DETAILED ACTION
Summary
This is the initial Office Action based on the Silicon-Clathrate Electrode Active Material Particles, Electrode Composite Material, and Lithium-Ion Battery filed July 12, 2024.
Claims 1-5 are currently pending.
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.
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) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Otaki et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0391576 A1) in view of Chen et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2025/0226409 A1).
With regard to claims 1 and 2, Otaki et al. discloses a silicon-clathrate electrode active material ().
Otaki et al. does not disclose wherein the silicon-clathrate electrode active material meets the following relational expression: 0/0.05 ≤ surface oxygen ratio (wt%) / specific surface area (m2/g) ≤ 0.1.
However, the ratio of surface oxygen ratio to specific surface area is a result effective variable.
Chen et al. teaches an electrode active material (see Title and Abstract) and teaches the ratio of surface oxygen ratio to specific surface area directly affects the pore structure, size, and ratio on the surface of the particle which affects the optimal gram capacity and kinetic performance (see [0009-0010]).
Thus, at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have optimized the ratio of surface oxygen ratio to specific surface area in the particles of Otaki et al. and arrive at the claimed range through routine experimentation (see MPEP 2144.05); especially since it would have led to optimizing the pore structure, size, and ratio on the surface of the particle which affects the optimal gram capacity and kinetic performance.
With regard to claim 3, independent claim 1 is obvious over Otaki et al. in view of Chen et al. under 35 U.S.C. 103 as discussed above. Otaki et al. teaches that have a porous structure (see [0011]).
With regard to claim 4, Otaki et al., as modified above, teaches an electrode composite material (see Title and Abstract) including the electrode active material particles according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above).
With regard to claim 5, Otaki et al., as modified above, discloses a lithium-ion battery that has an electrode material layer (see Title, Abstract, and see Fig. 2), wherein the active electrode material layer contains the electrode composite material according to claim 4 (see rejection of claim 4 above).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUSTIN Q DAM whose telephone number is (571)270-5120. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 6:00 AM to 2:00 PM.
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, Allison Bourke can be reached at (303) 297-4684. 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.
/DUSTIN Q DAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1721 September 21, 2026
Prosecution Insights