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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 November 11, 2025 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
By amendment filed November 11, 2025, claims 17 and 28 have been amended and claim 29 is new. Claims 17 through 25 and 27 through 29 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 11, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
In response to applicant's argument that Li teaches the use of a reflector, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Furthermore, as was discussed in the previous Office Action and again in this Office Action, Yilmaz ‘636 teaches having formed a pulsed/propagated wave of fluidizing gas and Li was only used to teach which pulse frequencies were need to achieve a homogenous dispersion.
Furthermore, applicant’s argument that the Yilmaz ‘636 does not teach having formed a product with at least 40 wt% of silicon is not persuasive because Yilmaz ‘636 teaches an embodiment wherein the composite particle comprised at least 40 wt% silicon (Page 9 Paragraph 0104).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 17-25 and 27-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 17 requires that the resulting silicon-containing material comprises at least 40 wt% of silicon based on the total weight of the composite particle. This limitation is not sufficiently disclosed within the specification of the present application as originally filed and therefore fails to comply with the written description requirement.
Claim 29 requires that the propagating wave is generated without the use of a reflector. This limitation is not sufficiently disclosed within the specification of the present application as originally filed and therefore fails to comply with the written description requirement.
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.
Claims 17-25 and 27-29 are 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.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the composite particles". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of this examination “the composite particles” will be considered the same as the “silicon-containing material”.
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.
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 17-25 and 27-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yilmaz ‘636 (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2022/0344636) in view of Lin et al (U.S. Patent # 8,936,831) and Yilmaz ‘335 (U.S. Patent # 10,508,335).
In the case of claim 17, Yilmaz ‘636 teaches process for producing silicon-containing material in a fluidized bed by depositing silicon in the pores of a conductive particle by chemical vapor infiltration (Abstract). The method of Yilmaz ‘636 comprised providing a porous conductive particle having a D50 particle diameter of 1 to 30 microns, and therefore a Geldart class C particle, into the fluidize ben and providing a fluidizing gas comprising a silicon precursor gas into the bed at a temperature sufficient to cause deposition of the silicon into the pores of the particles (Page 2 Paragraphs 0014-0020). Yilmaz ‘636 further teaches that the process was carried out with mechanical stirring using mechanical vibration in the bed (Page 7 Paragraph 0081). Furthermore, Yilmaz ‘636 teaches that the silicon was deposited in the pores of the particle and on the surface of the particle (Page 7 Paragraph 0085).
Furthermore, Yilmaz ‘636 teaches an embodiment wherein the composite particle/silicon-containing material comprised at least 40 wt% silicon (Page 9 Paragraph 0104)
Though Yilmaz ‘636 teaches having pulsed the fluidizing gas that flowed through the bed (Page 7 Paragraph 0081). Yilmaz ‘636 does not specifically teach that the fluidized gas stream was fully or partly induced to oscillate in a pulsed manner and propagate in the form of a wave to act on the fluidized bed so as to form a homogeneous fluidized bed.
Li teaches a method for coating particles in a fluidized bed reactor wherein the fluidizing gas was pulsed in a wave to form homogenous suspension in the art reactor thereby assuring that every particle was exposed to the gas (Abstract and Column 2 Lines 38-54). Li further teaches that the pulse of fluidizing gas had a frequency of 10 Hz (Column 9 Lines 54-61). Furthermore, Li teaches that the fluidizing process was suitable for Geldart Class C particles (Column 4 Lines 31-46).
Based on the teachings of Li, at the time the present invention was effectively filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have pulsed the fluidizing gas stream of Yilmaz as a wave at a frequency of 10 Hz in order to form a homogeneous suspension of particles in the fluidizing bed reactor thereby assuring every particle was exposed to the precursor gas in the fluidizing gas stream.
Yilmaz ‘636 does not teach that the fluidizing gas stream had a superficial velocity above a measured minimum fluidization velocity.
Yilmaz ‘335 teaches a process for depositing a depositing silicon into the pores of a porous particle in a fluidized bed reactor by chemical vapor infiltration (Abstract and Column 18 Lines 10-49) wherein the fluidizing gas had a superficial velocity above a measured minimum fluidizing velocity which provided good solid-solid and solid-gas mixing (Column 18 Line 50 through Column 19 Line 4).
Based on the teachings of Yilmaz ‘335, at the time the present invention was effectively filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have had the pulsed fluidizing gas stream of Yilmaz ‘636 in view of Li have a superficial velocity above a measured minimum fluidizing velocity in order to a good solid-solid and solid-gas mixing within the fluidized bed reactor.
None of the references teach that the fluidized bed had a fluidization index of at least 0.95 and a pulse duty ratio of 0.1 to 0.9. However, section 2144.05.II.A of the MPEP states, “Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. ‘[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.’ In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)”
Li teaches that the fluidization efficient which was based on the pressure drop across the bed affected the homogeneity of the fluidization (Column 6 Lines 49-54 and Column 9 Lines 16-24). Therefore, at the time the present invention was effectively filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have determined an optimal fluidization index/efficiency through routine experimentation because this value affected the homogeneity of fluidization in the bed reactor.
Furthermore, Li teaches that the pulse durations of the fluidization gas, and therefore the pulse duty ratio, affected particle fluidization and coating (Column 8 Lines 7-31). Therefore, at the time the present invention was effectively filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have determined optimal pulse durations of the fluidization gas, and therefore optimal pulse duty ratios, because the pulse duration affected particle fluidization and coating.
As for claim 18, Yilmaz ‘636 teaches that the process comprised filling the fluidized bed reactor with porous particles heating the bed reactor to the temperature for conversion/deposition of silicon from the silicon precursor, fluidizing the bed with a gas stream comprising an inert gas and the silicon precursor and then cooling the bed and removing the coated particles/reaction products (Page 2 Paragraph 0014-0020 and (Page 7 Paragraph 0078-0082).
As for claim 19, Li teaches that heat transfer was a relevant process parameter (Column 2 Lines 4-22) and as was discussed previously it would have been obvious to have determined optimal values for relevant process parameters through routine experimentation.
As for claim 20, Yilmaz ‘636 teaches that the temperature during reaction was 400 to 800 ℃ (Page 7 Paragraph 0078), which was within the claimed range.
As for claim 21, Yilmaz ‘636 teaches that the fluidizing gas comprised inert gases including nitrogen, hydrogen or argon (Page 7 Paragraph 0079).
As for claim 22, as was discussed previously, it would have been obvious for the fluidizing gas stream to have a superficial velocity above the measured minimum fluidization velocity.
As for claim 23, as was discussed previously, it would have been obvious to have determined optimal values for the pule ratio through routine experimentation.
As for claims 24 and 25, Yilmaz ‘636 teaches having discharged a portion of the particles from the fluidized bed (Page 7 Paragraph 00820 and Li teaches having repeated the reaction process (Column 17 Lines 1-6). Furthermore, Yilmaz ‘636 teaches that the fluidizing gas comprised hydrocarbons (Page 7 Paragraph 0080).
As for claims 27 and 28, Yilmaz ‘636 teaches that the deposition was conducted at 1 atm which is approximately 1 bar (Page 7 Paragraph 0079).
As for claim 29, Yilmaz ‘636 does not teach having used a reflector for pulse the fluidizing gas.
Conclusion
Claims 17 through 25 and 27 through 29 have been rejected. No claims were allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL P WIECZOREK whose telephone number is (571)270-5341. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 6:00 AM - 3:30 PM.
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, Michael Cleveland can be reached at (571)272-1418. 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.
/MICHAEL P WIECZOREK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712