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 Interpretation
Claim 2 requires that no diffraction peak be observed in the composite particle in an XRD pattern obtained by an X-ray diffraction method. This is analogous to the absence of SiO2. Therefore, any composite particle that satisfies the limitations of claim 1 and does not contain SiO2 will also satisfy the limitations of claim 2.
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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kirkengen (US 2024/0162428 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kirkengen discloses silicon-containing particles that comprise Si and SiC [0036]. Kirkengen also teaches that particles comprise crystallites that have a size in the range of 1 nm – 15 nm [0033]. Kirkengen also teaches that the crystallite sizes are determined by the widths of their sharp features in the XRD data [0042], reading on the limitation of how the crystallite diameter is calculated from a half width of the crystallites sharp features. 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 2, Kirkengen teaches that the silicon-containing particles only contain silicon, carbon, or nitrogen [0044]. Since no SiO2 is present, there would be no diffraction peak for SiO2.
Regarding claim 3, Kirkengen teaches that the composite particle may have the formula Si(1-x)Cx [0036]. This general formula describes the composition of the entire particle, but the actual structure may be a combination between pure Si and SiC [0036]. The variable “x” may be in the range of 0.05 – 0.2, indicating that up to 20% of the structure on an atomic basis may be carbon [0045]. When “x” is 0.2, the composition of the particle is Si0.8C0.2. However, if as much carbon as possible is attached to the silicon, the composition may be represented by Si0.6(SiC)0.2. If the atomic mass of each compound is multiplied by their corresponding molar coefficient, then the mass percentages of the silicon portion and the silicon-carbon portion can be calculated. Multiplying the atomic mass of Si (28) by 0.6 yields 16.8 and multiplying the atomic mass of SiC (28 + 12 = 40) by 0.2 yields 8. Those two numbers sum to 24.8. 16.8 is 68% of the total mass and 8 is 32% of the total mass.
Therefore, when carbon has an atom percentage of 20% in Kirkengen’s compound, the mass ratio of the silicon component is 67% and the mass ratio of the SiC is 32%. These two values are a part of ranges that are implicitly derived from the atom % taught by Kirkengen. Therefore, Kirkengen’s range of atom %’s result in ranges that overlap with the claimed mass percentage ranges of 30% - 70% for silicon component and 5% - 70% for the SiC component. 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 4, Kirkengen teaches that a carbon coating may be applied to the silicon-containing particles [0050]. That sort of coating/layer is conductive.
Regarding claim 5, Kirkengen teaches that the particles can be used as active material in a negative electrode (as required by claim 5, [0058]) which may then be used in a battery (as required by claim 6, [0058]).
Regarding claim 6, Kirkengen does not explicitly teach that the negative electrode of claim 5 is to be used in a battery further comprising a positive electrode and an electrolyte. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize both that Kirkengen’s negative electrode is it suitable to be used in a battery [0058] and that it is well known in the art that many lithium-ion batteries comprise a positive electrode, a negative electrode, and an electrolyte (MPEP 2144.03). 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 Kirkengen’s negative electrode in a battery that comprises a positive electrode, a negative electrode, and a non-aqueous electrolyte.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lang (US 2018/0366722 A1) teaches a method of making a silicon-SiC composite powder (abstract) and discloses a specific example that has a SiC crystallite size of 2.5 nm (Experiment 7, Table 2).
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