DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The amendment filed 08/06/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-4, 7-9, 13-22, and 24-26 remain pending. Claims 15-22 and 24-26 are withdrawn.
The previous objection to the specification for the abstract and 35 USC 112 rejection of claim 13 is withdrawn. Applicant’s arguments with respect to Kim et al. (US 2015/0270538) and Otsuka et al. (US 2017/0040610) are persuasive. Both Kim and Otsuka fail to teach the negative electrode active material with an oxidation degree of 6% to 10.5%. Accordingly, the prior art rejections are withdrawn. The previous 35 USC 102 rejections over Mason et al. (WO 2020/128495) and Takeda et al. (US 2023/0216025) is maintained and reiterated below. See Response to Arguments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 2, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mason et al. (WO 2020/128495).
Regarding claims 1, 2, and 9, Mason discloses electrochemical materials for metal-ion batteries comprising:
composite particles including a porous carbon framework (carbon matrix) and silicon (abstract).
The silicon is described as being nanoscale domains (nanoparticles) (p. 6, lines 6-10). The oxidation degree is 7.6 wt.% oxygen and the silicon content is 54.0 wt.% (Table 2).
Claim 1-3, 7, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Takeda et al. (US 2023/0216025).
Regarding claims 1-3, Takeda teaches composite particles and negative electrode material comprising:
Si-C composite material (abstract).
The composite particles contain carbon and silicon nanoparticles; and an amorphous layer coating the surface (abstract; Fig. 8). The oxygen content may be, for example, 6.2% and 8.6% by mass, respectively (Table 1-3: Examples 1-7, 1-8).
Regarding claim 7, Takeda discloses a BET surface area most preferably 5.0 m2/g or less (para 0089).
Regarding claim 14, Takeda discloses the thickness of the amorphous coating layer is most preferably 0.4 nm (para 0076) and more and 10 nm or less (para 0077).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 8, and 13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
With respect to Mason et al. (WO 2020/128495), Applicant argues the negative electrode active material is made by a different process. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the manufacturing process) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Claim 1 only recites a Si-C composite made of silicon nanoparticles and a carbon matrix and the recited oxidation degree. Applicant further argues the silicon in Mason is not in the form of “silicon nanoparticles” but rather nanoscale silicon domains deposited within the pores of a pre-existing porous carbon scaffold. In reply, Applicant once again points to its method of manufacturing by using pre-fabricated silicon nanoparticles. Instant claim 1 does not recited pre-fabricated silicon nanoparticles. In Mason, once the silicon is deposited in the pores, the resulting silicon are equivalent to “silicon nanoparticles”. Furthermore, even if the claims included method limitations, the claim would be examined as product by process. See MPEP 2113. With respect to the oxidation degree, Mason expressly anticipates Applicant’s claimed oxidation degree.
With respect to Takeda et al. (US 2023/0216025), Applicant argues the recited oxidation values taught by Takeda are merely incidental data points from specific examples. In response, Takeda anticipates Applicant’s claimed oxidation degree limitation. Applicant argues fundamentally different material structure and manufacturing process. Similar to Mason above, the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, but limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. Applicant argues the “silicon nanoparticles” limitation is not met by Takeda. In response, Takeda teaches the silicon is precipitated inside the pores of carbon. The carbon material may be selected from at least carbon nanotubes (para 0103), which would result in “silicon nanoparticles” based on common diameters of carbon nanotubes. Moreover, “nanoparticles” can be clearly seen in Figure 8 of Takeda based on the scale bar.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARLOS BARCENA whose telephone number is (571)270-5780. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8-5 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, Tong Guo can be reached at (571)272-3066. 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.
/CARLOS BARCENA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights