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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/31/23, 10/9/24, 8/15/25, 8/17/26 are considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings submitted on 10/30/23 have been considered.
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 2 and 3 are 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. Specifically, the claims disclose a mass of the carbon coating layer accounts for a range that encompasses 0% which apparently discloses that the carbon coating layer does not exist. Appropriate corrections are required.
Dependent claims are rejected for the same reason.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 8, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Jiang et al. (US12418029).
Regarding claim 1, the Jiang reference discloses a uniformly modified negative electrode material for a silicon-based lithium ion battery wherein the negative electrode material for the silicon-based lithium ion battery has a structure that carbon atoms are uniformly dispersed (Fig.1; 17:35-40) in a silicon monoxide (claimed silicon (II) oxide) matrix at an atomic level, an average particle diameter D50 of the particles in the negative electrode material for the silicon- based lithium ion battery is 1 nm-100 µm (Table 1), and a specific surface area is 0.5 m2/g-40 m2/g (Table 1); and a mass of the carbon atoms accounts for 0.1 %-40% (Table 1) of a mass of the silicon (monoxide matrix.
It is noted that the recitation “in a focused ion beam-transmission electron microscope (FIB-TEM) test of the negative electrode material for the silicon-based lithium-ion battery, an energy spectrum surface sweep of a particle section shows that carbon, oxygen and silicon elements inside the particles are uniformly distributed,” are product-by-process claim limitations. “Even 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). Since negative electrode material is the same as to that of the Applicant’s, Applicant’s process is not given patentable weight in this claim.
Regarding claim 2, it appears that the coating layer can be at 0% of the mass of the silicon oxide matrix.
Regarding claim 3, the Jiang reference discloses the mass of the carbon atoms accounts for 0.5%-10% of the mass of the silicon monoxide matrix (Table 1) and the carbon coating can be at 0%.
Regarding claim 8, the Jiang reference discloses a negative plate comprising the negative electrode material for the silicon-based lithium-ion battery according to claim 1.
Regarding claim 9, the Jiang reference discloses a lithium battery comprising the negative plate according to claim 8.
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.
Claim(s) 4-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang et al. (US12418029).
Regarding claim 4, the Jiang reference discloses a method for the negative electrode material of claim 1, comprising a preparation method for the negative electrode material for the silicon-based lithium ion battery comprising performing a gas phase mixing reaction on a carbon-containing gas source and a preheated mixed vapor of silicon and silicon dioxide under a protective atmosphere (in vacuum deposition furnace) to obtain a material in which carbon atoms are uniformly dispersed in a silicon (II) oxide matrix at an atomic level, pulverizing (P89) and screening the material to obtain particles in which the carbon atoms are uniformly dispersed in the silicon (II) oxide matrix at an atomic level at average particle size that ranges from 3-8 microns, which are the negative electrode material for the silicon- based lithium ion battery (Example 1).
The Jiang reference does not specifically disclose mixed vapor of silicon and silicon dioxide for 1-24 hours under a protective atmosphere, however, in another embodiment high temperatures of over 1100°C raw materials were heated at 3 degrees per minute which would result in the mixed vapor of silicon and silicon dioxide in the vacuum furnace to be withing 1-24 hrs in order to raise the temperature to the reactive temperature.
The Jiang reference does not specifically disclose cooling the material to room temperature and discharging out of furnace, however, this would have been common sense in order to obtain a sample that is easier in handling at room temperature and by discharging out of the furnace to pulverize the materials without damaging the furnace. Common sense teaches that familiar items may have obvious uses beyond their primary purposes, and in many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of the patents together like pieces of a puzzle. A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton. The question to be answered is whether the claimed invention is a product of innovation or merely the result of common sense, ordinary creativity, and ordinary skill. KSR v. Teleflex
Regarding claim 5, the Jiang reference discloses wherein the carbon-containing gas source comprises one or more of methane, propane, butane, acetylene, ethylene, propylene, butadiene or carbon monoxide (Column 13).
Regarding claim 6, the Jiang reference discloses wherein after the material is cooled to room temperature, discharged, pulverized and screened, the preparation method further comprises performing a carbon coating on the screened material, and obtaining the negative electrode material after grading (column 13).
Regarding claim 7, the Jiang reference discloses wherein the carbon coating comprises at least one of gas-phase coating, liquid-phase coating or solid-phase coating (column 13).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HELEN OI CONLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-5162. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Nicholas Smith can be reached at 5712728760. 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.
/Helen Oi K CONLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752
Prosecution Insights