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
Claims 48-67 and 69-72 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected groups I-IV, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 02/06/2026.
Response to Amendment
The addition of claims 75-96 is acknowledged.
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.
Claims 68, 73-79, 84-85, 87-89, and 91, 93-96 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mason et. al. (GB 2580033A) in view of Golden et. al. (US 5,482,915). Evidence provided by Kresnyak et. al. (US20150315481A1)
Regarding claims 68, 73, 74, 87, 93 and 94 Mason discloses a process for preparing a particulate material by pyrolysis of a polymers or organic material (page 11 paragraph 4) followed by activation via steam or carbon dioxide(page 11 lines 27-30) resulting in an activated carbon with a total pore volume P1 of at least 0.6 cm3/g(page 5, lines 1-5).Mason further discloses a step of contacting the carbon particles with a silicon precursor gas to deposit silicon (page 18, lines 19-23) but does not disclose the carbon material used for pyrolysis is a plant material, such as coconut shells, containing lignin.
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. 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). MPEP §2144.05.
Golden, related to activated carbon, teaches coconut shells as a useful organic material to make an activated carbon framework(col. 6, lines 33-35) with microporosity(abstract).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized substituting the coconut shells as taught by Golden as an organic material as taught by Mason to form an effective pyrolyzed carbon material and that these shells have a lignin % over 28% as evidenced by Table 5 of Kresnyak.
Therefore it would have been obvious to have selected coconut shells taught by Golden as the organic materials of Mason to form an effective pyrolyzed carbon material.
The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07).
Regarding claims 75-78, modified Mason discloses a process for preparing a particulate material of claim 68 and Mason further discloses the silicon-containing gas is pure silane which one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize a pure material does not contain chlorine-containing compounds(page 18, lines 23-25).
Regarding claim 79, modified Mason discloses a process for preparing a particulate material of claim 68 and Mason further discloses wherein step (b) is performed with agitation or fluidization of the porous carbon particles (page 18, lines 32-33).
Regarding claims 84 and 85, modified Mason discloses a process for preparing a particulate material of claim 68 and Mason further discloses wherein the process comprises an additional step (d) of forming a conductive carbon coating on surfaces of the composite particles via a chemical vapour deposition method with a thickness of 2-30 nm(page 19, lines 14-23).
Regarding claims 88, modified Mason discloses a process for preparing a particulate material of claim 68 and Mason further discloses the porous carbon may be 50-98% carbon (page 12, lines 11 and 12).
Regarding claim 89, modified Mason discloses a process for preparing a particulate material of claim 68 and Mason further discloses wherein a micropore volume fraction of the porous carbon particles is from 0.1 to 0.9. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. 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). MPEP §2144.05.
Regarding claim 91, modified Mason discloses a process for preparing a particulate material of claim 68 and Mason further discloses the weight ratio of silicon to the porous carbon framework in the composite particles is in the range of from 1xP1 to 2.2xP1 (page 5, lines 30-31). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. 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). MPEP §2144.05.
Regarding claim 95, modified Mason discloses a process for preparing a particulate material of claim 74 and Golden further discloses wherein step (a) pyrolysis carbonization is carried out at a temperature of 300 to 1000 °C in an inert atmosphere(col. 3 lines 62-67-col. 4 lines 1-5).
Regarding claim 96, modified Mason discloses a process for preparing a particulate material of claim 74 and Mason further discloses wherein in step (b) the pyrolyzed carbon material is activated at a temperature between 600 °C and 1000 °C (page 12, lines 22-25). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. 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). MPEP §2144.05.
Claims 80-83 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mason et. al. (GB 2580033A) in view of Golden et. al. (US 5,482,915). Evidence provided by Kresnyak et. al. (US20150315481A1) as applied to claim 68 and further in view of Zhou et. al. (US 20130252101A1).
Regarding claims 80-83, modified Mason discloses a process according to claim 68 but does not disclose a passivating agent.
Zhou, related to silicon containing materials for electrodes, teaches a silicon containing structure with a passivating agent formed from decomposition of ethylene on the surface of the silicon and that this layer reduces side reactions and improve performance(¶[0054]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized adding the passivation layer of Zhou to the silicon of Mason would result in a reduction of side reactions and improved performance.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to have added the passivation layer of Zhou to the silicon of Mason to reduce side reactions and improve performance.
Claim 86 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mason et. al. (GB 2580033A) in view of Golden et. al. (US 5,482,915). Evidence provided by Kresnyak et. al. (US20150315481A1) as applied to claim 68 and further in view of Pol et. al. (US20120231352A1).
Regarding claim 86, modified Mason teaches the process according to claim 84 but does not teach a lithium-ion permeable solid electrolyte.
Pol, Related to electrode active materials, teaches lithium ion solid electrolyte layers placed onto a core material(¶[0075]) in combination with a carbon coating to protect the electrochemically active electrode core from undesired reactions(¶[0056]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized, adding the solid electrolyte layer of Pol to the particulate materials of modified Mason would protect the electrochemically active core.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to have added the solid electrolyte layer of Pol to the particulate materials of modified Mason to protect the electrochemically active core.
Claims 90 and 92 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mason et. al. (GB 2580033A) in view of Golden et. al. (US 5,482,915). Evidence provided by Kresnyak et. al. (US20150315481A1) as applied to claim 68 and further in view of Sakshaug et. al. (US20170170477A1).
Regarding claim 90, modified Mason discloses a process for preparing a particulate material of claim 68 and but does not explicitly disclose the weight ratio of silicon to the porous carbon framework.
Sakshaug, related to silicon/carbon composites, teaches silicon deposited into porous carbon wherein the composite comprises from 15 to 85% silicon by weight(¶[0040]) and producing a material exhibiting extremely durable intercalation of lithium(¶[0003]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the weight % of silicon as taught by Sakshaug used within in the process of preparing particulate material of modified Mason would result in a material with extremely durable intercalation of lithium.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to have used the weight % of silicon as taught by Sakshaug within in the process of modified Mason to obtain a material with extremely durable intercalation of lithium.
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. 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). MPEP §2144.05.
Regarding claim 92, modified Mason discloses a process for preparing a particulate material of claim 68 and Mason further discloses using silane as the silicon precursor gas and deposition at 400-700 °C (page 18, line 23-33) but does not disclose wherein in step (b) the porous carbon particles are contacted with the silicon precursor gas at an initial temperature of less than 400°C and a reaction temperature is then increased into a range from 300-800 °C.
Sakshaug, related to silicon/carbon composites, teaches silicon deposited into porous carbon(¶[0016]) through a process of introducing silane gas and heating to a decomposition temperature of 300-900 °C(¶[0193]) where the carbon framework and silane gas are below this decomposition temperature of at least 300 °C then heated up to within the decomposition range(¶[0246]) and this two-step process results in time to desorb volatile components and reduce clogs within the pores before silicon deposition(¶[0231]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the two step process of Sakshaug used within in the process of preparing particulate material of modified Mason would result in reduced clogs within the pores.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to have used the two-step process of Sakshaug within in the process of modified Mason to reduce clogs within the pores.
In the alternative Claims 68, 73-79, 84-85, 87-91, 93-96 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thompkins et. al. (US20140272592) in view of Golden et. al. (US 5,482,915). Evidence provided by Kresnyak et. al. (US20150315481A1)
Regarding claims 68, 73, 74, 87, 93 and 94 Thompkins discloses a process for preparing a carbon material by pyrolysis(¶[0239]) of a polymers(¶[0073]) or organic material such as lignin (¶[0360]) followed by activation via steam or carbon dioxide(¶[0151]) resulting in an activated carbon with a total pore volume P1 of at least 0.6 cm3/g(¶[0170]).Thompkins further discloses a step of contacting the carbon particles with a silicon precursor gas to deposit silicon (¶[0355]) but does not disclose the carbon plant source contains 25% lignin.
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. 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). MPEP §2144.05.
Golden, related to activated carbon, teaches coconut shells as a useful organic material to make an activated carbon framework(col. 6, lines 33-35) with microporosity(abstract).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized substituting the coconut shells as taught by Golden as an organic material as taught by Thompkins to form an effective pyrolyzed carbon material and that these shells have a lignin content of over 28% as evidenced by Table 5 of Kresnyak.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to have selected coconut shells taught by Golden as the organic materials of Thompkins to form an effective pyrolyzed carbon material.
The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07).
Regarding claims 75-78, modified Thompkins discloses a process for preparing a particulate material of claim 68 and Thompkins further discloses the silicon-containing gas is silane which one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize silane alone does not contain chlorine-containing compounds. The examiner notes Thompkins describes a separate embodiment where the silane gas is mixed with nitrogen gas.
Regarding claim 79, modified Thompkins discloses a process for preparing a particulate material of claim 68 and Thompkins further discloses wherein step (b) is performed in a fluidization bed of the porous carbon particles (¶[0355]).
Regarding claims 84 and 85, modified Thompkins discloses a process for preparing a particulate material of claim 68 and Thompkins further discloses wherein the process comprises an additional step (d) of forming a conductive carbon coating on surfaces of the composite particles via a chemical vapor deposition method with a thickness of 0.1-50 nm(¶[0357]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. 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). MPEP §2144.05.
Regarding claims 88, modified Thompkins discloses a process for preparing a particulate material of claim 68 and Thompkins further discloses the porous carbon may be 80-90% carbon (¶[0199]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. 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). MPEP §2144.05.
Regarding claim 89, modified Thompkins discloses a process for preparing a particulate material of claim 68 and Thompkins further discloses wherein a micropore volume fraction of the porous carbon particles is from 0.05-0.95(¶[0182]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. 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). MPEP §2144.05.
Regarding claim 90 and 91, modified Thompkins discloses a process for preparing a particulate material of claim 68 and Thompkins further discloses the weight ratio of silicon to the porous carbon framework in the composite particles is in the range of from 1-75% (¶[0218]). One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the P1 of claim 68*0.5 to give a range of 25-75% weight ratio of silicon. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. 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). MPEP §2144.05.
Regarding claim 95, modified Thompkins discloses a process for preparing a particulate material of claim 74 and Golden further discloses wherein step (a) pyrolysis carbonization is carried out at a temperature of 300 to 1000 °C in an inert atmosphere(col. 3 lines 62-67-col. 4 lines 1-5).
Regarding claim 96, modified Thompkins discloses a process for preparing a particulate material of claim 74 and Thompkins further discloses wherein in step (b) the pyrolyzed carbon material is activated at a temperature of 950 °C (¶[0461]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. 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). MPEP §2144.05.
In the alternative claims 80-83 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thompkins et. al. (US20140272592A1) in view of Golden et. al. (US 5,482,915). Evidence provided by Kresnyak et. al. (US20150315481A1) as applied to claim 68 and further in view of Zhou et. al. (US 20130252101A1).
Regarding claims 80-83, modified Thompkins discloses a process according to claim 68 but does not disclose a passivating agent.
Zhou, related to silicon containing materials for electrodes, teaches a silicon containing structure with a passivating agent formed from decomposition of ethylene on the surface of the silicon and that this layer reduces side reactions and improve performance(¶[0054]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized adding the passivation layer of Zhou to the silicon of Thompkins would result in a reduction of side reactions and improved performance.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to have added the passivation layer of Zhou to the silicon of Thompkins to reduce side reactions and improve performance.
In the alternative Claim 86 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thompkins et. al. (US20140272592A1) in view of Golden et. al. (US 5,482,915). Evidence provided by Kresnyak et. al. (US20150315481A1) as applied to claim 68 and further in view of Pol et. al. (US20120231352A1).
Regarding claim 86, modified Thompkins teaches the process according to claim 84 but does not teach a lithium-ion permeable solid electrolyte.
Pol, Related to electrode active materials, teaches lithium ion solid electrolyte layers placed onto a core material(¶[0075]) in combination with a carbon coating to protect the electrochemically active electrode core from undesired reactions(¶[0056]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized, adding the solid electrolyte layer of Pol to the particulate materials of modified Thompkins would protect the electrochemically active core.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to have added the solid electrolyte layer of Pol to the particulate materials of modified Thompkins to protect the electrochemically active core.
In the alternative claim 92 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thompkins et. al. (US20140272592A1) in view of Golden et. al. (US 5,482,915). Evidence provided by Kresnyak et. al. (US20150315481A1) as applied to claim 68 and further in view of Sakshaug et. al. (US20170170477A1).
Regarding claim 92, modified Thompkins discloses a process for preparing a particulate material of claim 68 and Thompkins further discloses using silane as the silicon precursor gas and deposition at 500-2400 °C (¶[0355]) but does not disclose wherein in step (b) the porous carbon particles are contacted with the silicon precursor gas at an initial temperature of less than 400°C and a reaction temperature is then increased into a range from 300-800 °C.
Sakshaug, related to silicon/carbon composites, teaches silicon deposited into porous carbon(¶[0016]) through a process of introducing silane gas and heating to a decomposition temperature of 300-900 °C(¶[0193]) where the carbon framework and silane gas are below this decomposition temperature of at least 300 °C then heated up to within the decomposition range(¶[0246]) and this two-step process results in time to desorb volatile components and reduce clogs within the pores before silicon deposition(¶[0231]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the two step process of Sakshaug used within in the process of preparing particulate material of modified Thompkins would result in reduced clogs within the pores.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to have used the two-step process of Sakshaug within in the process of modified Thompkins to reduce clogs within the pores.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAREN J. ARMSTRONG whose telephone number is (703)756-1243. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10 am-6 pm 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, Jeffrey Barton can be reached at (571) 272-1307. 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.J.A./Examiner, Art Unit 1726
/JEFFREY T BARTON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1726 16 April 2026
Prosecution Insights