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 .
The Applicant has amended independent claim 1. The pending claims are claims 1-9.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1- 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen, CN 103633306.
Regarding claim 1, Chen teaches an anode active material (abstract; 0002) for a lithium secondary battery (abstract), comprising: a carbon-based particle (0010-0011) comprising pores (0011) formed in at least one of an inside of the particle (0011) and a surface of the particle (0011); a pore size of the carbon-based particle is 10 nm or less (0011); and silicon is formed at an inside of the pores (0011) of the carbon-based particle (0011) or the silicon is formed at both an inside of the pores and on the surface of the carbon-based particle (0011), wherein silicon has an amorphous structure (0012) or a crystallite size of silicon (0014). Chen does not teach “measured by an X-ray diffraction (XRD) analysis”.
Measured by an X-ray diffraction analysis is a product-by-process. "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Regarding analysis of the other properties, “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).”
Regarding claim 2, Chen does not teach the crystallite size of silicon is measured by Equation1.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would be able to determine the measurement of the crystallite size, via determining x-ray wavelength, peak of a plane of silicon, and a diffraction angle. Therefore, the crystallite size of silicon could be measured by employing Equation 1.
Regarding claim 3, Chen teaches graphite (0012; 0014; 0033), porous carbon (0010; 0014; 0033).
Regarding claim 4, Chen teaches wherein the pore size of the carbon-based particle is less than 10 nm (0011).
Regarding claim 5, Chen teaches wherein the carbon-based particle has an amorphous structure (0011).
Regarding claim 6, Chen teaches anode active material (abstract; 0002) for a lithium secondary battery of claim 1 (abstract; 0002), wherein the crystallite size of silicon (0011) is 4 nm or less (0011).
Regarding claim 7, Chen does not teach the peak intensity ratio in the Raman spectrum of silicon is 1.0 or less. However, "[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." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 8, Chen teaches wherein silicon has an amorphous structure (0011).
Regarding claim 9, Chen teaches a lithium secondary battery (abstract; 0002), comprising: an anode comprising an anode active material (abstract; 0002) for a lithium secondary battery (0002) according to claim 1; and a cathode facing the anode (0061).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/9/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
First, the Applicant argues that “the cited references fail to disclose every element of the claimed invention. None of the cited references discloses that "silicon is formed at an inside of the pores of the carbon- based particle" as recited in claim 1.”
However, Chen teaches silicon inside of the pores (0011): “silicon or silicon-containing particles are dispersed in the porous carbon layer.” (0011).
Second, Applicant argues that “Chen does not disclose or suggest the absence of silicon carbide (SiC) in the pores or on the surface of the carbon-based particle, the crystallite size, the amorphous structure, or the claimed Raman peak intensity ratio as recited in the present claims.”
However, although Chen does not teach the absence of silicon carbide in the pores of the carbon-based particle, Chen teaches the same chemical compounds, A prima facie case of obviousness may be made when chemical compounds have very close structural similarities and similar utilities. "An obviousness rejection based on similarity in chemical structure and function entails the motivation of one skilled in the art to make a claimed compound, in the expectation that compounds similar in structure will have similar properties." In re Payne, 606 F.2d 303, 313, 203 USPQ 245, 254 (CCPA 1979). See In re Papesch, 315 F.2d 381, 137 USPQ 43 (CCPA 1963) (discussed in more detail below) and In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Third, the Applicant argues that “anode active material of Kim includes a silicon-based coating layer that essentially contains silicon carbide. The core technical feature of Kim is that silicon carbide in the silicon-based coating layer forms a continuous-phase matrix, and silicon nanoparticles form a dispersed phase within that matrix.”
However, Kim has been removed as the secondary reference of dependent claim 2.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGELA J MARTIN whose telephone number is (571)272-1288. The examiner can normally be reached 7am-4pm.
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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at 571-272-1330. 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.
ANGELA J. MARTIN
Examiner
Art Unit 1727
/ANGELA J MARTIN/Examiner, Art Unit 1727 .
/BARBARA L GILLIAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1727
Prosecution Insights