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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group II, claims 17-20, 22, 23, and 37 in the reply filed on 4/30/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no search burden. This is not found persuasive because the instant application is a 371 application and Groups I-III lack unity of invention, as provided in previous office action mailed on 1/2/26.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 17-20, 22, and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (CN 109904394 A, hereinafter Li) in view of Iguchi et al. (JP 2019-114346 A, hereinafter Iguchi, cited by applicant).
Re Claim 17. Li teaches a lithium-ion battery comprising (P6):
(a) a cathode (P6);
(b) an anode (P6), wherein said anode comprises a composition comprising:
(i) a core material (Fig. 1, item 11) comprising a metal microparticle, wherein said metal comprises Si (P3); and
(iii) a solid electrolyte interface ("SEI") comprising:
(A) a LiF shell-layer (item 12) encapsulating said lithium alloy; and
(B) a polymeric layer (item 13) on top of said LiF shell-layer (18); and
(c) an organic electrolyte solution (P6 & 7) comprising an electrolyte (P6) and an organic solvent (P7).
Li does not explicitly teach a lithium alloy of said metal on a surface of said core material and the electrolyte being a lithium salt.
The invention of Iguchi encompasses lithium ion secondary battery. Iguchi teaches the electrolyte being a lithium salt (para. 18-22).
In view of Iguchi, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the invention of Li to employ a lithium salt, since using a well known electrolyte is within purview of one skill in the art.
Instant application discloses that a lithium alloy of said metal on a surface of said core material is formed when current is applied to the mixture of anode material (claim 26).
Li in view of Iguchi also apply current to the mixture of anode material (Li, P9 & Iguchi, para. 68-70). Since Li in view of Iguchi and the claimed battery employ substantially similar materials and manufacturing process, it is reasonable to believe that the claimed properties (an initial coulombic efficiency (iCE) of said anode is greater than 90%, a cycling coulombic efficiency (cCE) of said anode is greater than 99%, or anode retains at least 90% of initial capacity after 200 deep galvanostatic charge/discharge cycles) would have naturally flowed following the teachings of Li in view of Iguchi. See MPEP 2112.01 & In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). MPEP 2145 & Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985)
Re Claims 18-20. Li in view of Iguchi does not expressly disclose an initial coulombic efficiency, a cycling coulombic efficiency, or a capacity retention rate after 200 cycles.
However, since Li in view of Iguchi and the claimed battery employ substantially similar materials and manufacturing process, it is reasonable to believe that the claimed properties (an initial coulombic efficiency (iCE) of said anode is greater than 90%, a cycling coulombic efficiency (cCE) of said anode is greater than 99%, or anode retains at least 90% of initial capacity after 200 deep galvanostatic charge/discharge cycles) would have naturally flowed following the teachings of Li in view of Iguchi.
Re Claim 22. The combination teaches wherein said lithium salt comprises lithium hexafluorophosphate (LiPF6) (Iguchi, para. 18-22).
Re Claim 23. The combination teaches wherein said organic electrolyte solution comprises a solvent that has a reduction potential of about 0.3 V or less at room temperature (P7, tetrahydrofuran).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 37 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 37: The prior art, taken alone or in combination, fails to teach that the amount of metal-oxide on the surface of said core material is less than 10% by weight.
Conclusion
The rejections above rely on the references for all the teachings expressed in the text of the references and/or one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably understood from the texts. Only specific portions of the texts have been pointed out to emphasize certain aspects of the prior art, however, each reference as a whole should be reviewed in responding to the rejection, since other sections of the same reference and/or various combinations of the cited references may be relied on in future rejections in view of amendments.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN E YOON whose telephone number is (571)270-5932. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9 AM- 5 PM.
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, Keith Walker can be reached at 571-272-3458. 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.
/KEVIN E YOON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735
5/13/2026
Prosecution Insights