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 .
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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group 2 and Species A in the reply filed on 7/22/26 is acknowledged. Claims 13-19 are drawn to the elected invention.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Page 3 line 2 and line 20, in the specification, refers to claims 1 and 13, respectively. Claim numbering often changes during prosecution. It is suggested to amend the specification so as to avoid referring to specific claim numbers.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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) 13-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rayner et al (US 2013/0216907, cited in PTO-892 mailed 6/2/26) in view of Li et al (CN 109652673 A, cited in PTO-892 mailed 6/2/26).
Independent claim 13 is a product-by-process claim (note the preamble of the claim, “A powder of silicon based particles manufactured by a method comprising the steps of:”). See MPEP 2113 (I), where 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).
Regarding claim 13, Rayner et al teaches a powder of silicon based particles (abstract, composition including a plurality of electroactive porous particle fragments including silicon as an electroactive material), the particles are micron-sized (paragraph [0055], particle fragments having a maximum overall dimension in the range of 1 to 40 µm), the particles having a nano-structure of channels (abstract, network or pores, paragraph [0041], discrete or interconnected void spaces or channels defined between linear elongate elements, paragraph [0055], pore diameter most preferably 150 nm to 2 µm), at least one channel completely penetrating the silicon based particle and connecting at least two surfaces of the silicon based particle (abstract, arrangement of pores extending through the volume in which the pore openings are provided on two or more planes over the surface of the particle).
Rayner et al additionally teaches a method of manufacturing, including manufacturing silicon containing porous particle fragments that includes a network of pores separated by silicon containing walls (abstract). The porous particle is preferably formed from an electroactive material such as silicon, including alloys with aluminum, copper, titanium, strontium, nickel, iron, antimony, chromium, cobalt, tin, gold, silver, beryllium, molybdenum, zirconium, and vanadium (paragraph [0042]). For example, an aluminum silicon alloy can comprise from 11% to 30 wt% silicon (paragraph [0043]) (thus encompassing a eutectic composition), where Rayner et al recognizes that the structure of the porous particle depends upon the composition and method used to form the alloy particle, such as the cooling techniques, and that finer morphologies can be observed with eutectic compositions (paragraph [0049]). The particulate alloy material used to prepare the porous particles are generally prepared using techniques that rapidly quench samples of molten alloy (paragraph [0114]). Silicon containing porous particles are typically fabricated using techniques such as stain etching (paragraph [0113]) and then partially crushing by suitable techniques including ultrasound or ball milling (paragraph [0117]).
Rayner et al is quiet to directionally solidifying the eutectic alloy composition so as to form parallel structures that when etched form parallel oriented channels.
Li et al teaches preparing a micro-nano double-scale composite porous material (abstract), where a main material and auxiliary material is mixed (paragraph [0009]), the main material may be silicon (paragraph [0013]) and the auxiliary material may be aluminum (paragraph [0014]). The mixture is subjected to a solid-gas eutectic directional solidification process to obtain a micron-sized regular through-hole material (paragraph [0010]), which is then chemically etched (paragraph [0011]), thus forming a regularly oriented porous material with controllable and oriented pore structure (paragraph [0018]), where figures 1-3 show the oriented pores arranged as parallel oriented channels (figs 1-3). The directional solidification step includes melting the metal mixture and pouring into a crucible cooled by water at the bottom to obtain the regularly oriented porous material with directional arrangement (paragraph [0027-0028], [0032-0033], [0037-0038], [0041-0043]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Rayner et al and Li et al, as Rayner et al teaches that cooling techniques and variations of the cooling rate can be used to form alloy particles of different dimensions and morphologies (paragraph [0049]) and that
Li et al teaches that the preparation method overcomes the technical bottleneck of small size and high brittleness, but also preserves and even expands the specific surface area, which is beneficial for various applications (paragraph [0007]).
Note above, where product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. See MPEP 2113 (I). The claimed product appears to be the same or similar to that of the combined teachings of the prior art.
Regarding claim 14, the combination teaches the silicon based particles are micron sized (Rayner, paragraph [0055], particle fragments having a maximum overall dimension in the range of 1 to 40 µm), and each have a nano-porous structure comprising at least one channel (Rayner, abstract, network or pores, paragraph [0041], discrete or interconnected void spaces or channels defined between linear elongate elements, paragraph [0055], pore diameter most preferably 150 nm to 2 µm) completely penetrating the silicon based particle and connecting at least two surfaces of the silicon based particle (Rayner, abstract, arrangement of pores extending through the volume in which the pore openings are provided on two or more planes over the surface of the particle, also see Li, paragraph [0011], micron sized regular through hole materials).
Regarding claim 15, the combination teaches the silicon based particles are micron sized (Rayner, paragraph [0055], particle fragments having a maximum overall dimension in the range of 1 to 40 µm), and each have a nano-porous structure comprising multiple channels (Rayner, abstract, network or pores, paragraph [0041], discrete or interconnected void spaces or channels defined between linear elongate elements, paragraph [0055], pore diameter most preferably 150 nm to 2 µm) completely penetrating the silicon based particle and oriented parallel to each other between at least two surfaces of the silicon based particle (Rayner, abstract, arrangement of pores extending through the volume in which the pore openings are provided on two or more planes over the surface of the particle, also see Li, paragraph [0011], micron sized regular through hole materials, Li, figs 1-3, parallel oriented).
Regarding claim 16, the combination teaches wherein the parallel oriented channels have a diameter between 100 nm and 1000 nm (Rayner, paragraph [0055], pore diameters, most preferably in the range of 150 nm to 2 µm, overlapping the claimed range).
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, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 17, the combination teaches wherein walls between the parallel oriented channels have a minimum thickness between 100 nm and 1000 nm (Rayner, paragraph [0053], pore wall thickness preferably 100 nm to 200 nm, falling within the claimed range).
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, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP 2144.05(I).
Claim(s) 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rayner et al as modified by Li et al as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Mah et al (US 2009/0029256).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Rayner et al as modified by Li et al teaches that the silicon containing porous particle fragments may include a coating (paragraph [0066]), such as a coating made with carbon such as graphite, electroactive hard carbon, conductive carbon, or carbon black (paragraph [0066]), but is quiet to wherein carbon-based agglomerates or carbon-based particles are present on exterior surfaces of the silicon based particles.
Mah et al teaches an Si/C composite used to form an anode active material to provide a lithium battery having a high capacity and excellent capacity retention (abstract). Mah et al teaches that if a composite is composed of only porous silicon, the low conductivity may reduce the initial coulombic efficiency or the capacity retention (paragraph [0048]). Mah et al thus includes carbon in a dispersed state in the porous silicon particles (paragraph [0049]), including natural graphite, artificial graphite, carbon particles, and carbon nanotubes (paragraph [0051]). Mah et al teaches that the composites having the carbon embedded therein may further have carbon coated thereon, which improves the conductivity among the porous silicon particles (paragraph [0055], see claim 5, carbon on an outer shell of the porous silicon particles). During heat treatment, a small amount of SiC forms at an interface between Si and C (paragraph [0054]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination so as to include carbon-based particles present on exterior surfaces of the silicon based particles, as Rayner et al suggests the use of carbon coatings (Rayner, paragraph [0066]), and that Mah et al teaches both dispersing carbons within the porous silicon particles and coating the carbon on the outer shell of the porous silicon particles (paragraph [0055], claim 5), and that the carbon on the surface improves the conductivity among the porous silicon particles (paragraph [0055]).
Regarding claim 19, the combination teaches wherein the silicon based particles comprise a silicon-carbide layer arranged between the exterior surfaces of the silicon based particles and the carbon-based agglomerates or carbon-based particles (note combination, Mah et al, paragraph [0054], SiC is produced at an interface between Si and C).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACKY YUEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5749. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30 - 6:00.
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, Keith Walker can be reached at 571-272-3458. 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.
/JACKY YUEN/
Examiner
Art Unit 1735
/KEITH WALKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1735
Prosecution Insights