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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
1. 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
2. Claims 7 and 9 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.
3. With regard to claim 7, claim 7 depends from claim 3 which recites a ratio of the major(β) and minor(α) axis (β/α) of less than 3. Such a ratio would typically have a spherical or round shape rather than a rod shape (e.g., elongated). The Examiner interprets a nanorod to have more of an elongated shape rather than a spherical or round shape. As such, the Examiner is of the position that the claimed ratio of claim 3 is inconsistent with the claimed nanorod.
4. With regard to claim 9, claim 9 depends from claim 3 which recites a ratio of the major(β) and minor(α) axis (β/α) of less than 3. Such a ratio would typically have a spherical or round shape rather than a wire shape (e.g., elongated). The Examiner interprets a nanowire to have more of an elongated shape rather than a spherical or round shape. As such, the Examiner is of the position that the claimed ratio of claim 3 is inconsistent with the claimed nanowire.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
5. 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)(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.
6. Claim(s) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Choi et al., US 11695107 B2.
With regard to claim 1, the patent issued to Choi et al., teach a silicon containing composite comprising first, second and third nanoparticle materials (title, abstract and claim 1). Choi et al., teach that first, second and third nanoparticles contain silicon (Si) (column 5, 30-50 and column 6, 5-10). The Examiner is of the position that the silicon containing composite comprising the first, second and third nanoparticle materials meets the limitation of a “composition”. Choi et al., teach that the shape of the first particle can have a cube, rod, plate or wire shape (column 5, 50-65). Choi et al., teach that the second particle can have a sphere or wire shape (column 5, 50-65). Choi et al., teach that the third particle can have a tube, rod or ribbon shape (column 6, 5-10).
With regard to the claimed diameters set forth in claims 2 and 4-10, Choi et al., teach that the second primary particle may have a size which is the same as or smaller than that of the first primary particle. The sizes of the first primary particle and the second primary particle may each independently have an average particle diameter of about 10 nm to about 30 micrometer (μm). The size of the first primary particle may be, for example, about 20 nm to about 180 nm, for example, about 60 nm to about 150 nm. The size of the second primary particle may be about 100 nm or less, for example, about 30 nm to about 100 nm.
With regard to claim 3, the Examiner is of the position that sphere shape particles would have the claimed ratio of the major(β) and minor(α) axis (β/α) of less than 3. Applicants are invited to prove otherwise.
Conclusion
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LYNDA SALVATORE whose telephone number is (571)272-1482. The examiner can normally be reached 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, Marla McConnell can be reached at 571-270-7692. 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.
/LYNDA SALVATORE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights