LITHIUM-ION BATTERY WITH ANODE COMPRISING BLEND OF INTERCALATION-TYPE ANODE MATERIAL AND CONVERSION-TYPE ANODE MATERIAL
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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2/3/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
In response to communication filed on 2/3/2026:
Claim 1 has been amended; claim 27 has been newly added. No new matter has been entered.
Previous rejections under 35 USC 103 have been modified.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/3/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant discloses: A showing of criticality as suggested by the Examiner is set forth in MPEP 2144.05(III) for rebutting a valid prima facie case of obviousness. However, the Applicant respectfully submits that Constantino's disclosure of the 0.6 to 0.9 range does not constitute a valid prima facie case of obviousness with respect to the claimed range. The MPEP explains the following:
2144.05 Obviousness of Similar and Overlapping Ranges, Amounts, and Proportions [R- 01.2024]
See MPEP § 2131.03 for case law pertaining to rejections based on the anticipation of ranges under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 102/103.
I. OVERLAPPING, APPROACHING, AND SIMILAR RANGES, AMOUNTS,
AND PROPORTIONS
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) ... (e.g., see MPEP 2144.05).”
The Examiner respectfully traverses. ¶350 of Constantino discloses R=ID/IG where can range from about 0 to about 1. This is even closer to 1 than previously stated. ¶0094 of the as-filed specification discloses ID/IG discloses a range of “about” 0.7 to “about” 2.7 and does not show any criticality for being greater than or equal to one. Therefore, the Examiner’s use of MPEP 2144.05 I is proper. Applicant cites MPEP 2144.05(III) but does not address A) showing the range is critical, B) showing the prior art teaches away, or C) showing the claimed parameter as not being recognized as “Results-Effective”. This leads to finally, MPEP 2144.05(III)(D) (see next argument).
The Applicant discloses: “In this case, Constantino does not identify the laser energy for its reported ID/IG ranges such that POOSITA would not be capable of determining the ID/IG ranges when measured at the claimed laser wavelength. As such, even though the ID/IG ranges appear close to the claimed ID/IG ranges in terms of their raw numbers devoid of any laser wavelength context, an "apples-to-apples" comparison cannot actually be made between the ID/IG ranges unless the laser energy is considered. So, an ID/IG of 0.9 as disclosed by Constantino might be quite far away from the ID/IG of 1.0 if the laser energy used by Constantino is different from that which is claimed. For this reason, a prima facie case of obviousness has not been shown.” … The Applicant then discusses the references of Pimenta and Ferrari.
The Examiner respectfully traverses. Constantino discloses the laser energy in ¶0348 in the form of Equation 1 from the Pimenta reference and applies to their work. La(nm)=(2.4x10-10)λ4laserR-1 wherein λlaser is the laser excitation energy. If one were to select the range of La=1nm to 50nm and R=0.9 (from ¶350), λlaser (La=1)=247.5nm or λlaser (La=50)=1170nm. ¶350 discloses a narrower range of La=15nm to 30 nm and R=0.9, λlaser (La=15)=487 nm or λlaser (La=30)=579nm. Therefore, Constantino does in fact teach the laser energy.
Finally, in response to the arguments regarding Pimenta and Ferrari references, these are not commensurate within the scope of the claims. Pimenta and Ferrari teach entirely different materials than what is being claimed. This does not overcome Examiner’s use of MPEP 2112.01.
The previous rejection under 35 USC 103 has since been modified.
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.
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.
Claims 1-14, 16-24, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Constantino (US 2020/0020935 A1) and further in view of Cui (US 2015/0099187 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 27, Constantino discloses a Li-ion battery (Abstract, ¶31), comprising: anode and cathode electrodes; an electrolyte ionically coupling the anode and the cathode electrodes; and a separator electrically separating the anode and the cathode electrodes (¶278-286; ¶286 polypropylene separator between electrodes and hosting nonaqueous electrolyte.); wherein the anode electrode comprises a mixture of conversion-type anode material- comprising composite particles and intercalation-type anode material-comprising particles (abstract, ¶420-425 Si-C composite material blended with graphite.), wherein the intercalation-type anode material-comprising particles are separate from the conversion-type anode material-comprising composite particles in the mixture (as taught by ¶400-425, graphite blended with the Si-C composite material), wherein the conversion-type anode material-comprising composite particles each comprise a porous, electrically-conductive, scaffolding matrix material that includes one or more internal pores in which conversion-type anode material particles are disposed (abstract, ¶400-425), wherein the conversion-type anode material-comprising composite particles are outside of any internal pores present in the intercalation-type anode material-comprising particles (abstract, ¶10, ¶400-425, porous scaffolding material hosting Si nanoparticles; blended with graphite outside of the composite).
Constantino discloses the conversion-type anode material-comprising composite particles exhibit median specific reversible capacity in the range from 1400 mAh/g to 2200 mAh/g (¶290, specific capacity of at least 200 mAh/g, in some embodiments at least 1200 mAh/g, and in some embodiments at least mAh/g, each overlapping the claimed range), and wherein the conversion-type anode material-comprising composite particles exhibit first cycle coulombic efficiency in the range from 88 % to 96 % (¶284, first cycle efficiency of greater than 80% in some embodiments, and greater than 90% in some embodiments, each of which overlaps 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. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Constantino further discloses a ratio of intensities of Raman D-band to Raman G-bad R=ID/IG of about 0 to about 1 in some embodiments (¶350) which renders obvious the claimed range of “wherein a ratio of intensities of Raman D-band to Raman G-band (ID/IG) is in the range from 1.0-2.7 when recorded on the conversion-type anode material-comprising composite particles while arranged as a powder using a Raman spectrometer equipped with a laser operating at a wavelength of around 532 nm.”
Further, Constantino discloses the laser energy in ¶0348 in the form of Equation 1 from the Pimenta reference and applies to their work. La(nm)=(2.4x10-10)λ4laserR-1 wherein λlaser is the laser excitation energy. If one were to select the range of La=1nm to 50nm and R=0.9 (from ¶350), λlaser (La=1)=247.5nm or λlaser (La=50)=1170nm. ¶350 discloses a narrower range of La=15nm to 30 nm and R=0.9, λlaser (La=15)=487 nm or λlaser (La=30)=579nm. Therefore, Constantino does in fact teach the laser energy.
Regarding (b) the newly added limitation wherein the full width at half maximum of the Raman G-band is in a range of 50 to 150 cm -1, Constantino is silent with respect to this limitation. However, Constantino discloses the same structure claimed, including materials of the same composition, surface area, porosity, core-shell configurations, and accordingly inherently comprises the full width at half maximum of the Raman G-band in the claimed range. Regarding product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.).
Alternatively, while Constantino does not specifically disclose the laser energy or wherein the full width at half maximum of the Raman G-band is in a range of 50 to 150 cm -1, Cui et al. disclose the use of Si-C anode materials (¶0010). Further, Raman spectroscopy shows three peaks at about 499, 1340, and 1583cm-1 corresponding to silicon and carbon D and G bands (Fig. 27b; ¶0076). Finally, the Raman spectroscopy data is taken with a 531 nm excitation laser. This is only a difference of 1 nm, or 0.19%. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Therefore, alternatively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Constantino with Cui in order to improve surface area.
Regarding Claim 2, Constantino discloses the Li-ion battery of claim 1, wherein the conversion-type anode material-comprising composite particles comprise from 40 wt. % to 60 wt. % Si (¶312, 5-95 wt.% Si in the composite material overlapping the claimed range.).
Regarding Claim 3, Constantino discloses the Li-ion battery of claim 1, wherein the conversion-type anode material-comprising composite particles comprise a core-shell nanocomposite particle structure (¶25, the composite comprises a layer of conductive polymer surrounding a carbon-coated, silicon-impregnated carbon material.).
Regarding Claim 4, Constantino discloses the Li-ion battery of claim 3, wherein an average thickness of an outer shell in the core-shell nanocomposite particle ranges from 1 nm to 20 nm (¶259, thickness of carbon comprising shell is between 1 nm and 10 microns, and in other embodiments; ¶266 1 nm – 5 microns; overlapping the claimed range.).
Regarding Claim 5, Constantino discloses the Li-ion battery of claim 1, wherein the conversion-type anode material-comprising composite particles comprise one or more internal pores inaccessible to the electrolyte (¶ 10, internal pores in porous carbon material of the composite.).
Regarding Claim 6, Constantino discloses the Li-ion battery of claim 5, wherein a volume of the one or more internal pores ranges from 0.1 to 1 cm3/g (¶141, pore volume is greater than 0.5 cm3/g overlapping the claimed range, and in other embodiments is between 0.1 and 0.5 m3/g, within the claimed range.).
Regarding Claim 7, Constantino discloses the Li-ion battery of claim 5, wherein an average size of the one or more internal pores ranges from 1 nm to 50 nm (¶10, 1-1,000 nm overlaps the claimed range.).
Regarding Claim 8, Constantino discloses the Li-ion battery of claim 1, wherein the conversion-type anode material-comprising composite particles exhibit density in the range from 1 to 2 g/cm3 (¶313, composite density of less than 2.1 g/cm3 which overlaps the claimed range.).
Regarding Claim 9, Constantino discloses the Li-ion battery of claim 1, wherein the conversion-type anode material-comprising composite particles exhibit specific surface area in the range from 1 to 25 m2/g (¶283, composite silicon containing material has surface area below 200 m2/g, in some examples below 20 m2/g which overlaps the claimed range, and in some instances below 2 m2/g which overlaps the claimed range.).
Regarding Claim 10, Constantino discloses the Li-ion battery of claim 1, wherein the conversion-type anode material-comprising composite particles comprise Si-comprising nanoparticles having volume-averaged size of preferably less than 15 nm (¶121) which overlaps the claimed range of “in the range from 2 nm to 40 nm.”)
Regarding Claim 11, Constantino discloses the Li-ion battery of claim 1, wherein the conversion-type anode material-comprising composite particles comprise less than 2 wt. % oxygen (O) (¶168, the oxygen content in the Si of the Si-C composite particles may be less than 0.1 wt.% in some embodiments which is within the claimed range; see also ¶381 where other impurities such as hydrogen, oxygen and/or nitrogen may be present in the composite material in levels ranging from less than 10% to less than 0.01%.).
Regarding Claim 12, Constantino discloses the Li-ion battery of claim 1, wherein the conversion-type anode material-comprising composite particles comprise less than 0.5 wt. % hydrogen (H) (¶381, impurities such as H may be present in levels ranging from less than 10% wt. Overlapping the claimed range to less than 0.01% by weight, within the claimed range.).
Regarding Claim 13, Constantino discloses the Li-ion battery of claim 1, wherein the conversion-type anode material-comprising composite particles comprise from 6 wt. % to 60 wt. % carbon (C) (¶312, 5-95 wt.% Si in the composite material and the balance being carbon, accordingly the carbon may range from 5-95 wt.% overlapping the claimed range.).
Regarding Claim 14, Constantino discloses the Li-ion battery of The Li-ion battery of wherein the conversion-type anode material-comprising composite particles exhibit a core- shell structure (¶25, the composite comprises a layer of conductive polymer surrounding a carbon-coated, silicon-impregnated carbon material.), wherein a shell of the core-shell structure comprises sp2-bonded carbon (¶366, the carbon of the composite comprises sp2 carbon.).
Regarding Claim 16, Constantino discloses the Li-ion battery of claim 1, wherein the anode electrode, excluding any current collector foil component, exhibits a gravimetric capacity in the range from 400 mAh/g to 1200 mAh/g (¶411, 500-800 mAh/g anode material comprising blends of composite Si-C and graphite.).
Regarding Claim 17, Constantino discloses the Li-ion battery of claim 1. CONSTANTINO is silent with respect to wherein the anode electrode, the cathode electrode, or both, exhibits reversible areal capacity in the range from 3 to 4.5 mAh/cm2 or from 4.5 to 8 mAh/cm2. However, Constantino discloses the same structure claimed, including materials of the same composition, surface area, porosity, core-shell configurations, and accordingly inherently comprises reversible areal capacity within the claimed range. Regarding product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.).
Regarding Claim 18, Constantino discloses the Li-ion battery of claim 1, wherein the intercalation-type anode material-comprising particles comprise soft carbon, hard carbon, synthetic graphite, and/or natural graphite (¶10, ¶44, ¶72, ¶374; ¶411 blends of graphite and composite materials where the graphite meets the claimed intercalation type anode material particles.).
Regarding Claim 19, Constantino discloses the Li-ion battery of claim 1. CONSTANTINO is silent with respect to wherein the anode electrode, excluding any current collector foil component, exhibit a density in the range from 1.2 g/cm3 to 1.8 g/cm3. However, Constantino discloses the anode material comprises the same composition and structure claimed and accordingly necessarily discloses the same density. Regarding product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.).
Regarding Claim 20, Constantino discloses the Li-ion battery of claim 1, wherein the anode electrode comprises a polymer or co-polymer binder (¶274, anode binder such as CMC.).
Regarding Claim 21, Constantino discloses the Li-ion battery of claim 20, wherein the anode electrode, excluding any current collector foil component, comprises from 2 wt. % to 7 wt. % of the polymer or co-polymer binder (¶274, amount of binder may be from 1-5% and in some examples up to 35%, which overlaps the claimed range.).
Regarding Claim 22, Constantino discloses the Li-ion battery of claim 20, wherein the polymer or co-polymer binder comprises alginic acid and their various salts, polyacrylic acid (PAA) or its salts, carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC), alginic acid of its salts, styrene-butadiene rubber (SBR), or a combination thereof (¶274, anode binder such as CMC.).
Regarding Claim 23, Constantino discloses the Li-ion battery of claim 1, wherein the cathode electrode comprises intercalation-type cathode material-comprising particles that include Ni, Co, Mn, Fe, or a combination thereof (¶419, for example the cathode may comprise LiNiCoAlO2.).
Regarding Claim 24, Constantino discloses the Li-ion battery of claim 1, wherein the electrolyte comprises both one or more esters (¶286, ester co-solvents such as methyl butyrate.) and one or more cyclic carbonates (¶286, such as FEC or VC.).
Claims 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Constantino (US 2020/0020935 A1) and Cui as applied to claim 24 above, and further in view of Smart (US 2012/007560 A1).
Regarding Claim 25, the combination of Constantino and Cui teach the Li-ion battery of claim 24. However, they do not disclose the claimed range of ester of about 20 vol. % to about 90 vol. % as a fraction of all solvents in the electrolyte.
Smart teaches nonaqueous electrolytes comprising linear esters and cyclic carbonates, and teaches the electrolytes provide good electrochemical stability over a wide voltage window, good thermal stability, and good compatibility with anodes comprising carbon such as silicon carbon composites, and lithium metal oxide cathodes (¶99, Claim 23).
Smart discloses an electrolyte comprising linear ester component of the electrolyte ranges from 20 to 80 vol. % (¶19) which anticipates the claimed range of about 20 vol. % to about 90 vol. % as a fraction of all solvents in the electrolyte.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Constantino to comprise an amount of ester within the claimed range as taught by Smart. The motivation for doing so would have been to utilize an amount of ester that provides the properties desired of the electrolyte including voltage stability and electrode compatibility as taught by Smart.
Regarding Claim 26, the combination of Constantino, Cui, and Smart teach the Li-ion battery of claim 25. However, they do not disclose wherein the one or more esters comprise one or more branched esters, and wherein the one or more branched esters comprise ester molecules that have on average between around 5 and around 7 carbon (C) atoms per molecule.
Smart discloses wherein the one or more esters may comprise branched esters (¶96), and wherein the one or more esters comprise ester molecules that have on average between around 5 and around 7 carbon (C) atoms per molecule (such as propyl butyrate, ¶26).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Constantino to comprise a branched ester in the electrolyte wherein the one or more esters comprise ester molecules having an average carbon atoms per molecule within the claimed range as taught by Smart. The motivation for doing so would have been to use a known ester electrolyte component that provides the beneficial properties taught by Smart.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL S GATEWOOD whose telephone number is (571)270-7958. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:30.
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, Ula Tavares-Crockett can be reached at 571-272-1481. 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.
Daniel S. Gatewood, Ph.D.
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1729
/DANIEL S GATEWOOD, Ph. D/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729 February 23rd, 2026