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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 10-11 and 15-16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 2/3/2026.
Applicant argues that restriction between groups I and II are not justified under MPEP 806.05(f)(B). However, the examiner notes that the restriction can be made by showing MPEP 806.05(f)(A) or MPEP 806.05(f)(B). The examiner maintains the rationale made for MPEP 806.05(f)(A).
Applicant argues the restriction between groups I and II because there is no evidence to show that the product (powder) can be coated on another substrate other than a current collector. The examiner maintains that one of ordinary skill in the art would readily recognize depositing material from cathode to anode or anode to cathode, see SAITO et al. (US 2005/0132562) [0125].
Applicant argues the restriction between groups II and III because it was not shown the combination does not require the particulars of the subcombination. However, the claims themselves do not overlap in scope and are never incorporated into a single combination (although disclosed). Accordingly, the limitations in each subcombination self-evidently do not rely on the other’s limitations for patentability.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 7 and 14 refer to “volume average”, and the specification indicates this is a d50 average.
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) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WATANABE et al. (US 2011/0097627).
Regarding claims 13,
WATANABE teaches an active material of silicon [0024] coated with a metal oxide [0025] that can be cerium oxide and tantalum oxide [0029]. A carbon coating is then formed on the metal oxide coating [0033].
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 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(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WATANABE et al. (US 2011/0097627).
Regarding claim 14,
WATANABE teaches the particle sizes are 0.1-50µm [0075] which overlaps the claimed range and is considered prima facie obvious, MPEP 2144.05.I.
Claim(s) 1 and 3-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WATANABE et al. (US 2011/0097627) in view of MANGOLINI et al. (US 2022/0052323).
Regarding claim 1, 3, 4 and 8,
WATANABE teaches an active material of silicon 0024] coated with a metal oxide [0025] that can be cerium oxide and tantalum oxide [0029]. A carbon coating is then formed on the metal oxide coating [0033]. The reference does not teach the encapsulating conductive material can be graphite. MANGOLINI teaches coating silicon particles with graphitic carbon shells to improve electrical conductivity abstract and [0019]. At the time of filing the invention it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a graphite layer as the conductive material encapsulating layer in WATANABE to improve electrical conductivity of the electrode.
Regarding claims 5 and 6,
WATANABE teaches oxides of cerium and tantalum. The metal oxides is a genus for cerium oxides and tantalum oxides which includes each oxide species associated with each valency, including cerium dioxide and tantalum pentoxide.
Regarding claim 7,
WATANABE teaches the particle sizes are 0.1-50µm [0075] which overlaps the claimed range and is considered prima facie obvious, MPEP 2144.05.I.
Regarding claim 9,
MANGOLINI teaches that when using a carbon shell, the graphite thickness can have a tunable thickness [0018]. The reference does not expressly teach the relative mass percent, but teaches a silicon nanoparticle can have a size of about 50-100nm [0041] while using a graphite coating of 1-500nm (claim 6). Accordingly, there can be significantly more graphite in the particle than the silicon active material when using the graphite coating of MANGOLINI. The range at least overlaps the claimed range of 60-95% by mass graphite and is considered prima facie obvious, MPEP 2144.05.I.
Claim(s) 2, 17 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WATANABE et al. (US 2011/0097627) in view of MANGOLINI et al. (US 2022/0052323) further in view of KURIKI et al. (TW 201436349; citation to machine translation).
Regarding claims 2, 17, and 18,
The references teach using graphitic material in the anode active material with silicon and cerium/tantalum oxides as described above but do not teach the claimed Raman R value. MANGOLINI teaches an amorphous structure would have an R value (D/G ratio) of 0.7 while the graphitic carbon is 1.2 [0026]. KURIKI teaches a similar active material 111 that incorporates an active material with cerium oxide 112 coating. KURIKI further teaches using carbon material and notes that the R value is a degree of graphitization of the carbon material and an R value of less than 1.1 and less than 0.4 is used to reduce irreversible capacity page 4. At the time of filing the invention it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a graphitic material with a lower R value to reduce the irreversible capacity of the battery. The prior art range overlaps the claimed range and is prima facie obvious, MPEP 2144.05.I.
Claim(s) 1, 3, and 6-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ASANO et al. (US 2020/0020932) in view of MANGOLINI et al. (US 2022/0052323).
Regarding claims 1, 3, and 8,
ASANO teaches a negative electrode material that includes silicon 22 and a metal 25 [0042] such as cerium oxide [0045]. The particle is further encapsulated by a conductive layer 24 that can be carbon [0067]. The reference does not teach the encapsulating conductive material can be graphite. MANGOLINI teaches coating silicon particles with graphitic carbon shells to improve electrical conductivity abstract and [0019]. At the time of filing the invention it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a graphite layer as the conductive material encapsulating layer in ASANO to improve electrical conductivity of the electrode.
Regarding claim 7,
ASANO teaches the silicon particles (particle B) can have an average particle size of 500nm or less [0017] which overlaps the claimed range and is considered prima facie obvious, MPEP 2144.05.I. This average particle size can be expected to be a normal distribution which would make the d50 is the same as the average.
Regarding claim 6,
ASANO teaches using CeO2 [0063] which is cerium (IV) oxide.
Regarding claim 9,
MANGOLINI teaches that when using a carbon shell, the graphite thickness can have a tunable thickness [0018]. The reference does not expressly teach the relative mass percent, but teaches a silicon nanoparticle can have a size of about 50-100nm [0041] while using a graphite coating of 1-500nm (claim 6). Accordingly, there can be significantly more graphite in the particle than the silicon active material when using the graphite coating of MANGOLINI. The range at least overlaps the claimed range of 60-95% by mass graphite and is considered prima facie obvious, MPEP 2144.05.I.
Claim(s) 2 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ASANO et al. (US 2020/0020932) in view of MANGOLINI et al. (US 2022/0052323) further in view of KURIKI et al. (TW 201436349; citation to machine translation).
Regarding claims 2 and 17,
The references teach using graphitic material in the anode active material but do not teach the Raman R value. KURIKI teaches a similar active material 111 that incorporates an active material with cerium oxide 112 coating. KURIKI further teaches that the R value is a degree of graphitization of the carbon material and an R value of less than 1.1 and less than 0.4 is used to reduce irreversible capacity page 4. At the time of filing the invention it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a graphitic material with a lower R value to reduce the irreversible capacity of the battery.
Claim(s) 4, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ASANO et al. (US 2020/0020932) in view of MANGOLINI et al. (US 2022/0052323) further in view of WATANABE et al. (US 2011/0097627).
Regarding claim 4,
ASANO teaches an active particle with islands of silicon and metal oxide (cerium oxide). The reference does not expressly teach coating the cerium and tantalum compound on the silicon active material. However, WATANABE teaches coatings help protect the active material from degradation [0017]. The reference further teaches that when using a metal oxide coating for anode active materials such as silicon nanoparticles [0012] the metal oxides can be both cerium oxide and tantalum oxide [0016]. At the time of filing the invention it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a coating of tantalum and cerium oxide to help stability of the cell by protecting the silicon material.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ASANO et al. (US 2020/0020932) in view of MANGOLINI et al. (US 2022/0052323) further in view of WATANABE et al. (US 2011/0097627) and KURIKI et al. (TW 201436349; citation to machine translation).
Regarding claim 18,
ASANO teaches an active particle with islands of silicon and metal oxide (cerium oxide). The reference does not expressly teach coating the cerium and tantalum compound on the silicon active material. However, WATANABE teaches that when using a metal oxide coating for anode active materials such as silicon nanoparticles [0012] the metal oxides can be both cerium oxide and tantalum oxide [0016]. The coatings help protect the active material from degradation [0017]. At the time of filing the invention it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a coating of tantalum and cerium oxide to help stability of the cell.
The references teach using graphitic material in the anode active material but do not teach the Raman R value. KURIKI teaches a similar active material 111 that incorporates an active material with cerium oxide 112 coating. KURIKI further teaches that the R value is a degree of graphitization of the carbon material and an R value of less than 1.1 and less than 0.4 is used to reduce irreversible capacity page 4. At the time of filing the invention it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a graphitic material with a lower R value to reduce the irreversible capacity of the battery.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TANIGUCHI et al. (TW 201330367; citations to machine translation1) in view of MANGOLINI et al. (US 2022/0052323).
Regarding claim 1,
TANIGUCHI teaches a cerium oxide powder with a carbon coating as an anode material example 2 pages 7-8. The reference does not expressly teach the carbon coating is graphite. However, MANGOLINI teaches coating silicon particles with graphitic carbon shells to improve electrical conductivity abstract and [0019]. At the time of filing the invention it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a graphite layer as the conductive material encapsulating layer in TANIGUCHI to improve electrical conductivity of the electrode.
Claim(s) 1 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KIM et al. (US 2017/0338480) in view of MANGOLINI et al. (US 2022/0052323).
Regarding claims 1 and 8,
KIM teaches anode active material that is TaSi2 [0022]. The reference does not expressly teach coating active material with graphite. However, MANGOLINI teaches coating active material particles with graphitic carbon shells to improve electrical conductivity abstract and [0019]. At the time of filing the invention it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a graphite layer as the conductive material encapsulating layer in KIM to improve electrical conductivity of the electrode.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AUSTIN MURATA whose telephone number is (571)270-5596. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5.
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, MICHAEL CLEVELAND can be reached at 571272-1418. 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.
/AUSTIN MURATA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
1 This reference in addition to other references from CN and TW appear to inconsistently translate Si and Ce. This reference for example refers to “cerium oxide represented by the general formula SiOx (0<x<2)”.