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 .
Status of Claims
Applicant’s amendment and arguments, filed 06/26/26, have been fully considered. Claims(s) 1 is/are amended; claim(s) 3–25 stand(s) as originally or previously presented; and claim(s) 2 and 26–33 are canceled; no new matter has been added. Examiner affirms that the original disclosure provides adequate support for the amendment.
Upon considering said amendment and arguments, the previous 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection set forth in the Office Action mailed 03/27/26 has/have been withdrawn. Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new grounds of rejection below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. The text forming the basis for the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 may be found in a prior Office Action.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5–11, and 13–25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pan et al. (US 20180241032 A1) (Pan) in view of Ahn et al. (US 20150079467 A1) (Ahn)
and Horie et al. (US 20230317953 A1, from 03/27/26 PTO-892) (Horie).
Regarding claims 1, 3, and 19–25, Pan discloses a lithium-ion battery (e.g., Title, ¶ 0036) comprising an anode (¶ 0035, 0036), a cathode (¶ 0036), an electrolyte in ionic contact with said anode and said cathode (¶ 0036), and an ion-conducting separator (¶ 0036, where separator necessarily conducts Li+ for battery to function), the anode comprising multiple composite particulates (surface-stabilized anode particles, e.g., Abstract and ¶ 0034), a conductive additive (e.g., ¶ 0035), and a binder resin that bonds said composite particulates and said conductive additive together (¶ 0035; the skilled artisan would recognize that a binder, in being adhesive, bonds electrode components together).
Pan further discloses that the anode active particles may exhibit a diameter preferably < 10 nm (e.g., ¶ 0024), and the encapsulating polymer layer may be preferably 0.5–5 nm thick (¶ 0016), yielding a composite diameter of 10~20 nm (composite diameter ≈ anode particles’ diameter + 2*(polymer layer thickness) ≈ 10 nm minimum and 20 nm maximum), which appears to fall within or at least overlap the recited 10 nm to 50 μm such that the skilled artisan could have routinely selected within the overlap with a reasonable expectation of forming a successful composite material (MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Additionally, Pan recognizes the need for small particle sizes for high-rate capacity (¶ 0014) but acknowledges that (excessively) reducing the particle size implies a higher surface area available for potentially reacting with liquid electrolyte to form a larger SEI, which is undesirable as a source of irreversible capacity loss (¶ 0007). To balance these effects, then, it would have been obvious to arrive at the recited diameter by routinely optimizing the particles’ size, including within the apparent overlap (MPEP 2144.05 (II)).
Pan further discloses that the composite particulate comprises anode active material particles that are encapsulated by a high-elasticity polymer (¶ 0017), wherein said high-elasticity polymer has a recoverable elastic tensile strain typically 30–500% when measured without an additive or reinforcement dispersed therein (¶ 0017) which falls within no less than 5% (claim 1) and 5–500% (claim 3), and a lithium ion conductivity preferably ≥ 10-3 S/cm at room temperature (¶ 0017), which falls within no less than 10-6 S/cm.
Pan further discloses that the polymer layer may comprise crosslinked, acrylate polymer chains including, e.g., ethoxylated trimethylolpropane triacrylate (ETPTA) or ethylene glycol methyl ether acrylate (¶ 0020) yet, while not appearing necessarily limited to the exemplified acrylates to achieve the desired high elasticity and Li+ conductivity (¶ 0019), fails to explicitly disclose a crosslinked polymer network of chains of poly(propylene glycol) dimethacrylate or poly(propylene glycol) diacrylate.
Ahn, in teaching analogous anode active particles coated with a crosslinked polymer (Abstract), teaches that the polymer may be formed from acrylate monomers such as ETPTA, dipropylene glycol diacrylate, or dipropylene glycol dimethacrylate (¶ 0026). More generally, Ahn teaches that the acrylate forms from the below formula, wherein each of R3–R5 may be H or C1–C4 alkyl groups, and m—i.e., the number of glycol units— may be 1 to 20 (¶ 0024, 0025) and, thus, encompasses, e.g., poly(propylene glycol) di(meth)acrylate (if R3 and R4 were each H or –CH3, and R5 were –CH3; compare to substantially similar general formula in instant spec., p. 20, lines 15–21).
PNG
media_image1.png
79
194
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As Ahn recognizes ETPTA, dipropylene glycol diacrylate, and dipropylene glycol dimethacrylate—and, more broadly, derivatives such as poly(propylene glycol) di(meth)acrylate—as equivalent crosslinked polymers for coating anode particles, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to routinely substitute Pan’s polymer such as the polymerized ETPTA with Ahn’s poly(propylene glycol) di(meth)acrylate with a reasonable expectation of forming a successful polymer coating.
Pan further discloses the ability to blend the polymer with many different compounds (e.g., ¶ 0031–0033), yet, while generally desiring a high-strength polymer coating (¶ 0012), Pan fails to explicitly disclose that the polymer further comprises a plasticizer or diluent selected from the recited group.
Horie teaches analogous anode active particles with a (meth)acrylic polymer coating (Abstract), where the coating may contain tetrahydrothiophene 1,1-dioxide—i.e., a sulfone—as a plasticizer to impart excellent elasticity to the coating as well as improve adhesion between the active particles, yielding an electrode with excellent mechanical strength (¶ 0023, 0024).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to routinely blend a plasticizer of tetrahydrothiophene 1,1-dioxide, i.e., a sulfone, with Pan’s elastic polymer layer—and, thus, reasonably disperse the sulfone, similar to other dispersed additives in Pan’s ¶ 0028, 0030, 0043, and working examples, as well as Horie’s ¶ 0100–0102—with a reasonable expectation of forming a successful polymer coating with enhanced elasticity, achieving higher bonding between active particles, and yielding an electrode with excellent mechanical strength, as taught by Horie.
Regarding claims 5 and 6, modified Pan discloses the composite particulate of claim 1, wherein said high-elasticity polymer contains a lithium salt of, e.g., Li2CO3 dispersed in the polymer crosslinked network (Pan, ¶ 0028 and 0030).
Regarding claim 7, modified Pan discloses the composite particulate of claim 1.
Regarding the limitation of claim 7, it is noted that such is directed to an alternative option of parent claim 1 and, thus, not positively required by the claim. Claim 1 recites “crosslinked polymer network of chains selected from the group consisting of … chemically substituted versions thereof, derivatives thereof, and combinations thereof” (emphasis added). Accordingly, claim 7’s limitation is considered an optional, alternative limitation not positively required and dependent on selecting the chemically substituted version of the crosslinked polymer in claim 1, which, in this case, is unselected because modified Pan discloses unsubstituted poly(propylene glycol) diacrylate or poly(propylene glycol) dimethacrylate, as established in claim 1.
Regarding claims 8 and 9, modified Pan discloses the composite particulate of claim 1, wherein said high-elasticity polymer further contains 0.1–10% by weight of a carbon material of, e.g., carbon nanotubes dispersed therein (Pan, ¶ 0028), which falls within 0.01–30%, and said carbon material forms a 3D network of electron-conducting pathways that are in electronic contacts with said anode active material particles (in the nanotubes’ being dispersed into the encapsulating polymer layer at a concentration falling within the instant range, such would reasonably create a conductive, three-dimensional “network” for electrons to traverse (further corroborated by the polymer’s being designed to contact the active particles in Pan, e.g., ¶ 0068), as seen in the substantially similar configuration of the instant specification, e.g., p. 11, lines 24–27).
Regarding claims 10, 11, and 18, modified Pan discloses the composite particulate of claim 1, wherein said anode active material particles are, e.g., Si, contain a prelithiated Si, and are lithiated to contain from 0.1% to 54.7% by weight of lithium (Pan, ¶ 0021 and 0022).
Regarding claim 13, modified Pan discloses the composite particulate of claim 1, wherein a plurality of said anode active material particles is coated with a layer of carbon disposed between said plurality of anode active material particles and said high-elasticity polymer (Pan, ¶ 0025).
Regarding claim 14, modified Pan discloses the composite particulate of claim 1.
Modified Pan further discloses that the high-elasticity polymer preferably has a lithium-ion conductivity ≥ 10-3 S/cm (Pan, ¶ 0017), which, considering that there appears to be no criticality to 10-6–10-2 S/cm in the specification, is deemed to overlap with sufficient specificity so as to read on the recited range.
Assuming, arguendo, that modified Pan’s disclosure were not sufficiently specific to read on the recited range, the polymer’s Li+ conductivity of ≥ 10-3 S/cm overlaps the recited 10-6–10-2 S/cm such that the skilled artisan could have routinely selected within the overlap with the reasonable expectation of forming a successful polymer shell with suitable Li+ conductivity (MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Regarding claim 15, modified Pan discloses the composite particulate of claim 1, wherein said high-elasticity polymer forms a mixture with an elastomer of, e.g., natural polyisoprene (Pan, ¶ 0029).
Regarding claim 16, modified Pan discloses the composite particulate of claim 1, wherein said high-elasticity polymer is mixed with an electron-conducting polymer of, e.g., polyaniline (Pan, ¶ 0032).
Regarding claim 17, modified Pan discloses the composite particulate of claim 1, wherein the high-elasticity polymer forms a mixture or blend with a lithium-ion conducting polymer of, e.g., PEO (Pan, ¶ 0033).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pan et al. (US 20180241032 A1) (Pan) in view of Ahn et al. (US 20150079467 A1) (Ahn) and Horie et al. (US 20230317953 A1) (Horie), as applied to claim 3, further in view of Fujimoto et al. (US 20080319149 A1) (Fujimoto).
Regarding claim 4, modified Pan discloses the composite particulate of claim 3.
Pan further discloses that the polymer’s elasticity is adjustable by using different crosslinking agents (¶ 0088), but modified Pan, in appearing unconcerned with the specific crosslinker, fails to specify such and, thus, a crosslinking agent selected from the recited group.
Fujimoto, in teaching an analogous battery electrode with a crosslinked (meth)acrylic polymer (¶ 0006), teaches that, from the viewpoint of high reactivity, ethylene glycol dimethacrylate is a preferred crosslinking agent (¶ 0033).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the claimed invention's effective filing date, that modified Pan's polymer network must necessarily be crosslinked by some medium, and, as demonstrated by Fujimoto, the skilled artisan would find it obvious to crosslink the polymer with ethylene glycol dimethacrylate from the viewpoint of high reactivity.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pan et al. (US 20180241032 A1) (Pan) in view of Ahn et al. (US 20150079467 A1) (Ahn) and Horie et al. (US 20230317953 A1) (Horie), as applied to claim 1, further in view of Laicer et al. (US 20160049656 A1) (Laicer).
Regarding claim 12, modified Pan discloses the composite particulate of claim 1.
Pan further desires to regulate anode active material expansion and contraction to improve (dis)charge cycle life (¶ 0006) but fails to explicitly disclose that the anode active material particles are porous.
Laicer, in teaching analogous, porous Li-battery anode active particles (Abstract), teaches that such materials have the capacity for higher energy density and greater mechanical rigidity, as the voids provide for expansion and contraction without the anode material’s breaking apart or delaminating (¶ 0069).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to make Pan’s anode active particles porous with the reasonable expectation of providing higher energy density and greater mechanical rigidity by allowing for the anode materials’ expansion and contraction without the anode material’s breaking apart or delaminating, as taught by Laicer.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered. Applicant’s amendment, in omitting the previous acrylonitrile from the plasticizer/diluent Markush group, overcame the previous 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection—which, as noted above, has been withdrawn—and necessitated the new grounds of rejection citing Horie, as established above.
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 JOHN S MEDLEY whose telephone number is (703)756-4600. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00–5:00 EST M–Th and 8:00–12:00 EST F.
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, Jonathan Leong, can be reached on 571-270-1292. 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.
/J.S.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1751 /JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 8/13/2026
Prosecution Insights