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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pp. 11-13, filed December 11, 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-9 under 35 USC 102 and 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Xie et al. ("Electrochemical performances of Si-coated MCMB as anode material in lithium-ion cells," Materials Chemistry and Physics 88(2-3), pp. 295-299, December 2004).
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6, 7, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Xie et al. ("Electrochemical performances of Si-coated MCMB as anode material in lithium-ion cells," Materials Chemistry and Physics 88(2-3), pp. 295-299, December 2004) as evidenced by Münder et al. (“Investigation of different oxidation processes for porous Si by XPS”, Journal of Luminescence 57(1-6), pp. 223-226, November 1993) and "SEM-EDS Depth of Information" (retrieved from https://xpslibrary.com/sem-eds-information-depth/ on January 15, 2026, hereinafter referred to as "SEM-EDS").
Regarding claim 1, Xie teaches an anode for a lithium secondary battery comprising a current collector (copper foil), a carbon-particle-based (MCMB) active material layer on the current collector, and a silicon coating on the surface of the particles (Xie 2. Experimental). The particles comprise 0.05 at% Si as measured by EDX (Xie 3. Results and discussion).
Xie does not teach that the composition comprises 3-25 at% as measured by XPS. However, the coating is limited to the surface (Xie Abstract), and EDX measures to a depth approximately 30-500 times deeper than XPS (see figure in SEM-EDS), so the surface composition measured by XPS would include ~1.5-25 at% Si, which overlaps the range of the instant claim. 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).
Alternatively, Xie teaches that treatment time (and therefore the amount of Si deposited) should be optimized to improve capacity and cycling stability (Xie 4. Conclusions). “[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). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to determine the optimum treatment time and corresponding silicon content, including values within the range of the instant claim.
Xie does not teach the claimed XPS spectrum. Si particles are known to oxidize when exposed to the atmosphere (Münder 3. Results and Discussion), causing the XPS spectrum to move with additional peaks (from ~100 eV to ~103 eV; Münder Fig. 1 and Table 1). As Xie does not require protecting the anode from the atmosphere, the surface will necessarily oxidize over time during exposure with the accompanying change in XPS spectrum, including to values within the range of the instant claim. Si is known to have a peak around 100 eV, and Si-O is known to have peaks around 103 eV (Münder Fig. 1 and Table 1), each of which falls within the ranges of the instant claim.
Regarding claim 2, modified Xie does not teach that the composition comprises 3-11 at% as measured by XPS. However, the coating is limited to the surface (Xie Abstract), and EDX measures to a depth approximately 30-500 times deeper than XPS (see figure in SEM-EDS), so the surface composition measured by XPS would include ~1.5-25 at% Si, which overlaps the range of the instant claim. 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).
Alternatively, Xie teaches that treatment time (and therefore the amount of Si deposited) should be optimized to improve capacity and cycling stability (Xie 4. Conclusions). “[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). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to determine the optimum treatment time and corresponding silicon content, including values within the range of the instant claim.
Regarding claim 3, the electrodes of modified Xie are formed by drying a low-binder slurry of the carbon particles (Xie 2. Experimental), which will necessarily form a porous carbon scaffold.
Regarding claim 6, the electrodes of modified Xie are formed by drying a low-binder slurry of the carbon particles (Xie 2. Experimental), which will necessarily result in the carbon particles stacked on top of each other so that their surfaces are in contact.
Regarding claim 7, the Si coating is discontinuous, consisting at least partially of scattered particles (Xie 3. Results and discussion).
Regarding claim 9, Münder teaches that the lithium-ion batteries are typically made by assembling the anode with a lithium metal oxide cathode. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to use any conventional cathode, including a lithium metal cathode.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xie as evidenced by Münder and SEM-EDS as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Deng et al. ("Electrochemical performance of graphite anode with various electrode compressibilities for long-life Li-ion battery," Applied Physics A 121, pp. 123-129, August 2015).
Regarding claim 4, modified Xie teaches that the carbon-based active material particles comprise artificial graphite (mesocarbon microbeads; Xie 3. Results and discussion). Modified Xie does not teach the use of natural graphite. Deng teaches that mixtures of natural graphite and MCMBs demonstrate improved performance relative to either material alone (Deng Abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to add natural graphite particles to the synthetic graphite particles of modified Xie to improve performance.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xie as evidenced by Münder and SEM-EDS as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee et al. ("Performance enhancement of a lithium ion battery by incorporation of a graphene/polyvinylidene fluoride conductive adhesive layer between the current collector and the active material layer," Journal of Power Sources 244, pp. 721-725, December 2013).
Regarding claim 5, modified Xie does not teach that the amount of silicon at an outer surface of the anode is greater than an amount at an inside of the anode. Lee teaches that adding an adhesive layer comprising graphene and PVDF between the current collector and the carbon or silicon-carbon layer significantly improves cyclic performance (Lee Abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to add such an adhesive layer to the anode of modified Xie to improve cycling performance, which would necessarily result in a interior layer comprising less silicon than the surface.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES A CORNO JR whose telephone number is (571)270-0745. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 am - 5:00 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, 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.
/J.A.C/ Examiner, Art Unit 1722
/ANCA EOFF/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722