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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-16, 18-20, and 22 are currently pending;
Claims 17 and 21 are canceled;
Claims 1, 3, and 22 are currently amended.
Status of Rejections and Objections Pending Since the Office Action of 10/01/2025
The 102(a)(1) rejections of claims 1-2 and 9 have been replaced with 103 rejections in view of Xie in view of Liu and Hirose;
The 103 rejections of claims 3-6, 11-15, and 18 have been replaced with 103 rejections in view of Xie in view of Liu and Hirose;
The 103 rejections of claims 7-8 and 19-20 have been replaced with new 103 rejections in view of Xie n view of Liu, Hirose, and Ma;
The 103 rejections of claims 10 and 22 have been replaced with new 103 rejections in view of Xie n view of Liu, Hirose, and Wu;
The 103 rejection of claim 16 has been replaced with a new 103 rejection in view of Xie in view of Liu, Hirose, and KR ‘829.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/17/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In regards to Applicant’s argument that none of Xie Ma, Wu, Hirose, or Kr ‘829 alone or in any combination discloses the newly added limitation of “wherein the silicon-based lithium storage material has a LiF peak intensity A2 and a Li2SiO3 peak intensity A1 in a X-ray diffraction measurement using CuK α rays, and 0 < A2/A1 < 0.45” in claim 1, lines 5-7 is not persuasive. Given that the instant specification states that this newly added limitation is the result of the method described in instant paragraphs [0060]-[0080] resulting in “a silicon-based lithium storage material with a first shell layer (including a carbon material layer and a fluorocarbon layer) and a second shell layer” (instant specification [0080]), it would be obvious that, given the same method, as Xie in view of Liu and Hirose generally describes, that the resulting material would inherently possess the newly added limitation of “wherein the silicon-based lithium storage material has a LiF peak intensity A2 and a Li2SiO3 peak intensity A1 in a X-ray diffraction measurement using CuK α rays, and 0 < A2/A1 < 0.45.”
Claim Objections
Claims 11 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 11 includes the limitation “an inner core material” in line 3 that should be corrected to “the inner core material”, as “an inner core material” is already introduced in claim 1, line 2, upon which claim 11 now depends;
Claim 11 includes the limitation “a fluorocarbon layer” in line 8 that should be corrected to “the fluorocarbon layer”, as “a fluorocarbon layer” is already introduced in claim 1, line 4, upon which claim 11 now depends;
Claims 11 includes the limitation “a first shell layer” in line 8 that should be corrected to “the first shell layer”, as “a first shell layer” is already introduced in claim 1, line 3, upon which claim 11 now depends.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-16. 18-20, and 22 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. Regarding claim 1, it is unclear to the examiner how the newly added limitation of “wherein the silicon-based lithium storage material has a LiF peak intensity A2 and a Li2SiO3 peak intensity A1 in a X-ray diffraction measurement using CuK α rays, and 0 < A2/A1 < 0.45” in lines 5-7 is possible with just a first shell layer comprising a fluorocarbon layer as is claimed in claim 1. The instant specification in paragraphs 80-81 states “The silicon-based lithium storage material with a first shell layer (including a carbon material layer and a fluorocarbon layer) and a second shell layer…..was tested, and the results are as follows….0<A2/A1<0.45”. Therefore, in order to have the newly added limitation in the claim, the claim must also include the carbon material layer and the second shell layer. Since the claim language of claim 1 fails to include the carbon material layer and the second shell layer, it is unclear how the newly added limitation is possible. As such, claim 1 is rejected. Claims 2-16, 18-20, and 22 are rejected based on their dependency on claim 1.
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.
Claims 1-6, 9, 11, 13-15, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xie et al. (CN-109167031-A), hereinafter Xie, in view of Liu et al. (CN-109728259-A), hereinafter Liu and Hirose et al. (US-20160336592-A1), hereinafter Hirose.
Regarding claim 1, Xie teaches a silicon-based lithium storage material, characterized in that, comprising: an inner core, comprising silicon elements ([0016] silicon nanoparticles as the core) with a valence of 0-4 ([0041] zero-valent); and a first shell layer, the first shell layer covers or partially covers the inner core, the first shell layer comprises a fluorocarbon layer, and the fluorocarbon layer comprises a fluorocarbon ([0016] carbon fluoride as the outer shell).
Xie fails to teach wherein the silicon-based lithium storage material has a LiF peak intensity A2 and a Li2SiO3 peak intensity A1 in a X-ray diffraction measurement using CuK α rays, and 0 < A2/A1 < 0.45.
Xie does teach a preparation method for a silicon-based lithium storage material, comprising: providing an inner core material, wherein the inner core material comprises silicon elements with a valence of 0-4 ([0027];[0041] step 1); depositing a carbon material on the surface of the inner core material to form a carbon material layer ([0028] step 2 forming amorphous carbon coating).
Xie fails to teach carrying out a fluorination treatment with the carbon material layer enabling all or part of the carbon material layer to convert into a fluorocarbon layer to form a first shell layer. Instead, Xie teaches mixing the amorphous carbon coated silicon nanoparticles with carbon fluoride and ball milling to form the fluorocarbon layer ([0029]).
Liu is considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of silicon based electrode material ([0002]). Liu teaches carrying out a fluorination treatment with the carbon material layer enabling all or part of the carbon material layer to convert into a fluorocarbon layer to form a first shell layer ([0021]; [0052]). Liu also teaches in another embodiment that the fluorocarbon layer can be formed by directly taking the fluorine-carbon material and forming it on the carbon material layer such as will high energy ball milling ([0053]), in a similar manner as Xie.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, that the method of forming the fluorocarbon layer of Xie can be replaced with the method of forming the fluorocarbon layer of Liu by carrying out a fluorination treatment with the carbon material layer, yielding the same result. The fluorination treatment with the carbon material layer of Liu yields the predictable result of forming the fluorocarbon layer.
Xie in view of Liu fails to teach that placing the inner core material coated with the first shell layer in a lithium solution; removing the solvent of the lithium solution after the inner core material coated with the first shell adsorbs the lithium solution; carrying out heat treatment process to enable the lithium ions in the lithium solution to react with the inner core material, and a lithium compound is attached to the surface of the first shell layer; and cooling the lithium compound and the first shell layer to a specific temperature, carrying out fluorination treatment on the lithium compound to convert the lithium compound into lithium fluoride compound, and forming a second shell layer on the surface of the first shell layer, and that after the heat treatment process, the lithium ions reacts with the inner core material to form lithium silicate, and the lithium compound attached to the surface of the first shell layer includes at least one of lithium hydroxide and lithium carbonate.
Hirose is considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of silicon based active materials ([0040]). Hirose teaches that placing the inner core material coated with the first shell layer in a lithium solution ([0145] a powder storage container containing the silicon oxide powder is put in an apparatus filled with an organic solvent and a lithium source); removing the solvent of the lithium solution after the inner core material coated with the first shell adsorbs the lithium solution (not explicitly taught but implied as the active material must then be mixed with binder and conductive additives and mixed with a different solvent [0151] before application to a current collector [0152]); carrying out heat treatment process to enable the lithium ions in the lithium solution to react with the inner core material, and a lithium compound is attached to the surface of the first shell layer ([0152] heat press); and cooling the lithium compound and the first shell layer to a specific temperature, carrying out fluorination treatment on the lithium compound to convert the lithium compound into lithium fluoride compound, and forming a second shell layer on the surface of the first shell layer ([0147] fluorine compound is formed by changing potential and temperature conditions, keeping the temperature at 45°C or higher) and that after the heat treatment process, the lithium ions reacts with the inner core material to form lithium silicate ([0101] lithium silicate), and the lithium compound attached to the surface of the first shell layer includes at least one of lithium hydroxide and lithium carbonate ([0114]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Xie to include the claimed process and create a second shell layer such as in Hirose. Doing so improves the battery performance (Hirose [0045]).
Given the same method of preparing the silicon-based storage material including a first shell layer, comprising a carbon material layer and a fluorocarbon layer, and a second shell layer as described in paragraphs [0060]-[0080] of the instant specification, it would be obvious to someone or ordinary skill in the art that the resulting silicon-based storage material would inherently have a LiF peak intensity A2 and a Li2SiO3 peak intensity A1 in a X-ray diffraction measurement using CuK α rays, and 0 < A2/A1 < 0.45 (as evidenced by paragraphs [0080]-[0081] of the instant specification).
Regarding claim 2, modified Xie teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Xie also teaches wherein the first shell layer further comprises a carbon material layer, the carbon material layer is located between the inner core and the fluorocarbon layer, and the carbon material layer comprises a carbon material ([0016] amorphous carbon as the middle layer).
Regarding claim 3, modified Xie teaches all of the limitations of claim 2. Xie does not specifically teach that wherein 0<NF/NC≤1.5, wherein NF is the molar amount of fluorine in the first shell layer, and NC is the molar amount of carbon in the first shell layer. Xie does teach that the fluorine content in the carbon fluoride is 5 to 65 wt% ([0021]), and the carbon fluoride is 1 to 15 wt% ([0019]). Therefore the fluoride content ranges from 0.05 wt% to 9.75 wt%. Further, the amorphous carbon is 1-20 wt% ([0018]). Considering the first shell layer includes both the fluorocarbon and carbon material layer, in total Xie teaches the first shell layer to have a fluorine content of 0.05 to 9.75 wt% to a carbon content of 6.25 wt% to 34.95 wt% based on the total weight of the silicon carbon composite material. It would be obvious to someone or ordinary skill in the art that the molar ratio NF/NC would overlap with the claimed range of 0<NF/NC≤1.5 given these weight ranges. 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).
Regarding claim 4, modified Xie teaches all of the limitations of claim 3. Xie also teaches that wherein the carbon material includes at least one of amorphous carbon or graphitized carbon ([0016] amorphous carbon).
Regarding claim 5, modified Xie teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Xie also teaches that the mass of the first shell layer accounts for 0.5%-10% of the total mass of the silicon-based lithium storage material ([0019] the content of carbon fluoride is 1 to 15%). 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).
Regarding claim 6, modified Xie teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Xie also teaches that the thickness of the first shell layer is between 1nm and 50nm ([0023] thickness of the outer shell is 1 to 10 nm). 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).
Regarding claim 9, modified Xie teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Modified Xie also teaches that further comprising a second shell layer, the second shell layer covers or partially covers the first shell layer, and the second shell layer comprises a lithium fluoride compound (Xie [0017]; [0021] lithium fluoride is obtained during charging/discharging to create a film on the outermost carbon fluoride layer; alternatively, Hirose [0045]; [0147]).
Regarding claim 11, modified Xie teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Modified Xie also teaches a preparation method for a silicon-based lithium storage material, comprising: providing an inner core material, wherein the inner core material comprises silicon elements with a valence of 0-4 (Xie [0027];[0041] step 1); depositing a carbon material on the surface of the inner core material to form a carbon material layer (Xie [0028] step 2 forming amorphous carbon coating), carrying out a fluorination treatment with the carbon material layer enabling all or part of the carbon material layer to convert into a fluorocarbon layer to form a first shell layer (Liu [0021]; [0052]).
Regarding claim 12, modified Xie teaches all of the limitations of claim 11. Modified Xie teaches wherein the fluorination treatment is carried out on the carbon material layer with fluorine-containing gas (Liu [0054] F2).
Xie does not specifically teach that wherein 0<NF/NC≤1.5, wherein NF is the molar amount of fluorine in the first shell layer, and NC is the molar amount of carbon in the first shell layer. Xie does teach that the fluorine content in the carbon fluoride is 5 to 65 wt% (Xie [0021]), and the carbon fluoride is 1 to 15 wt% (Xie [0019]). Therefore the fluoride content ranges from 0.05 wt% to 9.75 wt%. Further, the amorphous carbon is 1-20 wt% (Xie [0018]). Considering the first shell layer includes both the fluorocarbon and carbon material layer, in total Xie teaches the first shell layer to have a fluorine content of 0.05 to 9.75 wt% to a carbon content of 6.25 wt% to 34.95 wt% based on the total weight of the silicon carbon composite material. It would be obvious to someone or ordinary skill in the art that the molar ratio NF/NC would overlap with the claimed range of 0<NF/NC≤1.5 given these weight ranges. 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).
Regarding claim 13, modified Xie teaches all of the limitations of claim 12. Modified Xie also teaches that the fluorine-containing gas includes at least one of F2, NF3 and CIF3 (Liu [0054] F2).
Regarding claim 14, modified Xie teaches all of the limitations of claim 12. Modified Xie also teaches that the temperature of the fluorination treatment is 20°C-600°C (Liu [0054] 200-300°C). 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).
Regarding claim 15, modified Xie teaches all of the limitations of claim 11. Modified Xie also teaches that placing the inner core material coated with the first shell layer in a lithium solution (Hirose [0145] a powder storage container containing the silicon oxide powder is put in an apparatus filled with an organic solvent and a lithium source); removing the solvent of the lithium solution after the inner core material coated with the first shell adsorbs the lithium solution Hirose; (not explicitly taught but implied as the active material must then be mixed with binder and conductive additives and mixed with a different solvent [0151] before application to a current collector [0152]); carrying out heat treatment process to enable the lithium ions in the lithium solution to react with the inner core material, and a lithium compound is attached to the surface of the first shell layer (Hirose [0152] heat press); and cooling the lithium compound and the first shell layer to a specific temperature, carrying out fluorination treatment on the lithium compound to convert the lithium compound into lithium fluoride compound, and forming a second shell layer on the surface of the first shell layer (Hirose [0147] fluorine compound is formed by changing potential and temperature conditions, keeping the temperature at 45°C or higher).
Regarding claim 18, modified Xie teaches all of the limitations of claim 15. Modified Xie also teaches that after the heat treatment process, the lithium ions reacts with the inner core material to form lithium silicate (Hirose [0101] lithium silicate), and the lithium compound attached to the surface of the first shell layer includes at least one of lithium hydroxide and lithium carbonate (Hirose [0114]).
Claims 7-8 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xie in view of Liu and Hirose as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Ma et al. (CN-111149242-A), hereinafter Ma.
Regarding claim 7, Xie teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Xie fails to teach the inner core further comprises a doping element R, the doping element R comprises at least one of elements of main group I-VI, wherein 0≤NR/NSi(0~4)≤1.5, NR is the molar amount of the doping element R, and NSi(0~4) is the molar amount of silicon elements with a valence of 0-4.
Ma is considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of silicon-based lithium storage material (pg. 4 Technical Field). Ma teaches that the inner core further comprises a doping element R, the doping element R comprises at least one of elements of main group I-VI, wherein 0≤NR/NSi(0~4)≤1.5, NR is the molar amount of the doping element R, and NSi(0~4) is the molar amount of silicon elements with a valence of 0-4 (Abstract; pgs. 4-5 Summary of Invention).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Xie and incorporate a doping element such as in Ma. Doing so helps improve the properties of the silicon-based lithium storage material under high temperature storage conditions and also improves the battery’s cycle characteristics (Ma pg. 11, third paragraph from the bottom of the page).
Regarding claim 8, modified Xie teaches all of the limitations of claim 7. Xie fails to teach the doping element R includes at least one of O, N, C, Li, Mg, Ca, Al, P and Be.
Ma is considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of silicon-based lithium storage material (pg. 4 Technical Field). Ma teaches that the doping element R includes at least one of O, N, C, Li, Mg, Ca, Al, P and Be (pg. 5 Summary of Invention the I, II, III main group elements include Li, Na, Mg, Ca, or Al).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Xie and incorporate a doping element such as in Ma. Doing so helps improve the properties of the silicon-based lithium storage material under high temperature storage conditions and also improves the battery’s cycle characteristics (Ma pg. 11, third paragraph from the bottom of the page).
Regarding claim 19, modified Xie teaches all of the limitations of claim 11. Xie fails to teach the inner core further comprises a doping element R, the doping element R comprises at least one of elements of main group I-VI, wherein 0≤NR/NSi(0~4)≤1.5, NR is the molar amount of the doping element R, and NSi(0~4) is the molar amount of silicon elements with a valence of 0-4.
Ma is considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of silicon-based lithium storage material (pg. 4 Technical Field). Ma teaches that the inner core further comprises a doping element R, the doping element R comprises at least one of elements of main group I-VI, wherein 0≤NR/NSi(0~4)≤1.5, NR is the molar amount of the doping element R, and NSi(0~4) is the molar amount of silicon elements with a valence of 0-4 (Abstract; pgs. 4-5 Summary of Invention).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Xie and incorporate a doping element such as in Ma. Doing so helps improve the properties of the silicon-based lithium storage material under high temperature storage conditions and also improves the battery’s cycle characteristics (Ma pg. 11, third paragraph from the bottom of the page).
Regarding claim 20, modified Xie teaches all of the limitations of claim 19. Xie fails to teach the doping element R includes at least one of O, N, C, Li, Mg, Ca, Al, P and Be.
Ma is considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of silicon-based lithium storage material (pg. 4 Technical Field). Ma teaches that the doping element R includes at least one of O, N, C, Li, Mg, Ca, Al, P and Be (pg. 5 Summary of Invention; the I, II, III main group elements include Li, Na, Mg, Ca, or Al).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Xie and incorporate a doping element such as in Ma. Doing so helps improve the properties of the silicon-based lithium storage material under high temperature storage conditions and also improves the battery’s cycle characteristics (Ma pg. 11, third paragraph from the bottom of the page).
Claims 10 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xie in view of Liu and Hirose as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Wu et al. (CN-110800142-A), hereinafter Wu.
Regarding claim 10, Xie teaches all of the limitations of claim 9. Xie fails to teach that the mass of the second shell layer accounts for 0.1%-2% of the total mass of the silicon-based lithium storage material.
Wu is considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of silicon based electrode active materials. Wu teaches that the mass of the second shell layer accounts for 0.1%-2% of the total mass of the silicon-based lithium storage material ([0020] 0.1-3 wt%). 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).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Xie such that the mass of the second shell layer accounts for 0.1% to 2% of the total mass of the silicon-based lithium storage material. Doing so provides significantly improved battery life characteristics and can minimize the reduction of the discharge capacity per unit weight (Wu [0043]).
Regarding claim 22, modified Xie teaches all of the limitations of claim 11. Xie also teaches that the mass of the first shell layer accounts for 0.5%-10% of the total mass of the silicon-based lithium storage material ([0019] the content of carbon fluoride is 1 to 15%; [0018] amorphous carbon is 1-20 wt%; considering the first shell layer includes both the fluorocarbon and carbon material layer, in total the first shell layer is 1.5wt% to 30 wt%). 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).
Xie fails to teach that the mass of the second shell layer accounts for 0.1%-2% of the total mass of the silicon-based lithium storage material.
Wu is considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of silicon based electrode active materials. Wu teaches that the mass of the second shell layer accounts for 0.1%-2% of the total mass of the silicon-based lithium storage material ([0020] 0.1-3 wt%). 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).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Xie such that the mass of the second shell layer accounts for 0.1% to 2% of the total mass of the silicon-based lithium storage material. Doing so provides significantly improved battery life characteristics and can minimize the reduction of the discharge capacity per unit weight (Wu [0043]).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xie in view of Liu and Hirose, as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of KR-101049829-B1, hereinafter KR ‘829)
Regarding claim 16, modified Xie teaches all of the limitations of claim 15. Xie fails to teach that the solvent of the lithium solution comprises at least one of naphthalene, anthracene, tetrahydrofuran and N-methylpyrrolidone.
KR ‘829 is considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of negative electrode active materials (pg. 1 paragraph 3). KR ‘829 teaches that the solvent of the lithium solution comprises at least one of naphthalene, anthracene, tetrahydrofuran and N-methylpyrrolidone (pg. 7 tetrahydrofuran; dissolving an organic salt in a solvent such as alcohol, water, or tetrahydrofuran and adding the carbon-coated Si based material; pg. 3 bottom of page salt such as lithium carbonate).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art to replace the solvent (ethanol or water) used in modified Xie with the tetrahydrofuran of KR ‘829 as they are art recognized equivalents for the same purpose. "It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art." In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 MADISON L KYLE whose telephone number is (571)272-0164. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9 AM - 5 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, Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at (571) 272-3433. 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.
/M.L.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1722
/NIKI BAKHTIARI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1722