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
The amendments filed on 02/06/2023 and 12/08/2025 have been entered. The amendment to the specification is accepted. Claims 1-14 have been canceled, Claims 15-27 have been newly added, Claims 22-26 have been withdrawn from consideration and Claims 15-21 and 26-27 are pending.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I in the reply filed on 12/08/2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of priority in view of PCT/EP2021/059963 with an effective filing date of 04/16/2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 03/09/2023, 02/08/2024, 11/04/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 26 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 26 recites “anode material for a lithium-ion battery, comprising: wherein the anode material comprises” in lines 1 and 2. This is redundant and for clarity appropriate correction is required.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 15-19, 21, and 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feaver et al. (US 20190097222 A1), hereinafter "Feaver". Feaver et al. is analogous prior art to the claimed invention because it pertains to the same field of endeavor, namely silicon carbon composites.
In regard to Claim 15, Feaver et al. discloses silicon carbon composite particles, wherein the composite comprises carbon, silicon and an alkali metal or alkaline earth metal comprising lithium, sodium, potassium, or combinations thereof in a range of 1-20% (Feaver, [0372]). Feaver et al. also discloses the silicon carbon composite particles have a pH which can be controlled by the skilled artisan, and in a specific embodiment falls within a range of between about 7 and 8 (Feaver, [0324]), which overlaps the claimed range. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obvious. 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). See MPEP § 2144.05.
In regard to Claim 16, Feaver et al. discloses the silicon carbon composite particles of claim 15. Feaver et al. also discloses that in some embodiments, the average particle size Dv50 of the composite comprising carbon and porous silicon material is about 1 µm to about 20 µm (Feaver, [0375]), which significantly overlaps the claimed range.
In regard to Claim 17, Feaver et al. discloses the silicon carbon composite particles of claim 15. Feaver et al. also discloses a specific example wherein the silicon carbon composite particles have 55.5 wt% of silicon (Feaver, [0422]), obtained by silicon infiltration into the pore structure (Feaver, [0354]), which anticipates the claimed range.
In regard to Claim 18, Feaver et al. discloses the silicon carbon composite particles of claim 15. Feaver et al. also discloses the composites may be obtained by silicon deposited on the surface of the carbon material or incorporated in any number of other ways including infiltration into the pores (Feaver, [0354]) and that the porous nano-featured silicon has a characteristic thickness of nano features of less than 300 nm (Feaver [0471]), which anticipates the claimed range.
In regard to Claim 19, Feaver et al. discloses the silicon carbon composite particles of claim 15. Feaver et al. also discloses wherein the silicon carbon composite particles have a specific BET surface area of at most 20-80 m2/g (Feaver, [0012, 0508]), which anticipates the claimed range.
In regard to Claim 21, Feaver et al. discloses the silicon carbon composite particles of claim 15. Feaver et al. also discloses wherein the silicon carbon composite particles are used in an anode material of a lithium-ion battery (Feaver, [0274]).
In regard to Claims 26-27, Feaver et al. discloses the composite particles comprise carbon, silicon and an alkali metal or alkaline earth metal comprising lithium, sodium, potassium, or combinations thereof in a range of 1-20% (Feaver, [0372]). Feaver et al. also discloses the silicon carbon composite particles have a pH which can be controlled by the skilled artisan, and in a specific embodiment falls within a range of between about 7 and 8 (Feaver, [0324]), which overlaps the claimed range. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obvious. 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). See MPEP § 2144.05. Feaver et al. further discloses an anode material comprises the silicon carbon composite particles and are coated on a current collector (Feaver, Example 30).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feaver et al. (US 20190097222 A1), hereinafter "Feaver" as applied to claim 15 above, in view of Costantino et al. (US 20200020935 A1), hereinafter "Costantino". Feaver and Costantino et al. are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely silicon carbon composites.
In regard to Claim 20, Feaver et al. discloses the silicon carbon composite particles of claim 17. Feaver et al. also discloses the silicon carbon composite particles have a total pore volume (as determined by nitrogen gas sorption) of less than less than about 0.2 cc/g (Feaver, [0316-0317]) and that the material can have trapped porosity (Feaver, [0451]), but is silent as to the silicon carbon composite particles having a pore volume ‘P’ which is at least 100 vol%, based on the volume of the silicon obtained from silicon infiltration in the silicon carbon composite particles, wherein the pore volume ‘P’ of the silicon carbon composite particles resulting from the sum total of gas-accessible and gas-inaccessible pore volume.
Costantino et al. discloses a Si/C composite with 5 to 95% by weight of silicon (Costantino, [0314]) and that the silicon embedded within the porous carbon scaffold material can occupy between 30% and 70% of the total available pore volume within the porous carbon scaffold (Costantino, [00296]). Therefore, if Si occupies ≤ 70% of total pore volume then total pore volume/Si volume ≥ 1/0.7 which is 1.43, which necessarily satisfies pore volume P ≥ Vol of Si. Further, Costantino discloses that the remaining pore volume may be non-accessible to nitrogen sorption (i.e. P includes both gas accessible and inaccessible pore volume) (Costantino, [0297]). Lastly, Costantino et al. discloses two specific examples wherein the Si wt% is greater than 30% and pore volume in cm3/g is given, wherein the density of Si is (2.336 g/cm3) and the calculation of pore volume ‘P’ from the current application (Original Specification [0059]) can be used to calculate pore volume/volume of silicon is 485 vol% and 497 vol% respectively (Costantino, Sample 6 and Sample 8), which overlap the claimed range of vol% of 100 or more. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obvious. 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). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH MAX OTERO whose telephone number is (571)272-2559. The examiner can normally be reached M-F Generally 7:30-430.
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.
/K.M.O./Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/JONATHAN CREPEAU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725