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 Amendment
The amendments filed 10/21/2025 are entered and fully 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 20, 26 and 27 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.
Regarding claim 20,
Claim 20 breaks down the phase 1 step from claim 18 into filling and pretreating sub-steps. The claim then refers to a phase 1.3 of transferring the pretreated particles into reactor B, or to interim storage vessel D that is subsequently transferred to reactor B, or “the material” remains in reactor A. “The material” lacks antecedent basis but appears to refer to the one or more porous particles that were not pretreated, because phase 2 requires pretreated to be transferred to reactor B. The examiner also notes that the interim storage of reservoir vessel D is within the context of a cascade reactor system.
Claims 26 and 27 refer to “the particles” in reactor C. However, the process turns “one or more porous particles” into “silicon containing materials” in reactor B. The reference to “the particles” is ambiguous as it could be referring to unreacted “one or more porous particles” but is more likely referring to silicon-containing materials. The examiner also notes that only the silicon- containing materials are required to be withdrawn from reactor C.
Claim 27 further contains the limitations of phases 1 to 6.1 are carried out in the same reactor. However, the parent claim requires the transfer of materials to/from reactors A, B and C. It is not clear what applicant is claiming when referring to the “same reactor”. The claim also requires 2-7 to be carried out in “a reactor”. The examiner notes that parent claim 18 already requires the processes to be carried out in reactor A, B or C (a reactor).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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(s) 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MASON et al. (US 2022/0336791) in view of CHEW et al. (US 2015/0329366).
Regarding claim 32,
MASON teaches a method of making a core shell composite particle abstract. The method uses a porous carbon framework with micropores/mesopores [0009]. A precursor material is provided into the pores and heat treated [0009] and [0068]. Silicon precursor can be silane (silicon-hydrogen compound) [0069] which forms the silicon by decomposition. The reference teaches providing different gases and reactants into a reactor such as a fluidized bed [0131] or tube reactor [0132] but does not expressly teach using a cascade reactor system with a plurality of reactors.
However, CHEW teaches that when using fluidized bed reactors, single, parallel and series reactors are commonly used [0023]. At the time of filing the invention it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use multiple reactors instead of a single reactor because they are known reactor set ups for accomplishing a silicon deposition by decomposition.
The examiner notes that the current claim construction refers to the distinct phases in the alternative using “and/or”. Accordingly, references teaching a single step meet the claim limitations. The references teach cascading reactors that include a reactor for decomposition of silane materials and depositing silicon.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 18, 21-24, and 28-31 are allowed. Claims 20, 36, and 27 would be allowed if amended for clarity to correct 112 issues.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The examiner was unable to find prior art teaching the cascade reactor system that incorporates filling at least a portion of reactor A, and transferring to a reactor B that is then charged with a silicon precursor and thermally decomposing at 7 bar or higher followed by cooling and degassing, and finally transferring to/withdrawing from a reactor C. This process is distinguished from a single reactor that changes gas feeds and reactants to accomplish pretreatment, deposition/degassing, and deactivate precursors.
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 AUSTIN MURATA whose telephone number is (571)270-5596. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5.
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, MICHAEL CLEVELAND can be reached at 571272-1418. 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.
/AUSTIN MURATA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights