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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed 06/18/2026 have been entered and are addressed below in remaining 35 USC 112(b) and 103 rejections.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Arguments directed to newly recited limitations (e.g., narrowed claimed range and new properties claimed) are addressed below by the updated grounds of rejection, which still rely on Nagayama, further in view of the new secondary teaching references cited below which were found in an updated search necessitated by the amendments. In light of the amendment, a different embodiment within the Nagayama reference is primarily relied upon below for the Si-coated carbon and corresponding oil absorption number, while Umeyama is relied upon for teaching toward the narrowed oil absorption number range of the carbon skeleton. Sakshaug is further relied upon to address newly added limitations regarding volumetric pore distributions.
Claim Objections
Claims 5, 12, and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities: it appears that prepositional phrases “of silicon” (material’s wt% was being compared to respective total weights in each claim. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 4, 7, 14, and 17-20 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.
Claim 1 limits an oil absorption number of the porous carbon skeleton to be ≥ 120 mL/100 g and ≤ 190 mL/100 g. However, claim 4 (which depends on claim 1) in the first clause thereof stated that the oil absorption number of the porous carbon skeleton ≥ 100 mL/100 g, which falls outside of the range introduced in claim 1 and thus renders claim 4 indefinite.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claims 7 and 14 recite the broad recitation “k is any value of 100 to 250”, and the claim also recites " which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 17 recites “a silicon-carbon composite material” which renders the claim indefinite as whether it refers back to the silicon-composite material introduced in base claim 1, or refers to another perhaps similar Si-C composite. Claims 18-20 also contain the subject matter of claim 17.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-7 15, 17, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagayama et al. (US 2016/0276668 A1, as cited in the 04/17/2026 Office action) in view of Umeyama et al. (US 2016/0248085 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Nagayama teaches a silicon-carbon composite material in a form of particles (Si composite carbon particles , [0018, 0068]), comprising:
a porous carbon skeleton (oil absorption must be sufficient for particles to have pores, [0069]),
a silicon-containing deposition layer, wherein the silicon-containing deposition layer is in pores of the porous carbon skeleton (Si compound particles are dispersed within a carbon raw material which has been spheroidized, [0090]), and
a carbon-containing coating layer disposed on the silicon-containing deposition layer and/or on a surface of the particles (Step of Coating Carbonaceous Material to the Si Composite Carbon Particles, [0203]), wherein
the silicon-carbon composite material has an oil absorption number ranging from 35 mL/100 g to 80 mL/100 g (oil absorption of the Si composite carbon particles is typically 30 mL/100 g or greater and 65 mL/100 g or less, [0069]);
but fails to teach:
the porous carbon skeleton has a connected-pore structure and an oil absorption number of ≥120 mL/100 g and ≤190 mL/100 g.
Umeyama is analogous in the art of particles used in electrodes and teaches that as the DBP oil absorption number of the first conductive material becomes larger, the effect of suppressing an increase in resistance becomes more excellent, and based on this result, it is recognized that the DBP oil absorption number of the first conductive material is more preferably equal to or larger than 150 ml/100 g ([0144]) or can be set within a range of 100 ml/100 g to 200 ml/100 g ([0046]). Umeyama teaches that carbon black is suitable for the first conductive material ([0045]) and is an example of a material having a DBP oil absorption number of 100 to 160 ml/100 g – which is an index indicating how much quantity of oil (organic solvent) can be absorbed in a gap of the structure – and is reasonably small in structure and excellent in dispersibility, such that carbon black excellent in dispersibility is expected to be helpful in forming a conductive network ([0006-0007]).
To form the carbon core of the silicon-carbon composite material of Nagayama, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious from the teachings of Umeyama to select carbon black to serve as the porous carbon skeleton, which forms a conductive network and has gaps in its structure (reading on “a connected-pore structure”) and having the oil dispersion number within the range taught by Umeyama, which overlaps the instantly claimed range of 120 to 190 mL/100g, and be motivated to suppress an increase in resistance and have excellent in dispersibility to help form a conductive network in an electrode material of Nagayama.
Thereby, claim 1 is rendered obvious.
Regarding claim 3, modified Nagayama teaches the limitations of claim 1 above and wherein silicon content at a center of the particles of the silicon-carbon composite material is ≥ 10 wt%, based on a total weight of the particles (the content of the elemental silicon in the Si composite carbon particles is particularly preferably 10% by mass or greater, Nagayama [0074]); wherein the silicon content at the center of the particles (the number of elemental silicon present within the Si composite carbon particles, Nagayama [0077]) is obtained by: among cross-sections of the particles that are obtained by subjecting the material to ion polishing, selecting a cross-section with a length of a long axis equal to a volume-average particle size of the particles (see Nagayama [0079-0081] regarding cross-sectional analysis), and determining the silicon content at a midpoint of the long axis on the selected cross- section (after a particle cross section is cut out using a focused ion beam (FIB) and/or ion milling, observation is performed by an observation method such as observation of particle cross section using a scanning electron microscope (SEM); Nagayama [0078]).
Regarding claim 4, modified Nagayama teaches the limitations of claim 1 above and oil absorption number of the porous carbon skeleton is of > 100 mL/100 g (100 to 160 ml/100 g, Umeyama [0007, 0046]) wherein the oil absorption number of the porous carbon skeleton is of 120 mL/100 g to 150 mL/100 g, (Umeyama [0007, 0046] as cited above),
wherein the porous carbon skeleton has a total pore volume of ≥ 1 cm3/g (in certain preferred embodiments, the porous carbon scaffold comprises a total pore volume greater than 0.5 cm3/g; Sakshaug [0182] – encompasses claimed range), a macropore volume of ≤ 0.2 cm3/g, a mesopore volume of ≥ 0.5 cm3/g, and a micropore volume of ≤ 0.3 cm3/g (in certain embodiments, the porous carbon scaffold comprises 0-20% micropores, 30-70% mesopores, and less than 10% macropores; Sakshaug [0179]).
Per Sakshaug [0352], pore size distribution of the carbon scaffold may be important to both the storage capacity of the material and the kinetics and power capability of the system as well as the ability to incorporate large amounts of electrochemical modifiers; the pore size distribution can range from micro- to meso- to macropore sized and may be either monomodal, bimodal or multimodal. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious in view of Sakshaug to ensure the pore distribution of modified Nagayama fell within these preferable ranges in order to achieve desired storage capacity, kinetics, and power capabilities. Thereby, claim 4 is also rendered obvious.
Regarding claim 5, modified Nagayama teaches the limitations of claim 1 above and wherein the silicon-carbon composite material comprises 20 wt% to 60 wt% [of silicon] based on a total weight of the silicon-carbon composite material (the content of the elemental silicon in the Si composite carbon particles is particularly preferably 10% by mass or greater and preferably 50% by mass or less relative to the content of the Si composite carbon particles; exemplary ranges in Nagayama [0074]).
Regarding claim 6, modified Nagayama teaches the limitations of claim 1 above and wherein the carbon-containing coating layer accounts for 3 wt% to 10 wt% based on a total weight of the silicon-carbon composite material (the carbonaceous material relative to the total amount of the Si compound particles, the carbon material, and the organic compound which becomes the carbonaceous material is more preferably 2.5% by mass or greater and more preferably 30% by mass or less, Nagayama [0159]).
Regarding claim 7, modified Nagayama teaches the limitations of claim 1 above and wherein the oil absorption number of the porous carbon skeleton is X1 (~150 mL/g, Umeyama [0046, 0144] as applied to claim 1 above), the oil absorption number of the silicon-carbon composite material is X2 (~50 mL/g, near midpoint of Nagayama [0069] range cited in claim 1 above), a weight percentage of silicon in the silicon-carbon composite material is Y1 (~10%, Nagayama [0074]), and a weight percentage of the carbon-containing coating layer is Y2 (~15%, near midpoint of Nagayama [0159]), and X1, X2, Y1, and Y2 satisfy: k=X1/[Y1 x Y2 x X2] (150/[50*.1*.15] = 200 – based on above data), k= k is any value of 100 to 250 (satisfied by 200 as calculated above), or 130 to 180 (optional limitation, need not be met to satisfy claim).
Regarding claim 15, modified Nagayama teaches the limitations of claim 1 above and a negative electrode plate, comprising a current collector and a negative electrode material layer provided on at least one surface of the current collector (Nagayama [0382]), wherein the negative electrode material layer comprises a silicon-carbon composite material (the negative electrode active material, in which the Si composite carbon particles are blended, Nagayama [0102]) according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 17, modified Nagayama teaches the limitations of claim 1 above and a secondary battery, comprising a silicon-carbon composite material (Si composite carbon particles that provide a non-aqueous secondary battery with a high capacity, Nagayama [0105]) according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 20, modified Nagayama teaches the limitations of claim 17 above and a power consuming device (electric tools and electric vehicles, have been developed in addition to conventional applications such as for laptop computers, mobile communication devices, portable cameras, and portable game consoles; Nagayama [0004]), comprising the secondary battery according to claim 17 (non-aqueous secondary battery, [0004]).
Claim(s) 2 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagayama et al. (US 2016/0276668 A1, as cited in the 04/17/2026 Office action) in view of Umeyama et al. (US 2016/0248085 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sakshaug et al. (US 20170170477 A1).
Regarding claim 2, modified Nagayama teaches the limitations of claim 1 above but fails to teach the particles of the silicon-carbon composite material have a total pore volume of ≤ 0.6 cm3/g as determined by nitrogen adsorption, and the particles of the silicon-carbon composite material have a micropore volume of ≤ 0.1 cm3/g, a mesopore volume of ≤ 0.3 cm3/g, and a macropore volume of ≤ 0.1 cm3/g.
Sakshaug is analogous in the art of silicon carbon composite material and teaches porous scaffold material is porous carbon material silicon is deposited into the pore volume of a porous scaffold material, and teaches that silicon is deposited into the pore volume of a porous scaffold material ([0016]). Sakshaug teaches that in certain embodiments, the composite comprises a pore volume between 0.01 and 0.5 cm3/g (and meets instant claim limitation “total pore volume of ≤ 0.6 cm3/g”), and the pore volume distribution comprises less than 20% micropores, greater than 50% mesopores, and less than 30% macropores ([0324]). At a midrange point of approximately 0.25 cm3/g, these percentages equate to:
Micropores = 0.25 cm3/g * 20% = 0.05 cm3/g falls within range of Sakshaug (and meets instant claim limitation “micropore volume of ≤ 0.1 cm3/g”)
Mesopores = 0.25 cm3/g * 50% = 0.125 cm3/g falls within range of Sakshaug (and meets instant claim limitation mesopore volume of ≤ 0.3 cm3/g)
Macropores = 0.25 cm3/g * (100-20-50)% = 0.075 cm3/g falls within range of Sakshaug (and meets instant claim limitation (macropore volume of ≤ 0.1 cm3/g)
Sakshaug teaches that pore size distribution of the composite material exhibiting extremely durable intercalation of lithium may be important to both the storage capacity of the material and the kinetics and power capability of the system as well as the ability to incorporate large amounts of electrochemical modifiers, and the pore size distribution can range from micro- to meso- to macropore sized and may be either monomodal, bimodal or multimodal ([0353]).
Therefore, It would have been obvious, at the time of filing, for a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the porous composite Si-C material of modified Nagayama to have the integral micro, meso, and macro pore distributions within the ranges taught toward by Sakshaug in order to achieve desired: extremely durable intercalation of lithium, storage capacity of the material and the kinetics and power capability of the system, as well as the ability to incorporate large amounts of electrochemical modifiers.
Thus, the instant claim 2 is rendered obvious.
Regarding claim 16, modified Nagayama teaches the limitations of claim 15 above but fails to explicitly teach the negative electrode material layer comprises 5 wt% to 50 wt% [of the silicon-carbon composite material], based on a total weight of the negative electrode material layer.
Sakshaug is analogous in the art of silicon carbon composite material and teaches porous scaffold material is porous carbon material silicon is deposited into the pore volume of a porous scaffold material, and teaches that silicon is deposited into the pore volume of a porous scaffold material ([0016]). Sakshaug teaches in [0288] that the % of active material in the electrode by weight can vary, for example between 5 and 15%, for example between 15 and 25%, for example between 25 and 35%, for example between 35 and 45%, for example between 45 and 55%, etc. These ranges taught by Sakshaug overlap or fall within the claimed range.
In view of Sakshaug, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to select an amount of the silicon-carbon composite material (i.e., active material) within the electrode of modified Nagayama to be within the suitable ranges and expect a functional electrode.
Thus, the instant claim 16 is rendered obvious.
Claim(s) 18-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagayama et al. (US 2016/0276668 A1, as cited in the 04/17/2026 Office action) in view of Umeyama et al. (US 2016/0248085 A1) as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Ha et al. (US 2017/0040602 A1, cited in the 04/17/26 action).
Regarding claim 18 and claim 19, modified Nagayama teaches the limitations of claim 17 above but fails to explicitly teach: a battery module, comprising the secondary battery, nor a battery pack, comprising the battery module.
Ha is analogous in the art of negative electrodes for secondary batteries a carbon-silicon composite and graphite (Ha abstract). Ha teaches such negative electrode for a secondary battery which exhibits excellent charge/discharge characteristics and lifespan characteristics (Ha Abstract) and teaches a plurality of lithium secondary batteries may be electrically connected, and thus a medium-to-large sized battery module or a battery pack may be provided and used as at least one medium-to-large sized device power source for a power tool or an electric vehicle (Ha [0137]). Nagayama similarly teaches applications of non-aqueous secondary batteries, especially lithium ion secondary batteries, such as for electric tools and electric vehicles, for which a high capacity and high cycle characteristics are desired (Nagayama [0004]).
The simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, and the se of known technique to improve similar devices in the same way support a conclusion of obviousness per MPEP 2143 I (C-D). Thus, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious in view of Ha to combine multiple secondary batteries of modified Nagayama into a battery module and battery pack, in order to achieve desirable large output characteristics, to attain predictably sufficient use with in the end-user (i.e., power tool or electric vehicle).
Thereby, claims 18-19 are rendered obvious.
Claim(s) 8-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagayama et al. (US 2016/0276668 A1, as cited in the 04/17/2026 Office action) in view of Umeyama et al. (US 2016/0248085 A1) and Sakshaug et al. (US 20170170477 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Nagayama teaches a silicon-carbon composite material (Si composite carbon particles , [0018, 0068]), prepared by:
providing a porous carbon skeleton (oil absorption must be sufficient for particles to have pores, [0069]),
forming a silicon-containing deposition layer in pores of the porous carbon skeleton to obtain an intermediate material (Si compound particles are dispersed within a carbon raw material which has been spheroidized, [0090]), and
forming a carbon-containing coating layer on the silicon-containing deposition layer and/or on a particle-like surface of the porous carbon skeleton (Step of Coating Carbonaceous Material to the Si Composite Carbon Particles, [0203]) to obtain a granular silicon-carbon composite material (Si composite carbon particles in which Si compound particles are dispersed within a granulated body formed from a carbon material, [0137]),
wherein the carbon-containing coating layer accounts for 3 wt% to 10 wt%, based on a total weight of the silicon-carbon composite material (the carbonaceous material relative to the total amount of the Si compound particles, the carbon material, and the organic compound which becomes the carbonaceous material is more preferably 2.5% by mass or greater and more preferably 30% by mass or less, [0159]); and
wherein the silicon-carbon composite material has an oil absorption number ranging from 35 mL/100 g to 80 mL/100 g (oil absorption of the Si composite carbon particles is typically 30 mL/100 g or greater and 65 mL/100 g or less, [0069]),
but fails to teach:
the porous carbon skeleton has a connected-pore structure and an oil absorption number of ≥120 mL/100 g and ≤190 mL/100 g;
the forming of the silicon-containing deposition layer in pores of the porous carbon skeleton specifically by chemical vapor deposition using a silicon-containing gas source.
Umeyama is analogous in the art of particles used in electrodes and teaches that as the DBP oil absorption number of the first conductive material becomes larger, the effect of suppressing an increase in resistance becomes more excellent, and based on this result, it is recognized that the DBP oil absorption number of the first conductive material is preferably equal to or larger than 100 ml/100 g, more preferably equal to or larger than 150 ml/100 g ([0144]) or can be set within a range of 100 ml/100 g to 200 ml/100 g ([0046]). Umeyama teaches that carbon black is suitable for the first conductive material ([0045]) and is an example of a material having a DBP oil absorption number of 100 to 160 ml/100 g – which is an index indicating how much quantity of oil (organic solvent) can be absorbed in a gap of the structure – and is reasonably small in structure and excellent in dispersibility, such that carbon black excellent in dispersibility is expected to be helpful in forming a conductive network ([0006-0007]).
To form the carbon core of the silicon-carbon composite material of Nagayama, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious from the teachings of Umeyama to select carbon black to serve as the porous carbon skeleton, which forms a conductive network and has gaps in its structure (reading on “a connected-pore structure”) and having the oil dispersion number within the range taught by Umeyama, which overlaps the instantly claimed range of 120 to 190 mL/100g, and be motivated to suppress an increase in resistance and have excellent in dispersibility to help form a conductive network in an electrode material of Nagayama.
Sakshaug is analogous in the art of silicon carbon composite material and teaches porous scaffold material is porous carbon material silicon is deposited into the pore volume of a porous scaffold material, and teaches that silicon is deposited into the pore volume of a porous scaffold material ([0016]). Sakshaug teaches in [0195] that the silicon that is impregnated into the porous carbon, regardless of the process, is envisioned to have certain properties that are optimal for utility as an energy storage material, and specifically teaches in [0193] that in a preferred embodiment, silicon is created within the pores of the porous carbon by subjecting the porous carbon particles to silane gas at elevated temperature and the presence of a silicon-containing gas, preferably silane, in order to achieve silicon deposition via chemical vapor deposition (CVD). Nagayama also teaches in [0220] that CVD is a known deposition method (for carbonaceous layer onto silicon layer), and teaches in [0185] that Si compound particles can be fixed onto the carbon material by removing the dispersing solvent via vaporization and by drying the dispersing solvent.
The simple substitution of one known element for another (i.e., CVD technique versus solvent coating technique) to obtain predictable results (silicon layer on the porous carbon) supports a conclusion of obviousness (MPEP 2143 I (B)), such that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to further modify Nagayama to implement the step of forming the silicon-containing deposition layer in pores of the porous carbon skeleton by chemical vapor deposition using a silicon-containing gas source as taught toward by Sakshaug.
Thereby, claim 8 is rendered obvious.
Regarding claim 9, modified Nagayama teaches the limitations of claim 8 above but fails to teach the particles of the silicon-carbon composite material have a total pore volume of ≤ 0.6 cm3/g as determined by nitrogen adsorption, and the particles of the silicon-carbon composite material have a micropore volume of ≤ 0.1 cm3/g, a mesopore volume of ≤ 0.3 cm3/g, and a macropore volume of ≤ 0.1 cm3/g.
Sakshaug, as applied above, teaches that in certain embodiments, the composite comprises a pore volume between 0.01 and 0.5 cm3/g (and meets instant claim limitation “total pore volume of ≤ 0.6 cm3/g”), and the pore volume distribution comprises less than 20% micropores, greater than 50% mesopores, and less than 30% macropores ([0324]). At a midrange point of approximately 0.25 cm3/g, these percentages equate to:
Micropores = 0.25 cm3/g * 20% = 0.05 cm3/g falls within range of Sakshaug (and meets instant claim limitation “micropore volume of ≤ 0.1 cm3/g”)
Mesopores = 0.25 cm3/g * 50% = 0.125 cm3/g falls within range of Sakshaug (and meets instant claim limitation mesopore volume of ≤ 0.3 cm3/g)
Macropores = 0.25 cm3/g * (100-20-50)% = 0.075 cm3/g falls within range of Sakshaug (and meets instant claim limitation (macropore volume of ≤ 0.1 cm3/g)
Sakshaug teaches that pore size distribution of the composite material exhibiting extremely durable intercalation of lithium may be important to both the storage capacity of the material and the kinetics and power capability of the system as well as the ability to incorporate large amounts of electrochemical modifiers, and the pore size distribution can range from micro- to meso- to macropore sized and may be either monomodal, bimodal or multimodal ([0353]).
Therefore, It would have been obvious, at the time of filing, for a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the porous composite Si-C material of modified Nagayama to have the integral micro, meso, and macro pore distributions within the ranges taught toward by Sakshaug in order to achieve desired: extremely durable intercalation of lithium, storage capacity of the material and the kinetics and power capability of the system, as well as the ability to incorporate large amounts of electrochemical modifiers.
Thus, the instant claim 9 is rendered obvious.
Regarding claim 10, modified Nagayama teaches the limitations of claim 8 above and wherein silicon content at a center of the particles of the silicon-carbon composite material is ≥ 10 wt%, based on a total weight of the particles (the content of the elemental silicon in the Si composite carbon particles is particularly preferably 10% by mass or greater, [0074]); wherein the silicon content at the center of the particles (the number of elemental silicon present within the Si composite carbon particles, Nagayama [0077]) is obtained by: among cross-sections of the particles that are obtained by subjecting the material to ion polishing, selecting a cross-section with a length of a long axis equal to a volume-average particle size of the particles (see [0079-0081] regarding cross-sectional analysis), and determining the silicon content at a midpoint of the long axis on the selected cross- section (after a particle cross section is cut out using a focused ion beam (FIB) and/or ion milling, observation is performed by an observation method such as observation of particle cross section using a scanning electron microscope (SEM); [0078]).
Regarding claim 11, modified Nagayama teaches the limitations of claim 1 above and oil absorption number of the porous carbon skeleton is of > 100 mL/100 g (100 to 160 ml/100 g, Umeyama [0007, 0046]) wherein the oil absorption number of the porous carbon skeleton is of 120 mL/100 g to 150 mL/100 g, (Umeyama [0007, 0046] as cited above),
wherein the porous carbon skeleton has a total pore volume of ≥ 1 cm3/g (in certain preferred embodiments, the porous carbon scaffold comprises a total pore volume greater than 0.5 cm3/g; Sakshaug [0182] – encompasses claimed range), a macropore volume of ≤ 0.2 cm3/g, a mesopore volume of ≥ 0.5 cm3/g, and a micropore volume of ≤ 0.3 cm3/g (in certain embodiments, the porous carbon scaffold comprises 0-20% micropores, 30-70% mesopores, and less than 10% macropores; Sakshaug [0179]).
Per Sakshaug [0352], pore size distribution of the carbon scaffold may be important to both the storage capacity of the material and the kinetics and power capability of the system as well as the ability to incorporate large amounts of electrochemical modifiers; the pore size distribution can range from micro- to meso- to macropore sized and may be either monomodal, bimodal or multimodal. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious in view of Sakshaug to ensure the pore distribution of modified Nagayama fell within these preferable ranges in order to achieve desired storage capacity, kinetics, and power capabilities. Thereby, claim 11 is also rendered obvious.
Regarding claim 12, modified Nagayama teaches the limitations of claim 8 above and wherein the silicon-carbon composite material comprises 20 wt% to 60 wt% [of silicon] based on a total weight of the silicon-carbon composite material (the content of the elemental silicon in the Si composite carbon particles is particularly preferably 10% by mass or greater and preferably 50% by mass or less relative to the content of the Si composite carbon particles; exemplary ranges in Nagayama [0074]).
Regarding claim 13, modified Nagayama teaches the limitations of claim 8 above and wherein the carbon-containing coating layer accounts for 3.5 wt% to 7 wt% based on a total weight of the silicon-carbon composite material (the carbonaceous material relative to the total amount of the Si compound particles, the carbon material, and the organic compound which becomes the carbonaceous material is more preferably 2.5% by mass or greater and more preferably 30% by mass or less, Nagayama [0159]).
Regarding claim 14, modified Nagayama teaches the limitations of claim 8 above and wherein the oil absorption number of the porous carbon skeleton is X1 (~150 mL/g, Umeyama [0046, 0144] as applied to claim 1 above), the oil absorption number of the silicon-carbon composite material is X2 (~50 mL/g, near midpoint of Nagayama [0069] range cited in claim 1 above), a weight percentage of silicon in the silicon-carbon composite material is Y1 (~10%, Nagayama [0074]), and a weight percentage of the carbon-containing coating layer is Y2 (~15%, near midpoint of Nagayama [0159]), and X1, X2, Y1, and Y2 satisfy: k=X1/[Y1 x Y2 x X2] (150/[50*.1*.15] = 200 – based on above data), k= k is any value of 100 to 250 (satisfied by 200 as calculated above), or 130 to 180 (optional limitation, need not be met to satisfy claim).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jessie Walls-Murray whose telephone number is (571)272-1664. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, typically 10-4.
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, Matthew Martin can be reached at (571) 270-7871. 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.
/JESSIE WALLS-MURRAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Prosecution Insights