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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 07/24/2025 has been considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
Examiner notes the following amendments made to the claims:
Claim 1 amended to further limit the viscosity of the slurry
Claims 2-3 cancelled
Claim 7 amended for punctuation
Claims 12-20 cancelled
New claims 21-22 added
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment, filed 10/17/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 2, 4-9, and 11 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Hellring (US 20200227752 A1), which teaches an active material slurry with the desired/amended viscosity. New claims 21 and 22 are additionally rejected by the combination of Drews and Hellring.
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment, filed 10/17/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 10 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Ota (US 20190363351 A1), which teaches the additional limitations of claim 10.
All dependent claims which were not amended remain rejected, and the rejections remain unchanged except for being in view of the newly applied prior art. There is currently considered to be no allowable subject matter in the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 7 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. Specifically, Claim 7 recites the limitation “The slurry of claim 5, wherein the cathode catalyst is included at 50 wt.% or less of the slurry, and wherein no additional cathode active material is included.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as there is no mention of a cathode catalyst prior to claim 6, on which claim 7 does not depend. For examination purposes, claim 7 will be examined as if it depends on claim 6, rather than claim 5.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-9, 11, and 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Drews (US 20170309914 A1) in view of Hellring (US 20200227752 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Drews teaches the following elements:
A slurry for forming a cathode pre-lithiation layer, the slurry comprising: a uniform dispersion of a nanoscale cathode pre-lithiation reagent in a solvent, (“The method may include adding the sacrificial lithium-containing material 24 during the slurry deposition stage. The sacrificial lithium-containing material 24 is mixed with the cathode slurry so that the cathode material and the sacrificial lithium-containing material 24 are blended and agglomerations of the sacrificial lithium-containing material 24 are formed within the cathodic material 16.” Drews [0051] and “the under-porosity may be achieved by controlling the amount of solvent in the cathodic slurry,” Drews [0031].)
Drews is silent on the following elements of claim 1:
wherein the slurry has a viscosity of 10-100 cP at a shear rate of 100 s-1.
However, Hellring teaches all of the elements of amended claim 1 that are not found in Drews. Specifically, Hellring teaches a slurry with the desired viscosity at the desired shear rate of amended claim 1:
wherein the slurry has a viscosity of 10-100 cP at a shear rate of 100 s-1. (“and viscosity of this slurry was 260 cP under a shear rate of 10 reciprocal seconds and 88 cP under a shear rate of 100 reciprocal seconds.” Hellring [0193, example 26]. The viscosity of 88 cP anticipates the claimed viscosity range at the same shear rate.)
Hellring is considered to be analogous to Drews because they are both within the same field of electrode slurry compositions. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the slurry of Drews to have the viscosity at a specific shear rate of Hellring in order to optimize the solids content of the slurry composition (Hellring figures 2-4 demonstrate how viscosity impacts the solids content of the slurry.) Additionally, the teachings of Hellring demonstrate that changing the viscosity of a slurry composition is within the scope of routine optimization/testing, as they test a wide range of viscosities of under 5000 cP at the desired shear rate. This therefore meets the limitations of not only amended claim 1, but also new claims 21 and 22. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (see MPEP § 2144.05 II. A.).
Regarding claim 4, modified Drews meets all of the limitations of claim 1, as shown above. Drews is silent on the following elements of claim 4:
The slurry of claim 1, wherein the slurry has a solids content of 10-70%.
However, Hellring teaches all of the elements of claim 4 that are not found in Drews. Specifically, Hellring teaches a solids content of a slurry that overlaps the claimed range.
The slurry of claim 1, wherein the slurry has a solids content of 10-70%. (“The use of the present conductive carbon having a surface area greater than 100 m.sup.2/g in a battery slurry also allows for the preparation of a slurry composition comprising the conductive carbon material, the electrochemically active material and binder to have a solids content of 55% and greater and a viscosity below 5,000 cp, such as a solids content of 55% to 85% by weight,” Hellring [0036])
Hellring is considered to be analogous to Drews for the reasons provided above. It would have additionally been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the solids content to be within the range taught by Hellring in order to reduce manufacturing time and costs, among other benefits (“The increased solids content in electrode slurries can be desirable because it can allow for reduced manufacturing time, reduced manufacturing costs and increased film thickness when compared with a slurry composition using active carbon materials having a surface area less than 100 m.sup.2/g and lower solids content.” Hellring [0036])
Regarding claim 5, modified Drews teaches all of the elements of claim 1, as shown above. Drews teaches all of the additional elements of claim 5:
The slurry of claim 1, wherein the nanoscale cathode pre-lithiation reagent is composed of one or more of Li3N, Li2O, Li2O2, Li2S, Li5FeO4, Li2CO3, Li2C204 a Li2S/M nanocomposite, a LiF/M nanocomposite, and a Li2O/M nanocomposite, where M is one or more metals. (“Adding any material to the electrode requires consideration of the impact of such addition on the final porosity of the electrodes. In at least one embodiment, the source of the sacrificial lithium-containing material 24 may be lithium peroxide ( Li2O2), which is incorporated into the cathode 16 during fabrication and decomposed during the first charge to form Li ions and oxygen gas.” Drews [0033])
Regarding claim 6, modified Drews teaches all of the elements of claim 1, as shown above. Drews teaches all of the additional elements of claim 6:
The slurry of claim 1, wherein the uniform dispersion further comprises a cathode catalyst which catalyzes decomposition of the nanoscale cathode pre-lithiation reagent, and wherein the cathode catalyst comprises an inactive cathode catalyst composed of one or more non-lithiated metal oxides or non-lithiated metal phosphates and/or an active cathode catalyst composed of one or more lithium metal oxides or lithium metal phosphates. (“In one or more embodiments, the initial decomposition of the sacrificial lithium-containing material 24 may be facilitated by an introduction of one or more catalysts. The choice of the catalyst material is dependent on the type of the sacrificial lithium-containing material 24 used. For example, when the sacrificial lithium-containing material 24 is Li2O2, the catalyst may be a heterogeneous catalyst in the form of dispersed cobalt tetraoxide (Co3O4), MnOx, or the like.” Drews [0048])
Regarding claim 7, modified Drews teaches all of the elements of claim [see 112(b) rejection for why this is being examined as if it depends on claim 6 rather than claim 5], as shown above. Drews is silent on the following elements of claim 7:
The slurry of claim
However, Hellring teaches all of the elements of claim 7 that are not found in Drews. Specifically, Hellring teaches a ratio of active material that is within the claimed weight percentage in regards to the cathode slurry. Specification paragraph [0074] states that the cathode catalyst may include “an active cathode catalyst composed of one or more lithium metal oxides or lithium metal phosphates.” And claim 7 states that “no additional cathode active material is included. This implies that the cathode catalyst functions as an active material, and thus the active material of Hellring, which can comprise a lithium metal oxide, meets the limitation of being a cathode catalyst.
The slurry of claim (“The electrochemically active material may comprise a material for use as an active material for a positive electrode. The electrochemically active material may comprise a material capable of incorporating lithium (including incorporation through lithium intercalation/deintercalation), a material capable of lithium conversion, or combinations thereof. Non-limiting examples of electrochemically active materials capable of incorporating lithium include LiCoO.sub.2, LiNiO.sub.2, LiFePO.sub.4, LiCoPO.sub.4, LiMnO.sub.2, LiMn.sub.2O.sub.4,” Hellring [0071], “The electrochemically active material may be present in the slurry in amounts of 45% to 95% by weight, such as 50% to 90% by weight, such as 70% to 98% by weight, based on the total solids weight of the slurry.”, and “ Hellring [0073] and “the electrochemically active material and binder to have a solids content of 55% and greater and a viscosity below 5,000 cp, such as a solids content of 55% to 85% by weight, such as 60% to 85% by weight, such as 65% to 85% by weight, such as 71% to 85% by weight, such as 75% to 85% by weight, such as 65% to 75% by weight, such as 68% to 72% by weight, based on the total weight of the slurry composition.” Hellring [0036]. As an example, if there were a 55% solids content in the slurry of Hellring, and there were 50% by weight of active material within the solids content, there would be 27.5% of active material, or cathode catalyst, based on the total weight of the slurry, anticipating the claimed range.)
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of 24.75-83.3% by weight of cathode catalyst in the positive electrode slurry overlaps the claimed range of less than 50% by weight of the same parameter. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
Hellring is considered to be analogous to Drews for the reasons provided above. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the weight ratio of cathode catalyst (in the case of Hellring, the cathode active material) present in the slurry in order to form a slurry with a high enough solids content to obtain beneficial effects such as increased thickness and reduced manufacturing time, while making sure there is still enough active material/cathode catalyst to maintain sufficient battery/charging characteristics (“The increased solids content in electrode slurries can be desirable because it can allow for reduced manufacturing time, reduced manufacturing costs and increased film thickness when compared with a slurry composition using active carbon materials having a surface area less than 100 m.sup.2/g and lower solids content.” Hellring [0036])
Regarding claim 8, modified Drews teaches all of the elements of claim 1, as shown above. Drews teaches all of the additional elements of claim 8:
The slurry of claim 1, wherein no cathode catalyst is included. (“Two NMC electrodes A and B were prepared according to the method described below. Electrode A was prepared without the sacrificial lithium-containing material. Electrode B was prepared with Li2O2 as the sacrificial lithium-containing material. No catalyst was added to the electrodes.” Drews [0049])
Regarding claim 9, modified Drews teaches all of the elements of claim 1, as shown above. Drews teaches all of the additional elements of claim 9:
The slurry of claim 1, wherein the uniform dispersion further comprises a binder, the binder being composed of one or more of PAN, PEG, PVDF, PTFE, PHFP, PMMA, PAA, poly(4-vinylpyridine), polyvinylpyrrolidone, a CMC derivative, or a copolymer thereof. (“The cathode active material is a hypothetical NMC with PVDF binder and amorphous carbon conductive additive. The sacrificial material is Li2O2.” Drews [0035])
Regarding claim 11, modified Drews teaches all of the elements of claim 1, as shown above. Drews teaches all of the additional elements of claim 11:
The slurry of claim 1, wherein the uniform dispersion further comprises a conductive carbon additive, (“The cathode active material is a hypothetical NMC with PVDF binder and amorphous carbon conductive additive. The sacrificial material is Li.sub.2O.sub.2.” Drews [0035])
Drews is silent on the following elements of claim 11:
the conductive carbon additive being composed of one or more of carbon black, carbon fibers, carbon nanoparticles, CNTs, graphene oxide, and graphene, and wherein the solvent is composed of one or more of DMF, NMP, DMAc, DMSO, MeCN, THF, and toluene.
However, Hellring teaches all of the elements of claim 11 that are not found in Drews. Specifically, Hellring teaches a conductive carbon additive that meets the limitations of claim 11:
the conductive carbon additive being composed of one or more of carbon black, carbon fibers, carbon nanoparticles, CNTs, graphene oxide, and graphene, and wherein the solvent is composed of one or more of DMF, NMP, DMAc, DMSO, MeCN, THF, and toluene. (“The slurry composition of any one of Aspects 1 to 3, wherein the conductive carbon material is carbon black.” Hellring [0109])
Hellring is considered to be analogous to Drews for the reasons provided above. It would have additionally been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the conductive carbon additive of Drews to specifically be carbon black, as Hellring teaches that this is a known material in the art used for this purpose. In order to meet the limitations of claim 11, only a simple substitution of one known conductive carbon additive for another would be required, and the simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
Regarding claim 21, Drews teaches all of the following elements:
A slurry for forming a cathode pre-lithiation layer, the slurry comprising: a uniform dispersion of a nanoscale cathode pre-lithiation reagent in a solvent, (“The method may include adding the sacrificial lithium-containing material 24 during the slurry deposition stage. The sacrificial lithium-containing material 24 is mixed with the cathode slurry so that the cathode material and the sacrificial lithium-containing material 24 are blended and agglomerations of the sacrificial lithium-containing material 24 are formed within the cathodic material 16.” Drews [0051] and “the under-porosity may be achieved by controlling the amount of solvent in the cathodic slurry,” Drews [0031].)
Drews is silent on the following elements of claim 21:
wherein the slurry has a viscosity of up to 5000 cP at a shear rate of 100 s-1,
and wherein the uniform dispersion further comprises a cathode catalyst included at 50 wt.% or less of the slurry.
However, Hellring teaches each of the elements of claim 21 not found in Drews:
Hellring teaches the following elements of claim 21:
wherein the slurry has a viscosity of up to 5000 cP at a shear rate of 100 s-1, (“the electrochemically active material and binder to have a solids content of 55% and greater and a viscosity below 5,000 cp” Hellring [0036] and “and viscosity of this slurry was 1280 cP under a shear rate of 10 reciprocal seconds and 528 cP under a shear rate of 100 reciprocal seconds.” Hellring [0176])
and wherein the uniform dispersion further comprises a cathode catalyst included at 50 wt.% or less of the slurry. (“The electrochemically active material may comprise a material for use as an active material for a positive electrode. The electrochemically active material may comprise a material capable of incorporating lithium (including incorporation through lithium intercalation/deintercalation), a material capable of lithium conversion, or combinations thereof. Non-limiting examples of electrochemically active materials capable of incorporating lithium include LiCoO.sub.2, LiNiO.sub.2, LiFePO.sub.4, LiCoPO.sub.4, LiMnO.sub.2, LiMn.sub.2O.sub.4,” Hellring [0071], “The electrochemically active material may be present in the slurry in amounts of 45% to 95% by weight, such as 50% to 90% by weight, such as 70% to 98% by weight, based on the total solids weight of the slurry.”, and “ Hellring [0073] and “the electrochemically active material and binder to have a solids content of 55% and greater and a viscosity below 5,000 cp, such as a solids content of 55% to 85% by weight, such as 60% to 85% by weight, such as 65% to 85% by weight, such as 71% to 85% by weight, such as 75% to 85% by weight, such as 65% to 75% by weight, such as 68% to 72% by weight, based on the total weight of the slurry composition.” Hellring [0036]. As an example, if there were a 55% solids content in the slurry of Hellring, and there were 50% by weight of active material within the solids content, there would be 27.5% of active material, or cathode catalyst, based on the total weight of the slurry, anticipating the claimed range.)
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of 24.75-83.3% by weight of cathode catalyst in the positive electrode slurry overlaps the claimed range of less than 50% by weight of the same parameter. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 22, modified Drews teaches all of the elements of claim 21, as shown above. Drews is silent on the following elements of claim 22:
The slurry of claim 21, wherein the slurry has a viscosity of 100 to 5000 Cp at a shear rate of 100 s-1.
However, Hellring teaches all of the elements of claim 22 that are not found in Drews:
The slurry of claim 21, wherein the slurry has a viscosity of 100 to 5000 Cp at a shear rate of 100 s-1. (“the electrochemically active material and binder to have a solids content of 55% and greater and a viscosity below 5,000 cp” Hellring [0036] and “and viscosity of this slurry was 1280 cP under a shear rate of 10 reciprocal seconds and 528 cP under a shear rate of 100 reciprocal seconds.” Hellring [0176])
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of less than 5000 cP at a shear rate of 100 reciprocal seconds for the viscosity of the active material slurry encompasses the claimed range of between 100-5000 cP of the same parameter. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Drews (US 20170309914 A1) in view of Hellring (US 20200227752 A1) and further in view of Ota (US 20190363351 A1)
Regarding claim 10, modified Drews meets all of the limitations of claim 1, as shown above. Drews is silent on the following elements of claim 10:
The slurry of claim 1, wherein no binder is included.
However, Ota teaches all of the limitations of claim 10 that are not found in Drews. Specifically, Ota teaches that the use of a binder in the positive electrode slurry containing a sacrificial lithium source material is optional, and lists benefits of a binderless formation:
The slurry of claim 1, wherein no binder is included. (“In some embodiments, the semi-solid electrode materials described herein can be binderless.” Ota [0053])
Ota is considered to be analogous to Drews because it is within the same field of electrodes containing sacrificial lithium/pre-lithiation materials. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Drews to optionally not include a binder as Ota teaches, as Ota shows this can increase salt available for ion diffusion, among other possible benefits (“In some embodiments, the semi-solid electrode materials described herein can be binderless. Instead, the volume of the semi-solid electrode materials normally occupied by binders in conventional electrodes, is now occupied by: 1) electrolyte, which has the effect of decreasing tortuosity and increasing the total salt available for ion diffusion, thereby countering the salt depletion effects typical of thick conventional electrodes when used at high rate, 2) active material, which has the effect of increasing the charge capacity of the battery, or 3) conductive additive, which has the effect of increasing the electronic conductivity of the electrode, thereby countering the high internal impedance of thick conventional electrodes. The reduced tortuosity and a higher electronic conductivity of the semi-solid electrodes described herein, results in superior rate capability and charge capacity of electrochemical cells formed from the semi-solid electrodes.” Ota [0053])
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 BENJAMIN ELI KASS-MULLET whose telephone number is (571)272-0156. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am-6pm except for the first Friday of bi-week.
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, NICHOLAS SMITH can be reached at (571) 272-8760. 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.
/BENJAMIN ELI KASS-MULLET/Examiner, Art Unit 1752
/NICHOLAS A SMITH/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752