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 1-14 in the reply filed on 12/24/2024 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1,3,5-9,11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN 112201779 (CN ‘779).
As to Claim 1, CN ‘779 discloses a method whereby a silicon based material is coated with a carbon material, pre-lithiated to form a lithium silicate wherein a lithium source compound is reacted with coated silicon based material and exposed to heat and then an acid treatment involving the use of an acid gas atmosphere treatment step (pg. 2, lines 10-32, pg. 3, lines 23-27).
As to Claim 3, see discussion of Claim 1 above.
As to Claim 5, the lithium source can be lithium metal or lithium hydride (pg. 2, line 28).
As to Claim 6, the acid gas can be blown in (Example 3-1, pg. 6).
As to Claims 7 and 8, the Examiner notes that the claims are directed to alternative limitations of Claim 6, and insofar as one of the alternatives of Claim 6 is met, Claims 7 and 8 are also considered rejected.
As to Claim 9, the gas can be CO2 (Example 3-1, pg. 6).
As to Claim 11, the Examiner respectfully submits the prior art would inherently display the claimed limitation due to similarity of the prior art and instantly claimed process as well as the materials used in the process.
As to Claim 12, see discussion of Claim 5 above.
As to Claim 13, the Examiner notes the prior art does not use a metal carbonate containing precursor and therefore would meet the limitations that specify 0 wt % of the metal carbonate in the material where the limitation of 3.0 wt % or less is construed as including 0 wt %.
As to Claim 14, Example 3-1 illustrates the process whereby, after the exposure to the CO2 gas in the furnace, the temperature is taken from 850 deg C to 40 deg C in inert atmosphere (Example 3-1, pg. 6) which the Examiner construes as equivalent to the drying process required by the instant claim.
Claim(s) 1,2 and 5-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by JP 2019204683 (JP ‘683).
As to Claim 1, JP ‘683 discloses a method of bringing a silicon containing negative electrode material in contact with lithium metal and polycyclic aromatic compounds and doing a CO2 treatment of the resulting material (pg. 2, lines 19-26) using a CO2 gas blowing process (pg. 6, lines 15-21).
As to Claim 2, the silicon containing negative material can be silicon dioxide (pg. 6, lines 37-42).
As to Claim 5, see discussion in Claim 1 above.
As to Claim 6, see discussion in Claim 1 above.
As to Claims 7 and 8, the Examiner notes that the claims are directed to alternative limitations of Claim 6, and insofar as one of the alternatives of Claim 6 is met, Claims 7 and 8 are also considered rejected.
As to Claim 9, see discussion of Claim 1 above.
As to Claim 10, JP ‘683 discloses the percentage change of oxygen present in the electrode material before and after CO2 treatment as 3 to 20 % (pg. 6, line 13).
As to Claim 11, the Examiner respectfully submits the prior art would inherently display the claimed limitation due to similarity of the prior art and instantly claimed process as well as the materials used in the process.
As to Claim 12, see discussion of Claim 1 and 11 above.
As to Claim 13, the Examiner notes the prior art does not use a metal carbonate containing precursor and therefore would meet the limitations that specify 0 wt % of the metal carbonate in the material where the limitation of 3.0 wt % or less is construed as including 0 wt %.
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.
Claim(s) 2 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN ‘779 in view of JP ‘683.
As to Claim 2, CN ‘779 fails to disclose the use of silicon dioxide as required by the claim.
As to the difference, JP ‘683 discloses a process of doping and acid treating a silicon electrode material wherein the silicon electrode material can be silicon metal or silicon dioxide (pg. 6, lines 38-42).
It would have been obvious to utilize a silicon dioxide similar to that of the instant claims in CN ‘779 invention as the prior art illustrates common silicon based electrode materials used for similar applications.
As to Claim 4, CN ‘779 discloses a metal doping step conducted at 750 to 850 deg C (pg. 2, line 27), however, fails to disclose at temperatures of 500 to 700 deg C as required by the claim.
As to the difference, a prima facie 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, see Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778F.2d 775,227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2144.051.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAISON P THOMAS whose telephone number is (571)272-8917. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 9:00 am-3:30 pm EST.
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, Robert Jones can be reached at (571) 270-7733. 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.
/J.P.T/Examiner, Art Unit 1762
/jt/ 2/13/2026
/MARK KOPEC/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1762