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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 15 January 2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims and Other Notes
Claims 12–25 are pending.
Claims 1–11 are canceled.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The paragraph numbers cited in this Office Action in reference to the instant application are referring to the paragraph numbering of the PG-Pub of the instant application. See US 2022/0263145 A1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 12–25 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 12 recites the limitation "the anode material" in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the course of cycling" in line 13–14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "cycling of the lithium ion battery" in line 14. Claim 12 has previously recited the limitation "cycling of the lithium ion battery" in line 11. It is unclear if "cycling of the lithium ion battery" recited in line 14 is further limiting or referencing "cycling of the lithium ion battery" recited in line 11. The limitation recited in line 14 does not include "the" or "said," which would indicate that the limitation is referring to the limitation recited in line 11.
Claims 13–18 are directly dependent from claim 12 and include all the limitations of claim 12. Therefore, claims 13–18 are also 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 19 recites the limitation "cycling of the lithium ion battery." Claim 12, which claim 19 is indirectly dependent, recites the limitation "cycling of the lithium ion battery." It is unclear if "cycling of the lithium ion battery" recited in claim 19 is further limiting or referencing "cycling of the lithium ion battery" recited in claim 12. The limitation recited in claim 19 does not include "the" or "said," which would indicate that the limitation is referring to the limitation recited in claim 12.
Claim 20 is indirectly dependent from claim 12 and includes all the limitations of claim 12. Therefore, claim 20 is also 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 21 recites the limitation "cycling of the lithium ion battery." Claim 12, which claim 21 is indirectly dependent, recites the limitation "cycling of the lithium ion battery." It is unclear if "cycling of the lithium ion battery" recited in claim 21 is further limiting or referencing "cycling of the lithium ion battery" recited in claim 12. The limitation recited in claim 21 does not include "the" or "said," which would indicate that the limitation is referring to the limitation recited in claim 12.
Claims 22–25 are directly dependent from claim 12 and include all the limitations of claim 12. Therefore, claims 22–25 are also 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 12–25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haufe (WO 2017/025346 A1; see English language equivalent, US 2018/0212234 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Haufe discloses a method for cycling lithium ion batteries, comprising:
providing a lithium ion battery comprising a cathode, an anode, a separator and an electrolyte (see lithium ion battery, [0051]),
wherein the anode contains prelithiated silicon having a degree of prelithiation α1 of from 0 to 50% (see prelithiated, [0036]) and
the anode is only partially lithiated during full charging of the lithium ion battery by a lithiation capacity of silicon being utilized to a degree of lithiation α2 less than 50% by the partial lithiation of the anode during the full charging of the lithium ion battery (see fully charged, [0043]),
wherein a total degree of lithiation α of the silicon is from 10 to 75% (see Li/Si ratio, [0043]),
wherein the total degree of lithiation α is the sum of the degree of prelithiation α1 and the degree of lithiation α2 (see ɑ, [0028]),
where figures in % are based on a maximum lithiation capacity of silicon (see capacity, [0039]),
wherein the degree of prelithiation ɑ1 of silicon refers to lithiation of silicon before or during formation of the lithium ion battery and before cycling of the lithium ion battery (see prelithiated, [0036]); and
wherein the degree of lithiation ɑ2 refers to the proportion of the lithiation capacity of silicon which is occupied as a result of the partial lithiation of the anode material during charging in the course of cycling of the lithium ion battery (see partial lithiation, [0041]).
Haufe discloses a total degree of lithiation ɑ is from 15% (e.g., Li/Si ratio = 0.66) to 40% (e.g., Li/Si ratio = 1.76) (see Li ratio, [0042]); and Haufe discloses a degree of prelithiation α1 of from 0 (e.g., z in LizSi is 0) to 50% (e.g., z in LizSi is 2.2) (see prelithiated, [0036]). The total degree of lithiation α is equal to the sum of lithiation α2 and degree of prelithiation α1 (i.e., ɑ = ɑ2 + ɑ1); and lithiation ɑ2 is equal to the degree of lithiation ɑ less the degree of prelithiation α1 (i.e., ɑ2 = ɑ - ɑ1). Based on ɑ and ɑ1 disclosed, Haufe discloses ɑ2 is from 0% to 40%.
Although Haufe does not explicitly disclose a range of α1 less than 5 to 50%, Haufe does disclose an overlapping range. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of 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. In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549. See MPEP § 2144.05.
Although Haufe does not explicitly disclose a range of α2 of from 5 to 50%, Haufe does disclose an overlapping range. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of 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. In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549. See MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 13, Haufe discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above and further discloses a method for cycling lithium ion batteries:
wherein the total degree of lithiation α of the silicon is from 20 to 60%, based on the maximum lithiation capacity of silicon (TABLE 1, [0126]).
Haufe discloses a total degree of lithiation ɑ is from 25% (e.g., Li/Si ratio = 1.1) (TABLE 1, [0126]).
Regarding claim 14, Haufe discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above and further discloses a method for cycling lithium ion batteries:
wherein a ratio of lithium atoms to silicon atoms corresponds to the formula Li0.66Si to Li1.76Si in the partially lithiated anode of a fully charged lithium ion battery (TABLE 1, [0126]).
Haufe discloses a ratio of lithium atoms to silicon atoms corresponds to the formula Li1.1Si (e.g., Li/Si ratio = 1.1) (TABLE 1, [0126]).
Regarding claim 15, Haufe discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above and further discloses a method for cycling lithium ion batteries:
wherein a capacity of silicon is utilized to an extent of from 850 to 2700 mAh per gram of silicon in the partially lithiated anode of a fully charged lithium ion battery (TABLE 1, [0126]).
Haufe discloses a capacity of silicon is utilized to an extent of 1050 mAh per gram of silicon (e.g., Li/Si ratio = 1.1) (TABLE 1, [0126]).
Regarding claim 16, Haufe discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above and further discloses a method for cycling lithium ion batteries:
wherein less than 50% of the maximum lithiation capacity of silicon is occupied by prelithiation of silicon (see prelithiated, [0036]).
Haufe discloses a degree of prelithiation α1 of from 0 (e.g., z in LizSi is 0) to 50% (e.g., z in LizSi is 2.2) (see prelithiated, [0036]).
Although Haufe does not explicitly disclose a range of from 7 to 46%, Haufe does disclose an overlapping range. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of 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. In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549. See MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 17, Haufe discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above and further discloses a method for cycling lithium ion batteries:
wherein the amount of lithium introduced into the silicon by prelithiation corresponds to the formula Li0Si to Li2.2Si (see prelithiated, [0036]).
Although Haufe does not explicitly disclose a range of Li0.25Si to Li1.80Si, Haufe does disclose an overlapping range. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of 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. In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549. See MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 18, Haufe discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above and further discloses a method for cycling lithium ion batteries:
wherein the amount of lithium introduced into the silicon by prelithiation corresponds to a lithiation capacity of less than 2100 mAh per gram of silicon (see prelithiated, [0036]).
Haufe discloses the amount of lithium introduced into the silicon by prelithiation corresponds to a lithiation capacity of less than 2100 mAh per gram of silicon (e.g., Li/Si ratio = 2.2 (see prelithiated, [0036]).
Although Haufe does not explicitly disclose a range of from 250 to 1700 mAh per gram of silicon, Haufe does disclose an overlapping range. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of 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. In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549. See MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 19, Haufe discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above and further discloses a method for cycling lithium ion batteries:
wherein the ratio of lithium atoms to silicon atoms in the anode changes by from 0.4 to 1.3 during cycling of the lithium ion battery (TABLE 1, [0126]).
Haufe discloses the ratio of lithium atoms to silicon atoms in the anode changes by from 1.1 (e.g., Li/Si ratio = 1.1) (TABLE 1, [0126]).
Regarding claim 20, Haufe discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above and further discloses a method for cycling lithium ion batteries:
wherein from 10 to 45% of the lithiation capacity of silicon is utilized for the cycling of the lithium ion battery (TABLE 1, [0126]).
Haufe discloses 25% of the lithiation capacity of silicon is utilized for the cycling of the lithium ion battery (e.g., Li/Si ratio = 1.1) (TABLE 1, [0126]).
Regarding claim 21, Haufe discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above and further discloses a method for cycling lithium ion batteries:
wherein the from 50 to 90% of the total degree of lithiation α is utilized for cycling of the lithium ion battery (TABLE 1, [0126]).
Regarding claim 22, Haufe discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above and further discloses a method for cycling lithium ion batteries:
wherein the silicon comprises silicon particles (see unaggregated, [0095]); and
wherein a volume-weighted particle size distribution of the silicon particles has diameter percentiles d50 of from 0.5 to 10.0 μm (see d50, [0098]).
Regarding claim 23, Haufe discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, but does not explicitly disclose a method for cycling lithium ion batteries:
wherein the silicon comprises silicon particles (see unaggregated, [0095]); and
wherein the silicon particles are not aggregated (see unaggregated, [0095]).
Regarding claim 24, Haufe discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above and further discloses a method for cycling lithium ion batteries:
wherein the anode provided is a final or complete anode for use within the lithium ion battery (see prelithiated, [0036]).
Regarding claim 25, Haufe discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above and further discloses a method for cycling lithium ion batteries:
wherein the silicon comprises silicon particles (see unaggregated, [0095]); and
wherein a volume-weighted particle size distribution of the silicon particles has diameter percentiles d50 of from 2.0 to 10.0 μm (see d50, [0095]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 12–25 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sean P Cullen, Ph.D. whose telephone number is (571)270-1251. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 6:00 am to 4:00 pm CT, Friday 6:00 am to 12:00 pm CT.
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 A 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.
/Sean P Cullen, Ph.D./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725