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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-5 in the reply filed on 03/11/2026 is acknowledged.
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 14 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.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the silicon oxide" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. NOTE: Claim 14 should depend from claim 13.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 6-9 and 11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wegener et al. (US 2023/0101574) in view of Sphar (US 2020/0148545), Song et al. (CN110627135), and Konishi et al. (US 20190359873).
As to claim 6, Wegener et al. disclose a method for producing non-aggregated carbon coated silicon particles used in lithium-ion batters, where the silicon particles are carbonized by CVD/gas phase deposition to form carbon coated particles (see abstract). The particles formed have an average diameter of 1-15 microns (see abstract). Wegner teaches that aggregation of the particles during carbon coting is undesirable.
Wegener et al. fails to teach the claimed parameters for the uncoated core material, including the claimed the particle size distribution span, specific area or ratio of specific surface area to interparticle void volume, sieving and crushing to form a second intermediate product, or using a second carbon-containing process gas as require by claim 6.
Sphar teaches that lithium-ion battery composite particles may be selected and processed based on D50, specific surface area, and deagglomeration/ dispersion behavior. Spahr teaches graphite starting particles with a specific surface area of 1-15 m2/g (see 0033) which overlaps the claimed range of 1-5m2/g and teaches deagglomerating SiOx nanoparticle dispersions because nanoparticles tend to agglomerate due to high surface energy (see 0067). Sphar teaches carbon CVD coating of nano-SiOx/graphite composite particles in a rotary furnace using propane and nitrogen, with the furnace heated to 1050C (see 0118).
Song et al. teaches that battery electrode materials may be processed in a vapor deposition furnace having rotating furnace body and that a vapor-deposited material may be subjected to airflow crushing to obtain a desired D50, followed by loading the crushed material into a CVD furnace and depositing carbon form an organic gas under inert atmosphere. Song et al. therefore teaches the crushing/deagglomerating a previously vapor deposited material before a subsequent vapor deposition coating process (see abstract).
Konishi et al. teaches that powder materials are conventionally characterized by D50, specific surface area, and interparticle void volume measured by mercury intrusion, that interparticle void volume affects filling/packing properties (see abstract, 0011 – 0012).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process of Wegener by using rotary CVD furnace process and deagglomeration of Spahr and Song et al. Song et al., and by selecting feed powder D50, PSD span, specific surface area, and interparticle void volume within working ranges because the art recognized that controlling agglomeration, particle size distribution, surface area, and packing/void volume improves powder handling, gas access, coating uniformity and battery electrode processing. It would have been further obvious to use the claimed ratio of specific area to interparticle void volume through routine experimentation as it is a result effective variable as taught by Konishi et al. affecting filling/packing properties.
As to claim 7, Spahr et al. teaches rotary furnace CVD using a carbon source and nitrogen at temperature of 600 – 1200 C (see 0052, examples). The carbon source can be methane, butane (see 0055). Spahr et al. further teaches the time of 120 mins (see 0056)
As to claim 8, Spahr et al. teaches feeding hydrocarbon precursor gas and carrier gas into a rotary reactor while controlling residence time. It would have been obvious to ordinary skill in the art to adjust the gas mixture, residence time, and flow rate to within the claimed range through routine experimentation in order to control carbon deposition rate, coating thickness, and coating uniformity especially absent evidence of criticality in using the claimed range.
As to claim 9, Spahr teaches a rotary kiln/reactor for carbon CVD and Song et al. teaches staged vapor deposition using separate furnace bodied and gas decomposition/deposition zones. Positioning different hydrocarbon gas inlets at different locations along a rotary reactor would have been obvious design choice to control precursor decomposition, residence time, and coating uniformity.
As to claim 11, Wegener teaches silicon particles having average particle diameter of 1-15 microns, overlapping the claimed 3-10 micron range. Spahr teaches battery composite particles having values in the claimed ranges and teaches the carbon coating may reduce the specific surface area while improving electrochemical performance. Therefore, the particle size and coating growth are result effective variables and it would have bene obvious to use the claimed rang through routine experimentation to control the coating thickness and deagglomeration.
As to claim 12, Wegener and Spahr teach that the coating protects silicon-based materials and improves electrochemical performance by reducing surface reactivity. A slow dissolution amount is an expected result of forming a continuous, protective carbon coating over the core material, and optimizing coating integrity to reduce exposed core would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
As to claim 13, Spahr teaches graphite core particles associated with SiOx nanoparticles. Wegener further teaches hydrofluoric acid (see 0112).
As to claim 14, Spahr teaches SiOx where x is 0.2 to 1.8, overlapping the claimed range.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Cachet I Proctor whose telephone number is (571)272-0691. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7-3 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, Michael Cleveland can be reached at 571-272-1418. 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.
/CACHET I. PROCTOR/
Examiner
Art Unit 1712
/CACHET I PROCTOR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights