DETAILED ACTION
Notice to Applicant
In the reply filed 2026-07-14 Applicant elected without traverse claims 1-11, directed towards a product, and withdrew the process of making claims, 12-20.
Claims 1-20 are pending; claims 12-20 being withdrawn. Claims 1-11 are examined herein. This is the first action on the merits.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhamu (US 2010/0143798 to Zhamu et al.).
Regarding Claim 1, Zhamu teaches:
a silicon-carbon composite material for a negative electrode comprising a plurality of particles (¶ 0103-0105, 0111)
the composites comprising a silicon nanoparticle, including silicon doped or alloyed with Al, Sb, or Bi, interpreted to read on a “silicon matrix” (i.e. crystal structure and/or nano-structured particle) with “at least one doping element located in the silicon matrix” within the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims (claim 14, ¶ 0103)
a protective matrix of carbon forming a first carbon layer wrapping a surface of the silicon nanoparticle insofar as it is contact with the surface of the silicon particles (Fig. 2A, ¶ 0100)
a second carbon layer of graphene platelets that wrap the first carbon layer insofar as they are in contact with the first carbon layer, which is sited between the second layer and the silicon nanoparticles (Fig. 2A ¶ 0101, 0118)
wherein the particles are then mixed with a binder and a conductive additive to form an elastic binder layer wrapping the second carbon layer and carbon matrix, wherein the second carbon layer of NGPs is positioned between the binder layer and some portion(s) of the first carbon layer(s) in the middle of the composite
PNG
media_image1.png
336
624
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 3, Zhamu teaches:
the composites comprising a silicon nanoparticle, including silicon doped or alloyed with Al, Sb, or Bi (claim 14, ¶ 0103)
Regarding Claim 4, Zhamu teaches:
examples with average nanocomposite particle diameters of 12 and 16 microns (Fig. 4)
Regarding Claim 6, Zhamu teaches:
the first carbon layer comprises pitch or graphite (¶ 0072, 0100)
Regarding Claim 8, Zhamu teaches:
binder and conductive additive forming the outer layer matrix (¶ 0111, 0113)
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.
Claims 1, 2, 3, and 5 are (alternatively) rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhamu (US 2010/0143798 to Zhamu et al.) in view of Zhou (US 2013/0252101 to Zhou et al.).
Regarding Claims 1, 2, 3, and 5, Zhamu teaches:
use of “silicon” tout court without mention of silicon oxide
Zhamu does not explicitly teach removing any silicon oxide such that “no” or less than or equal to 0.1% silicon oxide is present. Zhou, however, from the same field of invention, relating to the production of nanoparticle silicon that can be coated with carbon to form a composite (abstract, ¶ 0009), teaches etching the silicon particles to remove the silicon oxide layer for use as an active material (¶ 0073), wherein the silicon particles can also be alloyed or doped with, e.g. boron, phosphorus, arsenic, aluminum, etc. (¶ 0071). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the doped, silicon-oxide free materials in Zhamu as the silicon active material in Zhamu, since Zhamu teaches the use of conventional silicon nanostructures generally. Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results has been found to be obvious. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhamu (US 2010/0143798 to Zhamu et al.) in view of Zhamu2 (US 2019/0173082 to Zhamu et al.).
Regarding Claim 7, Zhamu teaches:
use of NGPs in the second carbon layer rather than carbon nanotubes or nanofibers
Zhamu2, however, from the same field of invention, regarding composite particles for anodes, teaches the substitutability of graphene platelets and carbon nanotubes or fibers (¶ 0067). Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results has been found to be obvious. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). It would have been obvious to use carbon nanotubes as a substitute or complement for the NGPs in Zhamu, since they were known substitutable equivalents.
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhamu (US 2010/0143798 to Zhamu et al.) in view of Lee (US 2022/0102699).
Regarding Claims 9-11, Zhamu does not teach:
the binder being PVA or PAA (claim 9)
the binder having a carboxylic acid functional group (claims 10 and 11)
Lee, however, from the same field of invention, regarding a composite silicon-carbon anode material (¶ 0017), teaches that conventional binders include polyacrylic acid (¶ 0048) and are substitutable for binders taught in Zhamu, such as SBR and PVDF. Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results has been found to be obvious. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Lu et al. “Graphene supported double-layer carbon encapsulated silicon for high-performance lithium-ion battery anode materials.” Carbon 201 (2023) 962-971.
US 2017/0047584
US 2021/0399290
US 2022/0190322
US 2023/0275215
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Dignan, whose telephone number is (571) 272-6425. The examiner can normally be reached from Monday to Friday between 10 AM and 6:30 PM. If any attempt to reach the examiner by telephone is unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tiffany Legette, can be reached at (571)270-7078. Another resource that is available to applicants is the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR). Information regarding the status of an application can be obtained from the (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAX. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, please feel free to contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). Applicants are invited to contact the Office to schedule an in-person interview to discuss and resolve the issues set forth in this Office Action. Although an interview is not required, the Office believes that an interview can be of use to resolve any issues related to a patent application in an efficient and prompt manner.
/MICHAEL L DIGNAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights