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 without traverse of Group I, claims 1-3, 5-8, 10-12, 14-16, 20-22, 28, and 37, in the reply filed on 06 May 2026, is acknowledged.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 29 and 39 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 06 May 2026.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it does not commence on a separate sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.52(b)(4) and 1.72(b). A new abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 2 recites wherein the silicon layers are comprised of at least 99% by weight of silicon. This limitation is not recited in the instant specification.
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.
Claims 8 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 8 and 12 recite the limitation "the first, second, and/or the additional silicon layer(s)". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because second and additional silicon layer(s) have not been previously presented in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the surface plane of the current collector material” in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because these features have not been previously presented in the claim. This limitation is not inherent because the claim does not recite the current collector material as being substantially planar and therefore the surface of the current collector material may have more than one plane.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 12 recites the silicon layers being on only one side or on each of two sides of the current collector material. However, since a current collector has only two major surfaces (i.e. substantially has just two sides), having silicon layers deposited on one or both sides does not further limit the base claim because silicon layers positioned on the current collector material would require the silicon layers to be on one or both sides.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
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.
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 1-3, 5-8, 10-12, 14-16, 20-22, 28, and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brewer et al. (WO 2022/005999, previously cited).
Claim 1: Brewer teaches an anode (i.e. a composite electrode material) for an energy storage device includes a current collector (i.e. a current collector material layer) characterized by a surface roughness having a surface layer and further including a porous lithium storage layer that includes at least 40 at% silicon and/or germanium (para. 0007). The surface roughness of the current collector measured as an average maximum height of the profile, Rz, is ≥2.5 µm and may be as high as a range to 12 to 14 µm or may be measured as the roughness average, Ra, with a value ≥0.25 µm and may be as high as 1.2-1.4 µm (para. 0041). These values compare to the instant disclosure of Sa or Ra of more than 0.35 µm and Sz or Rz of more than 4 µm (p. 15 of the instant specification). Due to the substantial overlap of Ra and Rz as outlined above, then the recited Sdr value and/or Sdq value are considered to be present in an overlapping range as these values are other ways to measure the surface roughness. The courts have held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where claimed ranges overlap, lie inside of, or are close to ranges in the prior art. See MPEP § 2144.05. It is noted that as of the writing of this Office Action, no demonstration of a criticality to the claimed ranges has been presented. Brewer teaches that the surface layer includes two or more sublayers and sublayers may include zinc, a metal-oxygen compound, or a silicon compound (para. 0052). The porous lithium storage layer is provided over the uppermost surface sublayer (para. 0052). The porous lithium storage layer includes at least 40 at% silicon and/or germanium (i.e. silicon would be an obvious choice) (para. 0077), and can contain as much as at least 95 at% silicon (para. 0079). The silicon can be deposited by PECVD (para. 0087), wherein higher porosity silicon may be formed and/or the rate of silicon deposition may be increased when the gas flow ratio of silane relative to the combined gas flows of silane and hydrogen increases, dopants may be added, and the PECVD deposition conditions and gases may be changed over the course of the deposition (para. 0091). Since the deposition conditions and gases may be changed over the course of the deposition, and these contribute to amount of porosity and/or doping of silicon, this is considered to deposit multiple silicon layers because the silicon layers would change when the deposition conditions and/or gases are changed. The porous lithium storage layer (i.e. multiple silicon layers) being provided over the surface layer which is on the current collector is considered to also be where the porous lithium storage layer is positioned (indirectly) on the current collector material layer.
While not teaching a singular example of the instantly claimed composite electrode material, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date due to the overlapping range for the silicon content of the silicon layers, which is considered to be prima facie obvious, and one would have had a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 2: The teachings of Brewer regarding claim 1 are outlined above. Brewer further teaches that the continuous porous lithium storage layer (i.e. the silicon layers) includes at least 40 atomic% silicon, alternatively at least 97 atomic% silicon (paragraph 0077), which overlaps the instantly claimed range. See MPEP § 2144.05.
Claims 3 and 5: Brewer teaches that the continuous porous lithium storage layer (i.e. the silicon layers) can have an average density in a range of 1.0-1.1 g/cm3, alternatively 2.25-2.29 g/cm3 and ranges in between, with densities less than 2.3 g/cm3 being evidence of the layers being porous (paragraph 0079) and that higher porosity silicon may be formed when the gas flow ratio of silane relative to the combined gas flows of silane and hydrogen increases, etc., and the PECVD deposition conditions and gases may be changed over the course of the deposition (para. 0091). A density at the higher ranges (e.g. 2.25-2.29 g/cm3) corresponds to a low porosity (e.g. about 0.4%-2.2% estimated as 100%-2.29/2.3 to 100%-2.25/2.3), which overlaps the instantly claimed range. See MPEP § 2144.05. The teaching of forming higher porosity silicon by changing the deposition conditions renders as obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art where subsequent layers (e.g. at least a second silicon layer positioned on the first silicon layer) can have a higher porosity than the first silicon layer, and one would have had a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 6: Brewer teaches that the continuous porous lithium storage layer may include silicon nanoparticle aggregates (paragraph 0080) and may be nanoporous (paragraph 0079).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date for the continuous porous lithium storage layer (i.e. the silicon layers including a second silicon layer) to includes pores (i.e. void structures) that are nano-sized, particularly in view of being characterized as nanoporous, because the average pore size would be largely determined by the size of the nanoparticles, and it would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art to determine a pore size that is capable of reversibly incorporating lithium (Brewer, paragraph 0076) and also allows room for volume expansion (Brewer, paragraph 0004), and one would have had a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 7: Brewer teaches that the continuous porous lithium storage layer may be nanoporous (paragraph 0079) and may include adjacent columns of silicon (i.e. comprise a plurality of columnar structures) (paragraph 0080). Being columnar is considered to be extending in a substantially perpendicular direction from the surface of the current collector material, and therefore the space between adjacent columns (i.e. major void structures) would have an orientation with a substantially perpendicular angle to the surface of the current collector material.
Claims 8 and 16: Brewer teaches that the continuous porous lithium storage layer may include adjacent columns of silicon (i.e. comprise a plurality of columnar structures) (paragraph 0080). Being columnar is considered to be extending in a substantially perpendicular direction from the surface of the current collector material.
Claims 10-11: Brewer teaches that the continuous porous lithium storage layer may include silicon nanoparticle aggregates (paragraph 0080) and may be nanoporous (paragraph 0079).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date for nanoparticle aggregates to includes pores that are nano-sized, particularly in view of being characterized as nanoporous, because the average pore size would be largely determined by the size of the nanoparticles, and it would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art to determine a pore size that is capable of reversibly incorporating lithium (Brewer, paragraph 0076) and also allows room for volume expansion (Brewer, paragraph 0004), and one would have had a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 12: Brewer teaches that continuous porous lithium storage layers (i.e. silicon layers) are disposed on both sides of the current collector to form an anode (paragraph 0030).
Claim 14: Brewer teaches that the surface roughness of the current collector measured as an average maximum height of the profile, Rz, is ≥2.5 µm and may be as high as a range to 12 to 14 µm or may be measured as the roughness average, Ra, with a value ≥0.25 µm and may be as high as 1.2-1.4 µm (para. 0041). These values compare to the instant disclosure of Sa or Ra of more than 0.35 µm and Sz or Rz of more than 4 µm (p. 15 of the instant specification). Due to the substantial overlap of Ra and Rz as outlined above, then the recited Sz value is considered to be present as this value is another way to measure the surface roughness.
Claim 15: Brewer teaches that the anode may include surface layers provided on the electrically conductive layer and continuous porous lithium storage layers (i.e. silicon layers) are then disposed on both sides to form the anode (paragraph 0030). When the surface layer is not present silicon does not adhere and flakes off (paragraph 0134), and therefore the surface layer is considered to be an adhesion layer. The surface layer includes zinc, a metal-oxygen compound (i.e. a metal oxide) etc. (paragraph 0052).
Claim 20: Brewer teaches that the continuous porous lithium storage layer may include adjacent columns of silicon (i.e. comprise a plurality of columnar structures) (paragraph 0080). Being columnar is considered to be extending in a substantially perpendicular direction from the surface of the current collector material. Brewer further teaches that the majority of active material (i.e. the silicon) of the continuous porous lithium storage layer (i.e. the silicon layers) has substantial lateral connectivity across portions of the current collector (paragraph 0080), which is considered where the plural adjacent columns of silicon include branched or dendritic columns.
Claim 21: Brewer teaches that the continuous porous lithium storage layer (i.e. the silicon layers) may be described as a matrix of interconnected silicon with random pores and interstices embedded therein (paragraph 0080), which is considered to be a random distribution of structural features across the current collector layer, including random distribution of the plurality of silicon columns.
Claim 22: Brewer teaches the active material of the continuous porous lithium storage layer is, for example, silicon or alloys thereof, etc. (paragraph 0080), or may include silicon, germanium, antimony, time or mixtures of two or more of these elements (i.e. alloys), or may include dopants such as aluminum, gallium, indium, or metallic elements, etc. (paragraph 0076). Brewer teaches that higher porosity silicon may be formed when the gas flow ratio of silane relative to the combined gas flows of silane and hydrogen increases, etc., the gases may include some dopant gases, and the PECVD deposition conditions and gases may be changed over the course of the deposition (para. 0091). This is considered to teach where the adjacent columns may further comprise a silicon alloy.
Claim 28: Brewer teaches that the continuous porous lithium storage layer (i.e. the silicon layers; i.e. the adjacent columns as outlined above) has an average density that ranges from 1.0 g/cm3 to as high as 2.29 g/cm3 (paragraph 0079) and has an average thickness of about 0.5 µm to about 50 µm (paragraph 0094), or alternatively has an active silicon areal density of at least 1.0 mg/cm2 to up to 20 mg/cm2 (paragraph 0093). None of these ranges is actually just an area of coverage (i.e. an average footprint of adjacent columns), but the area covered by the continuous porous lithium storage layer would be dependent similarly to the thickness or mass per unit area being dependent on the storage material, desired charge capacity, and other operational and lifetime considerations (paragraph 0093) and would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art to determine an area coverage (instead of an areal density) that obtains the desired performance, and one would have had a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 37: Brewer teaches the anode (i.e. the composite material as outlined above regarding claim 1) as being for an energy storage device (i.e. a battery) (paragraph 0007), and specifically of a lithium-ion battery that typically includes a cathode, an electrolyte, and a separator formed into multilayer stacks of anodes and cathodes with an intervening separator (paragraph 0105).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Okada et al. (WO 2020/194794, attached, using US 2021/0371288 as an equivalent English translation) teaches porous amorphous silicon for the anode material of lithium ion batteries wherein the porous amorphous silicon has a lamellar or columnar structure having a mean lamellar diameter or mean column diameter of 1 nm to 100 nm and a spacing between adjacent columns of 1 nm to 100 nm.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIM S HORGER whose telephone number is (571)270-5904. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30 AM - 4:00 PM EST.
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, Humera Sheikh can be reached at 571-272-0604. 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.
/KIM S. HORGER/Examiner, Art Unit 1784
Prosecution Insights