DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
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
Applicants’ amendment, filed 04/15/2025, has been entered. Claim 1 is amended. Claims 1-6,10,21-22 and 27 are now pending in this application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 and 3-6, 21-22, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amine (US20170207500A1, cited in the previous Office action(s)) in view of Vieluf (KR20200017356A, refer to enclosed translations within the 05/24/2024 office action), and Lanning (CN114788039A, refer to enclosed translations within the 01/24/2025 office action).
Regarding claim 1,
Amine teaches a battery comprising a coated cathode [0022] comprising:
a current collector [0022];
a first layer adjacent to the current collector ([0034], [0041]) and the first layer comprising a cathode active material and a binder [0022];
and a second layer deposited on the first layer [0022], the second layer comprising a carbon- coated alkaline source material [0047] “alkali source material in the porous carbon”; [0022], “alkaline source material… may be dispersed in or on the cathode by…coating”)
an anode [0032];
a separator disposed between the anode and the laminated cathode [0037];
and an electrolyte comprising a solvent and a salt [0036],
wherein the cathode active material comprises LiFePO4 [0026],
and wherein the alkaline source material is a pre-lithiation material for the cathode active material ([0049], “an alkali source material…supplies the lithium source for the battery, non-lithiated materials may be used as the preferred cathode active material in the secondary battery…which have higher specific capacities”),
and the alkaline source material is present in the cathode from about 1 wt% to 40 wt% based on the weight of the cathode active material ([0017], “1 wt % to about 40 wt %...in the as-prepared cathode”)
Regarding lamination, while Amine teaches a cathode [0022] coated with binder, Amine fails to teach lamination specifically. However, a cathode coated with binder serves a similar function to lamination, being that it adheres the electrode materials and/or current collectors. Further, laminated cathodes with alkaline source-materials are a known configuration in the art, as taught by Vieluf (Vieluf, [0191], “the foil comprises a laminate”; [0019], “The cathode comprises a foil “). Additionally, Vieluf (Vieluf, [0146]) and Amine (see above) both teach an alkaline cathode material. Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date to employ a laminated cathode in the battery of Amine because it would adhere the anode and/or current collector and because laminated cathodes with alkaline cathode materials are a known configuration in the art. The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Regarding the reaction products, while Amine fails to teach that the alkaline source material is a reaction product of an alkyl lithium reagent with a carbon confined sulfur, Amine does teach the final product in the device ([0012], Li2S). Lanning, analogous in the art of LiS batteries, teaches an alkaline source material Li2S is a reaction product of an alkyl lithium reagent (Lanning [0494], “n-butyllithium”, wherein n-butyl lithium is a type of alkyl lithium, consistent with [0084] of applicant’s specification) with carbon confined sulfur (Lanning [0494], “sulfur-impregnated graphene”, wherein; [0389], “carbon based particles… where S is confined…activated carbon”, such that Lanning teaches carbon-confined sulfur as an alternative reagent) as an acceptable embodiment of producing an alkaline source material with an advantageous microstructure [0389]. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized in Lanning a known technique (of producing an alkaline source material) that is applicable to the base device which utilizes an alkaline source material (see above). Applying a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is likely to be obvious. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, D.).
Claim 1 is/are considered product-by-process claim. The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus or product. The determination of patentability is based upon the apparatus structure itself. The patentability of a product or apparatus does not depend on its method of production or formation. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. See In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP § 2113).
Thereby, all limitations of instant claim 1 are rendered obvious.
Regarding claim 3,
Modified Amine teaches the battery of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the anode comprises a Si (Amine [0005]).
Regarding claim 4,
Modified Amine teaches the battery of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the solvent is ethylene carbonate (EC) (Amine [0036]).
Regarding claim 5,
Modified Amine teaches the battery of claim 4 (see rejection of claim 4 above), wherein the solvent is EC-PC-DMC (Amine [0036]).
Regarding claim 6,
Modified Amine teaches the battery of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the salt is a lithium salt (Amine [0036]).
Regarding claim 21,
Modified Amine teaches the battery of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the alkyl lithium is butyl lithium (Lanning, [0494], see rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 22,
Modified Amine teaches the battery of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the second layer is deposited on the first layer by spray coating (Amine [0022]).
Regarding claim 27,
Modified Amine teaches the battery of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the alkaline source material is present in the laminated cathode from about 1 wt% to 10 wt% based on the weight of the cathode active material ([0017], “1 wt % to about 10 wt %...in the as-prepared cathode”).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amine (US20170207500A1, cited in the previous Office action(s)) in view of Vieluf (KR20200017356A, refer to enclosed translations within the 05/24/2024 office action), and Lanning (CN114788039A, refer to enclosed translations within the 01/24/2025 office action) as applied above and further in view of Jun (US10193144B2, cited in the previous Office action(s)).
Regarding claim 10,
Modified Amine teaches the battery of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the alkaline source material is present on the laminate cathode from about 1 wt % to about 40 wt % (Amine [0017-0019]) but fails to teach wherein the alkaline source material is present in the laminate cathode from about 0.1 wt % to about 99 wt %. Amine does teach in [0051] an inventive electrode example containing 50 wt% lithium transition metal complex oxide and 20 wt% lithium oxide materials. Jun teaches wherein the alkaline source material is present on the laminate cathode from about 50 wt % to about 100 wt % (Jun, see claim 12 and C1L55-61, C3L52-53), which overlaps with the claimed range, and thus obviates it. Jun is analogous in the art of electrochemical devices including a cathode containing alkaline-based electroactive material (Jun C1L26-29). Jun teaches toward achieving high capacity cathode material for lithium ion batteries (Jun title), which is a shared goal of Amine (Amine [0049]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP § 2144.05.I.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/15/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Amine fails to describe that the alkaline source material contains the reaction product of an alkyl lithium reagent (such as butyl lithium) with a carbon confined sulfur, and that that Vieluf and Lanning fail to fill the voids (Remarks, pg. 6). However, this is not persuasive, as Vieluf is relied upon for teaching lamination and Lanning provides a suitable method for producing an alkaline source material. A core teaching of Amine is the benefit of using an alkaline source material as a pre-lithiation material/lithium source ([0049], “an alkali source material…supplies the lithium source for the battery, non-lithiated materials may be used as the preferred cathode active material in the secondary battery…which have higher specific capacities”) to achieve higher specific capacities, and specifically provides Li2S as an example of such an alkaline source material ([0012], “Li2S”). Lanning, analogous in the art of LiS batteries, teaches an alkaline source material Li2S is a reaction product of an alkyl lithium reagent (Lanning [0494], “n-butyllithium”, wherein n-butyl lithium is a type of alkyl lithium, consistent with [0084] of applicant’s specification) with carbon confined sulfur (Lanning [0494], “sulfur-impregnated graphene”, wherein; [0389], “carbon based particles… where S is confined…activated carbon”, such that Lanning teaches carbon-confined sulfur as an alternative reagent) as an acceptable embodiment of producing an alkaline source material with an advantageous microstructure [0389]. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized in Lanning a known technique (of producing an alkaline source material) that is applicable to the base device which utilizes an alkaline source material for higher specific capacities (see above; [0012]). Applying a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is likely to be obvious. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, D.).
Applicant argues that there is no teaching that the Li2S so prepared in the reference may be applied to a cathode active material as presently defined by using it as a pre-lithiation reagent (Remarks, pg. 8 and 9). However, this is not persuasive, as Amine teaches that Li2S may be used as a pre-lithiation reagent, such that any method of producing Li2S advantageously is directly relevant to improving the teachings of Amine.
Applicant argues that Lu similarly fails to fill the voids of Lanning and Vieluf mentioned above (Remarks, pg. 9). However, this is not persuasive, as Lanning is directed to teaching those voids as mentioned (see above).
Applicant argues that all claims should be allowed based off an allowable independent claim (Remarks, pg. 9 and 10). However, this is not persuasive, as all rejections have been sustained.
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 PAUL C. S. WYROUGH whose telephone number is (571)272-4806. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30-5:30.
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, Tiffany Legette can be reached at 571-270-7078. 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.
/PAUL CHRISTIAN ST WYROUGH/Examiner, Art Unit 1728
/TIFFANY LEGETTE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights