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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/23/2026 and 06/16/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 04/13/2026 has been entered. Claim 1 is amended, Claims 11-12 are newly added and Claims 1-12 are pending.
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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 20190140262 A1), hereinafter “Kim” in view of Jeong et al. (KR 20150040141 A – Machine Translation referenced for citation), hereinafter “Jeong”. Kim and Jeong et al. are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely silicon carbon active materials.
In regard to Claims 1-4 and 6-7, Kim et al. discloses a negative active material for a rechargeable lithium battery, the negative active material comprising: a core including a silicon-carbon composite and an amorphous carbon, the silicon-carbon composite being an agglomerated product of a crystalline carbon and silicon particles wherein the crystalline carbon is natural graphite, artificial graphite, or a combination thereof (Kim, Abstract, [0025], Example 1). While the skilled artisans of Kim et al. contemplate a coating layer (Kim, [0046]), they are silent as to a coating layer on a surface of the core, the coating layer including catecholamine.
Jeong et al. discloses a negative active material comprising a core including a silicon-carbon composite comprising a crystalline carbon-based compound, an amorphous carbon-based compound, or a mixture thereof (Jeong, Abstract, [23]) wherein the core comprises a beneficial coating layer on a surface of the core which is at least 10nm thick, which anticipates the claimed ranges and the coating layer is derived from a catecholamine (dopamine), i.e. the coating includes catechol (and amine) functional groups characteristic of polydopamine (Jeong, [16, 18]) as is consistent with the description of a coating including catecholamine in the current application (Original Specification, [0027, 0050]) and is included at 5.5 wt% (Jeong, [15]), which is about 5wt% and anticipates the claimed range.
Jeong et al. teaches that by introducing a polycondopamine layer containing a large amount of a catechol group on the surface of carbon-silicon core, it is possible to produce a negative electrode active material having improved surface hydrophilicity and improved dispersibility and accordingly, when the electrode is manufactured using the negative electrode active material, the effect of improving the negative electrode performance for the secondary battery can be obtained by minimizing the intergranular agglomeration (Jeong, [21]). 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 coating layer including catecholamine on the surface of a Si-C core as taught in Jeong et al. to the Si-C core of Kim et al. as doing so would give the skilled artisan the reasonable expectation of achieving the benefits taught in Jeong and as doing so would amount to nothing more than applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
In regard to Claims 8-9, Kim in view of Jeong et al. discloses the negative active material for a rechargeable lithium battery as claimed in claim 1. Kim et al. also discloses a rechargeable lithium battery, comprising: a negative electrode including the negative active material as claimed in claim 1; a positive electrode including a positive active material; and a non-aqueous electrolyte (Kim, Claim 8) and wherein the negative electrode further includes additional crystalline carbon (Kim, [0032]).
Claims 5 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 20190140262 A1), hereinafter “Kim” in view of Jeong et al. (KR 20150040141 A – Machine Translation referenced for citation), hereinafter “Jeong” and further in view of Shen et al. (CN 108043239 A – Machine Translation cited for reference), hereinafter “Shen”. Kim, Jeong and Shen et al. are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely ion exchange materials.
In regard to Claims 5 and 10-12, Kim in view of Jeong et al. discloses the negative active material for a rechargeable lithium battery as claimed in claim 1. While Jeong discloses coating a Si-C composite with polydopamine combined with Tris-HCl (Jeong, [34]), it is silent as to variations in the polydopamine coating.
Shen et al. also discloses a polydopamine coating combined with Tris buffer which is then sulfonated using NaOH solution and HCl solution and subsequent processing which results in a sulfonated polydopamine coating which would reasonably have a catecholamine bonded with an anion of S03- wherein at least one hydrogen of a benzene ring of the catecholamine is substituted with an anion of SO3-. Shen et al. also discloses that the sulfonated polydopamine coating has the advantages of maintaining dopamine like self-polymerization and adhesion, forms a stable surface layer by deposition from Tris buffer and introduces sulfonate functionality that improves io transport selectivity (Shen, [7-8, 15]). 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 sulfonated polydopamine coating as taught in Shen as an obvious to try variation of the polydopamine coating disclosed in Jeong as doing so would give the skilled artisan the reasonable expectation of achieving the benefits taught in Shen and as doing so would amount to nothing more than a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. Finally, the skilled artisans of Kim would also find it obvious to provide a coating layer including sulfonated polydopamine on the surface of a Si-C core as taught in modified Jeong et al. to the Si-C core of Kim et al. as doing so would give the skilled artisan the reasonable expectation of achieving the benefits taught in Jeong and as doing so would amount to nothing more than applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 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