DETAILED ACTION
Notice to Applicant
Claims 1-20 are pending and are examined herein. This is the first action on the merits.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1 is directed towards a “homogeneous silicon carbide material” that “has a bi-continuous phase structure.” A review of the instant specification shows that this material is formed in exemplary embodiments by the deposition of silicon on a porous carbon scaffold, followed by further deposition of amorphous carbon. It appears to be a material formed as a silicon-carbon composite rather than a “homogeneous silicon carbide.” The use of “carbide” implies regular (i.e. homogeneous) carbon-silicon bonding throughout the entire structure. The specification appears to define “homogeneous” as something like compositional similarity (<15% difference in mass proportion of C) at a position 100 nm away from a surface (see e.g. claim 3). The “bi-continuous phase structure” appears to denote something like a porous scaffold of carbon with an overlaying silicon-carbon coating layer that is “evenly” distributed throughout the composite particles as measured at some (micro)length scale.
But the claims as a whole are indefinite for the following reasons:
It is unclear whether the claims are directed towards a truly homogeneous silicon carbide or a silicon-carbon composite.
It is unclear whether the “region” in claim 3 is a special region of homogeneity, or the homogeneity applies to the whole particle, and, if the latter, why the region is claimed so particularly (i.e. is it referring only to the portions of the particles formed by the silicon-carbon deposition layers).
It is unclear what the metes and bounds of “homogeneity” are when it is constrained by a basic “bi-continuous phase structure” that necessarily implies non-homogeneity. The lack of a “distinct boundary” between two phases (see instant PGPUB US 2024/0145678 at ¶ 0032) does not render something homogeneous in itself.
The claims have been interpreted in light of the specification to refer to porous carbon particles that have been infiltrated by silicon-carbon composite layers formed by deposition processes in the pores. The dependent claims are rejected for depending on claim 1.
Claim 3 is additionally rejected because it is unclear what “in a region that is inside the homogeneous silicon carbide material and 100 nm away from a surface of the homogeneous silicon carbide material” is supposed to denote. What does “inside the homogeneous silicon carbide material” add to the phrase “100 nm away from a surface”? is it merely redundant? or is it supposed to imply something else, like “away from an inner surface” of a porous particle? How large is the claimed region? Does “any two positions” mean arbitrarily selectable positions or that between “any two positions” within the region? It seems that just picking a very small region, on the order of 1nm, would result in a substantially uniform carbon composition across the area. The claim has been interpreted broadly as indicating that there is a carbon scaffold underneath a thin layer of silicon-carbon composite.
Claim 7 is additionally rejected because it is unclear what the metes and bounds of “mesopore” and “micropore” are. The specification gives example ranges but does not define a clear boundary. “Micro” as a prefix is generally understood in the art as on the micrometer scale, as opposed to “nano,” though micropores are given ranges of a few nm in the specification. The claim has been interpreted broadly to refer to pores on the scale of 1 nm to 100 nm or more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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, 3-8, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sakshaug (US 2017/0170477 to Sakshaug et al.).
Regarding Claim 1, Sakshaug teaches:
silicon-carbon composites formed from a micro-, meso-, or microporous carbon template exposed to Si-containing gas that infiltrates the pores, forming an evenly-distributed layer of silicon throughout the pores (Fig. 1, abstract, ¶ 0018-0023)
Regarding Claim 3, Sakshaug teaches:
an embodiment wherein the silicon is deposited in layers in pores on the order of 10-100 nm (¶ 0195), such that the underlying homogeneous carbon structure would be 100 nm away from an inner surface of the pore and would have a substantially identical carbon composition
Regarding Claim 4, Sakshaug teaches:
embodiments where the untreated carbon scaffold has specific surface area of 100 to 1000 m2/g, including examples of e.g. 1123 m2/g (¶ 0453, Table 19)
Regarding Claim 5, Sakshaug teaches:
embodiments where the total carbon content is 50-60% (¶ 0366)
Regarding Claim 6, Sakshaug teaches:
carbon scaffolds with total pore volumes of, e.g., 0.610 cm3/g (Table 28)
Regarding Claim 7, Sakshaug teaches:
embodiments with pore ranging in size from 10 nm to 100 nm, interpreted to read on “micropores” and “mesopores” as conventionally understood (¶ 0195)
Regarding Claim 8, Sakshaug teaches:
an embodiment wherein the composite particle has a specific surface area of 6 m2/g (¶ 0423)
Regarding Claim 16, Sakshaug teaches:
anodes formed from the composite material and graphite (¶ 0418)
Regarding Claim 17, Sakshaug teaches:
graphite, that must be either natural or artificial (¶ 0418)
Regarding Claim 18, Sakshaug teaches:
embodiments wherein the composite is 24% and the graphite 76% (¶ 0418)
Regarding Claim 19, Sakshaug teaches:
embodiments with 90% active material, 5% binder and 5% conductive carbon (¶ 0424)
Regarding Claim 20, Sakshaug teaches:
a battery (abstract, examples, etc.)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
Claims 2 and 9-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as anticipated, or, alternatively, under 103 as being unpatentable over Sakshaug (US 2017/0170477 to Sakshaug et al.).
Regarding Claim 2, Sakshaug does not explicitly teach:
I1>I2
Sakshaug teaches substantially similar processes for forming a silicon-carbon composite, including using a mesoporous carbon that is coated with a silicon-carbon composite outer layer through vapor deposition. Absent Applicant pointing out a critical difference in the structure or method, it would be expected that the material in Sakshaug demonstrates the claimed peak characteristics, being formed from amorphous carbon and silicon composite.
Regarding Claim 9, Sakshaug teaches:
lithiation to form LiSi-C (¶ 0456)
Sakshaug teaches substantially similar processes for forming a silicon-carbon composite, including using a mesoporous carbon that is coated with a silicon-carbon composite outer layer through vapor deposition. Absent Applicant pointing out a critical difference in the structure or method, it would be expected that the material in Sakshaug demonstrates the claimed peak characteristics, being formed from amorphous carbon and silicon composite.
Regarding Claim 10, Sakshaug does not explicitly teach:
I3>I4
Sakshaug teaches substantially similar processes for forming a silicon-carbon composite, including using a mesoporous carbon that is coated with a silicon-carbon composite outer layer through vapor deposition. Absent Applicant pointing out a critical difference in the structure or method, it would be expected that the material in Sakshaug demonstrates the claimed peak characteristics, being formed from amorphous carbon and silicon composite.
Regarding Claim 11, Sakshaug teaches:
embodiments where the untreated carbon scaffold has specific surface area of 100 to 1000 m2/g, including examples of e.g. 1123 m2/g (¶ 0453, Table 19)
Regarding Claim 12, Sakshaug teaches:
an embodiment wherein the composite particle has a specific surface area of 6 m2/g (¶ 0423)
median particle sizes between 4-8 microns (¶ 0342)
Regarding Claim 13, Sakshaug teaches:
embodiments wherein the composite is 24% and the graphite 76% (¶ 0418)
wherein lithiation is conventional and substantially the same as the instant inventio, such that at some point during lithiation, up to fully charged, the lithium content would be expected to overlap the claimed range
Regarding Claim 14, Sakshaug teaches:
an outer carbon coating (¶ 0428)
While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F. 3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997). The manner of operating a device does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art. See MPEP § 2114. Product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. “[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). See MPEP 2113 [R-1].
Regarding Claim 15, Sakshaug teaches:
oxygen content in the outer shell (¶ 0120, 0195, 0201, 0466)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
2017/0346084
2022/0166028
2023/0207780
2023/0246176
2023/0348280
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Dignan, whose telephone number is (571) 272-6425. The examiner can normally be reached from Monday to Friday between 10 AM and 6:30 PM. If any attempt to reach the examiner by telephone is unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tiffany Legette, can be reached at (571)270-7078. Another resource that is available to applicants is the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR). Information regarding the status of an application can be obtained from the (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAX. 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, please feel free to contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). Applicants are invited to contact the Office to schedule an in-person interview to discuss and resolve the issues set forth in this Office Action. Although an interview is not required, the Office believes that an interview can be of use to resolve any issues related to a patent application in an efficient and prompt manner.
/MICHAEL L DIGNAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights