DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claims 1-6 and 8-21 are pending, wherein claims 1, 3-4, 6, 8-9, 11, 14, 17-18 are amended, and claim 21 is newly added. Claims 18-20 were previously withdrawn. Claim 21 is hereby withdrawn for examination (See below). Claims 1-6 and 8-17 are being examined on the merits in this office action.
Newly submitted claim 21 is directed to an invention with non-elected Species (See documents filed Dec. 10, 2025). Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the elected Species (nitrogen), claim 21 is withdrawn from consideration as being directed to an invention with non-elected Species. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
Remarks
Applicant’s amendments and arguments have been entered. A reply to the Applicant’s remarks/arguments is presented after addressing the claims.
Any rejections and/or objections made in the previous Office Action and not repeated below, are hereby withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments or/and arguments.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. References cited in the current Office action can be found in a prior Office action. Reference not previously cited can be found per the attached PTO-892 for this Office action.
Specification
The Specification filed Apr. 14, 2026 is acknowledged. The amendment to paragraphs [0047] and [0067] is accepted. However, the newly filed paragraph [0070] appears to be the same as the originally filed paragraph; no difference is found.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-6 and 8-17 are 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.
1) As to the term “about” recited in claims 1-2, 4-6, 9-11 and 14-17, Applicant states “… without expressly agreeing or disagreeing with the interpretation”. As such, the scope of the claims being examined is unclear due to the use of the relative term “about”, or/and “less than about …”, etc. See MPEP § 2173.05(b).
The term “about” in the above-mentioned claims is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “term” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree (because of Applicant’s ambiguous position with the interpretation according to the paragraph [0040] of the instant specification), and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Claims 1, 11 and all of their dependent claims are indefinite.
2) Claim 3 recites “further comprises a carbonaceous electroactive material coated on the silicon columns”. It is unclear, however, whether the claimed “a carbonaceous electroactive material” excludes the “a carbonaceous network” recited in claim 1. The “a carbonaceous network” filling the interstices is also coated on the silicon columns (See the instant Fig. 1). See the art rejection for how this recitation is interpreted.
3) In claim 5, it is unclear what the definition of porosity of the carbonaceous network is. Applicant directs to paragraph [0068]. However, even if the term “porosity” is mentioned in the description, it is not defined. Are pores 96 only used to define “porosity”? Doesn’t the pore in each of carbon hexatomic rings contribute/relate to “porosity”? According to the description of “a series or collection of hexagonal rings 94 that collectively define a plurality of pores 96”, the entire carbonaceous network should also be a pore 96. The porosity is a ratio (e.g., A/B), so what’s A and what’s B? The paragraph does not actually define the term “porosity”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-5, 8-15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeuchi et al. (US 20130052537 A1, hereafter Takeuchi) in view of Zeitler et al. (US 20140370385 A1, hereafter Zeitler).
Regarding claim 1, Takeuchi teaches an electrode (e.g., “205”, Fig. 1) for an electrochemical cell that cycles lithium ions, the electrode comprising:
an electroactive material layer (e.g., “203”, Fig. 1) comprising: a plurality of silicon columns (e.g., “211”, Fig. 1) having interstices defined between hierarchical silicon columns of the plurality of silicon columns; and a carbonaceous network (e.g., graphene “215”, Fig. 1) that at least partially fills the interstices (See Fig. below).
PNG
media_image1.png
691
359
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Since the carbonaceous network is graphene (“215”), it is generally knowledge that graphene generally contains a plurality of pores having a hexagon shape formed of linked carbon atoms (See also “openings”, [0071], [0099]).
Takeuchi appears silent as to an oval shape of the silicon columns. In the same field of endeavor, however, Zeitler discloses an electrode with an especially high capacity coupled with good cycle resistance (Abstract), wherein the active material of the electrode can be oval shape of silicon columns covered with a carbon material (Fig. 2 b)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to employed Zeitler’s silicon columns having an oval shape as an alternative to the silicon columns of Takeu in order to achieve advantages/benefits mentioned above. Furthermore, Zeitler teaches a first radius may be in the range of 0.05 nm to 500 nm ([0012]), reading on the first radius as claimed. Zeitler also teaches the silicon columns shown in Fig. 2b can be “short silicon fibers” ([0040]) formed by “further processing” silicon fibers formed under reaction condition of Fig. 2a ([0040]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have readily arrived at the claimed second radius by routine experimentations of adjusting reaction conditions shown in Fig. 2a, 2b and 2c.
Regarding claim 2, Takeuchi in view of Zeilter teaches the electrode of claim 1, but does not expressly teach the porosity as instantly claimed. However, Takeuchi discloses “there is a space between the adjacent projected portions” ([0014]; Fig. 1). The volume of the said space is variable by adjusting the dimensions of the projected portions (corresponding to interstices as claimed) in longitudinal and width directions ([0041]-[0044]). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have readily arrived at the claimed porosity of the electroactive material layer through routine experimentations by adjusting the volume of the said space since one of ordinary skill in the art knows that a porosity is directly related to a volume of space(s).
Moreover, although Takeuchi is silent on the claimed porosity portion that graphene fills in the electroactive material layer, Takeuchi does disclose that the number of single-layer graphene sheet can be adjustable from 2 to 100 ([0071]). This would necessarily lead to an adjustable space volume(s) (and thus porosity) between the plurality of silicon columns. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have readily arrived at the claimed porosity portion of graphene (the carbonaceous network, the term used in the claim) through routine experimentations by adjusting the number of single-graphene sheet.
Regarding claim 3, Takeuchi in view of Zeilter teaches the electrode of claim 1, but is silent on the electroactive material layer further comprising a carbonaceous electroactive material. However, it is well known in the battery field that a carbonaceous electroactive material, such as graphite, is the most commonly used negative electrode active material. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have combined the electroactive material layer and a further carbonaceous electroactive material (e.g., graphite) to form a new electroactive material layer of the electrode, since 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). MPEP § 2144.06.
As an alternative rejection, the electroactive material layer further comprises a carbonaceous electroactive material (“215”, graphene) coated on the silicon columns. The graphene (“215”) teaches both “a carbonaceous network” that at least partially fills the interstices as claimed in claim 1 and “a carbonaceous electroactive material” that is coated on the silicon columns as instantly claimed.
Regarding claim 4, Takeuchi in view of Zeilter teaches the electrode of claim 3, and the graphene (“215”) can be considered a/the carbonaceous electroactive material as claimed. The claimed content percentage by weight of the hierarchical silicon columns or the carbonaceous electroactive material in the electroactive material layer can be readily achieved by adjusting the number of single-graphene sheet (e.g., 2 to 100 sheets, [0071]).
Regarding claim 5, Takeuchi in view of Zeilter teaches the electrode of claim 1, and further teaches that graphene (“215”) may contain poly-membered rings (pores, openings) such as six-, sever-, eight-, nine-, or ten-membered ring ([0068]), which would lead to different porosity due to different size of the rings. One of ordinary skill in the art would have readily arrive at the claimed porosity by adjusting the size of the rings (pores).
Regarding claim 8, Takeuchi in view of Zeitler teaches the electrode of claim 1, wherein the electrode further comprises a current collector (“201”) on the electroactive material layer, wherein a longest dimension (See vertical dotted lines, above in the Fig.) of each silicon column is perpendicular to a major axis of the current collector (See dotted lines in the above annotated Fig.).
Regarding claim 9, Takeuchi in view of Zeilter teaches the electrode of claim 8, and further discloses the surface of the current collector has an uneven shape, which implicitly teaches a Rz being greater than 0 µm, wherein Rz being a difference between a height of a tallest peak and a depth of a deepest valley. The claimed range of Rz overlaps that of greater than 0 µm. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP § 2144.05 (I).
Regarding claim 10, Takeuchi in view of Zeilter teaches the electrode of claim 1, and the instantly claimed areal capacity of the silicon columns and the electrical conductivity and BET surface area of the carbonaceous network represent characteristics or properties of the claimed hierarchical silicon columns and carbonaceous network. Since Takeuchi in view of Zeilter teaches the same hierarchical silicon columns and carbonaceous network as claimed, the claimed characteristics or properties are necessarily present. Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. See MPEP § 2112.01.
Regarding claim 11, Takeuchi teaches an electrochemical cell (“lithium-ion secondary battery”, [0138]) that cycles lithium ions, wherein the electrochemical cell comprises (See Fig. 6 and [0138]-[0148]):
a first electrode (“405”) comprising a first current collector (“401”) and a first electroactive material layer (“403”) on the first current collector;
a separating layer (“413”) disposed between the first electroactive material layer (“403”) and a second electroactive material layer (“409”); and
a second electrode (“411”) comprising a second current collector (“407”) and the second electroactive material layer (“409”) on the second current collector, the second electroactive material layer comprising:
a plurality of silicon columns (e.g., “211”, Fig. 1), each of the silicon columns having a longest dimension (See vertical dotted lines in the annotated figure below) of each silicon column is perpendicular to a major axis of the second current collector (See dotted lines); and
a carbonaceous network (e.g., graphene “215”, Fig. 1) that at least partially fills the interstices defined between silicon columns of the plurality of silicon columns (See the annotated figure below).
PNG
media_image1.png
691
359
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Takeuchi appears silent as to an oval shape of the silicon columns. In the same field of endeavor, however, Zeitler discloses an electrode with an especially high capacity coupled with good cycle resistance (Abstract), wherein the active material of the electrode can be oval shape of silicon columns covered with a carbon material (Fig. 2 b)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to employed Zeitler’s silicon columns having an oval shape as an alternative to the silicon columns of Takeu in order to achieve advantages/benefits mentioned above. Furthermore, Zeitler teaches a first radius may be in the range of 0.05 nm to 500 nm ([0012]), reading on the first radius as claimed. Zeitler also teaches the silicon columns shown in Fig. 2b can be “short silicon fibers” ([0040]) formed by “further processing” silicon fibers formed under reaction condition of Fig. 2a ([0040]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have readily arrived at the claimed second radius by routine experimentations of adjusting reaction conditions shown in Fig. 2a, 2b and 2c.
Regarding claim 12, Takeuchi in view of Zeilter teaches the electrochemical cell of claim 11, wherein the separating layer is a solid-state electrolyte (See [0146]).
Regarding claim 13, Takeuchi in view of Zeilter teaches the electrochemical cell of claim 11, wherein the separating layer comprises a liquid electrolyte (See [0143]-[0145]).
Regarding claim 14, Takeuchi in view of Zeilter teaches the electrode of claim 11, and the graphene (“215”) can be considered either the claimed “carbonaceous network” or/and the claimed “carbonaceous electroactive material coated on the silicon column”. The claimed content percentages by weight of the hierarchical silicon columns, the carbonaceous electroactive material and the carbonaceous network in the electroactive material layer can be readily achieved by adjusting the number of single-graphene sheet (e.g., 2 to 100 sheets, [0071]) through routine experimentations. This adjustment involves merely ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. Unless there is evidence to show the claimed content percentages are critical, the said percentages are not patentably distinguishable.
Regarding claim 15, Takeuchi in view of Zeilter teaches the electrode of claim 11, but does not expressly teach the porosity as instantly claimed. However, Takeuchi discloses “there is a space between the adjacent projected portions” ([0014]; Fig. 1). The volume of the said space is variable by adjusting the dimensions of the projected portions (corresponding to interstices as claimed) in longitudinal and width directions ([0041]-[0044]). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have readily arrived at the claimed porosity of the electroactive material layer through routine experimentations by adjusting the volume of the said space since one of ordinary skill in the art knows that a porosity is directly related to a volume of space(s).
Moreover, although Takeuchi is silent on the claimed porosity portion that graphene fills in the electroactive material layer, Takeuchi does disclose that the number of single-layer graphene sheet can be adjustable from 2 to 100 ([0071]). This would necessarily lead to an adjustable space volume(s) (and thus porosity) between the plurality of silicon columns. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have readily arrived at the claimed porosity portion of graphene (the carbonaceous network, the term used in the claim) through routine experimentations by adjusting the number of single-graphene sheet.
Regarding claim 17, Takeuchi in view of Zeilter teaches the electrode of claim 11, and further discloses the surface of the current collector has an uneven shape, which implicitly teaches a Rz being greater than 0 µm, wherein Rz being a difference between a height of a tallest peak and a depth of a deepest valley. The claimed range of Rz overlaps that of greater than 0 µm. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP § 2144.05 (I).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeuchi in view of Zeilter, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhang et al. (US 20160240851 A1, hereafter Zhang) and Zhang et al. (US 20170125800 A1, hereafter Zhang-II).
Regarding claim 6, Takeuchi in view of Zeilter teaches the electrode of claim 1, but is silent as to the carbonaceous network further comprising a heteroatom.
In the same field of endeavor, however, Zhang discloses that “nitrogen-doped graphene can have high reversible capacity and good cycling stability due to high thermal conductivity, high electrical conductivity, good chemical stability, and a high number of activated defects induced by the way the nitrogen atoms are incorporated into the sp2 hybridized carbon network” ([0001]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have used nitrogen-doped graphene taught by Zhang as an alternative to the graphene of Takeuchi in order to achieve advantages/benefits stated above.
Takeuchi as modified is silent on the nitrogen content as claimed. However, Zhang-II discloses a high conductivity of 1000-30000 S/m of the nitrogen-doped graphene with a nitrogen content of 2-10 wt% of the nitrogen-doped graphene ([0011]-[0012]). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have used a nitrogen content of 2-10 wt% taught by Zhang-II in order to achieve a high conductivity. The range of “greater than 0 wt% to less than or equal to about 50 wt%” overlaps that of 2-10 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. See MPEP § 2144.05 (I).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeuchi in view of Zeilter, as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Zhang and Zhang-II.
Regarding claim 16, Takeuchi in view of Zeilter teaches the electrode of claim 11, but is silent as to the carbonaceous network further comprising a heteroatom.
In the same field of endeavor, however, Zhang discloses that “nitrogen-doped graphene can have high reversible capacity and good cycling stability due to high thermal conductivity, high electrical conductivity, good chemical stability, and a high number of activated defects induced by the way the nitrogen atoms are incorporated into the sp2 hybridized carbon network” ([0001]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have used nitrogen-doped graphene taught by Zhang as an alternative to the graphene of Takeuchi in order to achieve advantages/benefits stated above.
Takeuchi as modified is silent on the nitrogen content as claimed. However, Zhang-II discloses a high conductivity of 1000-30000 S/m of the nitrogen-doped graphene with a nitrogen content of 2-10 wt% of the nitrogen-doped graphene ([0011]-[0012]). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have used a nitrogen content of 2-10 wt% taught by Zhang-II in order to achieve a high conductivity. The range of “greater than 0 wt% to less than or equal to about 50 wt%” overlaps that of 2-10 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. See MPEP § 2144.05 (I).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed Apr. 14, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's arguments are based on the claims as amended. The amended claims have been addressed in the new rejections above.
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 ZHONGQING WEI whose telephone number is (571)272-4809. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:30 - 6:00.
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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at (571)272-1330. 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.
/ZHONGQING WEI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1727
Prosecution Insights