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
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.
Claim 9 is 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.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "silicon-containing material" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1,4-10,14 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN 108123111 (CN ‘111).
As to Claim 1, 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. With respect to step f) of the claim, the Examiner notes the limitations are construed as not required as the clause begins with the term “optionally”.
As to Claim 4, see discussion of Claim 1 above.
As to Claim 5, the ball milling step of mixing the silicon and composite particle is conducted for 10 hrs. (pg. 5, line 10).
As to Claim 6, the ball milling occurs at 1800 rpm (pg. 5, line 10).
As to Claim 7, the ball milling is a dry mixing process (pg. 5, lines 8-10).
As to Claim 8, the Examiner respectfully submits the prior art would inherently possess the claimed characteristic due to the similarity of the prior art and instantly claimed process.
As to Claim 9, the lignin material is mixed in at 0.5 wt. % relative to silicon powder (pg. 5, lines 6-9).
As to Claim 10, see discussion of Claim 1 above wherein the material contains elemental silicon.
As to Claim 14, CN ‘111 discloses a carbonization of the composite at 900 deg C for 5 hours (pg. 5, lines 20).
As to Claim 20, the material is crushed and sieved after carbonization (pg. 5, lines 18-20).
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) 3 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN ‘111 and further in view of CN 107732158 (CN ‘158).
As to Claim 3, CN ‘111 is relied upon as discussed above, however, fails to disclose the use of kraft lignin.
As to the difference, CN ‘158 discloses the use of lignin to make Si/C composite particles wherein the lignins can be sourced from sulfonate containing lignin and Kraft lignin.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the lignin of CN ‘111 with the Kraft lignin of CN ‘158 as substitution of art recognized equivalents is within the level of the ordinarily skilled artisan.
As to Claim 11, the broken agglomerated material is pressed for 150 deg C at 200 MPa for 10 minutes (pg. 5, line 19).
However, CN ‘111 does not disclose a process conducted for 30 minutes.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize longer press times for the obvious advantages such as producing a composite with different properties i.e. a more compacted and homogenous material.
Claim(s) 13,21 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 13, see discussion of Claim 1 above.
As to Claim 21, see discussion of Claim 14 above.
As to Claim 23, see discussion of Claim 20 above. 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) 13,21 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 13,21 and 23 and its interpretation as discussed above.
As to Claim 13, US ‘315 discloses a material that is produced from the mixture of lignin and silicon nanopowder (Example 1, para. 0160).
As to Claim 21, US ‘315 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 2,12,15,16 and 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
As to Claim 2, the prior art does not disclose the properties of the lignin particles as required by the claim nor is there any teaching, suggestion or motivation in the art to arrive at the claimed limitations.
As to Claims 12,15,16 and 18, the prior art does not disclose a two stage heating process to either form a thermally stable lignin carbon composite or a carbon silicon composition nor is there any teaching, suggestion or motivation to arrive at the claimed limitations.
Conclusion
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/ 2/27/2026
/MARK KOPEC/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1762