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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection. The rejection relies upon references previously applied and arguments will be addressed.
Applicant's arguments filed 8/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Arguments pertaining to the filling pore structure being filled with a relationship to “active material” are not persuasive due to the limitations being newly amended.
No additional arguments are present regarding Tillmann that do not involve the amended claim language.
Newly applied prior art JP 2018-534720 on Pg 41 Para 5 presents an argument that silicon expands to fill additional pore volume during charging and discharging. In order to advance prosecution and have compact prosecution, a 103 rejection is addressed below since the newly applied reference clearly teaches the scope claimed. The teaching of expanding silicon during charging/discharging does introduce a scope interest to the claimed 95% active material occupying pores since it is unclear if this is pre-loaded or a result of charging. As applicant argues, the prior art of Tillmann teaches a loading of 60% silicon, but does the silicon occupation of pores increase during charging/discharging cycles, and would such reach the claimed limitations of 95%? As examiners, we are not capable of performing experiments to conclude or reject such inquiries, but we can present these inquires as consideration when assessing if the instant claim scope is novel and non-obvious over the prior art. Since the loading of silicon is not claimed to be as a pre-loaded amount of silicon, it is interpreted the amount of silicon in the pores can come from pre-loading to the claimed level or pre-loading to a lower amount and charging/discharging the electrode whereby the silicon expands to at least momentarily read on the instant claimed scope.
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) 1-4, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tillmann et al (PGPUB 2023/0395774) and further in view of JP 2018-534720 (referenced as ‘720 below).
Claim 1, 10: Tillmann teaches a silicon-containing particle and process of formation [Abstract]. The use of silicon particles are suitable for rechargeable metal-ion batteries as anode material [0002]. A porous particle having silicon deposited within their pores are produced in a batch-wise manner by introducing porous carbon particles into a pressure reactor, introducing a silicon precursor gas into the reactor and heating the reactor to a temperature at which the silicon precursor decomposes and deposits silicon [0019]. Porous particles comprise micropores and mesopores of carbon material [0023]; micropore is defined to be a pore of less than 2nm in diameter and mesopore is 2-50nm in diameter [0105]. The porous particles preferably have a narrow size distribution [0098]. Tillmann’s micropore structure reads on applicant’s ‘first pore structure’ and the mesoporous material reads on applicant’s ‘second pore structure’.
The internal pore volume is taught to have a volume less than 2cm3/g [0109]. The volumetric ratio of micropores to mesopores in the porous particle is taught to be 100:0 to 0:100 with ranges of 85:15 to 65:35 exemplified [0115]. Micropore volume of 85% compared to total pore volume is above the claimed value of 40%.
A carbon coating is present in order to reduce the BET surface area of the composite particles and smoothing any surface defects [0249-0252]. The silicon-containing composite particles comprise this carbon layer in a size of less than 100nm [0323], which overlaps with the claimed range of 10nm to 500nm.
Tillmann teaches a preferential loading of silicon into the particle compared to the surface or external [0196] and have a loading of silicon to occupy 25% to 60% of the internal pore volume [0183], but is silent to teach the instant range of active material being more than 95%.
‘720 teaches an electric energy storage electrode and device with electrode having a composite of silicon and porous carbon scaffold material such as a porous carbon material having micropores, mesopores, and/or macropores [Abstract]. The composite has a core material of porous carbon that is impregnated with an active material of silicon [Pg 3 – Technical Field]. The prior art teaches the porous silicon particles embedded within the composite material fills the pores of the porous carbon scaffold material in an amount exemplified to be 80%-100% which overlaps instant claimed range of greater than 95% [Pg 41 Para 4]. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the amount of silicon material loaded into the porous carbon material of Tillmann to be 80-100% as taught by ‘720 in order to increase and improve the sites for lithium insertion [Pg 40 Para 5]. Alternatively, ‘720 teaches silicon embedded in the porous carbon scaffold material occupies a portion of the total available pore volume within the porous carbon scaffold and the remainder is available for silicon whereby the expansion of silicon in response to lithium uptake can have the lithium fill the pore volume [Pg 41 Para 5]. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the operation of the silicon material loaded into the porous carbon material of Tillmann to be 80-100% through charging as taught by ‘720 in order to have lithium uptake accommodated [Pg 41 Para 5].
Claim 2: Tillmann teaches the active material to comprise Silicon (Si) [Abstract; 0168-0204].
Claim 3: Tillmann teaches the carbon material utilized in the invention to be exemplified to be hard carbon, soft carbon, graphite, or nitrides of silicon nitride [0125-0146].
Claim 4: Tillmann teaches the anode material to have a specific surface area of less than 10m2/g [0320].
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN J YANCHUK whose telephone number is (571)270-7343. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 10a-8p.
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, Nick Smith can be reached at 571-272-8760. 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.
/STEPHEN J YANCHUK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752
