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 without traverse of Invention I, drawn to an element-doped silicon-carbon composite negative electrode material, in the reply filed on 04/03/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 12-17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Invention II, drawn to a method for preparing an element-doped silicon-carbon composite negative electrode material, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 04/03/2026.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 6, and 7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, the claim limitation, “the dopant element is comprises at least one of a group of IIIA element, a group VA element and a transition metal element” should read, “the dopant element comprises at least one of a group IIIA element, a group VA element, and a transition metal element.”
Regarding claim 6, the claim limitation, “a material of the first carbon coating layer comprises at least one of pitch, graphite and graphene” should read, “a material of the first carbon coating layer comprises at least one of pitch, graphite, and graphene.”
Regarding claim 7, the claim limitation “a material of the second carbon coating layer comprises at least one of carbon black, carbon nanotubes and carbon nanofibers” should read, “a material of the second carbon coating layer comprises at least on of carbon black, carbon nanotubes, and carbon nanofibers”
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 1-6, and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (CN 105958036 A, see Examiner provided machine translation for citations) in view of Kim et al. (US 20170162868 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Chen discloses a silicon-carbon composite negative electrode material (i.e. carbon-coated silicon anode material, [8]) comprising:
a plurality of silicon-carbon composite negative electrode material particles (i.e. nano-sized silicon particles, carbon-coated silicon anode material [8];[10]), and each silicon-carbon composite negative electrode material comprises a silicon nanoparticle (i.e. nano-sized silicon particles, [10]), a first carbon coating layer ([8]) and a second carbon coating layer ([8]), the silicon nanoparticle (i.e. nano-sized silicon particles, [10]) is a core (i.e. silicon powder covered by carbon coating layers, [8]), and the first carbon coating layer is coated on the silicon nanoparticle (i.e. first carbon coating layer wrapped on outside of silicon powder, [8]), and a second carbon coating layer covers the first carbon coating layer (i.e. second carbon coating layer wrapped on outside of first carbon coating layer, [8]).
Chen is silent regarding the silicon-carbon composite being element-doped, and the dopant element comprising at least one of a group IIIA element, a group VA element, and a transition metal element.
Kim teaches a similar silicon particle coated with a carbon (i.e. conductive single crystal silicon particle, [0015]). Kim further teaches the single crystal silicon particles which are doped such that the impurity contained in the particles may be at least one element selected from B, Al, Ga, and Tl in the case of group III (i.e. group IIIA), or at least one element selected from N, P, As, Sb, and Bi in the case of group V (i.e. group VA) ([0015];[0051];[0122]). Kim further teaches such dopant elements can enhance electric conductivity of the silicon particles ([0051]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have element-doped the silicon-carbon composite of Chen where the dopant element comprises at least one element selected from B, Al, Ga, and Tl in the case of group III, or at least one element selected from N, P, As, Sb, and Bi in the case of group V, which is within the scope of claim 1, for the benefit of enhancing the electric conductivity of the silicon-carbon composite, as taught by Kim.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, modified Chen discloses all limitations as set forth above.
Modified Chen discloses using silicon powder that is dispersed into nano-sized silicon particles (Chen, [10]) and thus does not contain silicon oxide as claimed in claim 2, and wherein the mass percentage of silicon oxide in the element-doped silicon-carbon composite negative electrode material is 0% which is within the claimed less than or equal to 0.1% of claim 3.
Regarding claims 4 and 5, modified Chen discloses all limitations as set forth above. Modified Chen discloses the element-doped silicon-carbon composite negative electrode material is doped such that the impurity contained in the particles (Kim, [0015]) which is within the scope of the claimed “wherein the element-doped silicon nanoparticle comprises a silicon matrix and a dopant element located in the silicon matrix" of claim 4.
Modified Chen further discloses the dopant elements may be at least one element selected from B, Al, Ga, and Tl in the case of group III, or at least one element selected from N, P, As, Sb, and Bi in the case of group V (Kim, [0015]) which is within the claimed dopant elements of claim 5.
Regarding claim 6, modified Chen discloses all limitations as set forth above.
Modified Chen discloses the first carbon coating material is preferably graphite, starch, sucrose or polyvinyl alcohol (Chen, [17]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected graphite from the finite list of possible first carbon coating material, with reasonable expectation of success at arriving at a satisfactory first carbon coating for the element-doped silicon-carbon composite negative electrode material.
Regarding claims 9 and 10, modified Chen discloses all limitations as set forth above.
Modified Chen discloses the element-doped silicon-carbon composite negative electrode material is doped such that the impurity contained in the particles may be at least one element selected from B, Al, Ga, and Tl in the case of group III, or at least one element selected from N, P, As, Sb, and Bi in the case of group V (Kim, [0015]) which significantly overlaps with the claim limitation, “comprises two or more kinds of dopant elements” of claim 10.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have selected within the significantly overlapped portion of the scope of the claim with reasonable expectation of success in arriving at a satisfactory element-doped silicon-carbon composite negative electrode material.
Modified Chen further discloses an exemplary embodiment wherein the element-doped silicon-carbon composite negative electrode material consists of one kind of dopant element, boron (i.e. boron (B)-doped silicon single crystal, Kim, [0122]), thus satisfying the claim limitation, “consists of one kind of dopant element” of claim 9.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (CN 105958036 A) in view of Kim et al. (US 20170162868 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Lee (US 20230238517 A1).
Regarding claim 7, modified Chen discloses all limitations as set forth above.
Modified Chen further discloses the second carbon coating material is desired for high conductivity and electrochemical stability, and is at least one of a plurality of layers of graphene, single-layer graphene, graphene oxide, reduced graphene oxide, a graphene-based derivative thereof, polypyrene, polythiophene, polyphenylene, polyacetylene, and polyaniline (Chen, [18]).
While modified Chen discloses such second carbon coating materials, modified Chen does not appear to necessarily limit the second carbon coating materials and is not particularly against other possible candidates that are able to provide the desired effect.
Modified Chen does not explicitly disclose the material of the second carbon coating layer comprising at least one of carbon black, carbon nanotubes, and carbon nanofibers.
Lee teaches a similar silicon carbon composite anode material (Abstract) with a carbon nanotube layer on the outermost surface of the composite ([0342], Fig. 1, 40). Lee further teaches the carbon nanotube layer serves to improve electrical conductivity of the anode material while securing good high capacity/high output characteristics thereof ([0341]). Furthermore, a skilled artisan would recognize that carbon nanotubes are formed by rolling sheets of graphene, and thus are a reasonable substitutional equivalent to the materials disclosed by modified Chen for the second carbon coating material.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have used carbon nanotubes for the second carbon coating layer of modified Chen with reasonable expectation of success in achieving a satisfactory second carbon coating layer, and for the benefit of improved electrical conductivity of the anode material along with good high capacity/high output characteristics, as taught by Lee and desired by modified Chen.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (CN 105958036 A) in view of Kim et al. (US 20170162868 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Park et al. (KR 20200022729 A, see Examiner provided machine translation for citations).
Regarding claim 8, modified Chen discloses all limitations as set forth above.
Modified Chen discloses the silicon powder with particle size of 1-100 µm, preferably 5-30 µm, is dispersed for 3-20 hours into nano-sized silicon particles (Chen, [10];[21]).
While modified Chen does not explicitly disclose the size of the resulting nanosized silicon particles, the thickness of the two coating layers, or the overall particle size, modified Chen in possessing two coating layers, necessarily and inherently possesses a thickness for each coating layer and thus possesses a diameter of the element-doped silicon-carbon composite negative electrode material particle.
Park teaches similar negative electrode active material consisting a silicon-based core, a first coating layer positioned on the silicon-based core, and a second coating layer positioned on the first coating layer ([0022]). Park further teaches the average particle diameter D50 of the negative active material may be 0.05 to 40 µm, ([0045]), which encompasses the claimed range of 10 to 20 µm. Park further teaches when the average particle diameter is 0.05 µm or more, the density of the electrode can be prevented from being lowered to have a proper capacity per volume, and when the average particle diameter is 40 µm or less, the slurry for forming the electrode is appropriately uniform in thickness ([0046]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have routinely selected and optimized within the encompassed portion of the ranges to achieve the desired balance between capacity per volume of the negative electrode active material, and slurry formation, as taught by Park (MPEP 2144.05 II).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (CN 105958036 A) in view of Kim et al. (US 20170162868 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Choi et al. (US 20200280059 A1).
Regarding claim 11, modified Chen discloses all limitations as set forth above.
Modified Chen discloses the silicon powder with particle size of 1-100 µm, preferably 5-30 µm, is dispersed for 3-20 hours into nano-sized silicon particles (Chen, [10];[21]) but does not explicitly disclose the size of the resulting nanosized silicon particles.
Choi teaches a similar negative electrode active material with a silicon core. Choi further teaches the average particle diameter D50 of the silicon core to be particularly 80 nm to 150 nm, which overlaps with the claimed range of 10 to 100 nm, as when the particle diameter satisfies this range, the nano-silicon core does not break easily during charge and discharge of the battery and intercalation and deintercalation of lithium may be effectively performed ([0024]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges with reasonable expectation of success in achieving a nano-silicon core that does not break easily during charge and discharge of the battery and allows for proper intercalation and deintercalation of lithium.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ESTHER J TAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3479. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 AM-4:30PM.
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, Jonathan Leong can be reached at (571)270-1292. 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.
/E.J.T./Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 5/4/2026
Prosecution Insights