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
Applicants’ election of group I invention (claims 1-17) in the reply filed on 07/14/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 18 and 26-27, 35-36 are thus withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 07/14/2026.
Non-Compliant Claim Identifier
The identifier of claim 18 and 26-27, 35-36 need be remarked as withdrawn since these claims are directed to non-elected inventions in the instant application. A correct status identifier (Withdrawn) has not been set forth for the amended claims. See MPEP § 714 and 37 CFR 1.121(c). Appropriate correction is required. A non-compliant form has not been sent out for advancing the prosecution and correction is required in next response.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 1 line 5 recited “250 C” appears to be 250 °C; claim 1 line 6 and line 8 respectively recited “750 C to 1050 C” appears to be 750 °C to 1050 °C; claim 1 line 11 recited “350 C to 450 C” appears to be 350 °C to 450 °C. Appropriate corrections are required.
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 1-17 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. In this case, claim 1, 13 and 17 respectively recite “Group 14 composite particles”, one of ordinary skill in the art is uncertain what can be considered as a “Group 14 composite particles”, such as a composite material including any one of the Group 14 elements selected from C, Si, Ge, Sn, Pb and Fl, or a material containing different (at least two different) Group 14 elements composited with each other? All claim 1’s depending claims are rejected for similar reasons.
Claim 2 is 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. In this case, claim 2 recites “glymp”, but one of ordinary skill in the art is uncertain what kind of compound of composition “glymp” specifically referring, even in consideration of common technical knowledge and the instant specification (see instant published application US2 024/0208827 para. [0217]). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art cannot ascertain the metes and bounds of such claimed “glymp”.
Claim 3 and 9 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. In this case, claim 3 recites “the aqueous milieu is heated to a temperature less than or equal to a decomposition temperature of the preferential exclusion agent”, one of ordinary skill in the art is uncertain during which stage of the process such heating being performed, such as heating being performed when providing a polyol and an optional exclusion agent, or such heating referring to the heating as recited step b of claim 1? Next claim 3 recites “the preferential exclusion agent”, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 9 recites “further comprising stirring the aqueous milieu”, one of ordinary skill in the art is uncertain during which stage of the claimed process such stirring being performed, such as stirring being performed when providing a polyol and an optional exclusion agent in step a of claim 1, or during other step(s) of claim 1 recited process? Therefore, such limitations render claim indefiniteness.
Claim 5 is 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. In this case, claim 5 recites “Span 80” and “Triton X”, both are trade names, since such trade name of “Span 80” and/or “Triton X” cannot describe any particular material or product, therefore, such limitations render claim indefiniteness (see MPEP §2173. 0 5(u)).
Claim 6 is 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. In this case, claim 6 recites “the ratio of polyol to the exclusion agent is 1000:1 or less”, but one of ordinary skill in the art is uncertain what is the specific ratio this referring to, such as mass ratio, molar ratio or volume ratio. Therefore, such limitation renders claim indefiniteness.
Claim 13 is 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. In this case, claim 13 first recites “discrete Group 14 particles” and then “discrete Group 14 particles are not agglomerated”, since discrete particles need be individually separated and distinct, hence they are not agglomerated. Therefore, such discrete and not agglomerated appears to be redundant to each other. Secondly, claim 13 recites “Group 14 composite particles” and “Group 14 particles”, are they referring to the same material/particles, like they referring to different particles. As for the claimed “Group 14 composite particles”, see similar remarks as stated in claim 1. Therefore, such limitations render confusion for one of ordinary skill in the art.
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.
Claim(s) 1-14 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Sakshaug et al (US2017/0170477) in view of Lipka (US2014/0104754).
Sakshaug et al teaches a method for producing a composite material comprising a porous carbon scaffold and silicon, comprising the following steps (abstract, Fig. 1, para. [0016]-[0023], [0119], [0127], [0145], [0150], example 3-6): a. Admixing polymers and/or polymeric precursors and storing for a period of time at a temperature sufficient to polymerize the precursors, wherein the polymeric precursor material comprises (a) alcohols, phenolic compounds and other mono-or polyhydroxy compounds and (b) aldehydes, ketones, and combinations thereof, representative polyhydroxy compounds include sugars (e.g., glucose) and other polyols (e.g., mannitol), formed using a sol gel process using a polymeric precursor with a crosslinking agent in a suitable solvent, such as water, ethanol, methanol, and other solvents known in the art (providing a polyol in an aqueous environment and heating the aqueous environment at a temperature to produce hydrochar is disclosed); b. Carbonizing the resulting polymeric material to produce a porous carbon material, wherein the pyrolysis temperature may be varied from 750 °C to 850 °C, 850 °C to 950 °C, 950 °C to 1050 °C, etc., pyrolysis may be effected in an inert gas, such as nitrogen or argon (para. [0170]) ("heating the hydrochar to 750 °C to 1050 °C in the presence of an inert gas to produce pyrolyzed carbon particles" is disclosed); c. Subjecting the porous carbon material to an elevated temperature in the presence of a silicon-containing gas, producing a silicon impregnated carbon material, in particular by subjecting the porous carbon particles to a silane gas at an elevated temperature and in the presence of a silicon-containing gas, preferably silane, to effect silicon deposition via chemical vapor deposition (CVD) to produce silicon within the pores of the porous carbon, silane gas may be mixed with other inert gases (e.g. Nitrogen) at temperatures ranging from 300 °C to 400 °C, 400 °C to 500 °C, etc. (para.[0193], [0194], claim 67) ("Heating of porous carbon particles to 350 °C to 450 °C in the presence of silicon containing gas to impregnate silicon within said porous carbon skeleton" is disclosed). Hence, Sakshaug et al discloses a process for preparing Group 14 composite particles.
Regarding claim 1, Sakshaug et al does not expressly teach heating the aqueous milleu at 150 to 250 °C or heating the pyrolyzed carbon particles to 750 to 1050 °C in the presence of an activation gas, or sphericity of the individual composite particles being greater than 0.5.
Lipka discloses a process of making carbon particles, said particles being substantially spherical (i.e. sphericity being 1) comprising the following steps (see claims 1-28, para [0119]-[0136]): forming a precursor solution comprising soluble carbohydrate precursors; placing the precursor solution in a pressure vessel; heating the pressure vessel to a reaction temperature range of 140-230 °C to form the carbon particles; wherein additives, such as surfactants (equivalent to the instantly claimed exclusion agents) can be added to the aqueous solution to modify the morphology or increase the yield of the resulting carbon material (noted specific hydrothermal and carbonization conditions are shown in Table 13 of the specification Example 7, para. [0216], [0217]): heating the aqueous environment at 200 °C (hydrothermal temperature is disclosed) to produce hydrochar; heating the hydrochar to 850 ° C under a nitrogen atmosphere to produce pyrolyzed carbon particles (production processes and parameters for hydrochar and pyrolyzed carbon are disclosed); and subjecting the carbon particles to chemical activation and/or physical activation; the precursors include at least one precursor selected from the group consisting of glucose, glucosamine, fructose, sucrose, starch, cellulose, and the like, specifically sucrose (all belonging to polyols); the activating gas may comprise ammonia, carbon dioxide, nitrogen, or a combination thereof, and the activation temperature may be at least about 750 °C (para. [0131], [0135]-[0136]) (activation conditions and specific temperatures are disclosed, i.e. Resulting in primary activated carbon particles comprising a porous carbon skeleton).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to adopt such hydrothermal treating temperature range of 140-230 °C to form a hydrochar, heating the activated carbon particles under activation temperature as least about 750 °C to obtain primary activated carbon particle thus help obtaining carbon particles with substantially sphericity as shown by Lipka to modify the carbon particles producing steps in the composite material manufacturing process of Sakshaug et al because by doing so can help obtaining a composition comprising carbon particles has high surface area, high capacitive performance etc. as suggested by Lipka (para. [0112], [0126]-[0144]). Furthermore, adopting such well-known hydrothermal heating temperature, activation temperature and activation gas, sphericity of individual composite particles as shown by Lipka to modify a well-known composite material of Sakshaug et al for improvement would have predictable results (see MPEP §2143 KSR).
Regarding claim 2, Sakshaug et al discloses that the solvents
such as water, ethanol, methanol, and others known in art, and their mixtures can be used in the aqueous milieu (para. [0114], [0134], [0191]).
Regarding claim 3, Sakshaug et al also discloses heating the precursors solutions under temperature of 20 to 120 °C to polymerize the precursors in the solution (para. [0150]), wherein such heating temperature is below the decomposition temperature of exclusion agent.
Regarding claim 4, 7-8 and 16, such limitations have been met as discussed above.
Regarding claim 5-6, the recited exclusion agent is not necessary presented in the instant method since their parent claim 1 only recites “an optional exclusion agent”, i.e. if optional exclusion agent not being used in the process, then claims 5 and 6 do not further limit the embodiment of claim 1 of not using exclusion agent since both claim 5 and 6 are not positively limited to the embodiment of an exclusion agent being used in the method. Furthermore, Sakshaug et al discloses using surfactant Span 80 (para. [0153]) and Lipka also teaches surfactant can be used in the solution for forming polymer wherein surfactant can be used to change morphology or increase the yield of the resulting carbon materials (para. [0104], [0121]). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to adopt such well-known surfactant Span 80 having the same ratio of polyol to the exclusion agent as that of instantly claimed via routine optimization (see MPEP §2144. 05 II) for help obtaining carbon material having desired morphology or increased yield as suggested by Lipka (para [0121]).
Regarding claim 9, Sakshaug et al further discloses the precursors solution can be stirred for obtaining polymer (para. [0159], [0404]).
Regarding claim 10-11, Sakshaug et al in view of Lipka already teaches same or substantially the same heating a same or substantially the same primary activated carbon particles under same or substantially the same temperature in the presence of silicon gas to impregnate silicon within the porous carbon scaffold, therefore, same or substantially the same the silicon-containing gas deposits silicon onto at least a portion of a surface of the primary activated carbon particle, and same or substantially the same the fraction of silicon not impregnated within the porous carbon framework relative to the fraction of silicon impregnated within the porous carbon framework, Z, is less than 10 as those of instantly claimed would be expected. Sakshaug et al. also discloses the silicon embedded within the porous carbon scaffold material can occupy between 30% and 70% of the total available pore volume within the porous carbon scaffold (para. [0310]-[0313], it would have been obvious to expect that such porous carbon scaffolds have silicon not impregnated portion to the silicon impregnated portion being less than 10, such as (1-70%)/70%=30%/70%.
Regarding claim 12, Sakshaug et al discloses silicon nanoparticles being deposited within the interior framework of the porous carbon particles (para. [0106], [0108]) while Lipka already teaches such porous carbon particles being activated same or substantially the same as that of instantly claimed. Therefore, same or substantially the same porous carbon framework comprising the deposit of silicon nanoparticles within the interior framework of the activated carbon particles as that of instantly claimed is envisioned from the combined teachings of Sakshaug et al and Lipka.
Regarding claim 13, Sakshaug et al does not require the composite particles being aggregated, therefore, at least the composite particles comprising two or more discrete particles which are not agglomerated would be expected. Furthermore, Sakshaug et al in view of Lipka already teaches same or substantially the same the process of forming a same or substantially the same process as that of instantly claimed, therefore, same or substantially the same two or more discrete particles are not agglomerated is expected.
Regarding claim 14, Lipka further teaches the activated carbon particles having pore volume of 0.1 to about 0.8 cm3/g (para. [0140], specifically 0.776 cm3/g (table 8).
Regarding claim 17, Sakshaug et al further discloses that such composite materials can be employed in a slurry processing to be assembled into electrodes, such as anode (para. [0076], [0287]). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to adopt a well-known casting such composite particles containing slurry onto a conductive plate or film for help obtaining desired anode for improvement against graphitic anode.
Claim(s) 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Sakshaug et al (US2017/0170477) in view of Lipka (US2014/0104754) as applied above, and further in view of Timmons (WO2022/035879).
Regarding claim 15, Sakshaug et al in view of Lipka does not expressly teach using chemical vapor infusion to introduce silicon containing gas.
Timmons teaches chemical vapor infusion to introduce silicon containing gas for depositing silicon onto porous carbon particles (page 1 last para., page 4 first para., page 18 lines 13-16, page 23 last para.-page 25 first para., claims 1-24).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to adopt chemical vapor infusion as shown by Timmons to modify the deposition step of Sakshaug et al in view of Lipka because by doing so can help obtaining a composite silicon carbon material comprising inverse hierarchical structure thus providing high charge/discharge rate as suggested by Timmons (page 4 first para.).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUN LI whose telephone number is (571)270-5858. The examiner can normally be reached IFP.
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, Ching-Yiu (Coris) Fung can be reached at 571-270-5713. 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.
/JUN LI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1732
Prosecution Insights