DETAILED ACTION
Notice to Applicant
Claims 5-9 and 13 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected method, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 2026-06-09. Applicant argues that amending the method to depend on claim 1 means that the method claims have the same inventive concept and should therefore be examined together. They have the same inventive concept (the apparatus/material) but that is not an inventive concept and so restriction remains proper. The method claims remain withdrawn.
Claims 1-13 are pending; claims 1-4 and 10-12 are examined herein. This is the first action on the merits.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office 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.
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 1-4 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamo (US Patent No. 10,396,353 to Kamo et al.) in view of Yang (US Patent No. 9,972,836 to Yang et al.) and Fang (Fang et al. “Highly Graphitized Carbon Coating on SiO with a π- π Stacking Precursor Polymer for High Performance Lithium-Ion Batteries.” Polymers, 2018, 10, 610).
Regarding Claims 1 and 10, Kamo teaches:
a composite anode material comprising SiOx that is coated with carbon via vapor deposition (column 2 lines 7-10, column 3 lines 60-65)
wherein the composite material is a type II or type III adsorption-desorption isotherm (column 4 line 1)
a battery formed from the material (abstract, claims, etc.)
Kamo does not explicitly teach:
the SiOX material is type IV or V before coating
As discussed in the instant specification, type IV and type V silicon-based particles are associated with mesopores, that allow infiltration of nitrogen gas during the measurement, but also allow electrolyte into the pores during cycling. Such materials show a hysteresis loop, where the adsorption line differs from the desorption line. Yang, from the same field of invention, regarding an SiOX-C composite material, teaching porous silicon oxide having a hysteresis loop when its adsorption-desorption isotherm is measured (Fig. 6), strongly suggesting types IV or V. Similarly, Fang, also regarding an SiOX-C material, teaches a silicon oxide material component with a hysteresis loop on the measured isotherm (Fig. 2f), and a similar porous structure, strongly suggesting types IV or V. It would have been obvious to use such silicon oxide materials, as they were known in the art, and known to be coated in C, in the production of the composite anode material of Kamo, which results in a type II or III composite. Kamo does not explicitly teach the type of silicon oxide, suggesting any known material could be used, and that even if it had type IV or V characteristics, it would be coated in a carbon that transformed it into the desired type, with better cycling characteristics. Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results has been found to be obvious. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Regarding Claim 2, Kamo teaches:
carbon with an optimum ratio of diamond and graphite structures, formed from vapor deposition, with peak ratios between 0.5 and 2, with silicon peaks expected to fall within the claimed range given the similar material, and similar composition ratios of the composite, i.e. 1-25 wt% carbon (bottom of column 4 to column 5)
Regarding Claim 3, Kamo teaches:
SiOX where x is between 0.5 and 1.6 (column 3 line 63)
Regarding Claims 4, 11, and 12, Kamo teaches:
average composite particle size ranging from less than a micron to tens of microns, including examples at 5.1 microns plus a 110 nm coating, well within the claimed particle size range (column 20 lines 41-55)
Conclusion
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