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 preliminary amendment in entered. Claims 1-17 are canceled and 18-31 are new.
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 19-29 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.
Claim 19 introduces “reactor A” in phase 1 and “reactor B” in phase 2. However, phase 2 also refers to “the reactor”. There are multiple reactors which makes the antecedent basis unclear. The examiner recommends changing “the reactor” to --the reactor B-- or --reactor B--.
Claim 19 similarly refers to “the reactor” in phase 3 instead of --the reactor B--
Claim 19 in phase 4 also refers to “the surface of the one or more porous particles” and “the pressure” without antecedent basis. The term “the pressure” is likely referring to a pressure of reactor B. The term “the surface” may be acceptable because the particles have “a surface” inherently. However, as long as other 112 issues are being fixed the language can be tightened to further improve the overall form of the claim. Claim 23 contains similar issues but will probably be resolved with changes to claim 19
Depending claims 20-29 incorporate the same issues as parent claim 19 by their dependency.
Claim 25, phase 6.2, refers to “the particles” transferred into reactor C and “the material”. However, the parent claim 19 refers to coated particles as “silicon-containing materials”.
Claim 26, phase 7.1 and 7.2, also refer to “the particle”. Phase 7.2 refers to the particles as the silicon-containing material, but only after cooling.
Claim 27, phase 7.2 states “preferably” direct transfer into a reservoir vessel E or direct filling into a suitable container. It is not clear if this limitation is suggested or required.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 25 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 25 states that the silicon-containing material can remain in reactor B. The parent claim requires the transfer of material to reactor C. Accordingly, allowing the material to remain in reactor B does not incorporate the limitations of the parent claim.
Claim 27 limits “the cascade reactor” to consist of two mutually dependent reactors. However, the parent claims requires transfer of material between reactors A, B and C. Accordingly, the parent claim requires 3 reactors with material physically transferred between them, while depending claim 27 removes a transfer step. By not incorporating all the steps of the parent claim, the depending claim is improper.
It is also noted that the steps of reactors A and B can be done in the same reactor, and the steps from reactors B and C can be done in the same reactor. Accordingly, it is reasonable that the steps for A, B and C can all be done in the same reactor. Applicant appears to be focusing on the benefits of using cascading reactors while also acknowledging that it may be desirable to perform multiple reactions in a single reactor instead of multiple cascading reactors.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
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) 18, 30, and 31 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 18 and 30,
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 single 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 applicant points to advantages of using multiple reactors in terms of reducing heating/cooling phases and general benefits of modular processes (for repairs and rearrangement/adaptation of processes). However, contrary to applicant’s assertion capital cost is clearly a disadvantage because multiple reactors are required to be designed, optimized for each respective reaction, and built. It will cost more to design and build multiple reactors when compared to designing and building one reactor. Using multiple reactors or a single reactor is considered to be an engineering design choice with advantages and disadvantages to each that need to be weighed (capital costs, maintenance/operating costs, reactor efficiency/throughput). As noted in the 112 rejection above, claim 27 suggests using fewer reactors.
Regarding claim 31,
MASON teaches the carbon material in the particle can be amorphous carbon [0034].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 19-24 and 26-28 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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
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