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 in the reply filed on 21 May 2026 is acknowledged. Method claims 13-15 are withdrawn but may be considered for rejoinder upon the discovery of allowable subject matter.
Relevant MPEP Sections
MPEP 2112.01 relating to Composition, Product, and Apparatus Claims: Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). “When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
Claims 1-12 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1 or 2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over LG Chemical LTD (KR 10-1856926 B1 cited in IDS, using applicant’s provided machine translation, hereinafter “LG”)
In regard to claim 1-6, 10 and 12, LG teaches an anode active material for a lithium secondary battery having a core-shell structure composite with a D50 from 0.5 to 20 micron (paragraph [0030] of applicant’s provided translation),
the anode active material comprising (annotated figure 1 below):
a core comprising porous spherical particles with an internal porosity from 5% to 90% (as required by claim 12 -paragraph [0055]) comprising silicon (as required by claims 2-4) nano-particles with a D50 such as 100nm (paragraph [0067] – as required by claims 5 and 6) and carbon which is formed from an amorphous precursor such as sucrose (paragraphs [0092-0094] – as required by claim 10); and
a shell comprising one or more of crystalline carbon and amorphous carbon (the Examiner notes this encompasses substantially all possible forms of carbon),
wherein the metal particles of the core are physically connected to each other through the amorphous carbon of the core (paragraphs [0023-0026] - figure 1 annotated below).
PNG
media_image1.png
194
605
media_image1.png
Greyscale
While the prior art does not specifically disclose the carbon as amorphous or crystalline in the coating or core, the carbon in the core is formed in substantially the same manner as the instant invention (i.e. thermal decomposition of sucralose) and as the sucralose precursor is amorphous it is reasonably presumed that the carbon of the core is amorphous (see MPEP 2112.01). Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the before the effective filing date of the claimed invention filed that the core and shell could both include amorphous carbon as such is typically the resultant carbon from amorphous sucralose thermal decomposition at the temperatures described in the prior art.
Further, the endpoints of the ranges in the prior art anticipate the claimed ranges (MPEP 2131.03 – Anticipation of Ranges) or alternatively, the ranges for the particle sizes and porosity in the prior art overlap the claimed ranges in a manner which provides a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05 – Obviousness of Ranges).
In regard to claims 7-9, while the prior art does not specify a value for the electrical conductivity of the core-shell structure composite or perform Raman spectroscopy on the composition, the prior art has substantially identical structure and is therefore presumed to have properties which anticipate or obviate the claimed properties (see MPEP 2112.01). Further, the prior art specifies that electrical conductivity should be optimized through complete carbon coating of the silicon nanoparticles (paragraph [0170]), therefore as shown in figure 1 above, the silicon particles are dispersed in the core without coming into contact with each other.
In regard to claim 11, the Examiner notes that the claim does not positively require crystalline carbon if amorphous carbon is present in the shell (claim 1 requires crystalline or amorphous in the alternative). In any event, the prior art teaches graphite-based carbon (paragraph [0038]).
In regard to claim 16, LG teaches a lithium secondary battery comprising: an anode; a cathode; and an electrolyte, wherein the anode comprises the anode active material of claim 1 (paragraphs [0003, 0107-0111]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US Pubs 2018/0145316 and 2023/0187614 (both newly cited) teach similar carbon-silicon composite anode materials relevant to the instant claims.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS P D'ANIELLO whose telephone number is (571)270-3635. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 9am to 5pm 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, Tong Guo can be reached at 571-272-3066. 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.
/NICHOLAS P D'ANIELLO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights