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 of Species I, claims 1-5 and 16-20 in the reply filed on 02.11.2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The application provides”, “This application can…”, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: The abbreviation of “Dv50” should be defined the first time it is used to maintain clarify. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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 1-5 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haochen et al. (CN 112054180 A) in view of Gan et al. (AU 2020101077 A4).
Regarding claim 1, Haochen teaches a core-shell structured composite material wherein the core comprises a phosphorus-doped silicon material, and the shell comprises a nitrogen-doped carbon material, or the silicon core and carbon material shell may be doped with phosphorus and nitrogen (P12.54-55). The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2144.07
While Haochen is silent in explicitly teaching the core-shell structure composite material is a yolk structure has a cavity existing between the core and the shell, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that a yolk core-shell structure would necessarily form when the SiO is reduced after carbon coating, where metal encapsulates SiO and is then removed (P21.34.44).
When chemical compounds have ‘very close’ structural similarities and similar utilities, without more a prima facie case may be made. Where applicant claims a composition in terms of a function, property or characteristic and the composition of the prior art is the same as that of the claim but the property/characteristic is not explicitly disclosed by the reference, the examiner may make a rejection under both 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary, MPEP 2144 & MPEP 2112
Furthermore, Gan, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches a silicon carbon composite material (pg. 1). Gan teaches a silicon-carbon composite material should have a yolk core-shell structure with a cavity existing between the core and the shell to accommodate expansion of a silicon-based material and avoid collapse of an anode material (pg. 4-5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application that the yolk core-shell structured composite of Haochen has a cavity existing between the core and the shell, and, in light of Gan, to be sure that such cavity is present, to accommodate expansion of the silicon-based material and avoid collapse of the material. Furthermore, with respect to the above combination of overall element, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 2, modified Haochen teaches Dv50 of the yolk core-shell structured composite material is 100 nm to 5 µm (P16.23), overlapping the claimed range of 3 to 7 µm; Dv50 of the core is 1 to 16 µm (P23), overlapping the claimed range of 2.7 to 6.8 µm; an average thickness of the shell is 5 to 100 nm (P15), overlapping the claimed range of 5 to 20 nm; and, in light of Gan of modified Haochen, a maximum distance between an outer wall of the core and an inner wall of the shell is 100 nm to 10 µm (pg. 2), overlapping the claimed range of 5 to 300 nm. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05- I
Regarding claim 3, modified Haochen teaches the yolk core-shell structured composite material comprises mesopores with an average pore diameter of 2 to 50 nm (P16.68), overlapping the claimed range of 3 to 10 nm. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05- I
Regarding claim 4, modified Haochen teaches a mass percent of phosphorus in the phosphorus-doped silicon material is 0.1% to 3%; and a mass percent of nitrogen in the nitrogen-doped carbon material is 0.1% to 2%, or wherein the non-metallic elements are uniformly doped within the core and shell to have a mass percent of 0.1-5% (P12-13.44.54-55), overlapping the claimed ranges of 0.1% to 3% and 0.1% to 5%. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05- I Furthermore, 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.
Regarding claim 5, modified Haochen teaches the silicon material is at least one selected from silicon, silicon monoxide, and silicon dioxide (P10.21).
Regarding claim 16, modified Haochen teaches a negative electrode material, comprising the yolk core-shell structured composite material according to claim 1 (P45).
Regarding claim 17, modified Haochen teaches a secondary battery, comprising the negative electrode material (P45-48).
Regarding claim 18, modified Haochen is silent in teaching a battery module, comprising the secondary battery; however, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the secondary battery in a battery module to make it useable and as a reasonable and predictable well-known use for a secondary battery wherein one of ordinary skill designing such a system would have the expectation of reasonable success in doing so. The selection of a known material and/or entity based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. MPEP 2143
Regarding claim 19, modified Haochen is silent in teaching a battery pack comprising the battery module; however, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the battery module in a battery pack as a reasonable and predictable well-known use for a secondary battery pack and one of ordinary skill designing such a system would have the expectation of reasonable success in doing so. It is well-known to include multiple modules within a pack depending on design/power neccesities. The selection of a known material and/or entity based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. MPEP 2143
Regarding claim 20, modified Haochen is silent in teaching an electrical device comprising the battery pack; however, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the lithium ion secondary battery of a battery pack within an electrical devices as a reasonable and predictable well-known use for a secondary battery pack and one of ordinary skill designing such a system would have the expectation of reasonable success in doing so. The selection of a known material and/or entity based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. MPEP 2143
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Amanda Rosenbaum whose telephone number is (571)272-8218. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am-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, Nicholas A. Smith can be reached at (571) 272-8760. 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.
/Amanda Rosenbaum/ Examiner, Art Unit 1752
/Helen Oi K CONLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752