DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/13/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 10 repeats limitations amended into instant independent claim 1 via the 3/13/2026 amendment to the claims, with no further limiting of the subject matter. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-3, 7-9, 13-14, 16, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (CN 103560249 A, see Machine Translation) in view of Nagata et al. (US 2010/0173098) and further in view of Yang et al. (US 2011/0274850).
Regarding claims 1, 8 and 10, Chen et al. discloses in Figs 1-2, a silicon composite material (P2/§ Summary/¶1-2), comprising a core (refs 1, 2) and a first coating layer (at ref 3) covering (Fig 1) a surface of the core (refs 1, 2, Fig 1), the first coating layer comprises a carbon coating layer (P2/§ Summary/¶1-2, Fig 1, layer depicted), wherein the core (refs 1, 2) comprises a first core (ref 2) and a second core (ref 1); the first core (ref 1) comprises a first conductive material (P2/§ Summary/¶1-2); the first conductive material (P2/§ Summary/¶1-2) comprises a flexible conductive material (P2/§ Summary/¶1-2); the second core (ref 1) comprises a silicon-based material (P2/§ Summary/¶1-2) of which a surface (Fig 1) is coated with a second coating layer (ref 4, Fig 1 shows coating, P2-3/§ embodiments 1-5 indicate a coating is present on the silicon-based material); and the second coating layer (ref 4, Fig 1) comprises a second conductive material (P2/§ Summary/¶1-2), the second conductive material (P2/§ Summary/¶1-2) comprises one or more of a single-walled carbon nanotube or a multi- walled carbon nanotube (P2/§ Summary/¶1-2).
Chen et al. does not explicitly disclose the flexible conductive material comprises natural and artificial graphite, and the silicon-based material comprises SiO having a Dv50 of 2 – 5 microns.
Nagata et al. discloses in Figs 1-9, a secondary battery ([0040]) including an electrode material comprising a silicon composite including natural and/or artificial graphite ([0110], [0111]) and SiO having a D50 of 5 microns ([0127]). This configuration enhances battery energy density, capacity, and overall performance ([0001], [0002], [0014]).
Nagata et al. and Chen et al. are analogous since both deal in the same field of endeavor, namely, batteries.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the SiO at the size disclosed by Nagata et al. and the natural and artificial graphite disclosed by Nagata et al. into the composite material of Chen et al. to enhance battery energy density, capacity, and overall performance.
Chen et al. also does not disclose a thickness of the carbon layer is 5 – 60 nm nor a thickness of the second coating layer is 0.3 – 3 nm. While Chen et al. does not explicitly disclose a thickness of the carbon layer is 5 – 60 nm nor a thickness of the second coating layer is 0.3 – 3 nm, the change in the carbon coating thicknesses is not considered to confer patentability to the claims. Yang et al. (see [0029], carbon coatings 1 – 25 nm) teaches that it was known in the art at the time of the invention that varying carbon coating thicknesses on active material particles will vary the conductivity of said active material. Therefore the conductivity is a variable that can be modified, among others, by varying the carbon coating thicknesses. For that reason, the carbon coating thicknesses, would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed. As such, without showing unexpected results, the carbon coating thicknesses cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the carbon coating thicknesses in the composite material of Chen et al. as taught by Yang et al. to obtain the desired active material conductivity (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding claim 2, modified Chen et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the silicon-based material (ref 1) is a nanoscale (P2/§ Summary/¶1-2) silicon-based material (ref 1).
Regarding claim 3, modified Chen et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses wherein Dv50 of the silicon-based material is in a range from 10 nm to 5 micron (P2/§ Summary/¶2, 20 – 200 nm).
Regarding claim 7, modified Chen et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the flexible conductive material (P2/§ Summary/¶1-2) comprises one or both of soft carbon or graphite (P2/§ Summary/¶1-2).
Regarding claim 9, modified Chen et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the Dv50 of the graphite is in a range from 0.5 – 20 microns (P2/§ Summary/¶2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges (1 – 3.5 microns) disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549.
Regarding claim 13, modified Chen et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses a mass percentage (P2/§ Summary/¶2) of the first conductive material to the silicon-based material of which the surface is coated with the second coating layer is (10%-90%):(90%-10%) (P2/§ Summary/¶2, mass % within these ranges defined).
Regarding claim 14, modified Chen et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses a mass percentage of the first conductive material to the silicon-based material of which the surface is coated with the second coating layer is (40%-90%):(60%-10%) ((P2-3/§ embodiments1-5 define examples of these ranges).
Regarding claim 16, modified Chen et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the carbon coating layer (ref 3) comprises amorphous carbon (P2/§ Summary/¶1-2, Fig 1).
Regarding claim 19, modified Chen et al. discloses in Figs 1-2, a secondary battery (P2/§ Background/¶1), comprising the silicon composite material (P2/§ Summary/¶1) as set forth above.
Regarding claim 20, modified Chen et al. discloses in Figs 1-2, an electrical apparatus (P2/§ Background/¶1), comprising the secondary battery (P2/§ Background/¶1) as set forth above.
Claims 4-6, 11-12 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (CN 103560249 A, see Machine Translation) in view of Nagata et al. (US 2010/0173098) and Yang et al. (US 2011/0274850) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Dai et al. CN 116525772 A, see Machine Translation).
Regarding claims 4-6, modified Chen et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above but does not explicitly disclose the silicon-based material comprises one or both of pure silicon, wherein Dv50 of the pure silicon is in a range from 10 nm to 150 nm, or the Dv50 of the pure silicon is in a range from 50 nm to 100 nm.
Dai et al. discloses a silicon composite active material for a negative electrode battery material (P2/§ Contents of the invention/¶1-7) comprising pure silicon having a size of D50 50 nm (P2/10 (P2/§ Contents of the invention/¶8). This configuration enhances the energy density and capacity of the battery (P2/§ Contents of the invention/¶6-7).
Dai et al. and Chen et al. are analogous since both deal in the same field of endeavor, namely, silicon composite materials for batteries.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the pure silicon at the size disclosed by Dai et al. into the silicon composite material of Chen et al. to enhance energy density and capacity of the battery.
Regarding claims 11, 12 and 17, modified Chen et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above but does not explicitly disclose a thickness of the second coating layer is in a range from 0.3 nm to 3 nm, the thickness of the second coating layer is in a range from 1.2 nm to 3 nm, or a thickness of the carbon coating layer is in a range from 20 nm to 60 nm.
Dai et al. discloses a silicon composite active material for a negative electrode battery material comprising a silicon composite material (P2/§ Contents of the invention/¶1-7). The silicon composite material includes multiple carbon coating layers on a silicon material. At least one of the carbon coating layers is 3 nm thick (P2/§ Contents of the invention/¶7) and another carbon coating material layer is 25 – 35 nm thick (P2/§ Contents of the invention/¶9). This configuration enhances the energy density and capacity of the battery (P2/§ Contents of the invention/¶6-7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the carbon material coating layers coating the silicon material core disclosed by Dai et al. into the silicon composite material of Chen et al. to enhance energy density and capacity of the battery.
Regarding claim 18, modified Chen et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above but does not explicitly disclose the silicon composite material comprises one or more of the following features:(1) tap density is in a range from 0.9 g/cm3 to 1.3 g/cm3; (2) a specific surface area is in a range from 0.6 m2/g to 1.4 m2/g; and (3) the Dv50 of the silicon composite material is in a range from 3 – 30 microns.
Dai et al. discloses a silicon composite active material for a negative electrode battery material (P2/§ Contents of the invention/¶1-7) having a size of D50 4 – 8 nm (P2/§ Contents of the invention/¶10). This configuration enhances the energy density and capacity of the battery (P2/§ Contents of the invention/¶6-7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the silicon composite material of Chen et al. at the particle size disclosed Dai et al. to enhance energy density and capacity of the battery.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-10, 12-14 and 16-20 have been considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
He et al. (US 2023/0261177) discloses in Figs 1-17, a battery (Abstract) including an anode active material including an amorphous carbon coating 5 – 150 nm thick ([0107]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH J DOUYETTE whose telephone number is (571)270-1212. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8A - 4P 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, Basia Ridley can be reached at 571-272-1453. 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.
/KENNETH J DOUYETTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights