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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Repeatedly throughout the specification, the applicant refers to both a “positive electrode” and “cathode” with different material components and preparations [paragraphs 0082, 0084]. A person having ordinary skill in the art would expect these two terms to be synonymous and describe the same material (Winter 2014, page 4248, col 1). Given the nature of the invention and its relation to what is described sources provided by the applicant, where silicon particles are active as the anode and negative electrode (Neale US20200223704A1), it is assumed by the examiner that “cathode” was incorrectly used in place of “anode”.
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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neale (US20200223704A1).
Regarding claim 1, Neale teaches composite anode material comprising of silicon nanoparticle (Figure 1, 110, paragraphs [0061] and [0069]) with its surface modified by organic groups (Figure 1, 120, paragraph [0061]) in a binder resin that makes up 0% to 20% of the mass percent of the total materials (Figure 1, 130, paragraph [0074]). The recitation of the active material composite particles being ‘cathode’ particles is drawn to the manner in which the particles are intended to be used. As the body of the claim fully sets forth the structure of the particles, and Neale’s particles have the claimed structure, Neale’s particles are considered to anticipate the claim. This is especially so since Neale’s anode will function as a cathode during charging of the secondary battery (paragraph [0079]). Neale’s stated range of binder also encompasses the claimed range 0% to 15%. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). (MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Regarding claim 2, Neale teaches the cathode active material composite particles of claim 1, and further teaches the organic group surface modifications are alkyl groups (paragraph [0061]).
Regarding claim 3, Neale teaches the alkyl surfaced modified silicon particle of claim 2 and alkyl groups being no less than five carbons long and no more than 20 carbons long (paragraphs [0059] and [0061]-[0062]; e.g. 1-hexene and 1-dodecene will provide such alkyl groups upon reaction).
Regarding claim 4, Neale teaches the alkyl surfaced modified silicon particle of claim 2 and states the there is a Si–C bond, with the silicon being on the particle and the carbon being the alkyl group (paragraph [0061]).
Regarding claim 5, Neale teaches the cathode active material composite particles of claim 1and use of the particles in a cathode composite material (paragraphs [0074] - [0079]), as the battery as taught by Neale is of a rocking chair design and is meant to be cycled multiple times (Figure 10a, paragraph [0079]), causing the anode material described to become the cathode during charging (Warner 2015, chapter 7, page 76, paragraph 1).
Regarding claim 6, Neale teaches the cathode composite material of claim 5, and the use of the cathode active material in a lithium-ion battery as the battery as taught by Neale (paragraph [0078]) is of a rocking chair design and is meant to be cycled multiple times (Figure 10a, paragraph [0079]), causing the anode material described to become the cathode during charging (Warner 2015, chapter 7, page 76, paragraph 1).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hanelt et al. (US-20160126538-A1) teaches an electrode material with unaggregated silicon particles that have organic surface modifications and encapsulated in a resin binder that is used in a lithium-ion battery.
Zhamu et al. (US 20190260015-A1) teaches silicon nanoparticles wrapped in an elastomer binder.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Matthew Jacob Williams whose telephone number is (571)270-7712. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 am- 4 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, Jeffrey T. Barton can be reached at (571)272-1307. 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.
/M.J.W./Examiner, Art Unit 1726
/JEFFREY T BARTON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1726 11 August 2026
Prosecution Insights