer solution can be varied between 1% to 99% solids or from 10% to 90% solids”).
Sakshaug discloses a range of 10% to 90%, which overlaps the claimed range of 0.1 to 10.0% by mass. MPEP 2144.05 I states that '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)'.
Regarding claim 12, Sakshaug discloses a method for producing carbon-coated Si-C composite particles (see [0018] “methods for preparing the composite materials”), the method comprising: a step (A) of allowing a silicon-containing gas to act on porous carbon to precipitate silicon in pores and on a surface of the porous carbon to obtain Si-C composite particles (see [0352] “the composite may also undergo a vapor deposition through the heating of a volatile gas” & “silicon is conveyed in the form of silane gas” & see claim 33 & see claim 40); and a step (B) of forming a carbonaceous layer on surfaces of the Si-C composite particles by a chemical vapor deposition (CVD) method at 600 to 750°C using ethylene as a carbon source (see [0023] “gas phase deposition” & see [0275] & [0375] “chemical vapor deposition (CVD)” & see [0486] “CVD” & “ethylene” & see [0377] “temperature of deposition” & 600 °C & 750 °C). Regarding the limitation wherein: the carbonaceous layer has an average thickness of 5 nm to 100 nm, Sakshaug discloses in [0354] “thickness of the carbon layer deposited by vapor deposition of hydrocarbon decomposition measured by HRTEM is between 1 nm and 100 nm”); and a coverage (carbon coverage) by the carbonaceous layer on the surfaces of the Si-C composite particles is 80% or more (see [0200] “composite materials may also comprise varying amounts of carbon” & “carbon content ranges from 80 to 90 wt.% of the total mass” & see [0194] “carbon materials” & “surface”).
Sakshaug discloses a range of between 1 nm and 100 nm, which overlaps the claimed range of 5nm to 100 nm. MPEP 2144.05 I states that '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)'.
Sakshaug discloses a range of 80 to 90 wt. %, which overlaps the claimed range of 80% or more. MPEP 2144.05 I states that '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)'.
Regarding claim 13, Sakshaug discloses the method for producing carbon-coated Si-C composite particles of claim 12 and further discloses wherein the step (A) and the step (B) are continuously performed (see [0351] “vapor deposition may be completed under continuous coating” & see [0322] “the method is a continuous process”).
Regarding claim 20, Sakshaug discloses the method for producing carbon-coated Si-C composite particles of claim 12 and further discloses wherein the coverage (carbon coverage) by the carbonaceous layer on the surfaces of the Si-C composite particles is 99.9% (see [0200] “composite materials may also comprise varying amounts of carbon” & “carbon content is greater than 98 wt.% as measured by XPS analysis” & see [0194] “carbon materials” & “surface”; see [0021] “carbon content in the composite ranges from 10 to 99.9%” and 99.9 reads on 100%).
The amount of carbonaceous layer disclosed by Sakshaug is close to the claimed range and similar properties are expected. It is the Office’s position that the values are close enough that one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected similar properties. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2144.05.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakshaug et al. (US 20170346084 A1, “Sakshaug”) in view of Ishii et al. (WO 2019031597 A1, “Ishii”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Costantino et al. (US 20200020935 A1, “Costantino”) and Li et al. (CN 205893385 U, “Li”). The machine translations are used herein for citation purposes.
Regarding claim 21, Sakshaug discloses the carbon-coated Si-C composite particles of claim 1 and further discloses an initial coulombic efficiency retention rate of at least 99.9% (see [0009] “the composite material further comprises a first cycle extraction of at least 600 mAh/g and a fifth cycle retention of greater than 99%. For example, in some embodiments the first cycle extract is at least 1200 mAh/g”” & see [0125] “first cycle efficiency of greater than 50%” & “greater than 99%” which overlaps the claimed range).
Regarding the limitation wherein a battery having a negative electrode mixture layer containing the carbon-coated Si-C composite particles exhibits: a Si utilization rate of 80.0% or more, Sakshaug discloses “utilization properties” (see [0006]) but does not explicitly disclose Si utilization rate of 80.0% or more, however, Sakshaug discloses in [0008] “first cycle insertion is at least 1000 mAh/g and the first cycle efficiency in the absence of ex situ prelithiation is greater than 80%” & [0133] describes “composite has a gravimetric capacity (i.e., reversible capacity)” & “3500 mAh/g”.
Costantino teaches “high silane utilization” (see [0438]).
Sakshaug and Costantino are analogous to the current invention because they are related to the same field of endeavor, namely composites of silicon and carbon (see Abstract).
Li teaches “Si has a theoretical specific capacity of 4200 mAh/g” (see [0006]).
Sakshaug and Li are analogous to the current invention because they are related to the same field of endeavor, namely lithium-ion batteries (see [0006]).
The specification of the instant application in [0133] provides evidence Si utilization rate (%) can be determined by dividing initial insertion specific capacity by the theoretical value. A skilled artisan would recognize that (3500/4200)×100 = 83% which lies within the claimed range.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the carbon-coated Si-C composite particles disclosed by Sakshaug (see [0133]) would exhibit a Si utilization rate of 83% which lies within the claimed range.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 12 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAH APPLEGATE whose telephone number is (571)270-0370. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm ET.
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, Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at (571) 270-3879. 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.
/S.A.A./Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/JAMES M ERWIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725 04/06/2026