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 Group I claims 1-2 and 6 in the reply filed on 06/17/2026 is acknowledged.
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 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yagishita (WO2015068361A1 provided on 892 dated 4/20/26).
Regarding claim 1, Yagashita discloses a silicon-containing amorphous carbon particles comprising an easy-graphitizable amorphous carbon containing silicon oxide particles having a chemical formula represented by SiOx (0<x<2) [abstract, page 4 line 1-4, Yagashita], which silicon-containing amorphous carbon particles are spherical particles wherein sphere like reads on spherical comprising a core particle present at the center portion and a shell layer formed on the outside of core particle [page 15 line 14-page 16 line 11, fig. 1, Yagashita’s teachings read on the claim scope of a “spherical particle” in which a core (silicon dioxide/silicon dioxde mixed with green coke) is coated (shell) with additional silicon dioxide/green coke or only green coke], in which voids are present not only between said core particle and said shell layer but also in the shell layer [page 8 line 11-18, page 11 line 5-13, page 26 line 9, page 35 line 3-7, fig. 1, Yagashita discusses voids being present in the inside (core) of the material and figure 1 shows voids present on the surface (shell)].
Regarding claim 6, Yagashita discloses a lithium ion secondary battery comprising a negative electrode comprising silicon-containing amorphous carbon particles [abstract, page 43 line 6-9, Yagashita].
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.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yagishita as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yushin (US20130344391A1).
Regarding claim 2, Yagashita provides SEM imaging (fig. 1, 3, and 4) with voids present on the surface (shell) of the active material. Figures 3 and 4 provide an SEM image with a scale of 10.0 µm here the voids can be seen to be between 0.01-8 µm [fig. 3-4, Yagashita].
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim (see MPEP 2144.05).
Yagashita is silent to: the voids present between said core particle and said shell layer has a length of long axis direction of 1 to 10 µm.
However, Yushin discloses a silicon-carbon core-shell composite comprised of a core material capable of accommodating the change in size of the active material as it stores and releases metal ions [0029, Yushin]. The composite may be a carbon shell deposited on silicon activated carbon core particles [0082, Yushin]. The composites may contain open or closed pores (“voids”) between the core and the shell layer [0031, 0036-0039, 0065-0066, fig. 2-6 and 20-21, Yushin]. The shell layer may also be porous (“voids”) comprised of closed or open pores [0052, fig. 11-14, Yushin].
Yushin depicts multiple embodiments showing the voids in varying size [0031, 0036-0039, Yushin]. For instance, figs. 3-4 depict a larger void space between the core structure (102 + 304/404) and the shell (106) [fig. 3-4, Yushin]. While figs. 5-6 depict smaller void spaces (508/608) between the core structure (102 +304/404) and the shell (106) [fig. 5-6, Yushin].
Yushin notes that the substantial void in the center of the composite provides accommodation for the change in volume of the active material [0029, 0031, 0037, 0040, Yushin].
As such, one of ordinary skill within the arts would appreciate that larger void spaces allow for greater accommodation in the change in volume of the active material but less active material to absorb and release metal ions. While smaller void spaces allow for one to have more active material capable of absorbing and releasing metal ions but less space to accommodate the change in volume of the active material. As a matter of routine optimization, one would find it obvious to have a void space between the core particles and shell layer to have a length of 1-10 µm as this is a result-effective variable that can allow for one to control the amount of active material present vs the space provided which may accommodate the change in volume as the active material absorbs and releases metal ions, see MPEP 2144.05.II.
“[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 reAller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955), see MPEP 2144.05.II.
Prior to the effective filing date, one of ordinary skill within the arts would find it obvious to modify Yagashita such that the voids present between the core particles and shell layer had a length of 1-10 µm. Doing so would provide a void space to accommodate the change in volume of the active material as it absorbs and releases metal ions [0030, 0037, 0040, Yushin].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QUINTIN DALE ELLIOTT whose telephone number is (703)756-5423. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-6pm (MST).
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, Miriam Stagg can be reached at 5712705256. 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.
/QUINTIN D. ELLIOTT/Examiner, Art Unit 1724
/MIRIAM STAGG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1724
Prosecution Insights