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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, Claims 1-11 in the reply filed on April 3, 2026 is acknowledged.
However, as independent claim 1 has been found to be in condition for allowance over the prior art, the shared special technical feature of claim 1 ultimately obviates the previously set forth restriction requirement, which is hereby withdrawn in view of allowable claim 1. Claim 12 and 13 shall not be withdrawn, and are instead considered for examination/rejoinder.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 2 depends from independent claim 1, which requires that the oxide of a first element has low crystallinity. There is no clarity issue in claim 1, as the specification explicitly defines “the first coating contains an oxide of a first element with low crystallinity” to mean that an occupancy C of a crystalline domain of the oxide of the first element in the first coating is 30% or less (par. 12). As the Specification defines “low crystallinity” as 30% or less, dependent claim 2 fails to further limit parent claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements. While the express definition in paragraph 12 of the Specification has been relied upon to interpret the scope of claim 1, it may be beneficial to further improve the clarity of claim 1 by directly incorporating the language of claim 2 into claim 1, with subsequent cancelation of claim 2.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 3-13 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: Sha et al (WO 2020/103914 A1; note that references made herein are with respect to US 2021/0288316, which is an English language US equivalent copy) is considered to represent the closest related prior art to the claimed invention. Sha teaches a silicon-oxygen composite anode material comprising a kernel, a coating layer, and an intermediate layer located between the kernel and the coating layer (title and abstract). The kernel is taught to include a mixture (composite) of nano-silicon, silicon oxide, and lithium silicate (par. 11). The coating layer is taught to include carbon, such as amorphous carbon (par. 16).
However, Sha fails to teach or suggest a coating that contains an oxide of a first element with low crystallinity (i.e. 30% or less), and a carbon material, the oxide and the carbon material being mixed together, as is required of instant claim 1.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to COLIN W SLIFKA whose telephone number is (571)270-5830. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00 AM-5:30 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, Ching-Yiu (Coris) Fung can be reached at 571-270-5713. 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.
/Colin W. Slifka/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1732
Prosecution Insights