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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-9) in the reply filed on 3/24/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 10-17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 2/28/2024, 7/2/2024, and 2/13/2026 have been considered by the examiner. Initialed copies accompany this action.
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.
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.
A claim is indefinite when it contains words or phrases whose meaning is unclear. In re Packard, 751 F.3d 1307, 1314, 110 USPQ 2d 1785, 1789 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Claim 5 recites “a content of carbon”. It is unclear what this phrase is referencing to. Is it the carbon of the carbide? Or Is it an additional component?
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 2, 6 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Endo et al (JP2013171627).
Regarding claim 1, Endo discloses a negative electrode active material (composite) comprising: silicon-based particles; and silicon carbide distributed in the silicon-based particles (para 0015), wherein a content of the silicon carbide is about 0.1 parts by weight to 1 part by weight relative to a total of 100 parts by weight of the negative electrode active material (para 0020).
Regarding claim 2, Endo discloses the content of the silicon carbide is about 0.2 parts by weight to 0.8 parts by weight relative to the total of 100 parts by weight of the negative electrode active material (para 0020).
Regarding claim 6, Endo discloses a negative electrode comprising the negative electrode active material according to claim 1 (para 0045).
Regarding claim 9, Endo discloses a secondary battery comprising the negative electrode according to claim 6 (para 0045).
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.
Claims 1-4, 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ngo et al. (ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2017, 9, 32790−32800).
Regarding claims 1 and 2, Ngo discloses a negative electrode active material (composite) comprising: silicon-based particles; and silicon carbide distributed in the silicon-based particles (Abstract and See Scheme 1). Ngo does not disclose a content of the silicon carbide is about 0.1 parts by weight to 1 part by weight relative to a total of 100 parts by weight of the negative electrode active material. However, Ngo discloses SiC can be spontaneously produced with the formation of Si by extremely high exothermic reaction between SiO2 and Mg, along with the presence of carbon. The synthesized Si@SiC was composed of well-mixed SiC and Si nanocrystallites. The SiC content of the Si@SiC was adjusted by tuning the carbon content of the precursor and by adjusting the carbon content of the precursor material, Si@SiC products with various SiC contents could be successfully prepared as desired. See the abstract and the experimental section. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filling date of the to adjust the carbon content of the precursor material to prepare Si@SiC products with desired SiC contents, including those with a SiC content of about 0.1 parts to 1 part by weight relative to 100 parts by weight of the negative electrode active material as claimed, and the results would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 3, since SiC contents can be adjusted to about 0.1 parts to 1 part by weight relative to 100 parts by weight of the negative electrode active material, the silicon-based particles, a content of Si (SiOx (x=0)) would fall within about 90 parts by weight or more relative to 100 parts by weight of the negative electrode active material.
Regarding claim 4, the limitation of “10 parts by weight or less” includes zero as a lower limit, and therefore the content of SiOx (0<x<2) can be zero or the negative electrode active material does not contain SiOx (0<x<2).
Regarding claim 6, Ngo discloses a negative electrode comprising the negative electrode active material according to claim 1 (Experimental section, Electrochemical Characterization).
Regarding claim 7, since SiC contents can be adjusted to about 0.1 parts to 1 part by weight relative to 100 parts by weight of the negative electrode active material, the silicon-based particles, a content of Si (SiOx (x=0)) would fall within about 90 parts by weight or more relative to 100 parts by weight of the negative electrode active material.
Regarding claim 8, Ngo discloses the negative electrode further comprising a negative electrode conductive material (Timcal (Super P) carbon,); and a negative electrode binder (lithium polyacrylate). See Experimental section, Electrochemical Characterization.
Regarding claim 9, Ngo discloses a secondary battery comprising the negative electrode according to claim 6 (See Experimental section, Electrochemical Characterization).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAIDUNG D NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5455. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 10a-3p.
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, Angela Brown-Pettigrew can be reached at 571-272-2817. 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.
/HAIDUNG D NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761
4/22/2026
Prosecution Insights