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 .
Claim Interpretation
It is noted that [0045] of the instant specification defines the term “macropores” to mean “pores having a diameter ranging from 2 nm to 50 nm.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(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.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Zafiropoulos et al. (US 2024/0128455; hereinafter “Zafiropoulos”).
In regard to claims 1-5, Zafiropoulos discloses a silicon-carbon containing electrode material (composite carbon-silicon material; see at least [0112]), comprising a porous carbon structure (carbon-based scaffold material; see at least [0112]) including pores; and a silicon-containing coating (“silicon impregnation;” see at least [0112]) formed on the porous carbon structure, wherein a volume ratio of mesopores is 70% or more, a range from 75% to 98% as recited in claim 2, or a range from 80% to 95% as recited in claim 3 (“greater than 70% mesopores,” “greater than 80% mesopores,” “greater than 90% mesopores,” or “greater than 95% mesopores” which significantly encompass with the recited ranges; see [0194]-[0195]) based on a total pore volume of the porous carbon structure, and a weight ratio of silicon is 30 wt% or more, 30 wt% to 70 wt% as recited in claim 4, or 40 wt% to 60 wt % as recited in claim 5 based on a total weight of the electrode material (“30% to 60%,” “40% to 50%,” “30% to 40%,” “50% to 70%,” “60% to 70%,” “35% to 45%,” or “45% to 55%” which significantly overlap and encompass with the recited ranges; see [0189]).
In regard to claims 6-7, Zafiropoulos discloses wherein the total pore volume of the porous carbon structure is 0.8 cm3/g as recited in claim 6 or more or a range from 0.81 cm3/g to 1.2 cm3/g as recited in claim 7 as Zafiropoulos teaches that the carbon scaffold material can have a pore volume of “1 cc/g or more” or “in a range between any two of these values” which include “0.9 cc/g” and “1.2 cc/g” as disclosed in [0182] which significantly overlap with the recited ranges.
In regard to claims 8-9, Zafiropoulos discloses wherein the surface area of the composite can be “greater than 750 m2/g” which significant overlaps with the recited open-ended range of “650 m2/g or more” of claim 8 and the range of “670 m2/g to 2,000 m2/g” as recited in claim 9.
In regard to claim 10, Zafiropoulos discloses wherein a carbon coating is further formed on the silicon-containing coating as it is disclosed that a “terminal carbon coating” can be applied. See [0112] and [0118].
In regard to claims 11-12, Zafiropoulos discloses wherein an average diameter of the pores of the porous carbon structure is 2 nm or more as recited in claim 11 and in a range from 4 nm to 20 nm as recited in claim 12 as it is taught that that the carbon scaffold materials in the composition can have a strut width, which is recited to be equivalent to “average diameter,” of “about 10 nm or less, 9 nm or less, 8 nm or less, 7 nm or less, 6 nm or less, 5 nm or less, 4 nm or less, 3 nm or less, 2 nm or less, or in a range between any two of these values” as recited in [0050] which significantly overlaps with the recited ranges.
In regard to claim 13, Zafiropoulos discloses a secondary battery (lithium-ion battery; [0020]) comprising an anode comprising the silicon-carbon containing electrode material according to claim 1 (“this electrode may be the anode;” see [0020]); and a cathode facing the anode (necessarily present in order to form a battery). See [0020].
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 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zafiropoulos as applied to claim 1 above.
In regard to claims 6-9, this rejection is applied in case it is viewed that Zafiropoulos does not anticipate the recited total pore volume or specific surface area of the porous carbon structure. Thus, it is held that it would have been within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have determined an optimum or workable range of total pore volume or specific surface area of the porous carbon structure for producing the recited mesopore volume ratio and/or weight ratio of silicon in the pores without creating any new or unexpected results. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY C CLEVELAND whose telephone number is (571)270-5041. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:30.
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, Claire Wang can be reached at (571) 270-1051. 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.
/TIMOTHY C CLEVELAND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774
Prosecution Insights