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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 11/04/2025 has been entered. Claims 1, and 19-20 are amended, Claims 2, 7, 9-10, 25, and 27-28 are canceled, and Claims 1, 3-6, 8, 11-24, 26 and 29-30 are pending.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 11/04/2025 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of any patent granted on Application Number 18/092,166 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
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, 3-5, 8-9, 11-24, and 26-30, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goodman et al. (US 20210313562 A1), hereinafter, “Goodman” in view of Hatazawa et al. (US 20190148718 A1), hereinafter “Hatazawa”. Goodman and Hatazawa et al. are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely composite anode materials.
In regard to Claim 1, Goodman et al. discloses a composite anode for an electrochemical cell (Goodman, Abstract) that comprises silicon or an alloy thereof in an amount of 10 wt% to about 90 wt% of the composite anode (Goodman, Paragraph [0018]), which overlaps the claimed range, and a solid electrolyte material in an amount from about 90 wt% to about 10 wt% of the composite anode (Goodman, Paragraph [0018]), which overlaps the claimed range. Goodman et al. also discloses a binder in an amount from about 1 wt% to about 15 wt% of the composite anode (Goodman, Paragraph [0037]), which falls within the claimed range.
Further, Goodman et al. discloses wherein the silicon has a particle size from about 50 nm to about 300 nm (Goodman, Paragraph [0019]), which falls within the claimed range. Goodman et al. also discloses wherein the silicon has a crystallite size from about 5 nm to about 50 nm (Goodman, Paragraph [0024]), which overlaps the claimed range. Lastly, while Goodman et al. discloses many characteristics of the silicon composite anode, it is silent as to the surface area of the silicon.
Hatazawa et al. discloses a composite anode comprising silicon, a solid electrolyte, and a binder (Hatazawa, Paragraph [0018, 0150]) and further discloses wherein the silicon may comprise at least 99% or more of the porous particles (i) (Hatazawa, [0026]), and wherein the porous particles (i) have a preferred surface area from about 10 m2/g to about 50 m2/g (Hatazawa, Paragraph [0068]), which overlaps the claimed range. Hatazawa et al. also discloses that a surface area which is too low results in unacceptably low charging rate and capacity due to the inaccessibility of the bulk of the electroactive material to metal ions in the surrounding electrolyte, and a very high BET surface area is also known to be disadvantageous due to the formation of a solid electrolyte interphase (SEI) layer at the anode surface during the first charge-discharge cycle of the battery (Hatazawa, [0069]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide a silicon with a surface area that falls within the range taught in Hatazawa et al., as doing so would give the skilled artisan the reasonable expectation of achieving the benefits taught in Hatazawa and as doing so would amount to nothing more than a variation of it for use in the same field based on design incentives or other market forces as the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
In regard to Claim 3, Goodman in view of Hatazawa et al. discloses the composite anode of claim 1. Goodman et al. also discloses wherein the silicon has a particle size from about 50 nm to about 80 nm (Goodman, Paragraph [0019]), which overlaps the claimed range. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obvious. 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). See MPEP § 2144.05.
In regard to Claims 4-5, Goodman in view of Hatazawa et al. et al. discloses the composite anode of claim 1. Goodman et al. also discloses the composite further comprising a conductive additive, comprising a conductive carbon, in an amount of about 0 wt% to about 15 wt% of the composite anode, which is identical to the claimed range (Goodman, Paragraph [0027]).
In regard to Claim 8, Goodman in view of Hatazawa et al. et al. discloses the composite anode of claim 1. Goodman et al. also discloses wherein the silicon has a crystallite size from about 5 nm to about 50 nm, which overlaps the claimed range (Goodman, Paragraph [0024]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obvious. 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). See MPEP § 2144.05.
In regard to Claim 11, Goodman in view of Hatazawa et al. discloses the composite anode of claim 1, While Goodman et al. discloses many characteristics of the silicon composite anode, it is silent as to the surface area of the silicon.
Hatazawa et al. discloses a composite anode comprising silicon, a solid electrolyte, and a binder (Hatazawa, Paragraph [0018, 0150]) and further discloses wherein the silicon may comprise at least 99% or more of the porous particles (i) (Hatazawa, [0026]), and wherein the porous particles (i) have a preferred surface area from about 10 m2/g to about 50 m2/g (Hatazawa, Paragraph [0068]), which overlaps the claimed range. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obvious. 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). See MPEP § 2144.05.
In regard to Claim 12, Goodman in view of Hatazawa et al. discloses the composite anode of claim 1, however, Goodman et al. is silent as to the density of the composite anode. Hatazawa et al. discloses a composite anode comprising silicon, binder, electrolyte, and conductive material (Hatazawa, Paragraph [0010]) and further discloses wherein the composite anode has a density in the range of from 0.6 to 1.8 g/cm3 which overlaps the claimed range (Hatazawa, Paragraph [0091]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obvious. 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). See MPEP § 2144.05.
In regard to Claim 13, Goodman in view of Hatazawa et al. discloses the composite anode of claim 1 however, Goodman et al. is silent as to the composite anode further comprising an anode active material including tin, germanium, graphite, Li4Ti5O12, hard carbons, or combinations thereof. Hatazawa et al. discloses an electroactive material selected from silicon, silicon oxide germanium, tin, aluminum and mixtures thereof and a plurality of carbon particles selected from one or more of graphite, soft carbon and hard carbon (Hatazawa, Abstract) with the benefits of an increase in the capacity of the active layer compared to an active layer comprising only conventional carbon particles, while minimizing any increase in the volume of the active layer (Hatazawa, Paragraph [0021]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide anode active materials as disclosed in Hatazawa et al. to the composite anode disclosed in Goodman, as doing so would give the skilled artisan the reasonable expectation of achieving the results taught in Hatazawa et al. and as doing so would be nothing more than the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way.
In regard to Claims 14-15, Goodman in view of Hatazawa et al. discloses the composite anode of claim 1, however, Goodman et al. is silent as to the composite anode further comprising an anode active material including tin, germanium, graphite, Li4Ti5O12, hard carbons, or combinations thereof. Hatazawa et al. discloses an electroactive material selected from silicon, silicon oxide germanium, tin, aluminum and mixtures thereof and a plurality of carbon particles selected from one or more of graphite, soft carbon and hard carbon (Hatazawa, Abstract) with the benefits of an increase in the capacity of the active material layer compared to an active material layer comprising only conventional carbon particles, while minimizing any increase in the volume of the active layer (Hatazawa, Paragraph [0021]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide anode active materials as disclosed in Hatazawa et al. to the composite anode disclosed in Goodman, as doing so would give the skilled artisan the reasonable expectation of achieving the results taught in Hatazawa et al. and as doing so would be nothing more than the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way.
In regard to Claim 16, Goodman in view of Hatazawa et al. discloses the composite anode of claim 1. Goodman et al. discloses a silicon crystallite size in a range of 5 nm to about 50 nm (Goodman, Paragraph [0024]), however Goodman is silent as to the surface area of the silicon. Hatazawa et al. discloses a surface area of the silicon in a beneficial range of 10 m2/g to about 50 m2/g (Hatazawa, Paragraph [0068]). The ratio of crystallite size disclosed in Goodman to the surface area disclosed in Hatazawa (nm:m2/g) is from about 0.5:1 to about 1:1 which overlaps the claimed range. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obvious. 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). See MPEP § 2144.05.
In regard to Claim 17, Goodman in view of Hatazawa et al. et al. discloses the composite anode of claim 1. Goodman et al. discloses a silicon crystallite size in a range of 5 nm to about 50 nm (Goodman, Paragraph [0024]) and a particle size of about 50 nm to about 300 nm (Goodman, Paragraph [0019]). The ratio of crystallite size to the particle size disclosed in Goodman (nm:nm) is from about 1:10 to about 1:6 which overlaps the claimed range. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obvious. 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). See MPEP § 2144.05.
In regard to Claim 18, Goodman in view of Hatazawa et al. discloses the composite anode of claim 1. Goodman et al. also discloses a particle size in a range of 5 nm to about 300 nm (Goodman, Paragraph [0019]), however Goodman is silent as to the surface area of the silicon. Hatazawa et al. discloses a surface area of the silicon in a beneficial range of 10 m2/g to about 50 m2/g (Hatazawa, Paragraph [0068]). The ratio of particle size disclosed in Goodman to surface area disclosed in Hatazawa (m2/g:nm) is from about 1:2 to about 6:1 which overlaps the claimed range. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obvious. 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). See MPEP § 2144.05.
In regard to Claim 19, Goodman in view of Hatazawa et al. et al. discloses a composite anode for an electrochemical cell (Goodman, Abstract) that comprises silicon or an alloy thereof in an amount of 10 wt. % to about 90 wt. % of the composite anode which overlaps the claimed range, and a solid electrolyte material in an amount from about 90 wt% to about 10 wt% of the composite anode, which overlaps the claimed range (Goodman, Paragraph [0018]). Goodman et al. also discloses a binder in an amount from about 1 wt% to about 15 wt% of the composite anode, which overlaps the claimed range ((Goodman, Paragraph [0037]). Further, Goodman et al. discloses wherein the silicon has the following properties: a particle size from about 50 nm to about 300 nm which overlaps the claimed range (Goodman, Paragraph [0019]) and a crystallite size from about 5 nm to about 50 nm which overlaps the claimed range (Goodman, Paragraph [0024]). While Goodman et al. discloses many characteristics of the silicon composite anode, it is silent as to the surface area of the silicon.
Hatazawa et al. discloses a composite anode comprising silicon, a solid electrolyte, and a binder (Hatazawa, Paragraph [0018, 0150]) and further discloses wherein the silicon may comprise at least 99% or more of the porous particles (i) (Hatazawa, [0026]), and wherein the porous particles (i) have a preferred surface area from about 10 m2/g to about 50 m2/g (Hatazawa, Paragraph [0068]), which overlaps the claimed range. Hatazawa et al. also discloses that a surface area which is too low results in unacceptably low charging rate and capacity due to the inaccessibility of the bulk of the electroactive material to metal ions in the surrounding electrolyte, and a very high BET surface area is also known to be disadvantageous due to the formation of a solid electrolyte interphase (SEI) layer at the anode surface during the first charge-discharge cycle of the battery (Hatazawa, [0069]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide a silicon with a surface area that falls within the range taught in Hatazawa et al., as doing so would give the skilled artisan the reasonable expectation of achieving the benefits taught in Hatazawa and as doing so would amount to nothing more than a variation of it for use in the same field based on design incentives or other market forces as the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
In regard to Claim 20, Goodman et al. discloses an electrochemical cell comprising a composite anode for an electrochemical cell (Goodman, Abstract) that comprises silicon or an alloy thereof in an amount of 10 wt. % to about 90 wt. % of the composite anode, which overlaps the claimed range, and a solid electrolyte material in an amount from about 90 wt% to about 10 wt% of the composite anode, which overlaps the claimed range (Goodman, Paragraph [0018]). Goodman et al. also discloses a binder in an amount from about 1 wt% to about 15 wt% of the composite anode, which overlaps the claimed range (Goodman, Paragraph [0037]). Further, Goodman et al. discloses a cathode and electrolyte layer (Goodman, Paragraph 0034, 0039]). While Goodman et al. discloses many characteristics of the silicon composite anode, it is silent as to the surface area of the silicon.
Hatazawa et al. discloses a composite anode comprising silicon, a solid electrolyte, and a binder (Hatazawa, Paragraph [0018, 0150]) and further discloses wherein the silicon may comprise at least 99% or more of the porous particles (i) (Hatazawa, [0026]), and wherein the porous particles (i) have a preferred surface area from about 10 m2/g to about 50 m2/g (Hatazawa, Paragraph [0068]), which overlaps the claimed range. Hatazawa et al. also discloses that a surface area which is too low results in unacceptably low charging rate and capacity due to the inaccessibility of the bulk of the electroactive material to metal ions in the surrounding electrolyte, and a very high BET surface area is also known to be disadvantageous due to the formation of a solid electrolyte interphase (SEI) layer at the anode surface during the first charge-discharge cycle of the battery (Hatazawa, [0069]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide a silicon with a surface area that falls within the range taught in Hatazawa et al., as doing so would give the skilled artisan the reasonable expectation of achieving the benefits taught in Hatazawa and as doing so would amount to nothing more than a variation of it for use in the same field based on design incentives or other market forces as the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
In regard to Claims 21-22, Goodman in view of Hatazawa et al. discloses the composite anode of claim 20. Goodman et al. also discloses wherein the silicon has a particle size from about 50 nm to about 300 nm, which overlaps the claimed ranges (Goodman, Paragraph [0019])]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obvious. 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). See MPEP § 2144.05.
In regard to Claims 23-24, Goodman in view of Hatazawa et al. discloses the composite anode of claim 20. Goodman et al. also discloses the composite further comprising a conductive additive comprising a conductive carbon in an amount of about 0 wt% to about 15 wt% of the composite anode, which overlaps the claimed range (Goodman, Paragraph [0027]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obvious. 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). See MPEP § 2144.05.
In regard to Claims 25-26, Goodman in view of Hatazawa et al. discloses the composite anode of claim 20. Goodman et al. also discloses wherein the silicon has a crystallite size from about 5 nm to about 50 nm which overlaps the claimed ranges (Goodman, Paragraph [0024]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obvious. 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). See MPEP § 2144.05.
In regard to Claims 27-29, Goodman in view of Hatazawa et al. discloses the composite anode of claim 20 however, Goodman et al. is silent as to the surface area of the silicon. Hatazawa et al. discloses a composite anode comprising silicon, binder, electrolyte, and conductive material (Hatazawa, Paragraph [0010]) and further discloses wherein the silicon has a surface area from about 10 m2/g to about 50 m2/g which overlaps the claimed ranges (Hatazawa, Paragraph [0068]). Hatazawa et al. also discloses the benefit in that the surface area which is too low results in unacceptably low charging rate and capacity due to the inaccessibility of the bulk of the electroactive material to metal ions in the surrounding electrolyte and a very high BET surface area is also known to be disadvantageous due to the formation of a solid electrolyte interphase (SEI) layer at the anode surface during the first charge-discharge cycle of the battery. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide a silicon with a surface area that falls within the range taught in Hatazawa et al., as doing so would give the skilled artisan the reasonable expectation of achieving the benefits taught in Hatazawa and as doing so would amount to nothing more than a variation of it for use in the same field based on design incentives or other market forces as the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
In regard to Claim 30, Goodman in view of Hatazawa et al. discloses the composite anode of claim 20, however, Goodman et al. is silent as to the density of the composite anode. Hatazawa et al. discloses a composite anode comprising silicon, binder, electrolyte, and conductive material (Hatazawa, Paragraph [0010]) and further discloses wherein the composite anode has a density in the range of from 0.6 to 1.8 g/cm3 which overlaps the claimed range (Hatazawa, Paragraph [0091]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obvious. 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). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goodman et al. (US 20210313562 A1), hereinafter “Goodman” in view of Hatazawa et al. (US 20190148718 A1), hereinafter “Hatazawa” as applied to claim 1 above and as evidenced by Filchakova et al. (What are multiwalled carbon nanotubes, production properties and applications, Tuball, 2021), hereinafter “Filchakova”. Goodman and Hatazawa et al. are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely composite anode materials.
In regard to Claim 6, Goodman et al. discloses the composite anode of claim 1. Goodman et al. is silent as to the particle size of the conductive additive; however, Goodman et al. discloses the conductive additive comprising carbon nanotubes and carbon nanofibers, which by definition have nano sized particles (Goodman, Paragraph [0027]). Further, as evidenced by Filchakova et al. it is well known that CNT's have an average particle size ranging from 7-100 nm which significantly overlaps the claimed range (Filchakova, Page 3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide a conductive additive comprising carbon nanotubes and carbon nanofibers as taught in Goodman et al., as doing so would be obvious to try for the skilled artisan and would amount to nothing more than choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/04/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Further, in regard to applicants’ argument that Hatazawa does not disclose the surface area of silicon and instead discloses porous particles, the following citation that provides clarification on the disclosure of the surface area of the silicon in Hatazawa has also been added to the 35 U.SC. 103 rejection above and is reinstated here for convenience:
While Goodman et al. discloses many characteristics of the silicon composite anode, it is silent as to the surface area of the silicon.
Hatazawa et al. discloses a composite anode comprising silicon, a solid electrolyte, and a binder (Hatazawa, Paragraph [0018, 0150]) and further discloses wherein the silicon may comprise at least 99% or more of the porous particles (i) (Hatazawa, [0026]), and wherein the porous particles (i) have a preferred surface area from about 10 m2/g to about 50 m2/g (Hatazawa, Paragraph [0068]), which overlaps the claimed range and thus discloses the surface area of the silicon in the composite anode falls within that range.
Hatazawa et al. also discloses that a surface area which is too low results in unacceptably low charging rate and capacity due to the inaccessibility of the bulk of the electroactive material to metal ions in the surrounding electrolyte, and a very high BET surface area is also known to be disadvantageous due to the formation of a solid electrolyte interphase (SEI) layer at the anode surface during the first charge-discharge cycle of the battery (Hatazawa, [0069]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide a silicon with a surface area that falls within the range taught in Hatazawa et al., as doing so would give the skilled artisan the reasonable expectation of achieving the benefits taught in Hatazawa and as doing so would amount to nothing more than a variation of it for use in the same field based on design incentives or other market forces as the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
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 KENNETH MAX OTERO whose telephone number is (571)272-2559. The examiner can normally be reached M-F Generally 7:30-430.
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, Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at (571) 270-3879. 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.M.O./Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/NICOLE M. BUIE-HATCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights