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 .
This action is responsive to amendments filed on 6/4/2026.
Claims 1,3-16,18,20,21 and 23 are pending. Claims 1 and 9 are amended.
Withdrawn Rejection(s)
The rejection of Claims 1,4-10,14 and 20 under USC 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN 108123111 (CN ‘111) are withdrawn in view of Applicants’ amendments.
The rejection of Claims 3 and 11 under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over CN ‘111 in view of CN 107732158 are withdrawn in view of Applicants’ amendments.
The rejection of Claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over CN ‘111 are withdrawn in view of Applicants’ amendments.
Maintained Rejection(s)
Claims 21 and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over CN ‘111.
The rejection of Claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over US 2014/0287315 (US ‘315) is withdrawn in view of Applicants’ amendments.
Claims 21 and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over US ‘315.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/4/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As to the claims, Applicants have amended Claim 1 to incorporate the allowable subject matter of Claim 2 to overcome the pending rejections.
The Examiner notes that, with respect to Claims 21 and 23, the product by process limitations of the claim yield a chemically distinct product wherein the novel lignin in Claim 1 is converted to carbon through pyrolysis/carbonization treatment. The Applicants have not shown how the claimed composition would be distinguished from the prior art composites that are disclosed in CN ‘111 or US ‘815 discussed in the Non-Final Rejection and summarized below.
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.
(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.
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.
Claim(s) 21 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over CN ‘111.
As to above claims, the Examiner notes the product by process claim limitations and notes MPEP 2113 which states "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citations omitted).”
As to Claim 21, CN ‘111 discloses a method whereby 3 micron silicon powder is mixed with lignin sulfonate fumed silica composite particle in a ball mill to make a particle dispersion (pg. 5, lines 1-10), then additives are added and the product is kneaded and hot rolled i.e. compacted and broken into a powder (pg. 5, lines 12-18) i.e. crushed prior to carbonization. CN ‘111 discloses a carbonization of the composite at 900 deg C for 5 hours (pg. 5, lines 20).
As to Claim 23, the material is crushed and sieved after carbonization (pg. 5, lines 18-20). The Examiner notes the material produced by the prior art method is used to silicon based negative electrode material for a lithium ion battery (pg. 1, lines 11-12).
Claim(s) 21 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over US 2014/0287315 (US ‘315).
The Examiner notes the product by process limitations of Claims 21 and 23 and notes MPEP 2113 which states, "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citations omitted).”
As to Claim 21, US ‘315 discloses a material that is produced from the mixture of lignin and silicon nanopowder (Example 1, para. 0160). US ‘315 further discloses the material discussed in Claim 13 as carbonized to form a composite particle (para. 0160).
As to Claim 23, the material discussed in Claim 21 above is formed into a negative electrode (para. 0165, Claim 12).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1,3-16,18 and 20 are allowed.
Specifically, none of the prior art discloses the composite requiring the lignin particles as required by the amended Claim 1 nor is there any teaching, suggestion or motivation to arrive at the claimed limitation.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAISON P THOMAS whose telephone number is (571)272-8917. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 9:00 am-3:30 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, Robert Jones can be reached at (571) 270-7733. 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.
/J.P.T/Examiner, Art Unit 1762
/jt/ 7/2/2026
/MARK KOPEC/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1762
Prosecution Insights