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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04/03/2026 has been entered.
Claim Status
This office action is in response to amendments/arguments filed 04/03/2026. Claim(s) 1 are currently amended. The amendments are supported by the specification and the original claims, and no new matter has been entered. Claim(s) 23 are canceled. Claim(s) 2-22 stand as originally or as previously presented. claim(s) 1-22 are examined in this office action.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1, lines 5-6 reads “wherein each each silicon-containing active material…”, inappropriately duplicating the word “each”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections
The 35 USC 103 claim rejections of the prior office action are withdrawn because of the amendments to the claims. Applicant’s amendments have necessitated new grounds of rejection as below set forth.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-8, 10-15, 19 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roethinger (WO 2019002508 A1, US 11843112 B2 is used as an English equivalent) in view of Rios (US 20140038034 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Roethinger discloses a method for producing a carbon-silicon composite powder (abstract discloses a carbon silicon composite material, col. 7, lines 62-63 discloses the composite material as a powder) comprising:
Providing a carbon-containing precursor, wherein the carbon-containing precursor comprises lignin (col. 9, lines 63-66 discloses a carbon precursor which is advantageously selected from the group consisting of biomaterials, col. 10, lines 8-10 disclose that the biomaterials are understood to encompass carbohydrates and lignins);
providing at least one silicon-containing active material, where each silicon silicon-containing active material is uncoated or carbon-coated (col. 8, lines 51-55 for example discloses silicon particles, Roethinger does not disclose a coating for the silicon particles),
melt-mixing at least two components to a melt-mixture, wherein said carbon-containing precursor constitutes at least one component of the at least two components and each silicon-containing active material constitutes another component of the at least two components (col. 16, lines 59-62 outlines the first two steps of the general procedure of forming the composite material, which includes providing the silicon and the carbon precursor, and then heating the carbon precursor until said carbon precursor is, for example, molten and fluid. Col. 17, lines 12-16 discloses the third step, which is mixing the silicon as a powder and the molten/liquified/softened/dissolved carbon together, which can be reasonably interpreted as “melt-mixing”),
providing said melt-mixture in a non-fibrous form (Roethinger does not disclose that either component of the melt mixture is fibrous, and Roethinger additionally discloses that the silicon is in a powder form (not fibrous) and that the carbon precursor is melted, which a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize would undo hypothetical fibrous shapes) and cooling said melt-mixture in said non-fibrous form so as to provide an isotropic intermediate composite material (Col. 17, line 23 begins the description of step iv, which occurs after the melt-mixing that occurs in step iii. Col. 18, lines 35-58 describes step iv, which includes cooling of the melt/mixture, or green mix as named by Roethinger. Col. 3, lines 1-21 discloses that significant inhomogeneity of the silicon/carbon precursor mixture is undesirable and leads to disadvantageous effects, with col. 5, lines 1-3 disclosing that the composite material according to the invention has a substantially homogeneous distribution of components, reading on an isotropic material, see also col. 17, lines 16-19, which discloses that the object of the mixing step is to produce a mixture which is as homogeneous (isotropic) as possible),
subjecting said isotropic intermediate composite material to a thermal treatment, wherein said thermal treatment comprises a carbonizations step so as to provide a silicon-carbon composite material (col. 17, lines 39-40 discloses the next step, step v, involves thermally treating the produced green mix to carbonize the carbon precursor, resulting in a thermally treated C-Si composite material (line 59));
subjecting said carbon-silicon composite material to pulverization so as to provide said carbon-silicon composite material powder (Col. 17, lines 66-67 and col. 18, lines 1-8 discloses a step of crushing/grinding, for example by means of jaw crusher, conical crusher, roll crusher, ball mill, impact mill, etc., in order to set particle size distribution, reasonably reading as pulverization so as to provide a powder).
Roethinger does not disclose the temperature of the melt mixing process, or that it is 120-250 °C. However, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the temperature of the melt mixing process must be sufficient to melt lignin. Further, melting temperatures of lignin for melting processes is known in the art. For example, Rios discloses an anode material comprising lignin fibers (abstract). Rios prefers not to melt lignin, and teaches that to avoid this the temperature should not exceed 180 °C [0035]. As a result, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the melting process of Trogel must be greater than this amount, and to routinely select a temperature above this range (e.g. 190, 200, 210 °C) to conduct the melting process, falling within the claimed range. One of ordinary skill would be motivated to do this in order to successfully carry about the melting process of Roethinger.
Regarding claim 4, modified Roethinger discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the silicon-containing active material is selected from a group consisting of: elemental silicon (col. 6, lines 64-66).
Regarding claim 5, modified Roethinger discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the silicon-containing active material is provided in particulate form (col. 17, lines 12-13 discloses the mixing in of the silicon precursor as a powder, which is reasonably interpreted as reading as a “particulate form”).
Regarding claim 6, modified Roethinger discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein carbon-containing precursor is mixed with 0.5-30 wt.% of said at least one silicon-containing active material in the melt-mixing step (col. 18, lines 9-21 disclose an example wherein 0.23 kg of nano silicon is mixed with 1kg of carbon precursor, falling within the claimed range).
Regarding claim 7, modified Roethinger discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the method further comprises a step of providing at least one dispersing additive and wherein the components melt-mixed in the melt-mixing step include said at least one dispersing additive (col. 11, lines 30-36 discloses an embodiment wherein at least one additive is also used, the at least one additive being provided, at least in part, before/during the mixing step).
Regarding claim 8, modified Roethinger discloses the method according to claim 7, wherein said dispersing additive is selected from a group consisting of: polyesters (col. 13, lines 26-33 discloses, e.g., polyester resins).
Regarding claim 10, modified Roethinger discloses the method according to claim 7, wherein the carbon-containing precursor is mixed with 0.5-30 wt.% of said at least one silicon-containing active material (col. 18, lines 9-21 disclose an example wherein 0.23 kg of nano silicon is mixed with 1kg of carbon precursor, falling within the claimed range) and 0.5-10 wt.% of said dispersing additive (col. 13, lines 51-53 discloses that the dispersing additive is most preferably 1-40 wt.% of the composite material not comprising silicon, which would overlap the claimed amount of 0.5-10 wt. %).
Regarding claim 11, modified Roethinger discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the method further comprises a step of:
providing graphite particles, or carbon particles, or both, wherein the components melt-mixed in the melt-mixing step include said graphite particles, or said carbon particles, or both (col. 11, lines 30-36 discloses an embodiment wherein at least one additive is also used, and that the at least one additive being provided, at least in part, before/during the mixing step. Col. 11, lines 56-63 discloses that the at least one additive may be preferably selected from, for example, natural graphites, carbon blacks, carbon nanotubes, etc.)
Regarding claim 12, modified Roethinger discloses the method according to claim 1. Wherein the melt-mixing is performed by kneading (col. 17, lines 12-16 discloses that the mixing step is performed by, for example, a kneader).
Regarding claim 13, modified Roethinger discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the method further comprises a step of:
pre-mixing at least two of said components to be melt-mixed before said melt-mixing step (col. 11, lines 30-36 discloses an embodiment wherein at least one additive is also used, and that the at least one additive optionally being provided, at least in part, before the melt-mixing step. Additionally, Col. 16, lines 61-67 and col. 17, lines 1-3 discloses that the carbon precursor and the silicon can be pre-mixed together before the melt-mixing step/step iii).
Regarding claim 14, modified Roethinger discloses the method according to claim 13, wherein said pre-mixing is performed by solution mixing (Col. 16, lines 61-67 and col. 17, lines 1-3 discloses that the carbon precursor and the silicon can be pre-mixed together before the melt-mixing step/step iii, and provides an example of a solution mixing method to do this. Additionally, while Roethinger does not explicitly disclose a method for pre-mixing the additive together with the silicon and/or carbon precursor before the melt-mixing step, col. 11, lines 30-36 discloses an embodiment wherein at least one additive is also used, and that the at least one additive optionally being provided, at least in part, before the melt-mixing step, and it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that some method of providing the additive to the materials used before the melt-mixing step must be used, such as, for example, simply mixing the additive(s) with one of the silicon and the carbon precursor (dry mixing)).
Regarding claim 15, modified Roethinger discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein said carbonization is performed at a temperature of 700-1300 °C (Col. 18, lines 59-61 discloses that the carbonization is performed at a temperature of 700-1000 °C, falling within the claimed range).
Regarding claim 19, modified Roethinger discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein said carbon-silicon composite material powder comprises powder particles having an average particle size between 5-25 µm (Col. 11, lines 3-7 discloses that the product preferably has a particle size of, for example, 4-20 µm. Col. 19, lines 12-13 disclose an embodiment wherein the final particle size is 5 µm).
Regarding claim 21, modified Roethinger discloses a carbon-silicon composite powder (col. 19, line 12-13) obtained by the method according to claim 1.
Claim(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roethinger (WO 2019002508 A1, US 11843112 B2 is used as an English equivalent) in view of Rios (US 20140038034 A1), and further in view of Yokoyama (US 20210265635 A1).
Regarding claim 2, modified Roethinger discloses the method according to claim 1, but fails to disclose the specific type of Lignin used. However, the use of Kraft lignin in negative electrodes was known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use. For example, Yokoyama discloses adding lignin to a negative electrode [0017], increasing low temperature rapid discharge performance. Yokoyama further discloses that it is preferable to use kraft lignin [0025]. As a result, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Kraft lignin as the lignin of Trogel. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do this to obtain a lignin known to be included in negative electrodes and known to increase low temperature rapid discharge performance. Yokoyama is considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field of endeavor, namely secondary battery negative electrode construction.
Regarding claim 3, modified Roethinger discloses the method according to claim 1, but does not disclose what form of lignin is used. However, given that the lignin is melt-mixed in step iii, it would be obvious to use lignin in particulate form, as small particulates of lignin would melt better than lignin provided in other larger forms, as smaller particulates have greater surface area and can absorb heat quicker and more evenly than larger chunks.
Inclusion of particulate Lignin in negative electrodes is also known in the art. For example, Yokoyama discloses adding lignin to a negative electrode [0017], increasing low temperature rapid discharge performance. Yokoyama further discloses that the lignin that is used is preferably provided in a powered (particulate) state [0026]. As a result, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use powered lignin as the lignin of modified Trogel. A person of ordinary skill in the art would make this selection because powered lignin would melt better, and because use of powered lignin in negative electrodes was known in the art. Yokoyama is considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field of endeavor, namely secondary battery negative electrode construction.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roethinger (WO 2019002508 A1, US 11843112 B2 is used as an English equivalent) in view of Rios (US 20140038034 A1), and further in view of Chen (CN 107732158 A, a machine translation from Espacenet is used as an English translation).
Regarding claim 9, modified Roethinger discloses the method according to claim 8, but does not disclose an additive selected from the group consisting of polyethylene oxide or branched polyether fatty acid esters. However, the use of such materials in C/Si composite materials, as well as associated benefits of their use, were known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the method of modified Roethinger.
For example, Chen discloses a method for preparing a carbon-coated silicon material as a negative electrode material [0008] similar to Roethinger, wherein a solution comprising lignin and polyethylene oxide [0011] is prepared and mixed with nano-silica powder [0012], before later being sintered [0014]. [0015] discloses that, due to the addition of polyethylene oxide, complex viscosity can be increased due to hydrogen bonding between the polyethylene oxide and lignin, which enables the lignin solution to better maintain its morphology on the silicon surface to obtain a more uniform coating, and also that the increased viscosity enables achievement of better silicon particle capacity utilization and cycle performance [0015].
As a result, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the polyethylene oxide additive of Chen in the composite material of modified Roethinger, resulting in a method according to the instant claim 9. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to do this to obtain the benefits of more uniform coating and better silicon particle capacity utilization and cycle performance.
Claim(s) 16 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roethinger (WO 2019002508 A1, US 11843112 B2 is used as an English equivalent) in view of Rios (US 20140038034 A1), and further in view of Trogel (US 20200194778 A1).
Regarding claim 16 modified Roethinger discloses the method according to claim 1, but does not disclose that the thermal treatment comprises one or more initial heating steps before said carbonization step, wherein each heating step is performed at a temperature of 250-700 °C. However, alternative methods of providing a carbonization step for lignin/Si composites which utilize the claimed one or more initial heating steps were known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the method of modified Roethinger.
For example, Trogel discloses a Si/C composite particle (abstract), wherein the carbon comes from a carbon precursor which is optionally lignin [0049]. [0056]-[0058] discloses that a melt process can be used to mix the silicon and carbon precursors to produce precomposites, which is then thermally treated (Abstract) at a temperature of preferably 700-1100 °C [0062], substantially overlapping that of Roethinger. Further, [0134] of Trogel discloses that before the carbonization at 1000°C, the material is heated to 300°C and held for 90 minutes, which could reasonably be considered an initial heating step, before the temperature is then raised to 1000°C for carbonization, with [0065] disclosing that such hold times are advantageous and serve to condition the reaction mixture at a certain temperature for a certain amount of time. As a result, given the degree of similarity between the two processes, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the carbonization method of Trogel, including the initial heating step, when conducting the carbonization of Roethinger. Doing so would have been nothing more than the simple substitution of one known method of performing heat treatment on Si-C composite materials for another, and would serve to advantageously condition the mixture before the final carbonization.
Regarding claim 20, modified Roethinger discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein said carbon-silicon composite material powder comprises powder particles (col. 19, line 12-13), but does not disclose a further step of carbon-coating the carbon-silicon composite material powder particles. However, further coating of Si/C composite particles was known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement in the particles of modified Roethinger.
For example, Trogel discloses a Si/C composite particle (abstract), wherein the carbon comes from a carbon precursor which is optionally lignin [0049]. [0056]-[0058] discloses that a melt process can be used to mix the silicon and carbon precursors to produce precomposites, which is then thermally treated (Abstract) at a temperature of preferably 700-1100 °C [0062], substantially overlapping that of Roethinger. After the first carbonization step c, Trogel discloses a step d of further coating the material produced in step c (abstract). [0088] discloses that the Si/C composite particles preferably carry a carbon coating produced in stage d as their topmost coating. [0107]-[0108] discloses that the carbon coated Si/C particles produced by Trogel have several advantages, including well defined structural design, advantageous performance properties in batteries, protection against liquid media, reduced formation of problematic SEI layers, and surprisingly stable and mechanically robust when subject to mechanical stress. As a result, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the carbon coating layer produced in step d in the material of modified Roethinger. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to do this to obtain the above disclosed benefits.
Claim(s) 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roethinger (WO 2019002508 A1, US 11843112 B2 is used as an English equivalent) in view of Rios (US 20140038034 A1), and Trogel (US 20200194778 A1), and further in view of Trogel 2 (US 20160365567 A1).
Regarding claim 17, modified Roethinger discloses the method according to claim 16, but neither Roethinger nor Trogel explicitly discloses a pulverization step after the initial heating step and before the carbonization step. However, examiner notes that after the first carbonization step c, Trogel discloses a step d of further coating the material produced in step c (abstract). [0088] discloses that the Si/C composite particles preferably carry a carbon coating produced in stage d as their topmost coating. [0107]-[0108] discloses that the carbon coated Si/C particles produced by Trogel have several advantages, including well defined structural design, advantageous performance properties in batteries, protection against liquid media, reduced formation of problematic SEI layers, and surprisingly stable and mechanically robust when subject to mechanical stress. As a result, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the carbon coating layer produced in step d in the material of modified Roethinger. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to do this to obtain the above disclosed benefits.
Having implemented the carbon coating step d, [0141] of Trogel discloses that in step d, a further carbonization step is conducted. Further, [0134] discloses that at the end of step c (first carbonization step, or step v in Roethinger), which is after the initial heating step conducted in step c, but before the carbonization of step d, the material obtained by step c is freed from oversize by wet sieving (d99<20 µm). However, other methods of controlling particle size are known in the art, such as pulverizing a material in order to reduce maximum particle size.
For example, Trogel 2 discloses milling (which, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, reasonably reads as pulverization) a Si/G/C powder obtained after carbonization [0113], with [0131] further disclosing that the milling is performed to remove oversized (>20 µm) particles. As a result, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to replace the wet sieving step of Trogel with a pulverization (milling) step as disclosed by Trogel 2. Doing so would obvious for at least the reason that it would be nothing more than the simple substitution of one known method of removing oversized particles from carbonized Si/C composite materials for another, and also for potential benefits such as obtaining a more simple process of controlling particle size (for example not requiring additional water and ethanol) and breaking down particles of a large size into usable smaller particles rather than merely removing them from the composite material.
After having done this, the limitations of the instant claim are met, as the carbonization step present in step d of Trogel can be considered to be the carbonization step claimed by the instant claims since the carbonization step of step d also meets the limitations of the instant claim (takes place after mixing step b and the initial heating step done in step c, and is done at 1000°C [0141], falling within the claimed temperature range), and the pulverization step takes place after the initial heating step but before the carbonization step.
Regarding claim 18, Roethinger discloses the method according to claim 1, but does not disclose a step of crushing or pulverizing of said isotropic composite material before said thermal treatment. However, methods of forming C/Si composite materials wherein a crushing or pulverization step before thermal treatment was implemented were known in the art and/or would have been obvious to implement in the method of Roethinger before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
For example, Trogel discloses a Si/C composite particle (abstract), wherein the carbon comes from a carbon precursor which is optionally lignin [0049]. [0056]-[0058] discloses that a melt process can be used to mix the silicon and carbon precursors to produce precomposites, which is then thermally treated (Abstract) at a temperature of preferably 700-1100 °C [0062], substantially overlapping that of Roethinger. After the first carbonization step c, Trogel discloses a step d of further coating the material produced in step c (abstract). [0088] discloses that the Si/C composite particles preferably carry a carbon coating produced in stage d as their topmost coating. [0107]-[0108] discloses that the carbon coated Si/C particles produced by Trogel have several advantages, including well defined structural design, advantageous performance properties in batteries, protection against liquid media, reduced formation of problematic SEI layers, and surprisingly stable and mechanically robust when subject to mechanical stress. As a result, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the carbon coating layer produced in step d in the material of modified Roethinger. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to do this to obtain the above disclosed benefits.
Having implemented the carbon coating step d, [0141] of Trogel discloses that in step d, a further carbonization step is conducted. Further, [0134] discloses that at the end of step c (first carbonization step, or step v in Roethinger), which is after the initial heating step conducted in step c, but before the carbonization of step d, the material obtained by step c is freed from oversize by wet sieving (d99<20 µm). However, other methods of controlling particle size are known in the art, such as pulverizing a material in order to reduce maximum particle size.
For example, Trogel 2 discloses milling (which, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, reasonably reads as pulverization) a Si/G/C powder obtained after carbonization [0113], with [0131] further disclosing that the milling is performed to remove oversized (>20 µm) particles. As a result, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to replace the wet sieving step of Trogel with a pulverization (milling) step as disclosed by Trogel 2. Doing so would obvious for at least the reason that it would be nothing more than the simple substitution of one known method of removing oversized particles from carbonized Si/C composite materials for another, and also for potential benefits such as obtaining a more simple process of controlling particle size (for example not requiring additional water and ethanol) and breaking down particles of a large size into usable smaller particles rather than merely removing them from the composite material.
After having done this, the limitations of the instant claim are met, as the carbonization step present in step d of Trogel can be considered to be the carbonization step claimed by the instant claims since the carbonization step of step d also meets the limitations of the instant claim (takes place after mixing step b and the initial heating step done in step c, and is done at 1000°C [0141], falling within the claimed temperature range), and the pulverization step takes place after the initial heating step but before the carbonization step.
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roethinger (WO 2019002508 A1, US 11843112 B2 is used as an English equivalent) in view of Rios (US 20140038034 A1), and further in view of Do (US 20140255785 A1).
Regarding claim 22, modified Roethinger discloses a negative electrode (col. 14, ones 33-34) for a secondary battery (col. 6, line 61 discloses a battery, col. 19, lines 13-16 discloses cycling the material multiple times, or charging/discharging, or in other words a secondary battery), but does not explicitly disclose a non-aqueous battery. However, the benefits of non-aqueous batteries, as well as the use of Si-carbon composite materials in non-aqueous batteries, was known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention such that use of a non-aqueous battery for the material of modified Roethinger would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
For example, Do discloses a carbon (graphite) Si composite material [0084], which abstract discloses is used in an anode for a lithium-ion battery. [0115] discloses a non-aqueous solvent/electrolyte, and discloses that a non-aqueous solvent is advantageous in that it is stable against a negative electrode containing carbonaceous material well developed in graphite structure, is effective in suppressing the reductive or oxidative decomposition of electrolyte, and is high in conductivity. As a result, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a non-aqueous battery for the battery of modified Roethinger. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to do this to obtain a battery type known to work with Si-C composite materials, as well as the other advantages listed above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 04/03/2026 with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered and are either persuasive or 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZACKARY R COCHENOUR whose telephone number is (703)756-1480. The examiner can normally be reached 1-9:00PM 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, Nicholas Smith can be reached at (571) 272-8760. 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.
/ZACKARY RICHARD COCHENOUR/Examiner, Art Unit 1752
/Maria Laios/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1727
Prosecution Insights