DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on June 22, 2026 and July 16, 2026 have been entered.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the amendment filed on June 22, 2026, claims 1 – 2, 5 – 8, 10 are pending. Claims 1, 5, 7 have been amended and claims 3, 4, 9 have been canceled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1 – 2, 5 – 8, 10 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 1:
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 1 recites the respective broad recitations “layer other than silicon” and “thin stratum or thin layer of the further layer being carbon, a metal, a metal oxide or a metal nitride”, and the claim also recites respectively “preferably nickel (Ni) and/or copper (Cu)” and “wherein the thin stratum or thin layer of the further layer is formed from one of the materials selected from titanium (Ti), nickel (Ni), aluminum (Al), tin (Sn), gold (Au), silver (Ag), tungsten (W) and/ or copper (Cu)” which are the narrower statements of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Additionally, claim 1 recites: “…wherein each sequence is accompanied by …”. There is a lack of antecedent basis for what is “each sequence”. Because what is defined as a sequence is not defined, it is unclear what steps – recited and/or unrecited – would constitute a sequence that would be required to result in the recited formation of the stable layer having a closed-off interface, rendering the limitation indefinite. The Examiner will interpret the claim to refer to any step or collection of steps that would result in the required “stable layer having a closed-off interface”.
Additionally, claim 1 recites “… providing a reduction in the proportion of copper in the layer …” There is a lack of antecedent basis for what is “the layer”, as it is not necessarily clear whether “the layer” is referencing the “layer other than silicon”, an unrecited layer, the resultant “stable layer”, ect. Furthermore, it is unclear whether the providing of the recited reduction is intended to be a step of the method or part of the result of the formation of recited stable layer. This is especially aggravated when the method allows for embodiments where only one iteration of steps is performed, yet has a resultant or functional requirement that appears to require repetition of two or three iterations of the steps performed.
Additionally, claim 1 recites: “… the copper-silicon reaction to form copper silicide …”. There is an additional lack of antecedent basis for the aforementioned limitation because it is unclear at which step or amalgamation of steps would a copper-silicon reaction occur and between what materials/stratum, especially when an applied thin stratum can be (but not necessarily be) the source of copper, the “layer other than silicon” can be (but not necessarily be).
Finally, the Examiner notes that the recitation starting with “applying a thin stratum or thin layer … and “depositing a further silicon layer …” are after a “copper; wherein …” As presented, it is unclear whether the recited “applying …” and “depositing …” are intended to be enumerated manipulative acts of the method, or intentions or functionalities of the method as a whole or of one within preceding recited acts. If the intention is to require the “applying …” and “depositing a further silicon layer …” to be active steps required by the claimed method, the Examiner suggests that the claims be amended to remove the aforementioned “wherein” in the phrase “… copper, wherein …”
Dependent claims not enumerated above are rejected on the basis of the deficiencies of their parent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The rejections of the claims under 35 USC § 103 in the previous Office Action are withdrawn due to Applicant amendment.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5, 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cherkouk et al. US 2020/0395608 A1 (hereinafter “Cherkouk”) in view of Wei et al. CN 112542573 A (formatted machine translation provided, hereinafter “Wei”).
Regarding claims 1, 2, 10:
Cherkouk is directed to methods for producing silicon-based anodes for secondary batteries (Abstract; [0001] – [0002]). Cherkouk discloses that their method comprises:
depositing a buffer layer 4b onto a current collector ([0047] – [0048]). The buffer layer may be a metallic, oxidic, carbon-containing or polymer containing layer [other than silicon].
after deposition of the buffer layer 4b, depositing a layer of silicon onto the current collector or onto the buffer layer in the form of carbon-containing layers, metallic layers, or oxidic layers at a silicon-layer interface between the metal substrate and the silicon layer ([0021] – [0022], [0025], [0036]);
heating the metal substrate and performing an energy-intensive treatment [accelerated annealing] – simultaneously in some embodiments – onto the silicon layer surface ([0023], [0056], [0111]);
generating amorphous silicon or crystalline silicon at the silicon layer due to the energy-intensive treatment ([0024]); and
depositing one or more additional buffer layers [thin layer or thin stratum] in the form of carbon-containing layers, metallic layers, or oxidic layers at one silicon-layer interface or at both silicon-layer interfaces ([0025], [0036]).
The energy-intensive treatment may be performed by a flash lamp capable of supplying a flash duration between 0.2 ms and 20 ms at an energy density of 0.6 J/cm2 to 160J/cm2 and emitting at a spectrum between the visible spectrum and infrared spectrum (400 nm – 800 nm) for a power of up to 12 MW ([0029], [0042], [0043]). Cherkouk further discloses that flash lamp annealing favors a metal-induced layer-exchange process/metal crystallization ([0044]). As a buffer layer can be present between such a metal substrate and the silicon layer, Cherkouk suggests that the same metal crystallization occurs with the buffer layer. Cherkouk discloses that the annealing process allows for integrating current leads with anodes in one material, and also reduces the processing requirements and costs to crystallize silicon onto metal layers and buffer layers.
Cherkouk does not expressly teach:
that a further silicon layer and subsequent accelerated annealing are performed and then optionally repeated at least once1;
that the buffer layer is deposited at a thickness between 5 to 200 nm; and
in light of the indefiniteness of the claims, wherein each sequence is accompanied by formation of a stable ("reaction neutralized") layer having a closed-off interface, which functions as an intermediate layer (interface) for the subsequent strata, providing a reduction in the proportion of copper in the layer, and hence after just two to three sequences, the copper-silicon reaction to form copper silicide proceeds incompletely and pure silicon remains, and wherein each stratum of the stratified structure with interface serves as a diffusion barrier for further layer construction.
Wei is directed to a lithium battery silicon-based thin film negative plate [anode] and preparation method. Th silicon-based thin film negative plate comprises an active stack of alternating nano-silicon-based layers and graphite-like carbon layers (page 3 line 15 – page 4 line 5). Wei discloses that their preparation method comprises (page 4 lines 5 – 15, page 6 line 15 – page 8 line 23):
depositing a nano-silicon-based thin layer by sputtering and annealing the nano-silicon-based thin layer;
afterwards, depositing a graphite-like carbon layer onto the annealed nano-silicon-based thin layer at a thickness of e.g. 20nm to 30nm (page 5 lines 1 – 5); and
repeating the sequence of depositing the nano-silicon-based thin layer, annealing the nano-silicon-based thin layer, and depositing the graphite-like carbon layer until a desired stack thickness is achieved.
The graphite-like carbon layer acts as a buffer layer [impedes diffusion] to prevent expansion of the nano-silicon-based material, especially when embedding lithium (Abstract; page 6 lines 15 – 25). Furthermore, the graphite-like carbon layer deposited during each iteration of the method coats and fills the nano-silicon-based thin layer [closed-off interface and reaction-neutralized], which further improves conductivity (page 4 line 1 – 5, page 5 lines 5 – 15).
Wei’s disclosure mirrors that of Cherkouk that discloses that silicon substantially changes volume during intercalation and deintercalation of the mobile ion species used to enable current flow and charging in a secondary battery using silicon as an anode.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Cherkouk by repeatedly depositing a further silicon layer, further performing an accelerated annealing and depositing a buffer layer [thin stratum or thin layer] to a thickness of 5 to 200nm, where each iteration of depositing a silicon layer, annealing the silicon layer and depositing of the graphite buffer layer forms a stable layer having a closed off interface because Wei teaches that the resultant silicon anode from the practice of the steps results in an anode with enhanced conductivity and the ability to suppress expansion from migration/diffusion of ions. With regards to the formation of pure silicon, the Examiner notes that as the only source of potential copper during the formation of the silicon anode according to Cherkouck in view of Wei would be the current collector/metal substrate ([0028]). It would then naturally follow that subsequent silicon and carbon layers that are deposited further and further away would be expected to have less potential copper migration, especially when each iteration of the method results in additional carbon buffer layers.
Regarding claim 5:
Cherkouk discloses that the flash lamp may operate at with a flash duration between 0.2 ms and 20 ms at an energy density of 0.6 J/cm2 to 160J/cm2 and emitting at a spectrum between the visible spectrum and infrared spectrum (400 nm – 800 nm) for a power of up to 12 MW ([0029], [0042], [0043]). Furthermore, Cherkouk discloses that the [pre]heating can heat the substrate to a temperature between 200 to 1000°C ([0022]). Each of the parameters overlap with the claimed conditions for flash lamp annealing.
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66(Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 7:
In a different embodiment, Cherkouk discloses that after deposition of the silicon layer and before annealing by flash lamp, a buffer layer of a metallic, oxidic, carbon-containing or polymer containing layer takes place ([0047] – [0048]).
Claims 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cherkouk in view of Wei as applied to claims 1, 2, 5, 7 above, and further in view of Lee et al. US 2012/0115259 A1 (hereafter “Lee”) and Tanaka US 2001/0026835 A1 (hereafter “Tanaka”).
Regarding claim 6:
As discussed above, Cherkouk discloses that the tempering is performed by energy intensive irradiation with a rapid thermal processing such as flash lamp annealing ([0041] – [0043]). Furthermore, Cherkouk discloses that the [pre]heating can heat the substrate to a temperature between 200 to 1000°C ([0022]).
Cherkouk in view of Wei does not expressly teach that the accelerated annealing is a laser annealing accrued out within the recited annealing time and energy density/fluence.
In analogous art, Lee is directed to methods of for fabricating flexible electronic devices, such as secondary batteries (Abstract, [0002]). Lee discloses a method comprising a step of crystallizing a cathode material on a current collector to form a final form of the cathode by either laser irradiation or flash lamp irradiation ([0046], [0050] – [0054], [0062]). Both flash lamp irradiation and laser irradiation are recognized to be methods of rapidly heating a surface for improved battery performance without a high temperature treatment ([0062]). Lee suggests that annealing with laser irradiation helps minimize thermal deformation and/or thermally-induced stresses ([0052])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Cherkouk in view of Wei by having the energy intensive irradiation for tempering be a laser annealing as opposed to flash lamp annealing because Lee teaches that the substitution of flash lamp annealing for laser annealing are both suitable techniques for rapidly annealing films that require annealing that would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art; and because Lee teaches that laser radiation annealing allows for annealing with minimal thermal deformation and/or thermally-induced stresses experienced by substrates having surfaces that are being annealed.
With regards to the annealing time by establishment of a rate of scanning and energy density, Lee discloses that laser irradiation applies thermal energy on the order of a few nanoseconds, and in the form of any of a spot, line or plane; and at energy densities between e.g. 10 – 2000 mJ/cm2 [i.e. 0.001 to 2 J/cm2] ([0051] – [0052]).
In analogues art, Tanaka is directed to laser annealing of amorphous semiconductor films such as silicon films (Abstract; [0004]). Tanaka discloses that part their laser annealing method includes a step of scanning a linear laser beam in a direction perpendicular to the longitudinal direction of the linear beam ([0007], [0008]). An example scanning rate may include a rate of 1.0 mm/s to irradiate at an energy density of e.g. 420 mJ/cm2 ([0017]). In an example, Tanaka discloses performing a pulsed laser annealing method onto a 5 inch square substrate having a silicon oxynitride film at the parameters: pulse width: 30 ns, energy per pulse: 500mJ, beam width: 0.4mm, pulse frequency of 30Hz and scanning rate of 10mm/s ([0066]). Such parameters affect the total amount of energy impinged on a film surface for heating and the amount of time required for heating as would be known to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Cherkouk in view of Wei and Lee by setting an energy density and irradiation time by scanning to the recited parameters as a matter of routine experimentation in order to obtain the desired level of treatment energy to cause a desired change, e.g. crystallization or (in Cherkouk’s case) diffusion, as taught by Tanaka. Discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art. In re Boesch, CCPA 1980, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ215.
Claims 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cherkouk in view of Wei as applied to claims 1, 2, 5, 7, 10 above, and further in view of Thai et al. US 2022/0302439 A1 (hereafter “Thai”).
Regarding claim 8:
Cherkouk discloses that after deposition of the silicon layer and before annealing by flash lamp, a buffer layer of a metallic, oxidic, carbon-containing or polymer containing layer takes place ([0047] – [0048]).
Cherkouk in view of Wei does not expressly teach that the metal layer deposited onto the further silicon layer is formed from one of the species claimed in instant claim 8.
Thai is directed to method for forming metal coated anode active materials (Abstract; [0002] – [0006], [0044]). As shown in Fig. 3, Thai discloses a step of disposing a metal layer 305 onto an active material 303 ([0043] – [0046]). The active material may be silicon ([0041]) and the metal layer is deposited prior to pyrolysis [heat treatment] of the anode material ([0044]). The metal may comprise or be inter alia tungsten, gold, silver, nickel or any other metal that would not adversely react with components of an active material layer ([0044]). The thickness of the layers may range from several to tens of nanometers or 100 to 200 nm ([0046]). Like Wei, the metal layer allows for better electrode conductivity, better thermal conductivity and improved cycle capacity ([0046]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Cherkouk in view of Wei by having a buffer layer (particularly the one deposited after deposition of a further silicon layer) be a metal such as tungsten, gold, silver, or nickel because, like Wei, Thai teaches that such a layer on the silicon anode structure allows for better electrode conductivity, better thermal conductivity and improved cycle capacity after a thermal treatment step, which flash annealing is a form thereof; and there is a reasonable expectation of success that such a metal layer would improve silicon layers of the silicon anode in a similar way to that of Cherkouk.
Double Patenting
The rejections of the claims under the ground of non-statutory double patenting are withdrawn due to Applicant amendments
Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8,10 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 – 20 of copending Application No. 18/681998 in view of Wei.
Regarding claim 1:
The reference application claims substantially teach the subject matter of instant claims 1 – 10 except:
that the thin stratum or thin layer is deposited at a thickness between 5 to 200 nm; and
in light of the indefiniteness of the claims, wherein each sequence is accompanied by formation of a stable ("reaction neutralized") layer having a closed-off interface, which functions as an intermediate layer (interface) for the subsequent strata.
Such teachings are disclosed by Wei as discussed above in the rejection of the claims under 35 USC 103 over Cherkouk in view of Jiménez.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to consider the present claims and the reference claims as patentably indistinct because Wei teaches that forming partially reacted silicon with carbon buffer layers that are closed-off results in an anode with enhanced conductivity and the ability to suppress expansion from migration/diffusion of ions.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed June 22, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of the claim(s) under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Wei.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
CHROMIK, R. R.NEILS, W. K.COTTS, E. J.: "Thermodynamic and kinetic study of solid state reactions in the Cu-Si system", JOURNAL OF APPLIED PHYSICS, vol. 86, 1999, pages 4273, XP012048792, DOI: 10.1063/1.371357
Janke et al. “Directionality of metal-induced crystallization and layer exchange in amorphous carbon/nickel thin film stacks”. Carbon 159 (2020) page 656 – 667
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSE I HERNANDEZ-KENNEY whose telephone number is (571)270-5979. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:30-3:30.
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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached on (571) 272-1295. 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.
/JOSE I HERNANDEZ-KENNEY/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1717
1 The Examiner notes that under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the step of depositing a further silicon layer and subsequent accelerated annealing thereof is not required to be deposited on the earlier-referenced thin stratum or thin layer, as no antecedent basis or express timing requirements are present for such an interpretation.
