Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/258,986

POROUS SILICON COMPOSITE, POROUS SILICON-CARBON COMPOSITE COMPRISING SAME, AND ANODE ACTIVE MATERIAL

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Jun 22, 2023
Examiner
USYATINSKY, ALEXANDER
Art Unit
1751
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Daejoo Electronic Materials Co. Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
83%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 12m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 83% — above average
83%
Career Allow Rate
724 granted / 875 resolved
+17.7% vs TC avg
Strong +19% interview lift
Without
With
+19.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 12m
Avg Prosecution
38 currently pending
Career history
913
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
46.3%
+6.3% vs TC avg
§102
19.8%
-20.2% vs TC avg
§112
25.3%
-14.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 875 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
DETAILED ACTION The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Priority Acknowledgement has been made of applicant’s claim for priority under 35 USC 119 (a-d). The certified copy has been filed on 06/22/2023 Information Disclosure Statement The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) filed 06/22/2023, 07/01/2024, 11/08/2024, and 06/05/2025 have been placed in the application file and the information referred to therein has been considered. Drawings The drawings received 06/22/2023 are acceptable for examination purposes. 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. 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, 2.7,8, 11-13, 15 , 24 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0151874 to Kim (Kim ) in view of US 2017/0271651 to Behan (Behan). Regarding claim 1, Kim discloses a porous (para 47) silicon composite, which comprises silicon based particles SiOa (0≤a<1). Regarding the limitation wherein the molar ratio (O/Si) of oxygen (O) atoms to silicon (Si) atoms in the porous silicon composite is 0.01 to 0.35. In the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art (0≤a<1) a case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. MPEP 2144.05 Moreover, Kim teaches that the silicon-based composite according to the present specification ultimately aims for the case where a is 0, and in this case, swelling properties can be greatly improved to increase lifetime characteristics (para 73). Therefore, It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the molar ratio (O/Si) of oxygen (O) atoms to silicon (Si) atoms based on Kim disclosure (0≤a<1) in order to reduce swelling properties and improve lifetime characteristics. Kim does not expressly disclose a magnesium compound. Behan teaches a porous silicon based material (Abstract, claim 1) comprising silicon and SiOx wherein x is from 1-2 (para 10) and magnesium compound Mg2SiO4 (claim 1). Behan also teaches that the composite teaches have novel properties and provide significant improvements in Coulombic efficiency, dilithiation capacity, and cycle life when used as anode materials in lithium battery cells including solid state batteries (Abstract).It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the silicone based composite of Kim with the magnesium compound, as taught by Behan, in order to provide significant improvements in Coulombic efficiency, dilithiation capacity, and cycle life when used as anode materials in lithium battery cells including solid state batteries. Regarding claim 2, modified Kim discloses wherein the porous silicon composite comprises a silicon aggregate in which the silicon particles are interconnected with each other (Kim, para 90-93). Regarding claim 7, modified Kim discloses wherein the porous silicon-based composite (SiOa: 0≤a<1) comprises the crystalline silicon (a=0) and the crystalline silica (Kim para 110). Regarding claim 8, Kim discloses wherein the porous silicon-based composite (SiOa: 0≤a<1) (Abstract). In addition, Kim teaches Further, a may be 0 in SiOa which is the silicon-based composite, and this is the most optimal form that the silicon-based composite can have as described above, and may represent a silicon-based composite in which only porous silicon having a bimodal pore structure remains. In this case, the initial efficiency and capacity characteristics may be remarkably excellent. When the oxygen content is low, although problems due to volume expansion may occur, the silicon-based composite is porous, and thus the problems due to volume expansion may also be prevented, and thereby a negative electrode active material having excellent properties can be provided (para 97,98). Therefore, It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize content oxygen in the porous silicon compound in order to improve initial efficiency and capacity characteristics. Regarding claim 11, modified Kim discloses the porous silicon composite and carbon (Claim 1). Regarding claim 12, Kim teaches that the silicon-based composite according to the present specification ultimately aims for the case where a is 0, and in this case, swelling properties can be greatly improved to increase lifetime characteristics (para 73). Therefore, It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the molar ratio (O/Si) of oxygen (O) atoms to silicon (Si) atoms based on Kim disclosure (0≤a<1) in order to reduce swelling properties and improve lifetime characteristics. Regarding claim 13, Kim discloses wherein the porous silicon-carbon composite comprises pores inside thereof, and the porosity of the porous silicon-carbon composite is 10 % by volume to 50% by volume based on the volume of the porous silicon-carbon composite. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. MPEP 2144.05. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the porosity of the porous silicon-carbon composite in order to reduce swelling properties and improve lifetime characteristics. Regarding claim 15, modified Kim discloses the invention as discussed above as applied to claim 11 and incorporated therein. In addition, modified Kim discloses wherein the carbon is present on the surface of at least one selected from the group consisting of the silicon particles and the magnesium compound (Behan claim 1. Para 74), the carbon serves as a matrix (Behan para 15), the silicon particles, the magnesium compound and pores being dispersed in the carbon matrix, or the carbon is present in both ways. Regarding claims 24 and 27, modified Kim discloses negative electrode active material for a lithium secondary battery and a lithium secondary battery (Kim, claims 1 and 20). Claims 3, 4, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0151874 to Kim (Kim ) in view of US 2017/0271651 to Behan (Behan) and further in view US 20160190597 to Jung (Jung). Regarding claim 3, modified Kim discloses the invention as discussed above as applied to claim 1 and incorporated therein. Modified Kim does not expressly disclose wherein the magnesium compound comprises a fluorine-containing magnesium compound, and the fluorine-containing magnesium compound comprises magnesium fluoride (MgF2),magnesium fluoride silicate (MgSiF6), or a mixture thereof. Jung teaches composite anode active material comprising a silicon-based material and a metal fluoride (Abstract), including MgF2 (Example 2) coating layer. Jung also teaches that such layer improve stability of the silicon based composite anode (para 6). It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the silicone-based composite of modified Kim with the MgF2, as taught by Jun, because in order to improve stability of the silicon based composite anode. Regarding claim 4, modified Kim in view of Jung discloses Mg2SiO4 in the range greater than 0 wt % to about 25 wt. % (Behan, claim 1).In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. MPEP 2144.05.It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the amount of Mg based on Behan disclosure in order to provide significant improvements in Coulombic efficiency, dilithiation capacity, and cycle life when used as anode materials in lithium battery cells including solid state batteries. Regarding claim 19, modified Kim discloses a process for preparing the porous silicon composite which comprises: a first step of obtaining a silicon composite oxide powder using a silicon-based raw material and a magnesium-based raw material (Behan , claim 38) a second step of etching the silicon composite oxide powder (Kim, para 99, Behan, claim 39) and a third step of filtering and drying the composite obtained by the etching to obtain the porous silicon composite (Kim, para 19). Regarding the limitation “using an etching solution comprising a fluorine (F) atom-containing compound” since MgF2 is present in the silicon composite (Jung example 2, claim 1) and the etching solution contains acid (Behan, claim 39), compound containing fluoride is inherently present in the etching solution. MPEP 2112 V states that "once a reference teaching product appearing to be substantially identical is made the basis of a rejection, and the Examiner presents evidence or reasoning tending to show inherency, the burden shifts to the Applicant to show an unobvious difference." Regarding claim 20, modified Kim discloses a process for preparing the porous silicon composite which comprises: a first step of obtaining a silicon composite oxide powder using a silicon-based raw material and a magnesium-based raw material (Behan , claim 38) a second step of etching the silicon composite oxide powder (Kim, para 99, Behan, claim 39) and a third step of filtering and drying the composite obtained by the etching to obtain the porous silicon composite (Kim, para 19). Regarding the limitation “using an etching solution comprising a fluorine (F) atom-containing compound” since MgF2 is present in the silicon composite (Jung example 2, claim 1) and the etching solution contains acid (Behan, claim 39), compound containing fluoride is inherently present in the etching solution. MPEP 2112 V states that "once a reference teaching product appearing to be substantially identical is made the basis of a rejection, and the Examiner presents evidence or reasoning tending to show inherency, the burden shifts to the Applicant to show an unobvious difference." In addition, modified Kim discloses a step of of forming a carbon layer on the surface of the porous silicon composite by using a chemical thermal decomposition deposition method to prepare the porous silicon-carbon composite ( claim 38, step c). Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0151874 to Kim (Kim ) in view of US 2017/0271651 to Behan (Behan) and further in view US 2018/0269475 to Oh (Oh). Regarding claim 18, modified Kim discloses wherein: the average particle diameter of the anode active material including the silicon-based composite is 0.5 μm to 10 μm (Kim, para 16) and the specific surface area thereof can be 1 to 20 m2/g (Kim, claim 6). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. MPEP 2144.05.It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the average particle diameter of the anode active material and BET specific surface area in order to a negative electrode active material for a lithium secondary battery capable of improving the initial efficiency and lifetime characteristics of the lithium secondary battery and preventing a side reaction with an electrolyte by controlling a specific surface area (Kim, para 8). Modified Kim dos not expressly disclose a specific gravity of 1.8 g/cm3 to 2.5 g/cm3. Oh teaches silicon oxide composite for a secondary battery negative electrode material, comprising includes MgSiO3 ( enstatite) crystals and silicon particles in a silicon oxide (SiOx, 0<x<2) and a carbon film placed on a surface. Oh, also teaches a specific gravity of the silicon oxide composite is from 2.3 to 3.2 g/cm3 (claim 8). Oh teaches an increasing initial charge/discharge efficiency of the secondary battery negative electrode (para 10). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. MPEP 2144.05.It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the specific gravity of the porous silicon carbon composite of modified Kim based on the range disclosed by Oh in order increasing initial charge/discharge efficiency of the secondary battery negative electrode (para 10). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER USYATINSKY whose telephone number is (571)270-7703. The examiner can normally be reached IFP. 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. /Alexander Usyatinsky/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1751
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 22, 2023
Application Filed
Feb 06, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12592435
SEALED POWER STORAGE DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12586830
BATTERY MODULE, BATTERY PACK, AND VEHICLE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12586858
BATTERY, ELECTRIC DEVICE, METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING BATTERY, AND DEVICE FOR MANUFACTURING BATTERY
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12580270
ENERGY STORAGE FACILITY
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12580266
BATTERY PACK FOR VEHICLE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
83%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+19.4%)
2y 12m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 875 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow 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