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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on June 27, 2024, November 15, 2024 and January 21, 2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1-3, 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Drager (WO 2022/111828; English equivalent US Pub. No. 2023/0420636 relied upon).
Regarding claims 1-2 and 17, Drager teaches a lithium-ion battery (paragraph [0107]) which can be recharged (paragraph [0137]), comprising an anode (negative electrode) comprising silicon-containing material according to the invention (taken to be the claimed negative active material), a cathode (positive electrode) and an electrolyte (paragraph [0107]), where the silicon-containing material can comprise porous particles (claimed inorganic supporter) with carbon layered on the surface of the pores and the outer surface of the porous particle, and a layer of silicon on top of the carbon layer (paragraph [0077]), and preferred porous particles are based on silicon dioxide, silicon carbide, or mixtures of such (paragraph [0030]).
Regarding claim 3, Drager teaches that the carbon is on the surface of the pores (paragraph [0077]), which inherently either completely or partially fills the pores.
Regarding claim 15, Drager teaches the use of mesopores having a size range of 2 to 50 nm (paragraph [0070]), such a range being fully encompassed by the claimed range.
Claims 1, 3-7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim (US Pub. No. 2011/0281180).
Regarding claims 1, 4-6 and 17, Kim teaches a rechargeable lithium ion battery including a negative active material (title) comprising a crystalline carbon material having pores (claimed inorganic supporter) (paragraph [0031]), amorphous conductive silicon nanoparticles (claimed silicon layer) may be dispersed on the surface of the crystalline carbon material (paragraphs [0031] and [0043]-[0044]), and amorphous carbon may fill the space inside the pores and be disposed on the external surface of the crystalline carbon material (paragraphs [0049]-[0052]).
Regarding claim 3, Kim teaches that the amorphous carbon may fill the space inside the pores (paragraph [0049]), which inherently either completely or partially fills the pores.
Regarding claim 7, Kim teaches a specific embodiment with a FWHM of 0.5 degrees (paragraph [0118], table 1, example 1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 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.
Claims 8-10 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Drager (WO 2022/111828; English equivalent US Pub. No. 2023/0420636 relied upon).
Regarding claim 8, Drager teaches a weight of porous particles (claimed inorganic supporter) preferably comprises 10% to 90% by weight (paragraph [0062]) and a weight of silicon obtained via deposition (claimed silicon layer) of preferably 10% to 90% by weight (paragraph [0063]), resulting in a range of weight ratio of from 10:90 to 90:10, overlapping the claimed range. “In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” MPEP at 2144.05 citing In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a weight ratio as claimed because Drager teaches an overlapping range of weight ratio (see paragraphs [0062]-[0063]).
Regarding claim 9, Drager teaches a dimension having a size (claimed thickness) of more preferably less than 100 nm (paragraph [0071]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a thickness as claimed because Drager teaches an overlapping range of thickness (see paragraph [0071]).
Regarding claim 10, Drager teaches a thickness of the carbon layer of preferably less than 100 nm (paragraph [0077]), overlapping the claimed range. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a thickness as claimed because Drager teaches an overlapping range of thickness (see paragraph [0077]).
Regarding claims 12-13, Drager teaches that the silicon-containing material preferably comprises an additional element (carbon) in an amount less than or equal to 50% by weight and greater than or equal to 1% by weight (paragraph [0078]), resulting in overlapping ranges for the claimed carbon-based material and silicon. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use amounts of carbon-based material and silicon as claimed because Drager teaches overlapping ranges of these materials (see paragraph [0078]).
Regarding claim 14, Drager teaches a range of porosity of 15% to 85% (paragraph [0106]), overlapping the claimed range. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a porosity as claimed because Drager teaches an overlapping range of porosity (see paragraph [0106]).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ishimaru (US Pub. No. 2013/0244117).
Regarding claim 11, Kim does not specifically disclose the crystal size of the amorphous carbon. Ishimaru teaches amorphous carbon in a lithium ion battery with a crystal size of 2.0 to 8.0 nm (paragraph [0178]), with specific embodiments having a size of 2.6 to 4.9 nm (paragraph [0175], table 1, examples 1-6 and 10-11), all falling within the claimed range. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a crystal size as taught by Ishimaru in the active material of Kim in order to have the battery have excellent life characteristics (see Ishimaru at paragraph [0178]).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Drager as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Troegel (CN 107431189; machine translation relied upon).
Regarding claim 16, Drager does not specifically disclose the distance between the pores in the porous inorganic supporter. Troegel teaches a most preferable distance between pores in a porous inorganic supporter of 50 to 146 nm (machine translation at page 4, fifth paragraph). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a distance between pores as taught by Troegel in the negative active material porous in organic supporter of Drager as a known distance between pores in an organic supporter with predictable results (see MPEP at 2143 I (A)).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHILIP N SCHWARTZ whose telephone number is (571)270-1612. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-5:30.
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, Katelyn Smith can be reached at 571-270-5545. 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.
/P.N.S/Examiner, Art Unit 1749 September 14, 2026
/KATELYN W SMITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1749
Prosecution Insights