DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 09/09/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment, filed 09/09/2025, has been entered. Claims 1, 15, and 16 have been amended. Claims 1, 3, 6-7, 9-15, and 17-21 are now pending in this application.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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, 9-10, 13-14, and 17-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mason (US 20200152974 A1) and Tennent (US4663230A) and Sakshaug (US-20190280298-A1).
Regarding claim 1 and 15,
Mason teaches a carbon composition [0013] comprising:
a framework (carbon framework, [0013]) of interconnected [0029] carbon structures [0031] defining a corresponding network of pores ([0031], “porous carbon framework”);
and silicon ([0081-0082],);
Mason fails to teach wherein the framework comprises a network of carbon fibrils, wherein at least some of the carbon fibrils of the network have a fibril width of from 2 nm to 10 nm, silicon nanoparticles, a total specific surface area from about 230 to about 575 m2/g, a specific surface area attributable to micropores from about 46 to about 92 m2/g; and an average specific pore volume of from 1.5 cm3/g to 3.6 cm3/g.
However, Mason teaches wherein the carbon composition is characterized by a specific surface area (BET specific surface area in m2/g, claim 57) attributable to micropores (see [0025]-[0026], wherein the total pore volume is largely attributable to micropores ) from about 0.1 m2/g (claim 57) to 60 m2/g (claim 57), which overlaps with, and thus renders obvious, the claimed range of 46 to about 92 m2/g; and an average specific pore volume of .7 cm3/g [0013] to 2 [0013], which overlaps and thus renders obvious the claimed range from 1.5 cm3/g to 3.6 cm3/g. 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 selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP § 2144.05.I.
Mason still fails to teach wherein the framework comprises a network of carbon fibrils, wherein at least some of the carbon fibrils of the network have a fibril width of from 2 nm to 10 nm, silicon nanoparticles, and a total specific surface area from about 230 to about 575 m2/g.
Tennent teaches the framework comprises a network of carbon fibrils (col. 4, ln. 22-27), wherein at least some of the carbon fibrils of the network have a fibril width of from 2nm to 10 nm (col. 3, lines 10-15, wherein at least some of the carbon fibrils 3.5 nm to 70 nm overlaps with, and thus renders obvious, the claimed range of 2 nm to 10nm ). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to substitute the carbon nanotubes of Mason with the fibrils of Tennent as Tennent teaches the fibrils to be advantageously applied for increasing the surface area of an electrode (col. 4, ln. 26-28).
Sakshaug teaches silicon nanoparticles ([0191], [0188]) and wherein the total specific surface area greater than 500 m2/g, ([0341], see also [0463], “micro-mesoporous carbon” 1-9) which overlaps with and thus renders obvious the claimed range from 230 m2/g to about 575 m2/g). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify the silicon in Mason to be silicon nanoparticles in order to avoid drastic expansion [0436] while simultaneously achieving minimal agglomeration [0188] [0234]. Additionally, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify the specific surface area of Mason to achieve the surface areas seen in “micro-mesoporous carbon” of Sakshaug, as Sakshaug teaches that the surface area is highly tunable ([0171], large range) when using aerogel monoliths, wherein the pore size distribution (and thus the total surface area), is ideal for accommodating silicon [0014].
Regarding claim 3,
Mason in view of Tennent teaches the carbon composition of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein a content of the silicon-based material in the carbon composition is from 9 % to 64% ([086]-[0089], see silicon-to-carbon framework ratios and disclosed composite weight percentages, which results in a silicon content that at least overlaps with 9% to 64%, and thus renders obvious the claimed range per MPEP 2131.03).
Regarding claim 9,
Mason in view of Tennet the carbon composition of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein at least some of the carbon fibrils of the network have a fibril width of from 3.5 nm to 70 nm (which overlaps with, and thus renders obvious, the claimed range of 2 nm to 5 nm).
Regarding claim 10,
Mason in view of Tennet teaches the carbon composition of claim 1, further comprising a porosity of from 10 volume (vol.) % to 70 vol. % (see claim 62 and [0083], wherein a fill factor of 55% results in a porosity of 45%, which lies within the claimed range).
Regarding claim 13,
Mason in view of Tennet the energy storage system comprising at least one electrode [0114] that includes the carbon composition of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 14,
Mason in view of Tennet teaches the energy storage system of claim 13, further comprising an additive ([0100], “conductive additive”) disposed within at least a portion of pores of the at least one electrode ([0026]), the additive reducing an electrical resistance of the at least one electrode( [0100], “conductive”).
Regarding claim 17,
Mason in view of Tennet teaches the carbon composition of claim 15 (see rejection of claim 15 above), wherein the electroactive species ([0084], “electroactive material”) comprises silicon (see rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 18,
Mason in view of Tennet teaches the carbon composition of claim 15 (see rejection of claim 15 above), wherein the electroactive species ([0084], “electroactive material”) comprises graphite [0102].
Regarding claim 19,
Mason in view of Tennet teaches the carbon composition of claim 15, wherein the electroactive species ([0084], “electroactive material”) comprises lithium ([0114]-[0115], wherein lithium ions participate in the electrochemical exchange and are thus an electroactive material).
Regarding claim 20,
Mason in view of Tennet teaches the energy storage system comprising at least one electrode ([0114]) that includes the carbon composition of claim 15 (see rejection of claim 15 above and [0114]).
Regarding claim 21,
Mason in view of Tennet teaches the energy storage system of claim 20 (see rejection of claim 20 above), further comprising an additive disposed within at least a portion of pores of the at least one electrode, the additive reducing an electrical resistance of the at least one electrode. (see rejection of claim 14 above)
Regarding claim 11,
Mason in view of Tennent teaches the carbon composition of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the full width at half max of the maximum pore size peak is between approximately 10 and 50 nm (Sakshaug; see Fig. 3, such that the width is ~ 40 nm, which is within and thus anticipates the claimed range from 5 nm to 50 nm per MPEP 2131.03, wherein full width at half max is determined by pore distribution (see Fig. 3 of Sakshaug), wherein Mason is modified to in view of Shakshaug in the rejection of claim 1 above).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mason (US 20200152974 A1) in view of Tennet (US4663230A), Sakshaug (US20190280298A1), and Worsley (USRE46771, with citations to attached description paragraph numbers).
Regarding claim 6,
Mason in view of Tennet teaches the carbon composition of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), but fails to teach wherein the carbon composition is a monolithic carbon composition free of a binder material.
Worsley, analogous in the art of porous carbon material (Worsley [0006]) for use in a battery electrodes (Worsley [0051-0052]), teaches a carbon composition is a monolithic carbon composition (porous carbon monolith, [0006]) free of a binder material (substantially free of non-carbon materials such as silicates or binders including polymeric binders, [0072]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to incorporate the teachings of Worsley, wherein the carbon composition is a monolithic carbon composition free of a binder material, Worsley teaches that such carbon composition realizes an advantageous material to better disperse nanomaterial, within the carbon composite framework of Mason to achieve energy storage advantages taught by Worsley ([0004-0005, 0008, 0107, 0149]).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mason (US 20200152974 A1), Tennent (US4663230A), Sakshaug (US20190280298A1), and Shaffer (US-20140012034-A1).
Regarding claim 12,
Mason in view of Tennent teaches the carbon composition of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), but fails to teach a density from about 0.2 g/cm3 to about 0.34 g/cm3. Schaffer teaches a density of 0.3 g/cm3 ([0063], which falls within the claimed range from about 0.2 g/cm3 to about 0.34 g/cm3). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify the carbon composition of Mason by changing the volume fraction of carbon material, as suggested by Shaffer ([0049], [0012]), as Schaffer teaches a lower density is desirable for achieving a high surface area [0036].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments 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.
Applicant argues that the remaining claims are allowable by virtue of their dependence on allowable independent claims. However, this is not persuasive, as the rejections on all claims have been sustained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: CN109627006B, analogous in the art of silicon and carbon aerogel composites in batteries, which teaches a porosity is more than 90% [0013].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL WYROUGH whose telephone number is (571)272-4806. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 10am-5pm.
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, TIFFANY LEGETTE can be reached on (571) 270-7078. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PAUL CHRISTIAN ST WYROUGH/Examiner, Art Unit 1728
/TIFFANY LEGETTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights