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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of group I invention (claim 2-10) in the reply filed on 10/15/2025 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)).
Claims 11-21 are thus withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 10/15/2025.
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 10 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. In this case, claim 10 recites “wherein each particle is monolithic”, one of ordinary skill in the art is uncertain how can each particle being a monolithic because “monolithic” having an ordinary meaning of relating to, or representing a monolith, or being a monolithic structure or shape, but particle is powder material having small size or dimension (such as micron or nm). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art cannot ascertain the metes and bounds of such claimed limitation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 2-5 and 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as being anticipated by Matus et al. (US2018/0069233).
Matus et al. teaches a fully delithiated silicon-silicon oxide-lithium composite (SSLC) particulate material or SSLC based particulate material having amorphous and/or crystalline nano silicon particles embedded in a porous matrix of one or more materials, including a porous plastically deformable silicon: lithium silicate (e.g. Li4SiO4) composite (Si:LSC) matrix (para. [0032], [0092], [0107], [0109], example 1-2, Fig. 5, claim 1-2).
Regarding claim 2, Matus et al. teaches every and each limitation of claim 2, therefore, claim 2 is anticipated by Matus et al.
Regarding claim 3-5, Matus et al. further teaches the delithiated SSLC material has a silicon content of 30%-60% by weight, an oxygen content of 25%-40% by weight, and a lithium content of 10%-20% by weight. The delithiated SSLC material can have a composition of approximately 37% silicon by weight, approximately 18% lithium by weight, and approximately 43% oxygen by weight (para. [0048]).
Regarding claim 6, Matus et al. further discloses the delithiated SSLC material comprising crystalline nano silicon particle (para. [0032], [0092], [0096], [0105]).
Regarding claim 7, Matus et al. also teaches the delithiated SSLC material comprising an amorphous phase (para. [0032], [0096], [0125], [0126]).
Regarding claim 8, such limitation has been taught by Matus et al as discussed above.
Regarding claim 9, Matus et al. further discloses the delithiated silicon-silicon oxide-lithium composite (SSLC) particulate material having average particle size of approximately 1 to 10 µm (para. [0032]) which are microparticles.
Regarding claim 10, Matus et al. already teaches a same lithium porous silicon particles are same microparticles as that of instantly claimed (para. [0032], claim 1-2, example 1-2), therefore, each of such particles is monolithic as that of instantly claimed is envisioned.
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.
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Matus et al. (US2018/0069233) as applied above, and in view of Kung et al (US2011/0111303).
In arguendo about Matus et al not expressly teach the particle being monolithic shaped (i.e. rod shaped), it is well known in the art that electrode active material can have a variety of shapes, such as spherical, rod-like etc. (para. [0011]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to adopt such well-known rod-like shape particles as shown by Kung et al to modify the particle shape of Matus et al because adopting such well-known rod-like shape electrode active material to modify a well-known lithium silicon composite oxide of composite particle for improvement would have predictable results (see MPEP §2143 KSR).
Claim(s) 2-3 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Lee et al. (KR2019/0101767) (for applicant’s convenience, equivalent document US2021/0275993 has been used for citations hereof).
Lee et al teaches a silicon oxide particle characterized in that a plurality of pores are formed on the surface and inside of a silicon oxide particle, the surface and inside of the porous silicon oxide particle are doped with one or more kinds selected from the group consisting of lithium, magnesium, calcium, and aluminum (claim 1, para. [0013], [0014], [0030]).
Regarding claim 2, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to “obvious to try” lithium from a finite number of identified, predictable elements of lithium, magnesium, calcium, and aluminum for forming a lithium doped porous silicon oxide particle with a reasonable expectation of success (see MPEP §2143 KSR).
Regarding claim 3, Lee et al. further teaches lithium are contained in an amount of 3 to 20 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the porous silicon oxide composite particles (claim 3, para. [0014], [0030]).
Regarding claim 9, Lee et al. further teaches the porous silicon oxide D50 average particle diameter in the range of 1 µm to 20 µm (claim 2), therefore, a microparticles are envisioned hereof.
Regarding claim 10, Lee et al. already teaches a same lithium porous silicon particles are the same microparticles as that of instantly claimed (claim 1-3, para. [0013], [0030]), therefore, each of such particles is monolithic as that of instantly claimed is expected. Furthermore, adopting particulate material forming a monolithic shape only involves conventional technique for one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Lee et al. (KR2019/0101767) (for applicant’s convenience, equivalent document US2021/0275993 has been used for citations hereof) as applied above, and in view of Kung et al (US2011/0111303).
In arguendo about Lee et al not expressly teach the particle being monolithic shaped (i.e. rod shaped), it is well known in the art that electrode active material can have a variety of shapes, such as spherical, rod-like etc. (para. [0011]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to adopt such well-known rod-like shape particles as shown by Kung et al to modify the silicon oxide active particle shape of Lee et al because adopting such well-known rod-like shape electrode active material to modify a well-known silicon composite oxide of composite particle for improvement would have predictable results (see MPEP §2143 KSR).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUN LI whose telephone number is (571)270-5858. The examiner can normally be reached IFP.
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, Ching-Yiu (Coris) Fung can be reached at 571-270-5713. 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.
/JUN LI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1732
Prosecution Insights