CTNF 18/225,278 CTNF 87839 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 08-25-01 AIA Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-9 in the reply filed on March 26, 2026 is acknowledged. 08-06 AIA Claim s 10-11 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention , there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on March 26, 2026 . Priority 02-26 AIA Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on July 24, 2023, February 6, 2024, September 25, 2024 and January 21, 2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – 07-08-aia AIA (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1, 3-5 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Okazaki (US Pub. No. 2021/0384496) . Regarding claims 1 and 4-5, Okazaki teaches a negative electrode active material comprising a composite particle 13 center portion including silicon particles 12 and a fluorine resin surface layer 14 (paragraph [0036]), resulting in the limitation that an area ratio of the resin in a surface layer portion is higher than an area ratio of the resin in a center portion, because the area ratio of the resin in the center portion is 0 (paragraphs [0036]-[0039]; figure 1). Regarding claim 3, Okazaki teaches that the silicon particles are preferably scattered substantially uniformly in the composite particle (paragraph [0038]), but is not present in the surface layer but not in a center portion, this results in an area ratio of the Si in the center portion higher than an area ratio of the Si in the surface layer. Regarding claim 8, Okazaki teaches a secondary battery comprising a positive electrode, an electrolyte layer, and a negative electrode, wherein the negative electrode comprises the active material composite particle set forth above (paragraphs [0089]-[0104]). Regarding claim 9, Okazaki teaches that the electrolyte can a solid electrolyte (paragraph [0068]) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-02-aia AIA 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-22-aia AIA Claim s 2 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okazaki as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Minami (US Pub. No. 2017/0331108) . Regarding claims 2 and 7, Okazaki teaches that the surface layer is formed of a fluorine resin used to suppress contact between the composite particle 13 and water (paragraphs [0039]-[0041]), thus teaching or suggesting that the surface layer is non-porous, and teaches that the silicate phase 11 particularly preferably has a lithium silicate as the principal component (paragraph [0043]), but does not specifically disclose the porosity in the center portion of the composite particle. Minami teaches that a porosity of a lithium silicate in an active material composite particle is preferably 25% or less (paragraphs [0020]-[0021]), with specific embodiments having porosities ranging from 1% to 25% (paragraph [0083], table 1, examples 1-8). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a porosity as taught by Minami for the lithium silicate of the active material composite particle of Okazaki, in order to result in less disintegration of the particle structure originating from a void in the particle during charging and discharging (see Minami at paragraph [0040]). Such a combination results in a porosity in the center portion higher than a porosity in the surface layer portion as claimed . 07-22-aia AIA Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okazaki as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Newbound (US Pub. No. 2015/0243973) . Regarding claim 6, Okazaki does not specifically disclose that the Si particles are porous. Newbound teaches the use of nanoporous silicon particles (paragraph [0198]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use nanoporous silicon particles as taught by Newbound as the Si particles of Okazaki in order to allow lithium accommodation without causing mechanical fracturing of the silicon particles (see Newbound at paragraph [0098]). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHILIP N SCHWARTZ whose telephone number is (571)270-1612. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-5:30. 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, Katelyn Smith can be reached at 571-270-5545. 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. /P.N.S/ Examiner, Art Unit 1749 May 26, 2026 /KATELYN W SMITH/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1749 Application/Control Number: 18/225,278 Page 2 Art Unit: 1749 Application/Control Number: 18/225,278 Page 3 Art Unit: 1749 Application/Control Number: 18/225,278 Page 4 Art Unit: 1749 Application/Control Number: 18/225,278 Page 5 Art Unit: 1749
Prosecution Insights