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 .
The amendment filed 4/8/26 has been considered and entered. Claims 2,4 and 5 have been canceled. Claims 1,3 and 6-16 remain in the application.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Considering the amendment filed 4/8/26, the 35 USC 112 rejection has been withdrawn. The 35 USC 103 rejections have been maintained for the reasons provided below.
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.
Claims 1,3,6-11 and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Do et al. (2014/0255785).
Do et al. (2014/0255785) teaches a silicon-graphene nanocomposite for electrochemical applications. The nano graphitic composite for use as an anode in a lithium-ion battery includes nanoparticles if an electroactive material and a plurality of graphene nanoplatelets (abstract). Do et al. (2014/0255785) teaches the electroactive material to include silicon [0019],[0078],[0087-0088] with a particle size of 10nm to 3 microns [0087],[0103] and the graphene to include graphitic particle/platelets having size of 30-220 nm [0089] which meet the claimed formulas M<N and 2<N<10 where M is the graphite particle size and N is the electrochemical/Si size as M is greater than N as shown in Figs. 1A-1C and .
Regarding claim 2, Do et al. (2014/0255785) teaches the number of graphite particles W being more than 3, i.e. W>3.
Regarding claim 3, Do et al. (2014/0255785) teaches the silicon-graphene composite to meet the formula 3<N<10 as the silicon particle is 3-10 microns [0103].
Regarding claim 4, Do et al. (2014/0255785) teaches the formular 0.1<M/N<0.99 as the graphene particles are smaller than the silicon particle.
Regarding claim 5, Do et al. (2014/0255785) teaches the aspect ratio of the graphene particles to be 900/200=4.5 which meets the claims 3-10 aspect ratio.
Regarding claim 6, Do et al. (2014/0255785) teaches silicon content to be 5% to 90% and variation thereof [0085] and the content of carbon would balance to 100% making it 95% to 10%.
Regarding claim 7, Do et al. (2014/0255785) teaches graphite from petroleum or coal coke [0103] and silicon being elemental [0088].
Regarding claim 8, Do et al. (2014/0255785) teaches the silicon-graphene composite to be less than or equal to 30 microns [0087]-[0089].
Regarding claim 9, Do et al. (2014/0255785) teaches the silicon-graphene nanocomposite for use as anode in a lithium-ion battery application which meets the claimed electrode active material (abstract and [0109]-[0111]).
Regarding claim 10, Do et al. (2014/0255785) teaches a particle size distribution which would meet the claims formula 0.3<Dn10/Dv50<1.
Regarding claim 11, the Examiner takes the position that the claimed highest intensity values would be met as the materials and sizes are the same and hence one skilled in the art would have had a reasonable expectation that the intensity values to be similar.
Regarding claim 13, Do et al. (2014/0255785) teaches the claimed silicon and graphene particle sizes meeting the claimed formulas as well as using an organic carbon source (coal and tar pitch) while grinding and milling to produce the claimed materials [0104]-[0112].
Regarding claim 14, Do et al. (2014/0255785) teaches the same carbon source (pitch/tar) and hence would have similar softening point of 200-250C [0104]-[0112].
Regarding claims 15 and 16, Do et al. (2014/0255785) teaches the silicon-graphene nanocomposite for use as anode in a lithium-ion battery application which meets the claimed electrochemical apparatus and electronic apparatus (abstract and [0109]-[0111]).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Do et al. (2014/0255785) in combination with CN 110797520.
Features detailed above concerning the teachings of Do et al. (2014/0255785) are incorporated here.
Do et al. (2014/0255785) fails to teach coating the silicon/graphene nanoparticle composite with a layer of metal oxide and a polymer layer.
CN 110797520 teaches negative electrode material including a silicon particle including graphene whereby the particle is coated with MeOy layer with wt% of 0.001-0.9 wt% and a thickness of 1-800 nm as well as a polymer layer including carbon material.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Do et al. (2014/0255785) silicon/graphene nanoparticle composite to include a metal oxide and polymer thereon as evidenced by CN 110797520 with the expectation of improved performance of the electrode material.
Response to Amendment
Applicant's arguments filed 4/8/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argued the aspect ratio of 3 to 10 are primary particles of graphite and define a thick geometry as a rigid structural anchor and not a flexible coating as taught in Do et al. (2014/0255785).
The Examiner agrees in part. While this may true as argued, the claims fail to recite/capture this difference and hence the rejections are being maintained for the reasons provided in paper filed 1/13/26. Applicant argues “thick” particles would be physically unable to perform the “flexible wrapping” required by Do et al. (2014/0255785). Nothing in the claims recite limitation supporting this rational and hence the arguments are not commensurate in scope with the claims as written.
Applicant argued Do et al. (2014/0255785) teaches away from the derived ratio of 4.5 as Do et al. (2014/0255785) teaches more preferred aspect rations above 10.
It has been well settled that teachings of a reference are not limited to a preferred embodiment. In re Boe, 145. Criticality of the claimed 10 microns is argued but the claim recites a range well below this critical point and hence not commensurate in scope as well as being broad enough to read upon the prior art.
Applicant argued evidence of unexpected results with a silicon particle size (N) of 10 microns and points to Example 9 as well as the necessity of the carbonaceous matrix and points to Examples 2,4 and 5.
The claims are not commensurate in scope with the argument as the claim recites 2-10 microns and does not recite carbonaceous matrix hence the argument is not convincing. If Applicant were to amend the claims to be commensurate is scope with these arguments, the Examiner will reconsider his position.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 BRIAN K TALBOT whose telephone number is (571)272-1428. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday 7-4PM.
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, MICHAEL CLEVELAND can be reached at 571-272-1418. 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.
/BRIAN K TALBOT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights