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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group 1 in the reply filed on December 1st 2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that it would not be unduly burdensome to search for the different inventions. This is not found persuasive because the inventions of Groups 2 & 3 would require a different field of search, different art would apply, and more specifically the inventions of Groups 2 & 3 do not require the process of Group 1.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-2, 8, & 11-12 are objected to because of the following informalities. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 recites “comprising multiple porous host particles” then later recites “the porous host particles”. It is not immediately clear if Applicant is referring to two different “porous host particles” limitations or meaning to be referring to the same “porous host particles” in each limitation. It is recommended to use consistent terminology when referring to the same claim limitation. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 recites “tectrasilane”. Examiner notes that this appears to be a typographical error and is understood to mean “tetrasilane”.
Claim 8 recites “with a thin protecting layer”, then later recites “wherein the protecting layer”. It is not immediately clear if Applicant is referring to two different “protecting layer” limitations or meaning to be referring to the same “protecting layer” in each limitation. It is recommended to use consistent terminology when referring to the same claim limitation. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 recites “said protecting layer”. It is not immediately clear if Applicant is referring to a new and different “protecting layer” or meaning to be referring to the same “protecting layer” introduced in Claim 10 as “a thin protecting layer”. It is recommended to use consistent terminology when referring to the same claim limitation. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 recites “said protecting layer”. It is not immediately clear if Applicant is referring to a new and different “protecting layer” or meaning to be referring to the same “protecting layer” introduced in Claim 10 as “a thin protecting layer”. It is recommended to use consistent terminology when referring to the same claim limitation. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-21 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.
Claim 1 recites “a solid powder mass of multiple individual Si-containing porous particulates” in the claim’s preamble, then later recites “a solid powder mass comprising multiple porous host particles”. It is not immediately clear if Applicant is referring to two different “solid powder mass” limitations or meaning to be referring to the same “a solid powder mass” in each limitation. It is recommended to use consistent terminology when referring to the same claim limitation. Thus the claim is unclear and indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 recites “porous host particles” then later recites “said porous particles”. It is not immediately clear if Applicant is referring to a new and different “porous particles”, or meaning to refer to the same previously mentioned “porous host particles”. It is recommended to use consistent terminology when referring to the same claim limitation. Thus the claim is unclear and indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 recites “a reactive liquid or solution” then later recites “said reactive liquid or solution species”. It is not immediately clear if Applicant is referring to a new and different “reactive liquid or solution species”, or meaning to refer to the same previously mentioned “reactive liquid or solution”. It is recommended to use consistent terminology when referring to the same claim limitation. Thus the claim is unclear and indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 recites in the preamble “a solid powder mass of multiple individual Si-containing porous particulates”, then later recites “the solid powder mass of separate multiple Si-containing porous particulates”. It is not clear if Applicant is meaning to refer to the same “solid powder mass of Si-containing porous particulates” or two different “solid powder mass of Si-containing porous particulates”. It is recommended to use consistent terminology when referring to the same claim limitation. Thus the claim is unclear and indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2-21, which depend from Claim 1, are rejected for the same reasons as above.
Claim 2 recites “said reactive liquid or solution comprises silane-type species, as a Si precursor”, however previously Claim 1 recites “a reactive liquid or solution containing a Si precursor”. It is not clear if Applicant is referring to a new and different “a Si precursor”, or meaning to refer to the same previously mentioned “Si precursor” of Claim 1. It appears that the claim was intended to require that the previously recites Si precursor is selected from the Markush group in Claim 2. Examiner notes that the claim would be clearer if written as follows “. . . (ii) said Si precursor comprises a silane-type species selected from…”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 recites “said Si-containing porous particulates”. It is not immediately clear if Applicant is referring to the “multiple individual Si-containing porous particulates” of the preamble of Claim 1 or “separate multiple Si-containing porous particulates” of Claim 1. It is recommended to use consistent terminology when referring to the same claim limitation. Thus the claim is unclear and indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 3 recites the broad recitation “a residual pore-to-Si volume ratio from 0.5 to 5.0”, and the claim also recites “preferably from 1.0 to 3.0” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Appropriate correction is required. For the purposes of examination, Examiner notes that the broader range was examined.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 4 recites the broad recitation “a thickness or diameter from 1 nm to 1 µm”, and the claim also recites “preferably from 10 nm to 500 nm and further preferably from 20 nm to 150 nm” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Appropriate correction is required. For the purposes of examination, Examiner notes that the broader range was examined.
Claim 5 recites “wherein said porous graphene particles”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation. Claim 2, from which Claim 5 depends, recites “the porous host particles are selected from carbonaceous, graphitic, graphene, or metallic particles”, however makes no mention of “porous graphene particles”. It is unclear if Applicant is introducing new and different porous graphene particles in Claim 5, or meaning to refer to the porous host particles in Claim 2 as being further limited to be graphene. Thus the claim is unclear and indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 recites “wherein said porous carbonaceous or graphitic particles”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation. Claim 2, from which Claim 6 depends, recites “the porous host particles are selected from carbonaceous, graphitic, graphene, or metallic particles”, however makes no mention of “porous carbonaceous or graphitic particles”. It is unclear if Applicant is introducing new and different porous carbonaceous or graphitic particles in Claim 6, or meaning to refer to the porous host particles in Claim 2 as being further limited to be carbonaceous or graphitic. Thus the claim is unclear and indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 recites “wherein said host metallic particles”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation. Claim 2, from which Claim 7 depends, recites “the porous host particles are selected from carbonaceous, graphitic, graphene, or metallic particles”, however makes no mention of “porous host metallic particles”. It is unclear if Applicant is introducing new and different metallic host particles in Claim 7, or meaning to refer to the porous host particles in Claim 2 as being further limited to be metallic. Thus the claim is unclear and indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 recites “the porous anode material particulates”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation. Claim 1, from which Claim 8 depends, makes no mention of “porous anode material particulates”. It is unclear if Applicant is introducing new and different porous anode material particulates in Claim 8, or meaning to refer to the porous host particles in Claim 1 or the separate multiple Si-containing porous particulates of Claim 1. Thus the claim is unclear and indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 recites “a procedure of prelithiating the Si coating or Si particles in the pores of the multiple particulates”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation. Claim 1, from which Claim 9 depends, makes no mention of “multiple particulates”. It is unclear if Applicant is introducing new and different multiple particulates in Claim 9, or meaning to refer to the porous host particles in Claim 1 or the separate multiple Si-containing porous particulates of Claim 1. Thus the claim is unclear and indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 recites “the Si coating or Si particles” then later recites “said Si coating or particles”. It is not immediately clear if Applicant is referring to a new and different “particles”, or meaning to refer to the same previously mentioned “Si particles”. It is recommended to use consistent terminology when referring to the same claim limitation. Thus the claim is unclear and indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 recites “the preliathiated multiple anode material particulates”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation. Claims 1 & 9 , from which Claim 10 depends, makes no mention of “preliathiated multiple anode material particulates”. It is unclear if Applicant is introducing new and different “preliathiated multiple anode material particulates” in Claim 10, meaning to refer to the “multiple particulates” in Claim 9, or meaning to refer to the porous host particles in Claim 1 or the separate multiple Si-containing porous particulates of Claim 1. Thus the claim is unclear and indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 recites “said protecting layer comprises a thin layer of a high-elasticity polymer”. It is not clear if Applicant is referring to a new and different “protecting layer” or meaning to be referring to the same “protecting layer” introduced in Claim 10 as “a thin protecting layer”. Thus it is unclear if the further limitation of Claim 12 “comprises a thin layer of a high-elasticity polymer” means that the protecting layer has an additional thin layer or if the limitation means that the protecting layer is a thin layer (as defined in Claim 10 “a thin protecting layer”) of high-elasticity polymer. Thus the claim is unclear and indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 recites “said step of prelithiating”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation. Claim 9, from which Claim 13 depends, recites “a procedure of prelithiating” and makes no mention of a “step”. It is recommended to use consistent terminology when referring to the same claim limitation. Thus the claim is unclear and indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 14 recites “said step of prelithiating”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation. Claim 9, from which Claim 14 depends, recites “a procedure of prelithiating” and makes no mention of a “step”. It is recommended to use consistent terminology when referring to the same claim limitation. Thus the claim is unclear and indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 14 recites “the first electrodeposition chamber”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation. Claim 9, from which Claim 14 depends, makes no mention of a “first electrodeposition chamber”. Thus the claim is unclear and indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 15 recites “a step of forming said multiple Si-containing porous particulates”. It is not immediately clear if Applicant is referring to the “multiple individual Si-containing porous particulates” of the preamble of Claim 1 or “separate multiple Si-containing porous particulates” of Claim 1. It is recommended to use consistent terminology when referring to the same claim limitation. Thus the claim is unclear and indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 17 recites “a step of forming said multiple Si-containing porous particulates”. It is not immediately clear if Applicant is referring to the “multiple individual Si-containing porous particulates” of the preamble of Claim 1 or “separate multiple Si-containing porous particulates” of Claim 1. It is recommended to use consistent terminology when referring to the same claim limitation. Thus the claim is unclear and indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6-11, & 13-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Constantino et al. US 2020/0020935 A1 and further in view of Kennedy et al. “Electrical conductivity study of porous carbon composite derived from rice husk”.
Regarding Claim 1, as best understood by the Examiner, Constantino discloses a process for producing a solid powder mass of multiple individual Si-containing porous particulates (manufacturing a composite material wherein silicon is deposited into the pore volume of a porous scaffold material) [0010], comprising
Providing a solid powder mass comprising multiple porous host particles (porous scaffold material) [0011-0014]
The host particles (porous scaffold material) having a volume fraction of pores of 10-50%
Constantino discloses that the composite material comprises a pore volume fraction of 0.01-0.5 [0310], or 10-50% which falls within the claimed range. In regards to the volume fraction or pores, the Examiner directs Applicant to MPEP 2131.03 I. In the case where the prior art “discloses a point within the claimed range, the prior art anticipates the claim”. UCB, Inc. v. Actavis Labs. UT, Inc., 65 F.4th 679, 687, 2023 USPQ2d 448 (Fed. Cir. 2023). Accordingly, the volume fraction of pores disclosed in Constantino anticipates the claimed range set forth in Claim 1. See MPEP 2131.03 I.
Introducing a reactive liquid or solution containing a Si precursor into pores of said porous particles (introducing a silicon-containing precursor) [0014]
Constantino discloses that the Si precursor can be a silicon-containing gas that is a mixture of other inert gases [0162, 0164], thus Constantino discloses a silicon containing solution
Constantino discloses that the Si precursor can be a liquid [0191]
Exposing reactive solution to heat (subjecting impregnated porous carbon with silicon precursor to elevated temperature) [0014] to chemically convert said Si precursor into Si particles residing in pores or Si coating deposited on pore walls (resulting in silicon-impregnated carbon material) [0014]
Constantino further discloses that the silicon is embedded in the composite in the form of particles [0293] and is spherical in shape [0294], or alternatively the silicon is coated on the inside of the pores of the composite [0294]
Constantino discloses that the porous host particles (porous scaffold) can be porous carbon [0072]. However, Constantino is silent as to the electric conductivity of the porous host particles.
Wherein the porous host particles are electrically conductive having an electrical conductivity of no less than 10-6 S/cm
Kennedy discloses a porous carbon [Abstract] wherein the porous carbon can have an electrical conductivity of 8.02 × 10−5 to 3.28 × 10−4 S/cm [Table 1 Page 3], which falls within the claimed range of no less than 10-6 S/cm.
Kennedy discloses that the porous carbon is used for battery electrodes [Page 1 Left Column Introduction], which is the same field of endeavor as the electrode of Constantino.
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized Kennedy’s porous carbon as analogous art to the porous carbon of Constantino in the same field of endeavor, i.e. battery electrodes, and it would have been obvious to use porous carbon, with the suggested electrical conductivity of Kennedy, for the porous carbon host particles of Constantino with reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding Claim 2, as best understood by the Examiner, Constantino discloses that the porous host particles (porous scaffold material) is selected from carbonaceous material such as graphite or graphene [0072], or metallic particles [0078]. Additionally, Constantino discloses that the reactive liquid or solution comprises a silane-type species as a Si precursor such as trisilane or tetrasilane or a combination thereof [0001, 0162-165, 0191].
Regarding Claim 3, as best understood by the Examiner, Constantino discloses that the silicon embedded in the composite fills the pores of the porous carbon scaffold material and can occupy anywhere from 30-60% [0296], therefore the residual pore-to Si volume ratio would be 0.67-2.33, which overlaps the claimed range of the residual pore-to-Si volume ratio. Examiner notes that the term “residual pore” in the context of the instant specification is understood to mean the remaining pore volume that is not filled by the silicon embedded in the porous host particle pores, and the claimed was examined in this way.
Regarding Claim 4, as best understood by the Examiner, Constantino discloses that the silicon particles have a particle size of less than 50 nm [0293], which falls within the claimed range of the particle diameter. Constantino further discloses that the silicon layer coating the inside of the pores can have a thickness of 5-10 nm [0294], which falls within the claimed range of the coating thickness. In regards to the thickness or diameter of the Si particle or Si coating, the Examiner directs Applicant to MPEP 2131.03 I. In the case where the prior art “discloses a point within the claimed range, the prior art anticipates the claim”. UCB, Inc. v. Actavis Labs. UT, Inc., 65 F.4th 679, 687, 2023 USPQ2d 448 (Fed. Cir. 2023). Accordingly, the thickness or diameter disclosed in Constantino anticipates the claimed range set forth in Claim 1. See MPEP 2131.03 I.
Regarding Claim 6, as best understood by the Examiner, Constantino discloses that the porous carbonaceous or graphitic particles (that make up the porous scaffold material) comprise hard carbon, graphite, or other allotropes of carbon [0072], which Constantino discloses can include soft carbon [0066].
Regarding Claim 7, as best understood by the Examiner, Constantino discloses that the host metallic particles (porous scaffold material that is porous metal as mentioned with regards to Claim 2) can be aluminum [0078].
Regarding Claim 8, as best understood by the Examiner, Constantino discloses that the process further comprises a step of coating the porous material particulates (understood by the Examiner to be referring to the Si-containing porous particulates of Claim 1) with a thin protecting layer (applying a carbon layer on the silicon-impregnated carbon material [0015-0019], applying a conductive polymer layer around the silicon-impregnated carbon material [0020-0024], or applying both a carbon layer and a conductive polymer layer [0025-0030]). Constantino discloses that the thickness of this protecting layer can be 1nm to 10µm [0259] or more preferably 1nm to 1µm [0266], which falls within the claimed range. Constantino discloses that the protecting layer can comprise carbon [0015-0019] or an electron-conducting polymer (ionically conductive polymer) [0020-0024; 0259-0260], or a combination thereof [0025-0030], and Constantino further discloses that the protecting layer can be graphene [0234].
Regarding Claim 9, as best understood by the Examiner, Constantino discloses that the process further comprises a step of prelithiating the silicon-carbon composite material [0276, 0335] wherein lithium is contained in an amount of 1-20% [0386]. Further, Constantino discloses that the Li:C ratio in the composite material is 0.05:6 to 1.9:6 [0337].
Constantino discloses that the silicon is contained in the composite is an amount of 5 to 95% by weight [0314]. Thus Constantino discloses that the molar ratio of Si to C is 1:44.4 to 8.125:1, as follows:
Assuming a 100g sample, 5g of Silicon + 95g of Carbon
5g Si/28.085 g/mol = 0.178 mol Si
95g C/12.011 g/mol = 7.91 mol C
Molar ratio = 0.178 Si : 7.91 C or 1 Si : 44.4 C
Assuming a 100g sample, 95g of Silicon + 5g of Carbon
95g Si/28.085 g/mol = 3.38 mol Si
5g C/12.011 g/mol = 0.416 mol C
Molar ratio = 3.38 Si : 0.416 C or 8.125 Si : 1 C
Thus, for every 6 carbon atoms, there would be 0.17-48.75 Si atoms, which would thereby give a Li:Si ratio in the range of 0.05:0.17 (or 1:20) to 1.9:48.75 (or 1:25) and therefore LixSi where x = 0.04-0.05, which falls within the claimed range.
Regarding Claim 10, as best understood by the Examiner, Constantino discloses that the process further comprises a step of coating the prelithiated anode material particulates (understood by the Examiner as referring to the Si-containing porous particulates of Claim 1 further limited as being prelithiated in Claim 9); (Constantino’s silicon-impregnated carbon composite is prelithiated as mentioned with regards to Claim 9 above) with a thin protecting layer (applying a carbon layer on the silicon-impregnated carbon material [0015-0019], applying a conductive polymer layer around the silicon-impregnated carbon material [0020-0024], or applying both a carbon layer and a conductive polymer layer [0025-0030]). Constantino discloses that the thickness of this protecting layer can be 1nm to 10µm [0259] or more preferably 1nm to 1µm [0266], which falls within the claimed range.
Regarding Claim 11, as best understood by the Examiner, Constantino discloses that the protecting layer can comprise carbon [0015-0019] or an electron-conducting polymer (ionically conductive polymer) [0020-0024; 0259-0260], or a combination thereof [0025-0030], and Constantino further discloses that the protecting layer can be graphene [0234].
Regarding Claim 13, as best understood by the Examiner, Constantino discloses that the prelithiation step comprises electrochemical prelithiation [0276].
Regarding Claim 14, as best understood by the Examiner, Constantino discloses that the prelithiation step comprises electrochemical prelithiation which occurs in a half cell [0276] thus in a first chamber.
Regarding Claims 15, as best understood by the Examiner, Constantino discloses forming the Si-containing porous particulates (composite) into an anode (incorporated into an electrode [0031], anode composition comprising the composite [0274]) comprising a conductive additive and a binder [0274].
Regarding Claims 16, Constantino discloses combining an anode (as mentioned above with regards to Claim 15) with a cathode [0277] and an electrolyte [0286] to form a battery cell (full cell such as a coin battery, pouch cell, prismatic cell, or other battery configurations) [0274].
Regarding Claims 17, as best understood by the Examiner, Constantino discloses forming the Si-containing porous particulates (composite) into an anode (incorporated into an electrode [0031], anode composition comprising the composite [0274]).
Regarding Claim 18, Constantino discloses a solid powder mass of multiple Si-containing porous particulates (composite material comprising porous carbon scaffold impregnated with silicon) [0273].
Regarding Claim 19, Constantino discloses an anode comprising multiple Si-containing porous particulates (anode composition comprising the composite [0274]) further comprising a conductive additive and a binder [0274].
Regarding Claim 20, Constantino discloses a battery [0031], (full cell such as a coin battery, pouch cell, prismatic cell, or other battery configurations [0274]) containing the anode (as mentioned with regards to Claim 19 above), a cathode [0277], and an electrolyte in ionic contact with the anode and the cathode [0286].
Regarding Claim 21, Constantino discloses an anode comprising multiple Si-containing porous particulates (anode composition comprising the composite [0274]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Constantino et al. US 2020/0020935 A1 and Kennedy et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhamu et al. US 2019/0051904 A1.
Regarding Claim 5, as best understood by the Examiner, Constantino discloses that the porous host particles comprises graphene [0072], however does not specifically disclose that the graphene can be in the forms as claimed in Claim 5.
Zhamu discloses an anode active material for a lithium battery [Abstract], wherein the anode active material comprises a particulate comprising a plurality of anode active material particles [0017]. Zhamu discloses that the anode active material particulate can comprise a carbon material, such as graphite and graphene, mixed with active material particles [0028], which Zhamu discloses includes prelithiated Si [0023], similar to the prelithiated silicon-carbon composite material of Constantino. More specifically, Zhamu discloses that the graphene can be in the form of pristine graphene, graphene oxide, reduced graphene oxide, graphene fluoride, hydrogenated graphene, nitrogenated graphene, or functionalized graphene [0028].
In the absence of a recitation of the specific form of graphene used by Constantino, one of ordinary skill in the art would look to an analogous disclosure such as Zhamu for a suggestion of a specific form of graphene. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to use one of the suggested forms of graphene as disclosed by Zhamu as the graphene in the porous host particles of Constantino.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Constantino et al. US 2020/0020935 A1 and Kennedy et al. as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Zhamu et al. US 2019/0051904 A1.
Regarding Claim 12, Constantino discloses that the protecting layer can comprise an electron-conducting polymer (ionically conductive polymer) [0020-0024; 0259-0260], however is silent as to the protecting layer specifically comprising a high-elasticity polymer with a fully recoverable tensile strain of 5-1000% and a lithium ion conductivity of 10-7 to 5x10-2 S/cm at room temperature.
Zhamu discloses an anode active material for a lithium battery [Abstract], wherein the anode active material comprises a particulate comprising a plurality of anode active material particles that are encapsulated by a thin layer of a high-elasticity polymer [0017]. Zhamu discloses that the high-elasticity polymer has a recoverable tensile strain of 5% to 1500%, more specifically 10-700% which falls within the claimed range, and a lithium ion conductivity of no less than 10-6 S/cm at room temperature [0017], more specifically no less than 10-4 S/cm [0030], which overlaps with the claimed range. Zhamu discloses that the anode active material particulate can comprise a carbon material, such as graphite and graphene, mixed with active material particles [0028], which Zhamu discloses includes prelithiated Si [0023], similar to the prelithiated silicon-carbon composite material of Constantino.
Zhamu discloses that including a thin layer of high-elasticity polymer such as this provides a high-capacity anode for a battery with prevented rapid capacity decrease [0015].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to incorporate the high-elasticity polymer protecting layer of Zhamu on the composite material of Constantino to provide a high capacity anode for a battery that prevents rapid capacity decrease.
Thus, modified Constantino discloses that the protecting layer comprises a high-elasticity polymer with a fully recoverable tensile strain of 10-700% and a lithium ion conductivity of no less than 10-4 S/cm at room temperature.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANNA E GOULD whose telephone number is (571)270-1088. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, Jeffrey T. Barton can be reached at (571) 272-1307. 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.
/A.E.G./Examiner, Art Unit 1726
/JEFFREY T BARTON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1726 10 February 2026