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 01/21/26, have been fully considered. Claim(s) 1 is/are amended; claim(s) 2–13 stand(s) as originally or previously presented; and claim(s) 14 is/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and arguments, the previous 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection set forth in the Office Action mailed 10/24/25 has/have been withdrawn. Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new grounds of rejection below.
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.
Claims 8–10 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 8 recites “The negative electrode … further comprises a lithium ion or a lithium carbide compound intercalated into the amorphous carbon layer, and a lithium metal electrodeposited around the lithium ion or the lithium carbide compound” in lines 1–4. As claim 1 requires the amorphous carbon layer to consist of “elements selected from the group consisting of carbon and oxygen”—i.e., a closed group—claim 8’s intended scope is structurally unclear given the requirement for additional components in the amorphous layer.
Spec.’s p. 20, lines 7–18, notes that the lithium ion or lithium carbide may be intercalated naturally during initial charge/discharge, or the lithium ion/carbide as well as Li metal may respectively be intercalated or deposited as separate reactions during manufacture. Thus, for this Office Action claim 8 will be broadly but reasonably interpreted to require a lithium ion or lithium carbide compound intercalated into the amorphous carbon layer, and a lithium metal electrodeposited around the lithium ion or the lithium carbide compound in any post-reacted state, which appears suggested by p. 20.
Dependent claims 9 and 10 fail to correct these deficiencies and are rejected likewise. Appropriate correction is required.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 8–10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 8 recites “The negative electrode … further comprises a lithium ion or a lithium carbide compound intercalated into the amorphous carbon layer, and a lithium metal electrodeposited around the lithium ion or the lithium carbide compound” in lines 1–4. As claim 1 requires the amorphous carbon layer to consist of “elements selected from the group consisting of carbon and oxygen”—i.e., a closed group—it is unclear that claim 8 is able to fully include all limitations of the parent claim given the requirement for additional components in the amorphous layer. See above for interpretation.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Dependent claims 9 and 10 fail to correct these deficiencies and are rejected likewise. Appropriate correction is required.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 1–7 and 11–13 is/are allowed. Claim(s) 8–10 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, as well as under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 4th paragraph, set forth in this Office Action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance of claims 1–7 and 11–13 and indication of allowable subject matter in claims 8–10:
The invention relates to, inter alia, a negative electrode consisting essentially of a crystalline carbon layer and an amorphous carbon layer including a carbon defect structure formed on the crystalline carbon layer and formed of electron-deficient carbon atoms, the carbon defect structure including nanoscale pores with a solid electrolyte formed therein, wherein the amorphous carbon layer consists of elements selected from the group consisting of carbon and oxygen.
Liu et al. (MOF-Derived 3D Hollow Porous Carbon/Graphene Composites for Advanced Lithium-Ion Battery Anodes) (Liu) as evidenced by Mane et al. (Unveiling Cutting-Edge Advances in High Surface Area Porous Materials for the Efficient Removal of Toxic Metal Ions from Water) (Mane) and in view of Li et al. (US 20210036373 A1) (Li), in disclosing most of the above limitations (see Office Action dated 10/24/25), is considered the closest prior art to independent claim(s) 1.
However, modified Liu fails to disclose or suggest that the amorphous carbon layer consists of elements selected from the group consisting of carbon and oxygen. To the contrary, as Applicant rightfully notes (Remarks, p. 6), Liu explicitly discloses N-doped hollow carbon nanoparticles—which form the “amorphous layer” post-carbonization of ZIF-8, as implied from fig. 1 and explained in the prior O.A.—to increase the number of active sites to enhance electrochemical reactivity (p. 3, left col., 1st ¶ under Results and discussion, as well as right col., 1st full ¶). Thus, there appears to be no reason for the skilled artisan to arbitrarily omit this N dopant to make the amorphous layer consist of carbon and oxygen.
Moreover, arguendo, considering Liu’s comparative embodiment still fails to achieve claim 1. Indeed, even if one interpreted Liu’s inferior solid carbon/graphene composites (SCGCs) (e.g., p. 2, § 2.2) as the amorphous and crystalline layers, respectively, the “amorphous layer” would still seem to contain unconverted ZIF-8 and, thus, Zn and N (see p. 3, right col., 1st ¶, where “most” ZIF-8 particles are transformed to amorphous carbon in the composites), and Liu discloses or suggests no desire for or ability to fully transform the ZIF-8 to pure C and O. Moreover, even ignoring this deficiency, Liu consistently shows that the inventive hollow porous carbon/graphene composites (HPCGCs) are electrochemically superior (e.g., tests of figs. 5 and 6), and, thus, for obviousness, the skilled artisan would seemingly begin with and seek to modify the HPCGCs (e.g., with Li’s solid electrolyte, as discussed previously) rather than the SCGCs.
Further, Mane was only used to evidence the diameter of micropores, and Li was merely used to teach filling electrode pores with solid electrolyte, meaning neither reference can cure the above deficiency.
Wu et al. (CN 110649267 A) (Wu) is prior art also relevant to claim 1. Wu discloses a lithium battery negative electrode (Title) consisting essentially of a crystalline carbon layer (3-D current collector of, e.g., 3-D carbon fibers, ¶ 0010, 0011, and Embodiment 11, ¶ 0057) and an amorphous carbon layer (carbonaceous surface coating formed by MOF calcination/carbonization, ¶ 0011, 0012, and 0028) having a network structure on the crystalline carbon layer (see metal-oxide nanoparticle sites in carbon surface layer that alloy with Li during cycling, ¶ 0032; as the instant specification refrains from specially defining “network structure,” the broadest reasonable interpretation of such appears to include such nanoparticle sites, similar to the instant spec.’s “carbon defect structure” formed from MOF carbonization, e.g., p. 8, lines 3–19, and Ex. 1, p. 25).
However, Wu fails to disclose or suggest that the amorphous layer consists of carbon and oxygen. To the contrary, Wu’s inventiveness centers around the metal-oxide nanoparticle sites’, i.e., amorphous layer, alloying with Li metal during cycling to induce uniform lithium insertion and extraction (¶ 0032), and, thus, there appears to be no reason for the skilled artisan to arbitrarily omit Li from the amorphous layer to make the amorphous layer consist of carbon and oxygen.
Moreover, even if the above omission were obvious, Wu fails to recognize or suggest any nanoscale pores in the “amorphous layer” and, by extension, the desire for any modification to such pores such as infiltration with a solid electrolyte. Thus, there further appears to be no reason for the skilled artisan to pursue or expect to necessarily achieve nanoscale pores including a solid electrolyte in the “carbon defect structure” such that the claim as a whole is considered non-obvious.
Similarly, Kim et al. (US 20210288303 A1) disclose an electrode with carbon defect formed by coating ZIF-8 MOF onto carbon felt, followed by carbonizing (¶ 0043), but 1). However, this reference, in being published within the one-year grace period afforded by the instant EFD no later than 10/14/21 as the 371 filing date and involving the same inventors as the instant application, fails to qualify as prior art under 102(a)(1). Moreover, even if the reference were prior art, the reference appears to never fully remove Zn and N from amorphous layer (says > 0% left of each in exs.) or recognize nano-scale pores in amorphous layer to warrant filling with solid electrolyte, as with the aforementioned references.
In contrast, Applicant has discovered that the instant negative electrode, with an amorphous layer consisting of C and O (Table 1), achieves superior cycling characteristics and ion conductivity by suppressing Li-dendrite growth (fig. 7 and pp. 34 and 35). The cited art could not have predicted such results from the claimed configuration.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been fully considered and are persuasive, and the pending 103 rejection has been withdrawn. As noted above, the new grounds of rejection under 112(b) and 112(d) are necessitated by amendment.
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, 9:00-1:00 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 5/14/2026
Prosecution Insights