DETAILED ACTION
The claims 1-20 are pending and presented for the examination.
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 09/18/2023, 07/23/2024, 12/17/2024, and 07/17/2025 are being considered by the examiner.
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.
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 1-3, 5, 7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liao et al (US 2021/0391567 A1) in view of Zhou et al (Research Progress of Silicon Suboxide-Based Anodes for Lithium-Ion Batteries) and Tuschel (Why Are the Raman Spectra of Crystalline and Amorphous Solids Different?).
Regarding claim 1, Liao et al teaches an electrode material comprising silicon-based particles and graphite particles. The silicon particles comprise a silicon composite matrix including SiOx (silicon oxide, see paragraph 0043) and graphite particles. The silicon-based material can be sintered (see paragraphs 0087-0089). The Liao et al material has Raman spectroscopy peaks at 1330 cm-1 and 1580 cm-1 (see paragraph 0057 and claim 26); the material thus comprises silicon oxide and carbon and has a D band peak and a G band peak at wavenumbers within the ranges recited in the instant claim. Liao et al differs from claim 1 because it does not disclose if there is a fifth peak at a wavenumber of 1027-1087 cm-1. However, the Liao et al material is equivalent compositionally and structurally to that of the instant claims, and thus it would have been understood by one of ordinary skill in the art that such a peak in said range would be present in the equivalent Liao et al material.
As discussed above, Liao et al teaches that the silicon component is a matrix of SiOx (silicon oxide) grains (see claim 12). The teachings of Zhou et al show that said SiOx has an amorphous microstructure (see page 2, left column). As such, the amorphous nature of the SiO component in Liao et al would have been known to one of ordinary skill in the art. Tuschel teaches that amorphous silicon oxide materials will have a Raman peak in a range of 1027-1087 cm-1. This is shown in Figure 1, showing a Raman diagram crystalline and fused quartz. The amorphous SiOx material taught by Liao et al in view of Zhou et al would most similar to the amorphous fused SiO2 material shown in the Tuschel diagram. As can be seen, there exists a peak between 1050 cm-1 and 1100 cm-1 on the fused quartz line of the diagram; this is necessarily a fifth peak falling within the 1027-1087 cm-1 range of the instant claim.
As such, the teachings of the prior art indicate that the Liao et al material, being compositionally and structurally equivalent to that of the instant claims, necessarily has the Raman peaks within the three ranges of the instant claim. Because the amounts of silicon oxide and carbon are also equivalent, it would also necessarily be the case that at least one of the D band and G band peaks would have an intensity greater than that of the aforementioned fifth peak which is necessarily present. Each limitation of claim 1 is thus met by the teachings of the prior art of record, and the claim is obvious and not patentably distinct.
Regarding claim 2, as the graphite component, which is that which contributes the 1330 cm-1 and 1580 cm-1 peaks, is in the majority, the intensity of these peaks would be greater than that of the amorphous silicon oxide component, which contributes the fifth peak.
Regarding claim 3, the Tuschel Figure 1 Raman diagram indicates a fourth peak at approximately 800 cm-1, and this peak would necessarily be of less intensity than the D band peak and G band peak as discussed above.
Regarding claim 5, Liao et al teaches that the relative intensity ratio of I1330/I1580--, which is equivalent to the Id/Ig ratio claimed instantly, is in the range of 0.7-2.0 (see claim 26). Per MPEP 2144.05, overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness.
Regarding claim 7, Liao et al teaches that inventive material comprises a MeOy layer as a part of the silicon oxide matrix component, and that carbon is contained in this layer portion. This carbon content can be considered that which meets the instant limitation of claim 1 to carbon (and is thus covered by the claim), and Liao et al teaches a content for this particular carbon component of 0.3 wt% (see Table 12).
Regarding claim 9, Liao et al teaches that the inventive material can comprise Cr (see claim 9).
Claims 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito et al (JP 2000281430 A) in view of Hamada et al (JP 2001058870 A).
Regarding claim 17, Ito et al teaches a method for producing a sintered body comprising a granulation step of preparing high-purity SiO2 powder, adding an organic binder such as wax and polyvinyl alcohol as a carbon source, uniformly mixing, and optionally crushing and pulverizing. The PVA would constitute a resin when acting as a binder. Ito et al further teaches a sintering step of molding, carbonizing, and sintering a raw material composition in the form of granules, wherein the raw material composition contains silicon oxide and a resin for carbonization (paragraphs [0027], [0032], [0035], and [0037]). The raw material prior to the molding and sintering steps thus comprises two of the components of the instant claim, but no auxiliary additive is specified. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Ito et al in view of Hamada et al in order to include one of the additional components taught therein. Hamada et al teaches a method for producing sintered quartz and is thus in an equivalent technical field as that of Ito et al. Hamada teaches that paraffin wax, PVA (polyvinyl alcohol), and PEO (polyethylene oxide) are added as organic binders (paragraph [0035]) when forming the raw material batch. The Hamada et al teaching thus indicates the advantageousness of using multiple binder components in forming sintered quartz articles such as those taught by Ito et al. One would therefore have had motivation to include these other binders when forming the Ito et al raw material mixture. In these embodiments, the one or more additional binders would constitute an auxiliary component. As such, each limitation of the instant claim 17 is met by the teachings of the prior art of record, and the claim is obvious and not patentably distinct.
Regarding claim 18, Ito et al teaches a carbon content of 0.05-1.0 wt% for the sintered body (see claim 1). This amount overlaps and thus renders obvious the content of the instant claim. As the carbon content derives from the binder component, one of ordinary skill would add binder component so as to produce an article with the aforementioned carbon content. This binder content would thus closely match the carbon content, and not be below it. The binder content would have no reason for being greater than 8 times that of the resultant carbon content, and thus there would be no instance taught by Ito et al wherein greater than 8 wt% binder (8 x 1.0 wt% carbon) would be added. The further limitation of claim 18 is thus met by the teachings of the prior art of record.
Regarding claim 19, Hamada et al teaches that the granulation can be undertaken by spray drying (see paragraph 0035).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 6, 8, 10-16, and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The prior art, either alone or in combination, fails to teach or suggest a sintered body meeting each limitation of instant claim 1 and wherein there is a peak at wave number 1212-1262 cm-1 having a higher intensity than the fifth peak. The prior art also does not teach a sintered body meeting the claim 1 limitations and having the compressive strength property of instant claim 6. The prior art further does not teach a sintered body according to instant claim 1 and having the silicon and oxygen contents of instant claim 8, or having the quantitative impurity contents of instant claim 10. The prior art also does not teach or suggest a sintered body according to instant claim 1 and having the etching resistance, color space, or light transmittance properties of instant claims 11, 12, or 13. The prior art does not teach or suggest a plasma etching-resistant part comprising the sintered body of instant claim 1 as a coating layer thereon. Finally, the prior art does not teach or suggest a method meeting each limitation of instant claim 17 and wherein the auxiliary additive is one of those recited in instant claim 20.
Conclusion
11. Claims 1-3, 5, 7, 9, and 17-19 are rejected. Claims 4, 6, 8, 10-16, and 20 are objected to.
12. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
13. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NOAH S WIESE whose telephone number is (571)270-3596. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 7:30am-4:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Amber Orlando can be reached on 571-270-3149. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. 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, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NOAH S WIESE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731
NSW11 March 2026