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 with traverse of Group II in the reply filed on 12/24/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that no extra search and examination burden will occur for examining the claims in the other groups. However, it is noted that the instant application is a National Stage entry filed under 35 USC 371 and the lack of unity of invention as stated in the 11/24/2025 office action at P4 has not been addressed / argued. As such, this argument is not found persuasive.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Interpretation
Group II, claims 5-11 have been elected above. However, claim 5 depends from claim 1. For the purposes of this office action, claim 5 will be interpreted as an independent claim, incorporating the limitations of claim 1.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 5-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Ay et al. (US 2020/0006759).
Regarding claim 5, Ay et al. discloses in Fig 1, a negative electrode material ([0093]) comprising a silicon oxygen material ([0023]), comprising a silicon oxide having a chemical formula SiOx, with 0<x<2 ([0023]), wherein the silicon oxygen material is primary particles ([0023]) having a Wadell sphericity greater than 0.92 ([0020]-[0021]).
Regarding claim 6, Ay et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the negative electrode material ([0093]) comprises a carbon layer coated on a surface ([0069]) of the silicon oxygen material ([0023]).
Regarding claim 7, Ay et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the negative electrode material ([0093]) further comprises a graphite ([0090], [0094]).
Regarding claim 8, Ay et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses a carbon material ([0069], [0074]-[0075]), wherein the silicon oxygen material ([0023]) is dispersed in the carbon material ([0069], [0074]-[0078], core of silicon oxygen material is a core in the shell of carbon material), the negative electrode material is secondary particles ([0069], [0074]-[0075], core-shell defined), and the negative electrode material has a Wadell sphericity greater than 0.91 ([0085]).
Regarding claim 9, Ay et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the negative electrode material has a specific surface area of 0.5 m2/g to 50 m2/g ([0084]).
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 non-obviousness.
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 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ay et al. (US 2020/0006759) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Xiao et al. (US 2017/0338490).
Regarding claim 10, Ay et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above but does not explicitly disclose a flexible polymer coating layer on a surface of the silicon oxygen material.
Xiao et al. discloses in Figs 1-6, a battery (Abstract, ref 20) including an electrode active material particle (ref 140) containing a silicon material ([0042]) including a flexible polymer coating thereon ([0040]-[0043]). This flexible polymer coating minimizes or prevents fracturing of the negative electrode material during cycling to counter silicon material expansion / volume changes ([0040]-[0043]).
Xiao et al. and Ay et al. are analogous since both deal in the same field of endeavor, namely, negative electrode materials for batteries.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the flexible polymer material coating disclosed by Xiao et al. onto the material of Ay et al. to minimize or prevent fracturing of the negative electrode material during cycling to counter silicon material expansion / volume changes, enhancing overall battery performance.
Regarding claim 11, modified Ay et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the coating layer further comprises a conductive material ([0090], [0091], [0094], [0095]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Abe et al. (US 2014/0242458) discloses in Fig 1, a battery (Abstract) including a negative active material particulate comprising silicon oxide and having a polymer coating thereon ([0038]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH J DOUYETTE whose telephone number is (571)270-1212. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8A - 4P EST.
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, Basia Ridley can be reached at 571-272-1453. 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.
/KENNETH J DOUYETTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights