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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 7/26/2024, 9/25/2025 and 7/13/2026 has/have been received and complies with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner, and a copy with initials is attached herewith.
Drawings
4. The drawings were received on 4/24/2024. These drawings are acceptable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. Claim(s) 1 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Stefan et al (DE 102019126213 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Stefan discloses an anode material intended for lithium-ion battery comprising a number of particles, each comprising a core and a shell surrounding the core, the shell containing silicon, carbon and nitrogen, in particular multiple regions made of nitrogen-doped carbon, silicon nitride, silicon carbide and silicon carbon nitride [paragraph 0008, 0011-0021, 0031; claims 1 and 7] .
Regarding claim 10, Stefan discloses a method for producing an anode material comprising a number of particles having a core and a shell, the shell being produced by means of vapor deposition from a silicon-containing gas, a carbon-containing gas and a nitrogen-containing gas [paragraph 0008, 0011-0021, 0031; claims 1 and 7] .
8. Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wang et al (US 20160036049 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Wang discloses an anode material for lithium-ion battery comprising a plurality of particles, each comprising a core and a shell surrounding the core, the shell containing silicon, carbon and nitrogen, in particular made of co-doped carbon (carbon doped with silicon atoms (metalloid atoms) and nitrogen atoms) [Fig. 5, 7; paragraph 0052-0054, 0059-0060] .
9. Claim(s) 1-6 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yu et al (CN 112670474 A).
Regarding claim 1, Yu traches a negative electrode material of a lithium battery having a core-shell structure, carbon can be applied to the core, and the shell contains silicon carbide and silicon nitride [paragraph 0001, 0007, 0022, 0027-0028].
Regarding claims 2-3, Yu traches that the thickness of the shell is 2 nm to 90 micrometers [paragraph 0029].
Regarding claims 4-5, Yu traches that the that the shell contains silicon carbide and silicon nitride [paragraph 0001, 0007, 0022, 0027-0028].
Regarding claim 6, Yu traches that carbon can be applied to the core [paragraph 0028].
Regarding claim 9, Yu traches a lithium ion battery that comprises an anode produced from an anode material according to claim 1 [paragraph 0007, 0012].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu et al (CN 112670474 A) as applied in claim 1 and further in view of Keiko et al (JP 2002008652 A).
Regarding claim 7, Yu remains silent that the particles have a casing, made of carbon, in which the core and the shell are enclosed. However, Keiko teaches that the graphite particles of negative electrode material are coated with Si fine particles and further coated with a carbon film [Fig. 4; paragraph 0023]. Therefore, the claim would have been obvious because a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art (KSR v. Teleflex, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)) and an ordinarily skilled artisan would have recognized such a substitution without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success.
14. Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu et al (CN 112670474 A) as applied in claim 1 and further in view of Ding et al (CN 105024076 A).
Regarding claim 8, Yu remains silent that the core and the shell of the particle, taken together, have a plate- or rod-shaped design. However, Ding teaches that the negative electrode active material of a lithium battery having a core-shell structure, the core is plate-shaped [paragraph 0001, 0007, 0037]. Therefore, the claim would have been obvious because a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art (KSR v. Teleflex, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)) and an ordinarily skilled artisan would have recognized such a substitution without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success.
15. Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu et al (CN 112670474 A) as applied in claim 1 and further in view of Cho et al (JP 2013084601 A).
Regarding claim 10, Yu remains silent about producing the shell by gas phase deposition using a silicon-containing gas, a carbon-containing gas, and a nitrogen-containing gas. However, Cho teaches that for a negative electrode material of a lithium ion battery having a core-shell structure, CVD is used when a shell is formed on a carbon core [paragraphs 0001, 0007, 0015], 0030]. Therefore, a person skilled in the art could have easily conceived of using CVD as described by Cho when forming a shell in a carbon core. Therefore, the claim would have been obvious because a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art (KSR v. Teleflex, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)) and an ordinarily skilled artisan would have recognized such a substitution without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUHAMMAD S SIDDIQUEE whose telephone number is (571)270-3719. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Tong Guo can be reached at (571) 272-3066. 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.
/MUHAMMAD S SIDDIQUEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights