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 .
Priority
This application is a DIV of S.N. 18/219,295 (filed 07/07/23, now US 12,057,568), which application claims priority to US 63/359,600 (filed 07/08/22).
Claims 1-10 are pending.
Drawings
The Drawings filed 06/20/24 are approved by the examiner.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS statements filed 08/07/24 (2), 10/13/24, 06/12/25, and 08/05/25 have been considered. Initialed copies accompany this action.
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892 or by applicant on form PTO-1449, they have not been considered.
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.
Claims 1-10 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.
The instant claims recite/require a first component “active material” and a second component “a conductive additive”. The claim is indefinite under double inclusion as the first component and the second may be the same material, i.e. graphite. In fact, applicant specifies that the active material may be a preferred species “graphite” (dependent claim 2 and para 0053 of instant PGPUB). Accordingly, the claim language is open to multiple interpretations as to how many components are actually required to mee the claim limitations. Where a claim directed to a device can be read to include the same element twice, the claim may be indefinite. Ex parte Kristensen, 10 USPQ2d 1701 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989).
Applicant is invited to contact the undersigned examiner in order to discuss possible ways of overcoming the above rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 and/or 103
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.
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.
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.
Claim Interpretation
The examiner notes the ranges recited for the active material, conductive additive, and binder/solvent include an amount of 0.0 wt% for the conductive additive. Accordingly, the component is considered optional (i.e. not required) in the composition.
Claim(s) 1-5, and 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanchan et al (JPS 2007) or Wang et al (J Mater Chem 2007), either in view of US 2019/0030600 A1.
Kanchan et al discloses (Abstract):
Nanocomposite based on graphite (C), silicon (Si) and poly[(o-cresyl glycidyl ether)-co-formaldehyde] resin based amorphous hard carbon (HC), denoted as Si/C/HC, have been synthesized by thermal treatment of mechanically milled graphite, silicon and resin of nominal composition C–18 wt.% Si–40 wt.% resin at 973 K, 1073K and 1173K in ultrahigh purity argon atmosphere. The reference specifies a process wherein active material (i.e. graphite or Si), conductive additive (Si), and polymer/NMP solution are mixed in a mill shaker (Vacuum Atmosphere) with Ar, 10 ppmO2 and 0.10 ppm moisture (Section 2.1).
Wang et al discloses (Abstract):
Si–C and Si–C–Al composite powders have been synthesized by thermal treatment of high-energy mechanically-milled composite precursors comprising graphite, silicon, aluminium and several
types of polymers such as poly(acrylonitrile), poly[(o-cresylglycidyl ether)-co-formaldehyde] resin and poly(methacrylonitrile). The polymers have been used to suppress the interfacial diffusion reactions between graphite, silicon and aluminium, which otherwise lead to the formation of
electrochemically-inactive SiC and Al4C3 intermetallics during high-energy mechanical milling. The reference specifies a process wherein active material (i.e. graphite or Si), conductive additive (Si), and polymer solution (PAN+epoxy in NMP) are mixed in a shaker mill (Vacuum Atmosphere) with Ar, 10 ppmO2 and 0.10 ppm moisture (Section 2.1.1).
The primary references differ form the instant claims in failing to specifically recite the claimed ratio of active material:conductive additive:binder/solvent, and failing to specifically disclose the use of vacuum during mixing in the mill shaker.
With respect to the claimed ratio of material:conductive additive:binder/solvent independent claim 1 and dependent claim 2), the examiner respectfully submits that the skilled artisan would have to utilize only routine testing in order to arrive at the optimal ratio of such components in order to tailor the properties of the resultant anode material. In re "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The examiner submits that the same rationale applies to the aggregate size and surface area specified in dependent claims 4-5, and the recited pressure and frequency recited in dependent claims 8-9. Also, the examiner submits that stability property recited in dependent claim 10 is the result of the obvious process as delineated above, and such would inherently occur from is use.
With respect to the instantly claimed vacuum atmosphere during mixing, both Kanchan and Wang disclose the use of Ar atmosphere in a vacuum atmosphere type shaker mill in order to prevent oxidation, and US 2019/0030600 teaches that the use of vacuum during milling is also known to alleviate the risk of oxidation (para 0165). Accordingly, the examiner submits that the use of a vacuum during shaker milling would have been known and obvious to the skilled artisan.
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanchan et al (JPS 2007) or Wang et al (J Mater Chem 2007), either in view of US 2019/0030600 A1, in further in view of CN 112018336 A (pub date Dec 2020).
Each of Kanchan, Wang, and US ‘600 are relied upon as set forth above.
With respect to dependent claims 6-7, the examiner submits that the skilled artisan would have found obvious the claimed premix/sonication of Si and graphite in order to more uniformly disperse and distribute the particles prior to mixing with the additional ingredients. CN ‘336 is cited as additional evidence that premixing of silicon and carbon used for positive electrode materials is known in the art (see description and claims).
In view of the foregoing, the above claims have failed to patentably distinguish over the applied art.
The remaining references listed on forms 892 and 1449 have been reviewed by the examiner and are considered to be cumulative to or less material than the prior art references relied upon in the rejection above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK T KOPEC whose telephone number is (571)272-1319. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00a-5:00p 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 5712707733. 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.
/MARK KOPEC/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1762
MK
November 4, 2025