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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Claims 1-9 and 18 in the reply filed on 08/09/2026 is acknowledged.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4-5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 4, the applicant recites “pencil hardness […] measured in accordance with ISO 15184.” This is in relation to the coating layers applied to a silicon nano-particle. However, ISO 15184 specifically states that this method of measuring hardness is only applicable to smooth surfaces (See ISO 15184 Abstract, “The method is applicable only to smooth surfaces”). The examiner is unsure how it is possible to obtain such a measurement for a coating applied to a nanoparticle or if this is instead directed to the substance prior to being used as a coating. Though, in the latter case, ISO 15184 further states that “the test can be performed on a single coating of a paint, varnish or related product”, which means the test is not pertinently directed towards a base substance not yet applied as a coating.
For the purposes of examination, the hardness tested will be the hardness of the coating as measured from the coating applied to an arbitrary smooth surface as opposed to the actual nano-particle.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1, 3 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cai et al. (CN 113659125; English translation relied upon, translation obtained from Espacenet).
Regarding Claim 1, Cai meets the claimed,
An anode material comprising ([n0006] teaches an anode material): nano-silicon particles ([n0006] teaches a nano-silicon particle); a medium coating layer formed on an outer circumferential surface of the nano-silicon particle ([n0006] teaches a hard carbon layer on the particle); and a first coating layer formed on an outer circumferential surface of the medium coating layer ([n0006] teaches a set of layers atop the hard carbon layer), wherein the first coating layer comprises at least one of a hard coating layer ([n0006] teaches a graphene layer on the hard carbon layer) and a soft coating layer ([n0006] teaches a soft carbon layer on the graphene layer), the hard coating layer having a higher hardness than the medium coating layer, the medium coating layer having a higher hardness than the soft coating layer ([n0006] teaches a graphene layer. Graphene has a Mohs hardness of between 2-3. [n0006] teaches the pyrolysis of sweet potato starch, which is less hard than graphene, both as potato starch and as carbon black, as both are soft powders. [n0022] teaches asphalt, or bitumen, for the soft coating, which is a viscoelastic semi-solid, which means it does not have a Mohs hardness as it is not hard at all).
Source for graphene hardness: nanoemi.com/everything-you-need-to-know-about-graphene/
Regarding Claim 3, Cai does not specifically teach the XRD spectrum peaks for the nano-silicon particles. However, Cai does teach all claimed structural elements of the nano-silicon particle, particularly the size, and as such, likely possesses the same properties as claimed of the XRD spectrum peaks.
Regarding Claim 4, Cai does not specifically teach a pencil hardness rating. However, Cai meets all other claimed elements. Therefore, it is likely that the elements of the prior art possess the same properties as claimed by the applicant.
Regarding Claim 18, Cai meets the claimed,
A secondary battery comprising ([n0037] teaches a secondary battery): a cathode ([n0037] teaches lithium foil used as a counter electrode); an anode ([n0037] teaches an anode using the silicon-carbon composite material); and an electrolyte disposed between the cathode and the anode ([n0037] teaches that there is contact with an electrolyte, therefore, there must be electrolyte between the cathode and anode otherwise the battery would not function), wherein the anode comprises the anode material according to claim 1 ([n0037] teaches an anode using the silicon-carbon composite material as taught previously in the prior art).
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) 2 and 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Cai et al. (CN 113659125; English translation relied upon, translation obtained from Espacenet) in view of Yu et al. (CN 108390049; English translation relied upon, translation obtained from Espacenet).
Regarding Claim 2, Cai does not teach a silicon carbide layer.
Yu is analogous as it teaches a core-shell structure for a silicon nano-particle.
Yu meets the claimed,
The anode material according to claim 1, further comprising: a silicon carbide (SiC) layer between the nano-silicon particle and the medium coating layer ([0007] teaches that a SiC layer).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use a SiC layer between coatings to help suppress the volume of expansion of the silicon particle (see Yu [0007]).
Regarding Claim 8, Cai does not teach specific weight percents of the various components.
Yu is analogous as it teaches a core-shell structure for a silicon nano-particle.
Yu meets the claimed,
The anode material according to claim 1, comprising : 25 wt% to 80 wt% of the nano-silicon particles ([0016] teaches an inner layer mass fraction of 60% to 80%); 1 wt% to 40 wt% of the medium coating layer ([0016] teaches a middle layer mass fraction of 15% to 20%); and 1 wt% to 60 wt% of the first coating layer ([0016] teaches an outer layer mass fraction of 5% to 20%).
The examiner finds that Cai differs from the claim only in the combination of the use of the specified weight ratios for the particle and its coatings as taught by Yu. The examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. The examiner notes that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the use of the specified weight ratios for the particle and its coatings with Cai because it yields the predictable result of [a core with a mass fraction of 60-80%, a middle layer with a mass fraction of 15-20% and an outer layer with a mass fraction of 5-20% (See Yu [0016]).
Regarding Claim 9, Cai does not teach a particular weight ratio between coating layers.
Yu is analogous as it teaches a core-shell structure for a silicon nano-particle.
Yu meets the claimed,
The anode material according to claim 1, wherein the medium coating layer and the first coating layer are present in a weight ratio of 1:0.5 to 1.6 ([0016] teaches a middle layer mass fraction of 15% to 20% and an outer layer mass fraction of 5% to 20%. This results in a weight ratio of 1:0.75 to 1:4).
The examiner finds that Cai differs from the claim only in the combination of the use of the specified weight ratios between the coatings as taught by Yu. The examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. The examiner notes that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the use of the specified weight ratios for the particle and its coatings with Cai because it yields the predictable result of a weight ratio between layers of 1:0.75 to 1:4 (See Yu [0016]).
Furthermore, in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, there exists a prima facie case of obviousness (See MPEP 2144.05).
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Cai et al. (CN 113659125; English translation relied upon, translation obtained from Espacenet) in view of Xu et al. (US 2025/0054947).
Regarding Claim 5, Cai meets the claimed,
[…] and a density of greater than 1.8 g/cm³ to 2.8 g/cm³ ([n0006] teaches a graphene layer. [n0011] teaches that this is likely a graphene oxide layer, which has a density of 0.2-0.3 g/cm³); […] and a density of 1.5 g/cm³ or less ([n0022] teaches asphalt, or bitumen, as the material and has a density between 0.99 and 1.10 g/cm³).
Cai does not specifically teach a density of the medium coating layer of 1.5 g/cm³ to 1.8 g/cm³.
However, Cai teaches a density of 1.8 – 2.1 g/cm³. In the case where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close, there exists a prima facie case of obviousness (See MPEP 2144.05). In this case, the density of 1.8 – 2.1 g/cm³ as taught by Cai is substantially close to the claimed density of 1.5 g/cm³ to 1.8 g/cm³.
Cai does not teach a specific layer thickness.
Xu is analogous as it teaches a core-shell material for use as a cathode with carbon layers.
Xu does not teach three layers of carbon, however, it does teach that it would be advantageous for a carbon coating on a core-shell material for the purposes of an electrode, to have a thin carbon coating. In particular, Xu teaches a carbon coating between 3 nm and 5 nm in thickness (See Xu [0023]).
While the claim specifies a thickness of 5 nm to 1000 nm for the hard coating layer and soft coating layer, MPEP 2144.05 states that in the case where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close, there exists a prima facie case of obviousness. In this case, the thickness of 3 nm to 5 nm as taught by Xu is substantially close to the claimed thickness of 5 nm to 1000 nm.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to optimize each of the three carbon coatings to a thinner thickness between 3 nm and 5 nm so as to maintain a greater proportion of active material in each core-shell particle and thus increase the overall capacity of the electrode.
Regarding Claim 6, Cai meets the claimed,
[…] the nano-silicon particles have an average diameter (d50) of 45 nm to 1,500 nm ([0028] teaches a d50 particle size of 80 nm.);
Cai does not teach an average particle diameter of 50 nm to 3 µm, nor does it teach a first coating layer thickness of 2 nm to 1,500 nm.
Xu is analogous as it teaches a core-shell material for use as a cathode with carbon layers.
Xu meets the claimed,
The anode material according to claim 1, wherein the anode material has an average particle diameter (d50) of 50 nm to 3 µm ([0023] teaches carbon coating between 3 nm and 5 nm; in combination with Cai, this results in 3 layers of 3 to 5 nm, or 9-15 nm, with a d50 core of 80 nm, for a d50 particle diameter of 89-95 nm); […] and the first coating layer has a thickness of 2 nm to 1,500 nm ([0023] teaches carbon coating between 3 nm and 5 nm).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to try and limit the thickness of the coating in order to maintain a greater proportion of active material which increases the capacity of the anode material (See Xu [0023]).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Cai et al. (CN 113659125; English translation relied upon, translation obtained from Espacenet) in view of Son et al. US 2024/0047688).
Cai meets the claimed,
[…] the second coating layer comprising a medium coating layer ([n0006] teaches a hard carbon layer on the particle).
Cai does not teach a second coating layer applied atop the first coating layer.
Son is analogous as it teaches a carbon layered silicon composite material for use in batteries.
Son meets the claimed,
The anode material according to claim 1, further comprising: a second coating layer formed on an outer circumferential surface of the first coating layer ([0114] teaches a second carbon coating layer),
The examiner finds that Cai differs from the claim only in the combination of a second coating layer as taught by Son. The examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. The examiner notes that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the use of a second coating layer with Cai because it yields the predictable result of a double coated particle (See Son [0114]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Baker (US 2019/0337052) teaches a core-shell material and specifies that applying multiple layers to a core particle is a known technique.
Filtvedt (US 2019/0263666) teaches a core-shell material comprising a silicon nano particle and two sequential layers on the surface of the particle.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW Y. HO whose telephone number is (571)842-1342. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 - 6:00, Mon - Thurs.
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, Xiao S. Zhao can be reached at (571) 270-5343. 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.
/A.Y.H./Examiner, Art Unit 1744
/MICHAEL M. ROBINSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1744
Prosecution Insights