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 with traverse of Invention I-II, and Species A-F in the reply filed on 04/13/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that it would not be unduly burdensome to search for all the different inventions as defined by the examiner, or at least to search for more than one of the different inventions. This is not found persuasive because serious examination issues relevant to one invention are not necessarily relevant to the other invention (e.g. broadest reasonable interpretation of product claims vs. methods claims is different) and the species as indicated would each require different fields of search as the species of Species A1-A2 vs. A3, and Species E-F would each require text searches relevant to their mutually exclusive characteristics.
After further searching consideration, the restriction regarding Species A-C are withdrawn such that claims 2, 5-6, 13, and 14 are rejoined and fully examined. The restriction regarding Species A1-A2 vs. A3 is maintained due to search burden as laid out above.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 7, 16-17, and 19-28, are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Species A3, D2, and D3, and Invention II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 04/13/2026.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Pg. 24, lines 3-10, “Preferably, the sodium salt in the liquid electrolyte is selected from sodium perchlorate (LiClO4), sodium hexafluorophosphate (LiPF6), sodium borofluoride (LiBF4), sodium hexafluoroarsenide (LiAsF6), sodium trifluoro-metasulfonate (LiCF3SO3), bis-trifluoromethyl sulfonylimide sodium (LiN(CF3SO2)2),…, sodium trifluoromethanesulfonimide (LiTFSI), or a combination thereof” should read, “Preferably, the sodium salt in the liquid electrolyte is selected from sodium perchlorate (NaClO4), sodium hexafluorophosphate (NaPF6), sodium borofluoride (NaBF4), sodium hexafluoroarsenide (NaAsF6), sodium trifluoro-metasulfonate (NaCF3SO3), bis-trifluoromethyl sulfonylimide sodium (NaN(CF3SO2)2),…, sodium trifluoromethanesulfonimide (NaTFSI), or a combination thereof.”
Pg. 27 line 26 to pg. 28 line 1, “Preferably, the metal salt may be selected from sodium perchlorate (LiClO4), sodium hexafluorophosphate (LiPF6), sodium borofluoride (LiBF4), sodium hexafluoroarsenide (LiAsF6), sodium trifluoro-metasulfonate (LiCF3SO3), bis-trifluoromethyl sulfonylimide sodium (LiN(CF3SO2)2), sodium bis(oxalato)borate (LiBOB), sodium oxalyldifluoroborate (LiBF2C2O4), sodium oxalyldifluoroborate (LiBF2C2O4), sodium nitrate (LiNO3), Li-Fluoroalkyl-Phosphates (LiPF3(CF2CF3)3), sodium bisperfluoro-ethysulfonylimide (LiBETI), sodium bis(trifluoromethanesulphonyl)imide, sodium bis(fluorosulphonyl)imide, sodium trifluoromethanesulfonimide (LiTFSI)” should read, “Preferably, the metal salt may be selected from sodium perchlorate (NaClO4), sodium hexafluorophosphate (NaPF6), sodium borofluoride (NaBF4), sodium hexafluoroarsenide (NaAsF6), sodium trifluoro-metasulfonate (NaCF3SO3), bis-trifluoromethyl sulfonylimide sodium (NaN(CF3SO2)2), sodium bis(oxalato)borate (NaBOB), sodium oxalyldifluoroborate (NaBF2C2O4), sodium oxalyldifluoroborate (NaBF2C2O4), sodium nitrate (NaNO3), Li-Fluoroalkyl-Phosphates (LiPF3(CF2CF3)3), sodium bisperfluoro-ethysulfonylimide (NaBETI), sodium bis(trifluoromethanesulphonyl)imide, sodium bis(fluorosulphonyl)imide, sodium trifluoromethanesulfonimide (NaTFSI).”
Pg. 26, line 27, “LOMO” should read “LUMO”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 10 and 15 objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 10, the limitation “said sodium- or sodium-containing species is selected from Li2CO3, Li2C2O4,…, LiF, a combination thereof” should read, “said sodium- or sodium-containing species is selected from Li2CO3, Li2C2O4,…, LiF, or a combination thereof”.
Regarding claim 15, the limitation “wherein the cathode comprises a cathode active material selected from NaFePO4, Na(1−x)KxPO4, KFePO4, Na0.7FePO4, Na1.5VOPO4F0.5, Na3V2(PO4)3, Na3V2(PO4)2F3, Na2FePO4F, NaFeF3, NaVPO4F, KVPO4F, Na3V2(PO4)2F3, Na1.5VOPO4F0.5, Na3V2(PO4)3…” should read, “wherein the cathode comprises a cathode active material selected from NaFePO4, Na(1−x)KxPO4, KFePO4, Na0.7FePO4, Na1.5VOPO4F0.5, Na3V2(PO4)3, Na3V2(PO4)2F3, Na2FePO4F, NaFeF3, NaVPO4F, KVPO4F, Na3V2(PO4)2F3, [[Na1.5VOPO4F0.5, Na3V2(PO4)3]]…” as these species were repeated within the list.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 9 and 10 are 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 9 recites the limitation "the Si particles" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of this Office Action, the claim limitation will be interpreted to be, “wherein the plurality of M particles”.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “wherein said protecting layer comprises…a sodium- or sodium-containing species…and said sodium- or sodium-containing species is selected from Li2CO3, Li2C2O4, LiOH, LiCl, LiI, LiBr, ROCO2Li, HCOLi, ROLi, (ROCO2Li)2, (CH2OCO2Li)2, Li2S, LixSOy, Li4B, Na4B, Na2CO3, Na2O, Na2C2O4, NaOH, NaX, ROCO2Na, HCONa, RONa, (ROCO2Na)2, (CH2OCO2Na)2, Na2S, NaxSOy, Li2O, Na2O, NaF, LiF, a combination thereof” rendering the claim indefinite as species such as Li2CO3, Li2C2O4, and LiOH are not sodium- or sodium-containing species. For the purpose of this Office Action, the claim limitation will be interpreted to read, “wherein said protecting layer comprises…a lithium-, lithium-containing, sodium- or sodium-containing species…and said lithium-, lithium-containing, sodium-, or sodium-containing species is selected from Li2CO3, Li2C2O4, LiOH, LiCl, LiI, LiBr, ROCO2Li, HCOLi, ROLi, (ROCO2Li)2, (CH2OCO2Li)2, Li2S, LixSOy, Li4B, Na4B, Na2CO3, Na2O, Na2C2O4, NaOH, NaX, ROCO2Na, HCONa, RONa, (ROCO2Na)2, (CH2OCO2Na)2, Na2S, NaxSOy, Li2O, Na2O, NaF, LiF, or a combination thereof.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claims 1-6, 8, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mason et al. (US 20220336790 A1), in view of Lee et al. (US 20250038181 A1) and Jang (US 20200280055 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 2, and 6, Mason discloses an anode comprising multiple M-containing (i.e. silicon deposited in pores of porous conductive material [0007]) porous particulates (i.e. porous carbon particles, [0049]), where M (i.e. anode active material) is silicon (Si) ([0049]).
Mason further discloses at least one of the porous particulates comprises a porous host particle (i.e. porous carbon particles, [0049]) comprising pores ([0016]) and pore walls ([0016]).
Mason further discloses the conductive carbon particle framework may be derived from hard carbon porous particles or soft carbon porous particles, which are within the scope of claims 2 and 6 and are included as part Applicant’s invention (see instant specifications, pg. 5, line 29 to pg. 6, line 3) and thus necessarily exhibit an electrical conductivity of no less than 10-6 S/cm, absent evidence to the contrary.
Mason discloses that the anode active material may be used in rechargeable metal-ion batteries ([0001]), yet fails to explicitly disclose a sodium battery.
Jang teaches a sodium battery (i.e. sodium-ion battery, [0042]) with an anode ([0042]), cathode ([0042]), and an electrolyte in ionic contact with the anode and the cathode ([0042]). Jang further teaches an anode that contains porous graphene/carbon particulates (Abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have used the anode disclosed by Mason as the anode in the sodium battery taught by Jang with a reasonable expectation of success in achieving a satisfactory sodium battery.
Mason discloses a desired total volume of micropores and mesopores in the conductive porous particle framework to be at least 0.45 cm3/g ([0019]). Mason further discloses a high porosity carbon framework is advantageous since it allows a larger amount of silicon to be accommodated within the pore structure ([0019]). While Mason does not explicitly disclose a porosity for the conductive porous particle framework, a skilled artisan would recognize Mason necessarily possesses one.
Lee teaches a similar anode active material (i.e. porous silicon-carbon composite, [0034]) with a porosity of 1% to 40%, preferably 5 to 25%, which is within the claimed range of 5% to 99.9%. Lee further teaches less than this range, it may be difficult to control the volume expansion of the negative electrode active material (i.e. silicon) during charge and discharging while exceeding the above range will lead to reduced mechanical strength of the electrode active material due to large number of pores being present ([0146]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have arrived at the claimed range by routine optimization in order to achieve the desired balance between accommodating volume expansion of the negative electrode active material, and the mechanic strength of the electrode.
Mason further discloses the amount of electroactive material in the composite particles may be selected such that at least 20% and as much as 60% of the internal pore volume of the conductive porous particle framework is occupied by the electroactive material (i.e. M, [0045]). This yields an empty or unoccupied pore volume of 40-80%, and having an unoccupied pore volume-to-M volume ratio of 2/3 to 4/1 which is within the claimed 1/100 to 4/1, with the presence of the electroactive material after deposition of the material in the pores of the porous particle.
Regarding claim 3, modified Mason discloses all limitations as set forth above.
Modified Mason further discloses the amount of electroactive material in the composite particles may be selected such that at least 20% and as much as 60% of the internal pore volume of the conductive porous particle framework is occupied by the electroactive material (i.e. Mason, [0045]). This yields a residual pore-to-M volume ratio of 2/3 to 4/1 which overlaps with the claimed range of 0.5 to 3.0.
Modified Mason further discloses within the taught range of 20% to 60%, the pore volume of the conductive porous carbon particle framework is effective in accommodating the expansion of the electroactive material during charging and discharging, but avoids excess pore volume which does not contribute to volumetric capacity of the active material ([0045]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected and optimized within the overlapping portion of the ranges to arrive at the desired balance between accommodating expansion of the silicon during charging and discharge, and excess pore volume.
Regarding claim 4, modified Mason discloses all limitations as set forth above.
Modified Mason discloses a plurality of nanoscale electroactive material domains disposed within the conductive porous particle framework ([0009]) but does not explicitly disclose the M particles having a diameter from 1 nm to 1 µm.
Lee teaches a similar silicon-carbon anode active material (i.e. porous silicon-carbon composite, [0034]) where the silicon particles may be in a crystalline form having a crystallite size of 1 nm to 20 nm ([0046]), which is within the claimed range of 1 nm to 1 µm. Lee further teaches if the crystallite size of the silicon particles is less than 1 nm, the charging and discharge capacity of a secondary battery may be reduced and the properties of the material may change during storage dure to increased reactivity, while if the crystallite size above 20 nm there may be issues with performance of the secondary battery due to generation of cracks ([0046-0048]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have arrived at the claimed range in order to achieve the desired balance between charge-discharge capacity and minimizing crack generation (MPEP 2144.05 II).
Regarding claim 5, modified Mason discloses the conductive porous carbon framework may be derived from hard or soft carbon porous particles as set forth above. Because claim 5 does not positively require the porous host particles to actually be porous graphene particles, the claim is interpreted as simply further narrowing the scope of a claim limitation in the alternative, and thus renders it optional, and thus the claim as a whole is met by the prior art as set forth above.
Regarding claim 8 and 10, modified Mason discloses all limitations as set forth above.
Modified Mason further discloses the composite particles may include a conductive coating which may be a conductive carbon coating (Mason, [0078]), which is within the scope of “wherein the protecting layer comprises carbon” of claim 8, and “wherein said protecting layer comprises a carbon material” of claim 10.
Furthermore, modified Mason discloses the thickness of the carbon coating may suitably be in the range from 2 to 30 nm (Mason, [0079]), which is within the claimed thickness range of 0.5 nm to 2 µm of claim 8.
Claims 12-15, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mason et al. (US 20220336790 A1), in view of Lee et al. (US 20250038181 A1), and Jang (US 20200280055 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Zhamu et al. (US 20190165365 A1).
Regarding claim 12, modified Mason discloses all limitations as set forth above.
Modified Mason further discloses metal ions of metal-ion battery are transported from the cathode via the electrolyte and are inserted into the anode material (Mason, [0002]) but does not explicitly disclose a more specific electrolyte.
Zhamu teaches a similar metal-ion battery (i.e. alkali metal battery, [0001]), including a sodium battery ([0030]) wherein the electrolyte may be selected from an aqueous electrolyte, an organic liquid electrolyte, an ionic liquid electrolyte, a polymer gel electrolyte, a polymer electrolyte, an inorganic solid-state electrolyte, a quasi-solid electrolyte, or a combination thereof ([0021]), which overlaps with the scope of claim 12.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected the overlapping candidates from the finite list of possible electrolytes for the sodium battery with reasonable expectation of success in achieving a satisfactory sodium battery as these are well-known configurations in the art for forming sodium batteries
Regarding claim 13, modified Mason discloses all limitations as set forth above.
Modified Mason discloses an electrolyte (Mason, [0002]) but does not explicitly disclose the electrolyte containing an alkali metal salt, though a skilled artisan would recognize in being a metal-ion battery, modified Mason must necessarily possess an electrolyte salt.
Zhamu teaches for use in a sodium cell, the organic electrolyte may contain an alkali metal salt preferable selected from sodium perchlorate (NaClO4), potassium perchlorate (KClO4), sodium hexafluorophosphate (NaPF6), potassium hexafluorophosphate (KPF6), sodium borofluoride (NaBF4), potassium borofluoride (KBF4), sodium hexafluoroarsenide, potassium hexafluoroarsenide, sodium trifluoro-metasulfonate (NaCF3SO3), potassium trifluoro-metasulfonate (KCF3SO3), bis-trifluoromethyl sulfonylimide sodium (NaN(CF3SO2)2), bis-trifluoromethyl sulfonylimide potassium (KN(CF3SO2)2), an ionic liquid salt, or a combination thereof ([0119]), which significantly overlaps with the ionic liquid salts of claim 13.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected the overlapping portion of the list of alkali metal salts provided by Zhamu with reasonable expectation of success in achieving a satisfactory sodium battery as these are alkali salts well-known in the art for forming an electrolyte for a sodium battery.
Regarding claim 14, modified Mason discloses all limitations as set forth above.
Modified Mason discloses an electrolyte (Mason, [0002]) but does not explicitly disclose the electrolyte containing a solvent.
Zhamu discloses a sodium battery in which the organic solvent may contain a liquid solvent selected from the group consisting of 1,3-dioxolane (DOL), 1,2-dimethoxyethane (DME), tetraethylene glycol dimethylether (TEGDME), poly(ethylene glycol) dimethyl ether (PEGDME), diethylene glycol dibutyl ether (DEGDBE), 2-ethoxyethyl ether (EEE), sulfone, sulfolane, ethylene carbonate (EC), dimethyl carbonate (DMC), methylethyl carbonate (MEC), diethyl carbonate (DEC), ethyl propionate, methyl propionate, propylene carbonate (PC), gamma-butyrolactone (y-BL), acetonitrile (AN), ethyl acetate (EA), propyl formate (PF), methyl formate (MF), toluene, xylene, methyl acetate (MA), fluoroethylene carbonate (FEC), vinylene carbonate (VC), allyl ethyl carbonate (AEC), a hydrofloroether (e.g. methyl perfluorobutyl ether, MFE, or ethyl perfluorobutyl ether, EFE), and combinations thereof ([0117]), which significantly overlaps with the solvents of claim 14.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected the overlapping portion from the list of electrolyte solvents provided by Zhamu with reasonable expectation of success in achieving a satisfactory sodium battery as these are solvents well-known in the art for forming an electrolyte for a sodium battery.
Regarding claim 15, modified Mason discloses all limitations as set forth above.
Modified Mason discloses a cathode material capable of releasing and reabsorbing metal ions (Mason, [0149]) but does not explicitly disclose cathode active material for sodium batteries.
Zhamu teaches cathode active materials for alkali metal ion battery the cathode active material may contain a sodium intercalation compound selected from NaFePO4 (Sodium iron phosphate), Na0.7FePO4, Na1.5 VOPO4F0.5, Na3V2(PO4)3, Na3V2(PO4)2F3, Na2FePO4F, NaFeF3, NaVPO4F, Na1.5VOPO4F0.5, NaV6O15, NaxVO2, Na0.33V2O5, NaxCoO2 (Sodium cobalt oxide), Na2/3[Ni1/3Mn2/3]O2, Nax(Fe1/2Mn1/2)O2, NaxMnO2 (Sodium manganese bronze), λ-MnO2, Na0.44MnO2, Na0.44MnO2/C, Na4Mn9O18, NaFe2Mn(PO4)3, Na2Ti3O7 etc. ([0104]) which significantly overlaps with the scope of claim 15.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected the overlapping portion from the list of cathode active materials provided by Zhamu with reasonable expectation of success in achieving a satisfactory sodium battery as these are well-known cathode active materials well-known in the art for forming an electrolyte for a sodium battery.
Regarding claim 18, modified Mason discloses all limitations as set forth above.
Modified Mason discloses a metal-ion battery ([0002]) but is not limited to what type of metal-ion is used and does not explicitly disclose a specific type of sodium battery.
Zhamu teaches the sodium battery may be a sodium-ion, sodium-air, sodium-sulfur, or a sodium metal battery ([0028]) which overlaps with the scope of claim 18.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have selected an electrolyte and cathode active materials such that the sodium battery is one of the overlapping types in the list provided by Zhamu with reasonable expectation of success in achieving a successful sodium battery as these are well-known configurations in the art for sodium batteries.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mason et al. (US 20220336790 A1), in view of Lee et al. (US 20250038181 A1) and Jang (US 20200280055 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Lu et al. (US 20200127288 A1).
Regarding claim 5, modified Mason discloses the conductive porous carbon framework may be derived from hard or soft carbon porous particles. Because claim 5 does not positively require the porous host particles to be porous graphene particles, the claim is interpreted as further narrowing the scope of a claim limitation in the alternative, and thus optional, and thus the claim limitation is met by the prior art disclosure.
In addition, while modified Mason does not appear to be limited to such carbon materials, modified Mason does not explicitly disclose the conductive porous carbon framework comprising of graphene sheets.
Lu teaches a similar silicon-carbon active material (i.e. porous graphene particulates with anode active material deposited in pores, [0016]). Lu teaches the use of graphene as the host porous particles (i.e. porous graphene particulates comprising multiple pores, [0016]) where the graphene pore walls comprise graphene sheets ([0016]) and the graphene material is selected from a pristine graphene, graphene oxide, reduced graphene oxide, graphene fluoride, graphene chloride, graphene bromide, graphene iodide, hydrogenated graphene, nitrogenated graphene, boron-doped graphene, nitrogen-doped graphene, chemically functionalized graphene, or a combination thereof ([0016]), which overlaps with the scope of claim 5.
Lu further teaches the porous graphene particulates are elastic, of good structural integrity, highly electrically conducting and thermal conducting ([0024]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected a porous graphene particles comprising graphene sheets selected from the list provided by Lu with reasonable expectation of success in achieving a satisfactory anode active material these are graphene materials well-known in the art for forming negative electrode active materials.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mason et al. (US 20220336790 A1), in view of Lee et al. (US 20250038181 A1) and Jang (US 20200280055 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Qu et al. (US 20220037635 A1).
Regarding claim 9, modified Mason discloses all limitations as set forth above.
Modified Mason does not disclose the preloading of the silicon particles with an element selected from Li, Na, K, Al, or a combination thereof.
Qu teaches the chemical prealkaliation of negative electrodes, including but not limited to prelithiation, presodiation, and prepotassiation ([0055]). Qu further teaches the alkali metal incorporated into the electrode material through the taught prealkaliation method can be any element, not including hydrogen, from Group I, for example Li, Na, K, Rb, Cs, and Fr ([0084]), which overlaps with the scope of claim 9. Qu further teaches that prealkaliation can be performed on electrode materials including C, Si, Sn, Sb, P, S, or a combination ([0061]) and is a way to increase available energy densities of alkali metal-ion batteries because it enables the compensation for initial capacity loss and the pairing with high-capacity positive electrode ([0002]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have preloaded the Si particles of modified Mason with an element selected from Li, Na, and K, or a combination thereof for the benefit of increasing the available energy density of sodium battery, as taught by Qu.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mason et al. (US 20220336790 A1), in view of Lee et al. (US 20250038181 A1) and Jang (US 20200280055 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Zheng (CN 114597379 B).
Regarding claim 11, modified Mason discloses all limitations as set forth above.
Modified Mason further discloses the composite particles may optionally include a conductive coating ([0078]), but does not explicitly disclose a protecting layer comprising a thin layer of a high-elasticity polymer having a fully recoverable tensile strain from 5% to 1000%, and a sodium ion conductivity from 10-7 S/cm to 5 -2 S/cm at room temperature.
Zheng discloses a silicon-carbon negative electrode active material with a highly elastic polyurethane polymer layer coating ([57];[64]). Zheng further discloses the highly elastic polyurethane polymer layer has an elongation break ≥1500% ([14]) and maintains a close fit with the silicon negative electrode due to its excellent elasticity, thereby reducing the shedding of the SEI film on the surface by reducing the huge volume change of silicon particles ([57]).
As polyurethane is considered an acceptable polymer for the high-elasticity polymer (see instant specifications, p. 32, lines 1-16), the polyurethane polymer layer coating taught by Zheng must necessarily and inherently have a fully recoverable tensile strain from 5% to 1000% and a sodium ion conductivity from 10-7 S/cm to 5 x 10-2 S/cm at room temperature, absent evidence to the contrary.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have improved the anode active material of modified Mason with the highly elastic polyurethane polymer layer coating for the benefit of reducing the shedding of the SEI film, as taught by Zheng.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ESTHER J TAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3479. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 AM-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, 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.
/E.J.T./Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 5/6/2026
Prosecution Insights