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 .
Status of Application
Claims 1-8 and 10-14 are pending and presented for examination. Claim 1 was amended and claim 9 cancelled via the instant amendment dated 20 March 2026 which is acknowledged and entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks dated 20 March 2026 (hereinafter, “Remarks at __”) are acknowledged and entered.
The rejection of claims 1-4, 8 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Kim in view of Arakawa is MAINTAINED and updated below to reflect the instant amendment.
The traversal is that Kim discloses a ratio of alkali to silicon of 1.16-4 (Remarks at 7). However, Arakawa at “Example 3” sets forth 0.54 g of ammonia (an alkali, though sodium hydroxide can also be used per Arakawa at 2nd paragraph) to 300 g of silicon which is 0.167 parts per hundred alkali to silicon. The rejection of claim 10 over the same in further view of Nilssen was made en masse and is maintained.
The rejection of claims 1-5, 7, 8, 11 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. 10 over Meng in view of Yang is WITHDRAWN over the instant amendment as neither Meng or Yang expressly state 0.1-1 parts per weight of alkali to 100 parts by weight of silicon. The rejection of claim 10 over in further view of Nilssen the same is WITHDRAWN as the base rejection was withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 1, 2, 6, 8 and 10-14 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Tong in view of Arakawa and Yang is MAINTAINED and updated below to reflect the instant amendment. The traversal was that none of them disclose 0.1-1 ppw of alkali to 100 ppw of silicon which is taught by Arakawa as discussed supra.
The rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 8, 11 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Uchiyama is WITHDRAWN over the instant amendment as Uchiyama does not expressly state 0.1-1 parts per weight of alkali to 100 parts by weight of silicon. As is the dependent rejection of claim 10 over the same in further view of Nilssen.
The rejection of claims 13 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Shih in view of Meng and Yang is WITHDRAWN as it no longer covers claim 1 with respect to Meng and Yang.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-8 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The amended value of 0.1-1 ppw of alkali added to 100 ppw of silicon is not expressly stated in the Instant Specification, 0.1-5 is and the instant Examples detail 0.5 explicitly, so the tightest range supported is 0.1-0.5 ppw. This is a new matter rejection.
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 1-4 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Arawaka.
Regarding claims 1, 3, 4 and 8, Kim discloses a manufacturing method for silicon nanoparticles for batteries (for batteries is intended use and is not being given patentable weight, see MPEP 2111.03; Kim at ~300 nm, Kim at [0062]) comprising:
Mixing silicon and a solvent (ethanol and silicon, Id.);
Taking out a silicon dispersion liquid containing silicon nanoparticles (id.); and
Adding an alkali solution to the silicon dispersion liquid to form silicon nanoparticles wherein surface layers of silicon oxide are formed on the silicon nanoparticles (Id.).
However, Kim does not expressly state that the silicon is dispersed in a dispersing fluid nor that grinding is performed such that the particle diameter becomes less than 200 nm, nor does Kim disclose adding the silica to the alkali solution wherein the alkali solution is 0.1-1 parts to 100 parts of silicon.
Arakawa in a method of forming Si anode materials (Arakawa at “Title”) discloses that silicon solutions can be dispersed (Arakawa at 10 last paragraph) in PVP and that ball milling can be performed on the dispersion (Arakawa at 11 last partial paragraph) of less than 270 nm (17 at third to last full paragraph, this overlaps the instantly claimed range of <200 nm which is prima facie obvious, see MPEP 2144.05) and then centrifuged (Kim at 18 last full paragraph). Arakawa also discloses after comminution that 0.54 g of ammonia hydroxide (an alkali though per the 24th paragraph of Arakawa sodium hydroxide, etc., can also be utilized) can be added to 300 g solids of Si in slurry which is 0.167 parts per 100 of silicon (Arakawa at “Example 3”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to perform the method of Kim in view of the dispersion of Arakawa. The teaching or suggested motivation in doing so being increase in dispersibility (Arakawa at 10 last paragraph).
Turning to claim 2, Si is scrap silicon (Arakawa at 3 third to last full paragraph).
Claims 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim and Arakawa as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Meng.
Regarding claim 5, neither Kim or Arakawa disclose the dispersing agent is present at 10-50 pph.
Meng also in a method of making nanosilicon discloses that dispersing agent can be added at 1-10 wt.% which overlaps thusly at 10 pph (Meng at “Abstract” which is prima facie obvious per MPEP 2144.05 but “Example 1” discloses 10%10th para).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to utilize the amount of dispersing agent of Meng in view of the process of Kim and Arakawa. The teaching or suggested motivation in doing so being avoidance of unwanted agglomeration (Meng at 10th paragraph of “Detailed Description”).
Regarding claim 7, the grinding ratio is 4(00):1(00) per Meng at “Example 1”.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Arakawa as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Nilssen.
Regarding claim 10, neither Kim or Arakawa disclose ball milling for 2-6 hours.
Nilssen in a method of ball grinding discloses that times after 2-4 hours do not really impart a statistically significant difference in milling times (Nilssen at “Fig. 1”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to perform the method of Kim and Arakawa in view of using a milling time of 2-4 hours of Nilssen. The teaching or suggested motivation in doing so is allowing for more throughput by milling for a shorter period of time as it does not impart a massive change in particle size.
Claims 1, 2, 6, 8 and 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tong in view of Arakawa and Yang.
Regarding claims 1, 6, 8, 11 and 12, Tong discloses a method for the manufacturing of silicon nanoparticles for batteries (Tong at “Title”) comprising:
Mixing silicon with a solvent (benzene, Tong at 3), silicon, and zirconia ball milling media having a size of 0.1 microns (100 nm, Id.);
Grinding the mixture to produce silicon nanoparticles having an average diameter of (7, paragraph 5);
Taking out a silicon dispersion liquid containing the silicon nanoparticles (a slurry, Id.).
However, Tong does not expressly state the presence of a dispersant, milling to <200 nm, nor adding an alkali solution source to form a silicon oxide layer on the silicon nanoparticles.
Arakawa in a method of forming Si anode materials (Arakawa at “Title”) discloses that silicon solutions can be dispersed (Arakawa at 10 last paragraph) in PVP and that ball milling can be performed on the dispersion (Arakawa at 11 last partial paragraph) of less than 270 nm (17 at third to last full paragraph, this overlaps the instantly claimed range of <200 nm which is prima facie obvious, see MPEP 2144.05) and then centrifuged (Kim at 18 last full paragraph). Arakawa also discloses after comminution that 0.54 g of ammonia hydroxide (an alkali though per the 24th paragraph of Arakawa sodium hydroxide, etc., can also be utilized) can be added to 300 g solids of Si in slurry which is 0.167 parts per 100 of silicon (Arakawa at “Example 3”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to perform the method of Tong in view of the dispersion of Arakawa. The teaching or suggested motivation in doing so being increase in dispersibility (Arakawa at 10 last paragraph).
Yang in a method of forming Si particles from ball milling discloses usage of a NaOH solution to form a SiOx layer (Yang at 208 L col) of 10 nm thickness (11:1 size to layer thickness).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to perform the method of Tong in view of the alkali solution exposure of Yang. The teaching or suggested motivation in doing so being improved electrochemical properties (Id.).
Turning to claim 2, Si is scrap silicon (Arakawa at 3 third to last full paragraph).
As to claim 10, the milling time is 2 hours (Tong at 7).
Turning to claims 13 and 14, Tong in a method of making a silicon-doped electrode material (Tong at “Example 1”) comprising providing the silicon nanoparticles for batteries obtained by the manufacturing method according to claim 1 (via the combination that covers claim 1, “Example 1”);
Mixing the Si NPs with an active material (graphite, “Example 1”); and
Performing spray granulation and calcining at 1050 C to produce the Si-doped electrode material which is present on graphite (Id.) with 8% Si content (Tong at 7).
Claims 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tong and Arakawa as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Meng.
Regarding claim 5, neither Tong or Arakawa disclose the dispersing agent is present at 10-50 pph.
Meng also in a method of making nanosilicon discloses that dispersing agent can be added at 1-10 wt.% which overlaps thusly at 10 pph (Meng at “Abstract” which is prima facie obvious per MPEP 2144.05 but “Example 1” discloses 10%10th para).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to utilize the amount of dispersing agent of Meng in view of the process of Tong and Arakawa. The teaching or suggested motivation in doing so being avoidance of unwanted agglomeration (Meng at 10th paragraph of “Detailed Description”).
Regarding claim 7, the grinding ratio is 4(00):1(00) per Meng at “Example 1”.
Conclusion
Claims 1-8 and 10-14 are finally rejected.
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 RICHARD M RUMP whose telephone number is (571)270-5848. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 06:45 AM to 04:45 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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
RICHARD M. RUMP
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1759
/RICHARD M RUMP/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights