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
Applicant’s election of Group I (claims 1-5 and 20) in the reply filed on 9/25/2026 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)).
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.
Claims 1 and 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or (a)(2) as being anticipated by Zheng (US 2022/0320495).
As to claim 1, Zheng discloses negative electrode active material (abstract, anode material for lithium-ion batteries; discussed throughout), comprising amorphous nano-sized Si particles ([0020] amorphous nano-silicon particles; [0008] and discussed throughout).
As to claim 4, Zheng does not specifically state wherein, the negative electrode active material has a full-width at half maximum of about 10 or more at 2θ of about 250 to about 300 in an X-ray diffraction analysis using a CuKα ray. However, the instant specification attributes the x ray diffraction results to the silicon being amorphous ([0125], using the PGPUB US 2025/0029049 for citation). Given that Zheng discloses the same material within the same location i.e. amorphous nano-sized Si particles ([0020], [0008] and discussed throughout) the materials would have the same properties (see MPEP 2112).
As to claim 5, Zheng discloses wherein, the negative electrode active material further comprises a carbon layer on a surface of each of the Si particles (figure 1 and [0005], discussed throughout).
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.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng (US 2022/0320495) as applied to claim 1 above.
As to claims 2 and 3, Zheng discloses wherein each of the Si particles is about 1 nm to about 20 nm (claim 2) and about 1 nm to about 10 nm (claim 3) ([0008], discussed throughout). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim (US 2020/0388846).
As to claim 20, Zheng discloses wherein the anode material for lithium-ion batteries (abstract and throughout). However, Zheng does not disclose the structure of the lithium-ion batteries. Kim discloses wherein a lithium-ion battery composing a negative electrode with a negative electrode active material, a positive electrode and an electrolyte ([0004], Kim and throughout). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill within the art at the time of the effective filling date of the invention to use the battery structure from Kim within Zheng as a mere combing prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (see MPEP 2143 I).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN R OHARA whose telephone number is (571)272-0728. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 AM-3:30 PM EST M-F.
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, Miriam Stagg can be reached at 571-270-5256. 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.
/BRIAN R OHARA/Examiner, Art Unit 1724
Prosecution Insights