Prosecution Insights
Last updated: July 17, 2026
Application No. 18/253,456

SILICON-BASED PARTICLE WITH CORE-SHELL STRUCTURE, METHOD FOR PREPARING THE SAME, ANODE MATERIAL, ELECTRODE AND BATTERY

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
May 18, 2023
Priority
Dec 10, 2020 — CN 202011438904.4 +2 more
Examiner
EGGERDING, ALIX ECHELMEYER
Art Unit
1729
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Berzelius (Hefei) Co. Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
58%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
9m
Est. Remaining
75%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 58% of resolved cases
58%
Career Allowance Rate
445 granted / 772 resolved
-7.4% vs TC avg
Strong +18% interview lift
Without
With
+17.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 11m
Avg Prosecution
24 currently pending
Career history
803
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
89.0%
+49.0% vs TC avg
§102
4.4%
-35.6% vs TC avg
§112
0.9%
-39.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 772 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 . Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statements filed 5/18/23, 8/22/24, 7/2/25, and 12/24/25 have been considered by the examiner. Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election of Group II, claims 34-41, in the reply filed on 4/29/26 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). Response to Amendment In the amendment filed 4/29/26, claim 34 is amended and claims 37-39 are canceled. Claims 1-22 were previously canceled. Claims 23-33 and 42 are withdrawn. Claims 34-36 and 40-41 are rejected for the reasons provided below. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 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 – (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. Claims 34 and 40-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhong et al. (CN 109638231 A). Regarding claim 34, Zhong teaches a method for preparing a silicon-based particle with a core-shell structure (abstract), comprising: performing a surface treatment on SiOx particles, wherein 0.6≤x≤1.1, wherein the surface treatment is heating in a heating oxidation treatment, for example heating with oxygen flow at 300C for 20min (p. 3, Example 1 on p. 7); performing carbon coating on the surface-treated SiOx particles (p. 3); and performing sieving and removing magnetic impurities on the carbon-coated material (p. 6). With further regard to claim 34 and with regard to claims 40-41, Zhong teaches that the performing carbon coating step is performed by a chemical vapor deposition method at, for example, 1100C for 60min (Example 1 on p. 7). The examiner notes that Zhong does not specifically teach that the carbon coating forms a silicon carbide layer; however, the silicon-based particle of Zhong is produced by a substantially identical process as the claimed particle, as discussed above. Therefore, the examiner finds that a prima facie case of anticipation for the silicon carbide layer is established. MPEP 2112.01 I 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 35-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhong as applied to claim 34 above, and further in view of Kamo et al. (US 2018/0198158). The teachings of Zhong as discussed above are incorporated herein. Zhong teaches the method of claim 34, including the use of the prepared silicon-based particle in a lithium-ion battery, but is silent on performing a lithium doping treatment. Kamo teaches a method of making a silicon-based particle wherein a silicon compound is composited with a carbon film on the surface by CVD treatment ([0076]-[0079]), and the compound is further inserted with lithium ([0080]) by a liquid-phase, or solution, doping method ([0083]-[0085]). Kamo further teaches that lithium doping of the silicon-based particle as discussed above is desirable in order to more uniformly and efficient insert Li into the particles ([0054]-[0055]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan at the time of the invention to perform lithium doping in the method of Zhong such as suggested by Kamo in order to ore uniformly and efficient insert Li into the particles. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALIX ECHELMEYER EGGERDING whose telephone number is (571)272-1101. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30am - 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, Ula Ruddock can be reached at 571-272-1481. 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. /ALIX E EGGERDING/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

May 18, 2023
Application Filed
Jul 01, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12683223
BATTERY MODULE WITH IMPROVED STABILITY
5y 6m to grant Granted Jul 14, 2026
Patent 12640433
BATTERY MODULE
3y 8m to grant Granted May 26, 2026
Patent 12627007
Battery Configuration for Reducing Electromagnetic Interference
3y 3m to grant Granted May 12, 2026
Patent 12614719
ELECTRODE FOR LITHIUM SECONDARY BATTERY HAVING SPECIFIC COMPOSITION CONDITION AND LITHIUM SECONDARY BATTERY COMPRISING THE SAME
4y 5m to grant Granted Apr 28, 2026
Patent 12614822
BATTERY CELL, METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR MANUFACTURING SAME, BATTERY, AND ELECTRICAL DEVICE
3y 2m to grant Granted Apr 28, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
58%
Grant Probability
75%
With Interview (+17.6%)
3y 11m (~9m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 772 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month