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 15-24, in the reply filed on July 22nd, 2026 is acknowledged.
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 15 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jo (US 2018/0097229 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Jo discloses an anode material comprising silicon-based nanoparticles [0071] that combine with a carbonaceous material [0072] to form a primary particle [0060]. Another porous carbonaceous material surrounds the primary particles to form secondary particles [0086]. These secondary particles may be further enclosed by a protective layer [0094] that is able to conduct lithium ions [0094].
Regarding claim 21, the porous carbonaceous material may be amorphous carbon [0089].
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.
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.
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 20, 22, 23, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jo.
Regarding claim 20, Jo teaches that the thickness of the coating layer may be in the range of 1 nm – 20 nm [0098], overlapping with the claimed range of 1 nm – 500 nm. 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, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding claim 22, Jo teaches that the porosity of the secondary particles may be in the range of 20% - 50% [0091]. Jo continues to teach that when the porosity is in that range, the particles may have the space to withstand the expansion of the primary particles [0091], implying that the secondary particles have this porosity before said expansion. In other words, the particles would have this porosity in an uncharged state. The range of 20% - 50% overlaps with the claimed range of 20% - 70%. 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, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding claim 23, Jo teaches that the primary particles may have a diameter in the range of 100 nm – 15 µm [0084], overlapping with the claimed range of 10 nm – 500 nm. 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, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding claim 24, Jo teaches that the secondary particles may have a diameter in the range of 5 µm – 25 µm [0093], overlapping with the claimed range of 0.5 µm – 20 µm. 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, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Claims 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jo as applied to claim 15 and further in view of Matsumoto (US 2019/0027742 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Jo teaches an ionically conductive protective layer but does not explicitly teach the claimed solid electrolyte. Matsumoto is analogous art because both Jo and Matsumoto discuss batteries (Jo, title; Matsumoto, title). Matsumoto teaches that solid electrolytes may be used in layers around negative active material [0017]. Therefore, Matsumoto’s solid electrolyte is suitable to be used in Jo’s protective layer. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to use Matsumoto’s solid electrolyte as a protective layer for Jo’s secondary particles. See MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding claims 17 – 19, Matsumoto teaches that the solid electrolyte may be Li7La3Zr2O12 (as required by claim 19; [0023]). This garnet compound satisfies the general formula of claim 18 when the value of “x” is 2.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Shin (US 2021/0111395 A1) teaches a negative active material comprised of secondary particles comprising silicon-based primary particles encased by a carbon layer (abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN K BLACKWELL-RUDASILL whose telephone number is (571)270-0563. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m.
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, Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at 571-272-3433. 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.
/R.B.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1722
/ANCA EOFF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722
Prosecution Insights