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 .
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 10/15/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. It is noted that previous 112 rejections regarding monolithic has been withdrawn. In response to applicant’s arguments about applied prior art not teaching features of “porous silicon” because “porous silicon” is a well-known term, refers to a continuous silicon skeleton with interconnected pores (see instant specification para. [0038], exhibits 1 and 2), it is noted that the features/structure upon which applicant relies (i.e., “continuous silicon skeleton with interconnected pores”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Similarly, in response to applicant’s arguments about lithiated silicon referring to porous silicon being lithiated and such lithiated silicon having a structure of continuous silicon skeleton with lithium and oxygen incorporated thereof, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “continuous silicon skeleton with lithium and oxygen incorporated thereof”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Therefore, such arguments are not found convincing.
In response to applicant’s arguments about Lee disclosing silicon oxide particles not claimed porous silicon, it is noted that instantly claimed only recites “lithiated porous silicon particles comprising lithium, silicon and oxygen”, for broadest and reasonable interpretation, any silicon containing material containing pores and lithium and oxygen reads onto such claimed language. Also, as explained above, the arguments about such porous silicon being continuous silicon skeleton with interconnected pores” is not claimed at all. Therefore, such arguments are not found convincing.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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