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 .
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendments filed 06/12/2026:
Claims 1-20 are pending in the current application. Claims 5-15 remain withdrawn without traverse. Claims 1 and 2 have been amended.
The amended abstract has been accepted.
The previous objections to claim 2 have been overcome.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-5 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
Dv50 of the yolk core-shell structured composite material is 100 nm to 5 µm (P16.23.27), overlapping the claimed range of 3 to 7 µm;
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.
Modified Haochen teaches Dv50 of the yolk core-shell structured composite material is 100 nm to 30 µm, or 100 nm to 5 µm, including examples of 1 µm and 8 µm (P16.27.68.72 – also in Gan a Dv50 of 100 nm to 15 µm (pg. 2.7)), overlapping the claimed range of 3 to 7 µm; and an average thickness of the shell is 5 to 100 nm, with examples of 15 nm and 8 nm (P15.68.72), overlapping the claimed range of 5 to 20 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 2, modified Haochen Dv50 of the core is 1 to 16 µm (P23), overlapping the claimed range of 2.7 to 6.8 µm 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 necessities. 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
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues the new claim limitations overcome the previous showing of obviousness, this is not persuasive. The previous prior art-based rejections have been maintained and are modified to reflect new claim limitations. All changes are necessitated by the amendment. Above set forth modified grounds of rejection establish prima facie obviousness of the amended claims.
Applicant argues:
“The range of 3 to 7 µm for Dv50 of the yolk core-shell structured composite material and an average thickness of the shell of 5 to 20 nm improves the overall performance of the lithium-ion battery. The ranges of Haochen referred to by the Examiner are significantly broader than the ranges of claim 1 (Haochen: Dv50 of the yolk core- shell structured composite material is 100 nm to 5 µm vs. the claimed range of 3 to 7 µm; and Dv50 of the core is 1 to 16 µm vs. the claimed range of 2.7 to 6.8 µm). There is no suggestion in Haochen that the combination of ranges of the Dv50 of the yolk core-shell structured composite of 3 to 7 µm; and Dv50 of the core of 2.7 to 6.8 µm result in the improved battery performance disclosed in this application. It is submitted that these results are unexpected.” The arguments are based on paragraphs 9,64-65,185, and the tables.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. All of the examples and comparative examples have a Dv50 falling within the claimed ranges. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would assume that the diameters do not lead to unexpected results within the instant application. Furthermore, the disclosure teaches the increase in average thickness of the shell does not lead to significant performance change, and such changes are predictable in a trending decline (P202; PGPUB).
Additionally, wherein the disclosure teaches adverse effects may occur when the Dv50 is “relatively high” or “relatively low”, these terms are subjective and no standard for measuring such relative amount is provided in the specification. Since there is no data provided above or below the claimed ranges, it is impossible to determine whether the claimed sizes are critical or predictable. Furthermore, because multiple parameters change between examples the changes cannot be contributed to this ratio even with the examples in the range. Applicant is reminded that the burden is on applicant to show that difference in results are in fact unexpected and unobvious and of both statistical and practical significance. MPEP 716.02 (b)
Applicant is reminded that, to establish unexpected results for a claimed range, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside of the claimed range to show criticality of the claimed range. MPEP 716.02 (d) II
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 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
Prosecution Insights