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 .
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendment received 2/17/2026:
Claims 1-8 are presently pending
Claims 7-8 are withdrawn
Claims 9 are cancelled
The previously stated claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are withdrawn in light of amendments to the claims
New grounds of rejection are presented herein, as necessitated by amendment
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 2 is 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.
Regarding claim 2, the recitation “by a differential thermal analysis method” renders the claim indefinite in light of the amendment to claim 1. Claim 1 now recites “a differential thermal analysis (DTA) curve by a differential thermal analysis method . . .” As such, it is unclear whether the differential thermal analysis method in claim 2 refers back to the same method of claim 1 and merely narrows the range, or sets forth a separate differential thermal analysis method (i.e., does not have to be specifically DTA). For purposes of examination, any differential thermal analysis method is regarded as reading on this limitation in claim 2.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
Claim(s) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by “Rice husks as a sustainable source of nanostructured silicon for high performance Li-ion battery anodes,” Liu et al, Nature Scientific Reports, May 29 2013 (hereinafter “Liu”).
Regarding claim 1, Liu teaches a powder (e.g., powdered SiO2 obtained from leached rice husks mixed with magnesium powder) [Liu Page 6 Col. 1 “Methods”] obtained from a water-containing organic matter (e.g., rice) [Liu Page 1, Abstract] having
A moisture content of 20% or less (e.g., the silica (SiO2) is obtained by burning rice, which decomposes the organic matter and silica is the only major remnant [Liu Page 1 Para. 1]; further, during analysis the resulting powder goes through a 3-stage mass loss with the first stage of mass loss below 100 °C corresponding to any remaining water loss, and this is less than approximately 10% by weight [Liu Page 2 Col. 1, “Results” and Figure 2d]; as such, the powder has a moisture content of 20% or less),
A bacterial count of mesophilic aerobic bacteria of 105 CFU/g or less (Liu does not disclose the presence of any bacteria; e.g., 0 CFU/g), and
A maximum exothermic peak in a differential thermal analysis (DTA) curve by a differential thermal analysis method of 300 °C or higher (e.g., an exotherm at approximately 400-450 °C [Liu Page 4 Col. 1 Para. 1], see Fig. 2(e) showing the DTA curve having several maximums above 300 °C).
Regarding claim 2, Liu teaches the powder having a maximum exothermic peak by a differential thermal analysis method of 350 °C or higher and 700 °C or lower (e.g., an exotherm at approximately 400-450 °C [Liu Page 4 Col. 1 Para. 1], see Fig. 2(e) showing the DTA curve).
Regarding claim 3, Liu teaches the powder that is usable as a fertilizer, feed, or a raw material of a molded article (e.g., a raw material for batteries, which are regarded as being a molded article) [Liu Title & Abstract]; (Liu is also regarded as reading on a powder usable as a fertilizer because it contains plant nutrients such as silicon and magnesium, and is capable of use as a fertilizer) [Liu Page 6 Col. 1 “Methods”]. Note that a recitation of the intended use or intended result limits the claim only to the extent that the prior art must be capable of performing the purpose or intended use.
Regarding claim 4, Liu teaches the powder wherein the water-containing organic matter is fruit waste and waste foods (e.g., rice husks) [Liu Title & Abstract].
Regarding claim 5, Liu teaches the powder wherein the organic matter is selected from the group provided in claim 4. Organic residue after beverage extraction is recited in the alternative in claim 4. As such, Liu as cited is regarded as reading on a further limitation of the alternative organic residue after beverage extraction.
Regarding claim 6, Liu teaches the powder body having a bacterial count, moisture content, and maximum exotherm within the ranges as claimed in claim 1. While Liu does not explicitly state that these measurements take place after 1 year, Liu is still regarded as necessarily reading on these limitations: Bacterial count starts at 0 and would necessarily remain at 0, there being no bacterial inoculated or disclosed in the substance. Moisture content would not change, as no moisture is being added after the product is completed, and further, the moisture content would likely only decrease as the product continues to dry over time, thereby necessarily remaining within the claimed range. Finally, the maximum exotherm of a substance does not typically change over time, thereby necessarily remaining within the claimed range. As such, Liu is regarded as inherently reading on these limitations.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, which now specifies the differential thermal analysis method being DTA, 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.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 HEATHER E RAINBOW whose telephone number is (571)272-0185. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7 AM - 4 PM PST.
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, Amber Orlando can be reached at 571-270-3149. 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.
/H.E.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1731
/JENNIFER A SMITH/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1731