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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/13/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 02/13/2026 does not place the application in condition for allowance.
In view of the amendment to claims 19, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) of claims 19-26 has been withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 18-26 under U.S.C. 103 has been maintained.
Response to Arguments
In response to applicants’ argument that the secondary references are not compatible with high silicon systems, such as the one in the primary reference Shin, Ikeuchi is only brought in to add a small percentage acid additive as written in the high silicon system of claims 18 and 19 and Ikeuchi does show their system is compatible with Si-graphite systems(¶[0092] of Ikeuchi). Kim is similarly relied upon solely to teach the choice of positive electrode materials and is removed from the potential expansion issues of silicon within the negative electrode material and teaching is present to exclude the use of silicon anode materials. Similarly, the teachings of Dong are of a silicon based electrode and is relied upon only for the selection of a specific lithium salt and solvent in the liquid electrolyte already present in the primary reference Shin. No evidence of incompatibility was found in any other the secondary references. For the above reasons the incompatibility of the secondary references with a high silicon system is not found persuasive.
Regarding applicants’ argument Shin and Ikeuchi are incompatible because shin uses a “solvent-free” system, Shin’s anode fabrication is compatible with both a wet or dry process (¶[0073] of Shin) and furthermore Ikeuchi does not teach the requirement of the slurry but rather discloses one embodiment of the use of the acids as a dispersant. Therefore, no incompatibility based on the method of fabrication using a “solvent free” system was found.
In response to applicant's argument that there is no reasonable expectation of success in the combination of Shin and Ikeuchi, Kim and Dong, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin et. al. (US20210249657) in view of Ikeuchi (US20210288326).
Regarding claim 18, Shin discloses an anode with a current collector (¶[0073]) and active materials which may range in particle size from 1 nm to 1000 µm and includes a binder (¶[0042]) which may be a polymer which forms a network and therefore encloses the active material (¶[0058) and wherein the anode comprises up to 60% silicon(¶[0048]), but does not disclose an acid comprising oxalic acid, citric acid, maleic acid, tartaric acid, and 1,2,3,4- butanetetracarboxylic acid, ranging from about 0.01 to about 2 wt%.
Ikeuchi, related to battery electrodes, teaches an auxiliary dispersant of citric and tartaric acid(¶[0094]) to enhance dispersibility of the active material of the electrode in a concentration of 0.01-5% by mass(¶[0121]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized adding the acid of Ikeuchi to the anode of Shin would have improved dispersibility.
Therefore it would have been obvious to add the acid of Ikeuchi to the anode of Shin to improve dispersibility.
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP §2144.05.
Claims 19-24, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin (US20210249657) in view of Dong et. al. (US20220393226) further in view of Ikeuchi (US20210288326)..
Regarding claim 19, Shin discloses an electrochemical device (i.e. energy storage device, ¶[0069]) including an anode with a current collector (¶[0073]) and active materials which may range in particle size from 1 nm to 1000 µm and includes a binder (¶[0042]) which may be a polymer which forms a network and therefore encloses the active material (¶[0058)) ) and wherein the anode comprises up to 60% silicon(¶[0048]), but does not disclose an acid comprising oxalic acid, citric acid, maleic acid, tartaric acid, and 1,2,3,4- butanetetracarboxylic acid, ranging from about 0.01 to about 2 wt%.
Ikeuchi, related to battery electrodes, teaches an auxiliary dispersant of citric and tartaric acid(¶[0094]) to enhance dispersibility of the active material of the electrode in a concentration of 0.01-5% by mass(¶[0121]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized adding the acid of Ikeuchi to the anode of Shin would have improved dispersibility.
Therefore it would have been obvious to add the acid of Ikeuchi to the anode of Shin to improve dispersibility.
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP §2144.05.
Shin further discloses a electrolyte which may be a dual-salt electrolyte including LiPF6 (¶[0076]) and may include an additive(¶[0078]). Shin does not disclose wherein the lithium salt LiFSI or the solvent fluoroethylene carbonate is used.
Dong, related to dual-salt electrolytes, teaches an electrolyte containing LiPF6 and LiFSI lithium salts with the aprotic solvent fluoroethylene carbonate (i.e. FEC)(see table 5, E13-15) and also teaches additives may be included in the electrolyte (¶[0063]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized using the electrolyte salts and solvent of Dong in place of the electrolyte of Shin would have provided a low gassing electrolyte which improves cell production (¶[0088]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have used the electrolyte of Dong in place of the electrolyte of Shin to reduce gas production and improve cell production.
Regarding claim 20, modified Shin discloses an electrochemical energy storage device according to claim 19, wherein the plurality of active material particles are silicon particles (¶[0047]).
Regarding claim 21, modified Shin discloses an electrochemical energy storage device according to claim 19, wherein the anode comprises one or more of graphite, hard-carbon, tin, and germanium particles mixed with the plurality of active material particles (¶[0085]).
Regarding claim 22, modified Shin discloses an electrochemical energy storage device according to claim 19, wherein the at least one polymer comprises polyacrylonitrile (PAN)(¶[0058).
Regarding claim 23, modified Shin discloses an electrochemical energy storage device according to claim 19, wherein the LiPF6 and LiFSI lithium salts are present in the range of from 0.4-1.2 M and 0.5-1.3 M respectively in the electrolyte solvents, which overlaps with the range of 10 to 30 wt. %, and the fluoroethylene carbonate is present in the range of from 5 to 25 wt. % of the electrolyte (see table 5, E13-15).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP §2144.05.
Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized optimizing the concentration of lithium salts in the electrolyte solution would result in improved cycle life and thermal stability (¶0087]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have optimized the electrolyte concentrations of Dong within the energy storage device of modified Shin to obtain improved cycle life and thermal stability.
“[W]here 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). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Regarding claim 24, modified Shin discloses an electrochemical energy storage device according to claim 19, wherein the cathode comprises a lithium metal oxide, spinel, olivine, sulfur, or mixture thereof (¶[0082]).
Regarding claim 26, modified Shin discloses an electrochemical energy storage device according to claim 19, further comprising a porous separator separating the anode and cathode from each other (¶[0072]).
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin (US20210249657) in view of Ikeuchi (US20210288326), in view of Dong et. al. (US20220393226) as applied to claim 19 and further in view of Kim (US20140199602A1).
Regarding claim 25, modified Shin discloses an electrochemical energy storage device according to claim 19, and Shin further discloses wherein the cathode is a transition metal oxide material (¶[008522]), but does not disclose an over-lithiated oxide material.
Kim, related to lithium battery cathode materials, teaches a positive electrode including an over-lithiated lithium transition metal oxide (¶[0013]) which provides the battery with high capacity and structural stability (¶[0042])
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized using the over-lithiated cathode material of Kim in place of the cathode material of Shin would have provided a battery with high capacity and structural stability.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have used the over-lithiated cathode material of Kim in place of the cathode material of Shin to gain high capacity and structural stability.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAREN J. ARMSTRONG whose telephone number is (703)756-1243. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10 am-6 pm EST.
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, Jeffrey Barton can be reached at (571) 272-1307. 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.
/K.J.A./Examiner, Art Unit 1726 /RYAN S CANNON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726
Prosecution Insights