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 § 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.
Claims 4 and 10 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.
The limitation “the particles have a content of amorphous silicon” is indefinite as it is not clear if the “amorphous silicon” is a separate material from the “silicon content” in claim 1 or referring to the same material. Furthermore, “a content” is unclear since the claimed hydrogen, Si-H species and/or poly-[SiH2] in claim 4 do not refer to a particular content but rather to a group of specific compounds.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the first cycle" in claim 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It its therefore not clear what “the first cycle refers to” since the feature is not explicitly claimed as part of the composition.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 5-7 are objected to because of the following informalities: “centre” should be corrected to “center”.
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 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 1-9 and 17-20 and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Kepler et al. (U.S. App. Pub. No. 2009/0208844). (cited in the IDS filed on 02/28/2023).
Regarding claim 1, Kepler et al. discloses a negative electrode material comprising silicon core particles coated with carbon pitch and expanded graphite. (par. [0074], Example 3, Table 1). The particles in sample 3 include 89.32% Si, 7.77% carbon pitch and 2.91% expanded graphite. The carbon and Si contents therefore overlap with the presently claimed range. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “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).
With respect to the hydrogen content, Kepler et al. discloses that the carbon containing coating may include hydrocarbon-based polymers such as benzene, PVA, starch, dextrin and the like (par. [0046]) wherein the content of hydrogen would be inherently more than 0.04 wt% of the silicon carbon composite particles. For example, polyvinyl alcohol contains approximately 9% hydrogen relative to the rest of the atoms in the polymer and therefore a hydrogen content of 7-11% by weight carbon coating as disclosed in Table 1 would results in a hydrogen content of about 0.7-0.8%, overlapping with the presently claimed ranges.
With respect to the limitations “the carbon content in an area beneath a surface of the particles […] is directly joined to the area beneath the surface of the particles”, given that the carbon coating disclosed in Kepler et al. is applied directly onto the outer surface of the silicon particles, the content of carbon on the surface and 30 nm below the surface would be greater than 3% relative to the central portion of the silicon particles which do not contain any carbon material.
Regarding claim 2, Kepler et al. does not disclose the presence of chlorine in the silicon carbon composites and therefore chlorine would not be contained therein. Furthermore, since chlorine is not explicitly disclosed as being included, one of ordinary skill in the art would consider it an impurity and would optimize the content thereof to be as low as possible, including below 0.7 ppm-wt, in order to prevent unwanted disruption of the physical or chemical properties of the silicon carbon composite particles.
Regarding claim 3, Kepler et al. discloses that the sizes of the silicon composite particles is in the range of 0.05 to 25 microns (i.e. 50 nm to 2500 nm) (par. [0023])., overlapping with the presently claimed range.
Regarding claim 4, the pitch or hydrocarbon polymer coating material disclosed in Kepler et al. includes hydrogen. (par. [0046]). The coating would be bound to the silicon powders and would therefore include amorphous silicon bound to the hydrogen, as claimed.
Regarding claims 5-6, given that the carbon coating disclosed in Kepler et al. is applied directly onto the outer surface of the silicon particles, the content of silicon in the center of the composite particles would be greater than0.5-30% relative to the surface portion of the silicon particles which contain only carbon coating material.
Regarding claim 7, given that the carbon coating disclosed in Kepler et al. is applied directly onto the outer surface of the silicon particles, the content of carbon on the surface and 30 nm below the surface would be greater than 3% relative to the central portion of the silicon particles which do not contain any carbon material.
Regarding claim 8, Table 1 discloses approximately 20% by weight or below of carbon coating on the surface of the silicon particles, including less than 15% for Table 1. Therefore, the carbon content in the particles overlaps with the presently claimed range.
Regarding claim 9, carbon pitch as disclosed in Kepler et al. would meet the limitation of an aliphatic carbon-hydrogen compound.
Regarding claims 17-18 and 20, Kepler et al. teaches using the composite silicon particles as an anode material for a secondary lithium-ion battery. (par. [0003] and [0015]).
Regarding claim 19, Kepler et al. discloses that the sizes of the silicon composite particles is in the range of 0.05 to 25 microns (i.e. 50 nm to 2500 nm) (par. [0023])., overlapping with the presently claimed range.
Claims 1-10 and 17-20 and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Lyubina et al. (U.S. App. Pub. No. 2019/0016601).
Regarding claim 1, Lyubina et al. discloses silicon carbon composite particles having a total ratio of carbon to Si in the range of 0.01 to 3 (i.e. 25-90% Si and 10-75% carbon) (par. [0029]) which is produced by reacting a gas stream including hydrosilane or organosilane compound and a hydrocarbon by plasma enhanced chemical vapor deposition and wherein the ratio of the hydrocarbon and hydrosilane/organosilane ranges between 0.14 to 0.16 (see par. [0042] and Table 1). Based on the content of the fact that both the hydrocarbon and hydrosilane/organosilane contain a significant amount of hydrogen, while the reference does not explicitly disclose the amount of hydrogen in the final product, it would be inherent in the silicon carbon composite particles to have at least 0.04 %wt. hydrogen as presently claimed. Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the relative amounts of each reactant, which would affect the final ratios of C, Si and H in the silicon carbon composite particles, in order to achieve the desired relative ratios for the C and Si resulting in an improved silicon carbide particle composition. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “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).
With respect to the limitations “the carbon content in an area beneath a surface of the particles […] is directly joined to the area beneath the surface of the particles”, Lyubina et al. in examples 2-3 a ratio of C/Si at the surface that is 16.8 or 49 but with a C/Si total that is 25 to 125 times smaller (see Table 1). Therefore, the content of C at the surface of the particle would be at least 3 wt% higher as presently claimed at the surface compared to a center of the particle as presently claimed.
Regarding claim 2, Lyubina et al. does not disclose the presence of chlorine in the silicon carbon composites or any reactants including chlorine and therefore chlorine would not be contained therein. Furthermore, since chlorine is not explicitly disclosed as being included, one of ordinary skill in the art would consider it an impurity and would optimize the content thereof to be as low as possible, including below 0.7 ppm-wt, in order to prevent unwanted disruption of the physical or chemical properties of the silicon carbon composite particles. Since
Regarding claim 3, Lyubina et al. discloses a particle size in the range of 300 nm or below. (par. [0032]).
Regarding claim 4, Lyubina et al. discloses amorphous SiH species and hydrogen containing materials. (par. [0031]-[0035]).
Regarding claims 5-6, given the difference of the C/Si ratios at the surface compared to the C/Si totals as disclosed in Table 1 and the range disclosed in par. [0028] of Lyubina et al., the Si content would be at least be 3 times higher at the center than on the surface thereof, which would overlap with the claimed ranges in claims 5-6. Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the relative amounts of each reactant, which would affect the final ratios of C, Si and H in the silicon carbon composite particles, in order to achieve the desired relative ratios for the C and Si resulting in an improved silicon carbide particle composition.
Regarding claims 7-8, the C/Si surface values in 3.5 or higher and can be modulated by control of the relative ratio of hydrocarbon to silicon compound containing gasses. (par. [0042]. [0044] and Table 1). The content of C at the surface relative to the center would therefore overlap with the presently claimed range. Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the relative amounts of each reactant, which would affect the final ratios of C, Si and H in the silicon carbon composite particles, in order to achieve the desired relative ratios for the C and Si resulting in an improved silicon carbide particle composition.
Regarding claim 9, the hydrocarbon material disclosed in Lyubina et al. would meet the limitation of an aliphatic carbon-hydrogen compound as claimed. (par. [0033-[0034]).
Regarding claim 10, while Lyubina et al. does not disclose the differential capacity as presently claimed, based on the substantially identical components used in the substantially identical amounts, the Examiner has a reasonable basis to believe that the properties claimed in the present invention is inherent in the composite resin disclosed by the reference. Because the PTO has no means to conduct analytical experiments, the burden of proof is shifted to the Applicants to prove that the properties are not inherent. See In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980); In re Best, 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977); In re Napier, 55 F.3d 610, 613, 34 USPQ2d 1782, 1784 (Fed. Cir. 1995).
Regarding claims 17-18 and 20, the carbon silicon particles are used in an anode for a secondary lithium ion battery. (par. [0002], [0004] and [0015]).
Regarding claim 19, Lyubina et al. discloses a particle size in the range of 300 nm or below. (par. [0032]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDRE F FERRE whose telephone number is (571)270-5763. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8 am to 4 pm ET.
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, Alicia Chevalier can be reached at 5712721490. 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.
/ALEXANDRE F FERRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1788 01/23/2026