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 § 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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishikubo (US 2015/0132646).
With respect to claims 1, 2, 5, and 9 Nishikubo teaches an electrically conductive metal core (Fig 7a, 63) having a first average particle size at room temperature (para 145, 2-500nm); and a plurality of silicon or silicon compound particles (65), having a second average particle size and distributed on the surface of electrically conductive metal core (para 149, silicon oxide having thickness of 0.5nm to 15nm), wherein the silicon or silicon compound particles are directly contacted to an outer surface of the electrically conductive metal core (fig. 7a, 63 and 65 and unshown silicon oxide) parts of the silicon or silicon compound particles are embedded into the electrically conductive metal core (fig. 7a, 63 and 65 and unshown silicon oxide), and the electrically conductive metal core serves as the common internal electrically conductive element of the silicon or silicon compound particles (para. 138). Nishikubo teaches wherein the electrically conductive metal core is composed of a metal with a low melting point, which is lower than 232°C (para 138).
Nishikubo does not explicitly teach the first average particle size is more than ten times the second; the particle sizes within the claimed ranges; or the claimed coverage. However, Nishikubo teaches its metal core is around 2-500nm and that its silicon oxide has a thickness of 0.5nm to 15nm in order to form a nanosized particle for its negative electrode (para 101) .
Thus, it would have been within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art to employ a metal core towards the higher end of the range and a silicon oxide thickness towards the lower end of the range in order to form a nanosized particle for a negative electrode (para 101). Once the combination is made, at least 50% of an outer surface of the electrically conductive metal core are covered by the silicon or silicon compound particles (see, for example, Fig. 1a). Additionally, the resulting particle sizes would be within the claimed ranges required by claims 5 and 10.
With respect to claim 3, Nishikubo teaches the electrically conductive metal core is may be indium, tin, aluminum, bismuth or germanium (para 138). Although Nishikubo does not teach mixing at least two of the materials, Nishikubo teaches the individual metals and that the sixth phase may be “at least one,” which is known include 2 or more. Thus, it would have been within the skill of one of ordinary skill In the art to mix at least two of the metals indium, tin, aluminum, bismuth or germanium in order to form a sixth phase (Nishikubo, para 138).
With respect to claim 4, Nishikubo teaches the material of silicon oxide (para 149).
With respect to claim 6, Nishikubo teaches a sixth phase 654 and makes no mention of pores. (para 138 and/or 144). As such the examiner interprets Nishikubo as not having pores.
With respect to claim 7, Nishikubo teaches the electrically conductive metal core is capable of alloying with lithium ions at a first electric potential, and the silicon or silicon compound particles are capable of alloying with the lithium ions at a second electric potential, wherein the first electric potential is higher than the second electric potential (Nishikubo para 138, 144 and 149, where Nishikubo discloses a lithium reaction site for its sixth phase 63 and makes no mention of reaction for its oxidized silicon such that it has a lower electric potential). As far as the claimed capability, it is the examiner’s position that since Nishikubo teaches the same or substantially the same particles/compounds, the claimed properties would necessarily flow from the particles/compounds. (see Nishikubo, paras 30 and 31).
With respect to claim 8, Nishikubo does not explicitly teach in the relied-upon portions above a carbon conductive agent to an outer surface in this embodiment, however Nishikubo teaches that it is known to use carbon as a conducting agent (para 80 and and Fig 1b, item 6). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add Nishikubo’s carbon conductive agent to the outer surface of the core to improve electrical conductivity (Nishikubo, para 81).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/4/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Nishikubo does not teach or suggest the claimed thicknesses. The examiner disagrees. It is well settled that the description of the article pictured can be relied on, in combination with the drawings, for what they would reasonably teach one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2125. In the instant case, Nishikubo teaches in Fig. 7a a larger element 63 than element 65, which together forms item 61. Nishikubo also teaches a particle diameter 61 from 2-500nm (para 145). Nishikubo further teaches silicon oxide ranging from 0.1 micrometers to 50 micrometers. Thus, as stated in the office action, it would have been within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the diameters of elements 63 and 65 and make the diameter of element 63 larger than the diameter of element 65 such that the average particle sizes would have been within the claimed ranges.
With respect to Applicant’s arguments that Nishikubo’s element 63 is not equivalent to the electrically conductive metal core of claim 1, the examiner notes that while Nishikubo’s element 63 may not be identical to applicant’s, Nishikubo does include known electrically conductive metals such as In. The examiner notes that applicant has not shown that element 63 is not electrically conductive.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JONATHAN J JOHNSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1177. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 6:30 AM - 3 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, Alexa Neckel can be reached at 571-272-2450. 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.
JONATHAN JOHNSON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1734
/JONATHAN JOHNSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734
Prosecution Insights