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 .
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.
Claim Status
Claims 10-19 have been withdrawn.
Claims 20-23 have been canceled.
Claims 24-35 are newly added. Support for these claims can be found in [0028], [0030-0033], [0035], [0038], [0039], [0041] and original claims 1, 2 and 5.
Claims 1-9 and 24-35 have been examined on the merits.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 10-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 06/08/2026.
Applicant’s election without traverse of group I in the reply filed on 06/08/2026 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
Each information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on or before 06/08/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner and an initial copy is attached herewith.
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.
Claims 1-9 and 24-35 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.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “anode” in claim 1, line 1 and claim 31, line 1 is used by the claims to mean “negative electrode active material,” while the accepted meaning is “negative electrode.” The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term. The examiner notes that the “anodes” suspended in solvent in the specification ([0038]) are actually negative electrode active material particles per Fig. 3 of the specification. The limitation “anode” in the claims has been interpreted as “anode active material” accordingly. Claims 2-9 and 24-30 are rejected for dependence on claim 1 and claims 32-35 are rejected for dependence on claim 31.
Claim 2 is indefinite because it is not clear if the recitation of “void space” in claim 2 refers back to the previously recited “void space” of claim 1 or to another space. For examination, the former interpretation is used.
Claim 29 is indefinite because it is unclear if the recitation “anode particles” of line 3 refers to the previously recited anode particles or to other particles. For examination, this recitation is interpreted as “particles”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3-7, 9, 25, 26 and 28-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (US 20150162617 A1) in view of Cui (US 20190305295 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Liu discloses an anode (Fig. 1; 11]), comprising:
a carbon shell (Fig. 1; 13; [0027]) having an outer surface (Fig. 1; outer surface of 13; “OS”) and an inner volume (Fig. 1; inner volume of 13; “IV”), the carbon shell (13) including a plurality of pinholes (“porous”; [0036]) on the outer surface (pores of the “porous carbon layer” [0036] must be either directly or indirectly on the outer surface of the carbon layer);
an anode particle (Fig. 1; 12) disposed in the inner volume (IV) of the carbon shell (13), such that a portion (Fig. 1; 14) of the inner volume (IV) includes void space (14); but fails to disclose a plurality of graphene flakes disposed on the outer surface of the carbon shell, the plurality of graphene flakes covering at least a portion of the pinholes.
Cui discloses a plurality of graphene flakes (Fig. 1A; graphene coating; “GF”) disposed on an outer surface (Fig. 1A; outer surface of a carbon shell substituted for illustrated silicon seal per [0027]) of a carbon shell (“carbon” [0027]), the plurality of graphene flakes (GF) covering an entire (“encapsulated with a graphene cage”; [0030]) outer surface (Fig. 1A; outer surface of carbon substituted for silicon seal per [0027]) of the carbon shell (“carbon” [0027]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Liu by adding the plurality of graphene flakes taught by Cui to the outer surface of the carbon shell of Liu, such that a plurality of graphene flakes are disposed on the outer surface of the carbon shell, the plurality of graphene flakes covering an entire outer surface of the carbon shell, in order to guarantee structural integrity, stable SEI formation, high later-cycle Coulombic efficiencies (99.8-100% for later cycles) and impressive cycling stability as taught by Cui ([0028]).
In doing so, one of ordinary skill in the art would have naturally arrived at the plurality of graphene flakes covering at least a portion of the pinholes because the flakes encapsulate the carbon shell containing the pinholes.
Regarding claim 3, Liu in view of Cui discloses wherein the plurality of graphene flakes (GF) cover at least 90% (Liu in view of Cui teaches covering the entire outer surface of the carbon shell, ergo 100% of the pinholes) of the pinholes ([0036]).
Regarding claim 4, Liu in view of Cui discloses wherein the plurality of graphene flakes (GF) have a thickness (Cui Fig. 1A; thickness of graphene coating) of less than about 10 graphene layers (Cui Fig. 1A; graphene coating has a thickness of about 3 layers).
Regarding claim 5, Liu in view of Cui discloses wherein the anode particle ( 12) includes silicon ([0027]).
Regarding claim 6, Liu in view of Cui discloses wherein the silicon (12) is lithiated (Fig. 1B; “charging”; [0028]).
Regarding claim 7, Liu in view of Cui discloses wherein the carbon shell (13) is an amorphous carbon shell (“glucose, cyclodextrin, sucrose and combinations thereof” [0034] are hard/amorphous carbon precursors).
Regarding claim 9, Liu in view of Cui discloses wherein at least a portion (Cui Fig. 1A; graphene coating) of the graphene flakes (GF) are coupled to (Cui Fig. 1A) the outer surface (OS) of the carbon shell (13).
Regarding claim 25, Liu in view of Cui discloses wherein the carbon shell (13) is substantially spherical (Fig. 1; 13) and has a diameter ([0030]) in a range of about 500 nm to about 1 mm (“50 to 500 nm”; [0030]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected a diameter of 500 nm for the carbon shell of Liu in view of Cui as this diameter falls within the range of diameters disclosed by Liu ([0030]).
Regarding claim 26, Liu in view of Cui discloses wherein the carbon shell (13) has a wall thickness (“thickness”; [0030]) in a range of about 1 nm to about 50 nm (“10-100 nm”; [0030]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected a wall thickness of 10-50 nm for the carbon shell of Liu in view of Cui as this thickness range falls within the range of diameters disclosed by Liu ([0030]).
Regarding claim 28, Liu in view of Cui discloses wherein the anode particle (12) has a diameter in a range of about 200 nm to about 100 um (“20-200 nm”; [0032]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected a diameter of 200 nm for the anode particle of Liu in view of Cui because this diameter falls within the range of diameters taught by Liu ([0032]).
Regarding claim 29, Liu in view of Cui discloses wherein the anode particle (12) comprises a plurality of anode particles (Fig. 1; 12) disposed in the inner volume (IV) of the carbon shell (13), the plurality of anode particles (12) comprising from about 2 to about 10 anode particles (Fig. 1; there are ten particles 12 illustrated).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have used 10 anode particles in the invention of Liu in view of Cui because Liu discloses an example wherein 10 anode particles are employed (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 30, Liu in view of Cui discloses the anode (11) of claim 1 suspended (“slurry”; [0050]) in a solvent ([0050]).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (US 20150162617 A1) in view of Cui (US 20190305295 A1) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Wang (CN105514401A, machine translation used for rejection below).
Regarding claim 2, Liu in view of Cui fails to disclose wherein at least about 50% of the inner volume of the carbon shell includes void space.
Wang discloses wherein at least about 50% (“the void space between the two-stage carbon shells is 5-400% of the volume of the first-stage SiC core-shell structure”; [0014]) of the inner volume (annotated Fig. 1; IV) of a carbon shell (annotated Fig. 1; CS) includes void space (annotated Fig. 1; VS).
PNG
media_image1.png
266
263
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Liu in view of Cui by making at least about 50% of the inner volume of the carbon shell includes void space in order to predictably reserve a certain void space for buffering the volume expansion of Si, thereby improving the conductivity and structure of the overall material as taught by Wang ([0047]).
Claims 8 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (US 20150162617 A1) in view of Cui (US 20190305295 A1) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Do (US 20140255785 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Liu in view of Cui discloses wherein the plurality of graphene flakes (GF) have a thickness (Cui Fig. 1A; thickness of graphene coating) and a thickness of walls (“thickness of the carbon shell”; [0030]) of the carbon shell (13) of 10-100 nm ([0030]) but fails to disclose between about 0.1 and about 10 times the thickness of walls of the carbon shell.
Do discloses wherein a plurality of graphene flakes have a thickness of 0.34 nm to 50 nm ([0011]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Liu in view of Cui by substituting the thickness of the plurality of graphene flakes of Liu in view of Cui for the thickness taught by Do in order to accommodate the volume change of Si particles and maintain the integrity of the electrode during cycling as taught by Do ([0060]). In doing so, one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at a range of thicknesses of the plurality of graphene flakes encompassing a range of 0.1 and about 10 times a thickness of walls of the carbon shell as claimed.
Regarding claim 27, Liu in view of Cui fails to disclose wherein the plurality of graphene flakes have a lateral dimension in a range of about 10 nm to about 150 um.
Do discloses a plurality of graphene flakes (“plurality of graphene nanoplatelets”; [0011]) having a lateral dimension ([0011]) in a range of about 10 nm to about 150 um (“a lateral dimension of less than 900 nm”; [0011]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Liu in view of Cui by substituting the undisclosed lateral dimension of the plurality of graphene flakes of Liu in view of Cui for the lateral dimension taught by Do, , such that the lateral dimension was 10 to 900 nm, in order to predictably accommodate the volume change of Si particles and maintain the integrity of the electrode during cycling as taught by Do ([0060]).
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (US 20150162617 A1) in view of Cui (US 20190305295 A1) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Kim (US 20180151874 A1).
Regarding claim 24, Liu in view of Cui fails to disclose wherein each of the plurality of pinholes has a width in a range of about 50 nm to about 1.5 um.
Kim discloses a plurality of pinholes (“mesopores”, “macropores”; [0009]) wherein each of the plurality of pinholes ([0009]) has a width (“diameter”; [0011]) in a range of about 50 nm to about 1.5 um (“2 to 50 nm” and “50 to 500 nm”; [0011]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Liu in view of Cui by substituting the width of the plurality of pinholes of Kim for the undisclosed width of the plurality of through holes of Liu in view of Cui such that the width was in a range of 50 nm to 500 nm. In doing so, one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably expected to improve lifetime characteristics, initial efficiency and to enhance capacity characteristics by controlling an oxygen content of the product, and to control the specific surface area such that the side reaction with the electrolyte can be reduced as taught by Kim ([0066]).
Claims 31, 32 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (US 20150162617 A1) in view of Cui (US 20190305295 A1) and Wang (CN105514401A, machine translation used for rejection below).
Regarding claim 31, Liu discloses an anode (Fig. 1; 11), comprising:
a carbon shell (Fig. 1; 13) comprising amorphous carbon (“glucose, cyclodextrin, sucrose” [0034] are precursors for hard/amorphous carbon), the carbon shell (13) having an outer surface (Fig. 1; outer surface of 13; “OS”) and an inner volume (Fig. 1A; inner volume of 13; “IV”), the carbon shell (13) including a plurality of pinholes (“porous”; [0036]) on the outer surface (OS), the carbon shell (13) having a wall thickness (“thickness”; [0030]) in a range of about 1 nm to about 50 nm (10-100 nm”; [0030]);
an anode particle (Fig. 1; 12) comprising silicon ([0027]) disposed in the inner volume (IV) of the carbon shell (13), the inner volume (IV) includes void space (Fig. 1A; 14) , the void space (14) configured to accommodate expansion (Fig. 1B) of the anode particle (12) during charging (Fig. 1B).
Liu fails to disclose such that at least about 50% of the inner volume includes the void space, a plurality of graphene flakes disposed on the outer surface of the carbon shell, the plurality of graphene flakes covering at least a portion of the pinholes.
Cui discloses a plurality of graphene flakes (Fig.1A; graphene coating; “GF”) disposed on an outer surface (Fig. 1A; outer surface of a carbon shell substituted for illustrated silicon seal per [0027]) of a carbon shell (“carbon” [0027]), the plurality of graphene flakes (GF) covering an entire (“encapsulated with a graphene cage”; [0030]) outer surface (Fig. 1A; outer surface of carbon shell substituted for silicon per [0027]) of the carbon shell (“carbon” [0027]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Liu by adding the plurality of graphene flakes taught by Cui to the outer surface of the carbon shell of Liu, such that a plurality of graphene flakes are disposed on the outer surface of the carbon shell, the plurality of graphene flakes covering an entire outer surface of the carbon shell, in order to guarantee structural integrity, stable SEI formation, high later-cycle Coulombic efficiencies (99.8-100% for later cycles) and impressive cycling stability as taught by Cui ([0028]).
In doing so, one of ordinary skill in the art would have naturally arrived at the plurality of graphene flakes covering at least a portion of the pinholes because the graphene encapsulates the carbon shell containing the pinholes.
Liu in view of Cui fails to disclose wherein at least about 50% of the inner volume of the carbon shell includes the void space.
Wang discloses wherein at least about 50% (“the void space between the two-stage carbon shells is 5-400% of the volume of the first-stage SiC core-shell structure”; [0014]) of the inner volume (annotated Fig. 1; IV) of a carbon shell (annotated Fig. 1; CS) includes void space (annotated Fig. 1; VS).
PNG
media_image1.png
266
263
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Liu in view of Cui by making at least about 50% of the inner volume of the carbon shell include void space in order to reserve a certain void space for buffering the volume expansion of Si, thereby improving the conductivity and structure of the overall material as taught by Wang ([0047]).
Regarding claim 32, Liu in view of Cui and Wang discloses wherein the silicon ([0027]) is lithiated (“charging”; [0027]; Fig. 1B).
Regarding claim 34, Liu in view of Cui and Wang discloses wherein the carbon shell (13) is substantially spherical (Fig. 1; 13) and has a diameter ([0030]) in a range of about 500 nm to about 1 mm (“50 to 500 nm”; [0030]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected a diameter of the carbon shell of 500 nm because this diameter is disclosed by Liu ([0030]).
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (US 20150162617 A1) in view of Cui (US 20190305295 A1) and Wang (CN105514401A, machine translation used for rejection below) as applied to claim 31 and further in view of Kim (US 20180151874 A1).
Regarding claim 33, Liu in view of Cui and Wang fails to disclose wherein each of the plurality of pinholes has a width in a range of about 50 nm to about 1.5 um.
Kim discloses a plurality of pinholes (“mesopores”, “macropores”; [0009]) wherein each of the plurality of pinholes ([0009]) has a width (“diameter”; [0011]) in a range of about 50 nm to about 1.5 um (“2 to 50 nm” and “50 to 500 nm”; [0011]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Liu in view of Cui and Wang by substituting the width of the plurality of pinholes of Kim for the undisclosed width of the plurality of through holes of Liu in view of Cui and Wang such that the width was in a range of 50 nm to 500 nm. In doing so, one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably expected to improve lifetime characteristics, initial efficiency and to enhance capacity characteristics by controlling an oxygen content of the product, and to control the specific surface area such that the side reaction with the electrolyte can be reduced as taught by Kim ([0066]).
Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (US 20150162617 A1) in view of Cui (US 20190305295 A1) and Wang (CN105514401A, machine translation used for rejection below) as applied to claim 31 and further in view of Do (US 20140255785 A1).
Regarding claim 35, Liu in view of Cui and Wang fails to disclose wherein the plurality of graphene flakes have a lateral dimension in a range of about 10 nm to about 150 um.
Do discloses a plurality of graphene flakes (“plurality of graphene nanoplatelets”; [0011]) have a lateral dimension ([0011]) in a range of about 10 nm to about 150 um (“a lateral dimension of less than 900 nm”; [0011]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Liu in view of Cui and Wang by substituting the undisclosed lateral dimension of the plurality of graphene flakes of Liu in view of Cui and Wang for the lateral dimension taught by Do, such that the lateral dimension was 10 to 900 nm, in order to accommodate the volume change of Si particles and maintain the integrity of the electrode during cycling as taught by Do ([0060]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GRACE A KENLAW whose telephone number is (571)272-1253. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM-6:00 PM.
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, Tiffany Legette-Thompson can be reached at (571) 270-7078. 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.
/G.A.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1723 /TIFFANY LEGETTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights