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 .
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.
Status of Application
Claims 1, 5, 6, 8, 9 and 11-19 and 21 are pending and presented for examination. Claims 1, 2, 6, 8, 9 and 11 were elected without traverse. As such claims 12-19 and 21 are withdrawn by the Examiner as non-elected. As such, THIS RESTRICTION REQUIREMENT IS MADE FINAL.
Priority
Acknowledgement is made of applicant's request for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. §119(a)-(d). Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
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.
Claim 6 is 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.
Regarding claim 6 is, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For purposes of compact prosecution the species following “such as” are not being treated as limiting.
Claim Interpretation
The phrase “appropriate thickness” in claim 8 is being construed as any thickness which coats the material to result in sealing such as would be normally deposited via CVD.
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.
Claims 1, 6 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PG Pub No. 20090029256 to Mah.
Regarding claim 1, Mah discloses Si-C composite comprising Si and C at a ratio of 30-99% Si (1-70% C, Mah at [0049]) and a volume fraction porosity of 1-80%, both of these values overlap the instantly claimed range of 30-70-70:30 and 20-70% respectively and thusly a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05).
As to claim 6, carbon nanotubes can be added (Mah at [0024]).
Concerning claim 11, the material can be used as a Li ion battery anode (Mah at “Title”).
Claims 1, 5, 6, 8, 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PG Pub No. 20170170477 to Sakshaug et al. (hereinafter, “Sakshaug at __”, cited by Applicants).
Regarding claims 1 and 6, Sakshaug discloses a Si-C composite comprising nanoscale silicon ([0013]) and carbon ([0100] including graphene, carbon nanotubes, etc. & “Abstract”) wherein a weight ratio of Si:C is 15-85:100 silicon:carbon which is 15-85% by weight ratio which overlaps that range instantly claimed such that prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05) and the volume percent porosity is calculated by dividing the nitrogen inaccessible volume (0.3 to 0.5cc/g) by the skeletal volume and nitrogen inaccessible volume (0.625+0.3 to 0.666+0.5)=32 to 42% (“Example 17” which also overlaps that range instantly claimed and is thusly prima facie obvious).
Turning to claim 5, the material can accommodate swelling up to 300% ([0010] & “Table 29”).
Concerning claim 8, the material is sealed via CVD with a separate carbon coating ([0193]).
With respect to claim 9, Shakhaug discloses that the reduction in surface area can be 787 before CVD and 199 after CVD which is ~25% ( “Table 23” Sample 25-1A).
As to claim 11, the material is utilized as an anode in a lithium ion battery ([0044]).
Claims 1, 5, 6 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PG Pub No. 20110177393 to Park et al. (hereinafter, “Park at __”; cited by Applicants).
Regarding claim 1, Park discloses a Si-C composite (Park at “Abstract”) comprising Si nanoparticles ([0043]) wherein the weight ratio of Si:C is 21.1% Si to 15.8% polymer derived carbon, 57.9% graphite, and 5.3% other polymer carbon so 21.1:100 so ~20% Si and the volume fraction of porosity is ~5~40% ([0047]) which overlaps the instantly claimed range of ~20~70% and is thusly prima facie obvious (see MPEP 2144.05).
As to claim 5, expansion of up to 300% can be handled ([0034]).
Turning to claim 6, CNTs can be present ([0037]).
Regarding claim 11, the composite is used as a lithium ion battery anode ([0027]).
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of US PG Pub No. 20200148545 to Spahr et al. (hereinafter, “Spahr at __”).
Regarding claims 8 and 9, Park does not expressly state a coating layer on the composite material.
Spahr in a method of making a silicon containing carbon composite discloses adding a carbon coating layer via CVD (Spahr at [0119], which reduces the surface area 100%*1-(4.3/14)=69.3%).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to utilize the CVD coating of Spahr on the composite of Park. The teaching or suggested motivation in doing so being closing of pores and creating a protective layer (Id.).
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mah as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Spahr.
Regarding claims 8 and 9, Mah does not expressly state a coating layer on the composite material.
Spahr in a method of making a silicon containing carbon composite discloses adding a carbon coating layer via CVD (Spahr at [0119], which reduces the surface area 100*1-4.3/14=69.3%).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to utilize the CVD coating of Spahr on the composite of Mah. The teaching or suggested motivation in doing so being closing of pores and creating a protective layer (Id.).
Conclusion
Claims 1, 5, 6, 8, 9 and 11 are rejected.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD M RUMP whose telephone number is (571)270-5848. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 06:45 AM to 04:45 PM.
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, Duane Smith can be reached at 571-272-1166. 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.
RICHARD M. RUMP
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1759
/RICHARD M RUMP/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759