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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 February 11, 2026, has been entered.
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(s) 1-3, 7, 22, and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Fan et al. (“In Situ Electrochemical Regeneration of Degraded LiFePO4 Electrode with Functionalized Prelithiation Separator”, Advanced Energy Materials 12(18), 2103630, May 2022) in view of Xiao et al. (US 2018/0254531 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Fan teaches a lithium-ion battery comprising a positive electrode (LFP), negative electrode (graphite), and separator (Celgard 2500) (Fan 4 Experimental Section, The Regeneration Simulation Experiments in Coin Cell), with a porous layer (Li2C2O4/CMK-3 and PVDF) between the separator and the positive electrode (Fan 4 Experimental Section, Preparation of the Li2C2O4/CMK-3 Composite and the Functionalized Prelithiation Separator) with the lithiating material (Li2C2O4) filling at least some of the porosity (i.e., the pores in the CMK-3 and the space between the CMK-3/binder matrix).
The porous material has a porosity of greater than 30% (90% Li2C2O4/CMK-3 at a 7:2 ratio and 10% PVDF in an NMP solvent, which will evaporate and leave additional pore volume), which overlaps the range of the instant claim, with the lithium oxalate filling some fraction of the porosity (Fan 4 Experimental Section, Preparation of the Li2C2O4/CMK-3 Composite and the Functionalized Prelithiation Separator). 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). Fan indicates that the lithium oxalate is depleted during the lithiation process, leaving holes in the places it originally occupied (Fan 2.3 Electrochemical Evaluation of the Regeneration Strategy Based on FPS, 2nd paragraph). The porosity filled by the lithium oxalate will therefore necessarily decrease over the course of the lithiation process, including to values from 30-60%, which falls within the range of the instant claim.
Fan does not teach that the porous layer has a "base porosity" that is filled with the lithiating material. However, this product-by-process limitation does not patentably distinguish the instant claim over the prior art. The resulting product is a porous layer with pores filled by lithiating material, whether the pores are filled during or after formation. See MPEP 2113 I and In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to fill the pores of the prelithiation layer of Fan at any point, including after formation.
Fan does not teach that porous layer comprises a zeolite. Xiao is directed to a lithium-ion battery. Xiao teaches that incorporating lithiated zeolite into a component of a lithium-ion battery, such as a coating on one of the electrodes, improves the life and cycle performance of the battery (Xiao [0034] and [0057]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to incorporate the lithiated zeolite of Xiao into the prelithiation layer of Fan in order to improve the life and cycle performance of the battery.
Regarding claim 2, the porous layer is a continuous coating on the surface of the separating layer (Fan 4 Experimental Section, Preparation of the Li2C2O4/CMK-3 Composite and the Functionalized Prelithiation Separator).
Regarding claim 3, modified Fan does not teach that the coating is on the electrode. Modified Fan teaches that the porous layer is coated onto the separator, which is then applied to the positive electrode (Fan 4 Experimental Section). However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to apply the coating to either surface, as the final product will still be between the two layers and held in place by compression. Changing the initial location of the coating would not be expected to impact the functioning of the final product. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Regarding claim 7, the porous layer has an average thickness of 25 µm (Fan Fig. 4c), which falls within the range of the instant claim.
Regarding claim 22, modified Fan does not disclose a layer thickness of 50 nm – 20 µm. Fan discloses a porous layer with an average thickness of 25 µm (Fan Fan Fig. 4c). Fan teaches that the coating thickness is flexible and can be adjusted using different coaters (Fan 4. Experimental Section). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to ascertain and employ a desired/optimal thickness range via routine experimentation, including values within the claimed range, as it has been held that “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 MPEP 2144.05, citing In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 23, the porous material has a porosity of greater than 30% (90% Li2C2O4/CMK-3 at a 7:2 ratio and 10% PVDF in an NMP solvent, which will evaporate and leave additional pore volume), which overlaps the range of the instant claim, with the lithium oxalate filling some fraction of the porosity (Fan 4 Experimental Section, Preparation of the Li2C2O4/CMK-3 Composite and the Functionalized Prelithiation Separator). 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).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fan in view of Xiao as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhou et al. (“Influence of Hierarchical Porosity in Carbon Material on Electrocatalytic Property of Supported Pt Nanoparticles”, Acta Physico-Chimica Sinica 24(5), pp. 839-843, May 2008).
Regarding claim 5, modified Fan does not teach the use of an aerogel. Fan teaches the use of ordered mesoporous carbon as a conductive substrate with high specific surface area and good electrical conductivity (Fan 2.2 Fabrication and Characterization of FPS). Zhou is directed to the electrocatalytic performance of porous carbon materials. Zhou teaches that carbon aerogel is superior to ordered mesoporous carbon as a substrate (Zhou 3 Conclusions). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to replace the mesoporous carbon of Fan with carbon aerogel in order to improve performance.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fan in view of Xiao as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Holtstiege et al. (“Pre-Lithiation Strategies for Rechargeable Energy Storage Technologies: Concepts, Promises and Challenges”, Batteries 4(1) 4, January 2018).
Regarding claim 6, modified Fan does not teach the use of lithium peroxide. Holtstiege is directed to prelithiation methods for lithium-ion batteries. Holtstiege teaches that both lithium peroxide (Holtstiege p. 19, 3rd paragraph) and lithium oxalate (Holtstiege p. 19, last paragraph) can be used as cathode additives for prelithiation. Lithium peroxide and lithium oxalate are therefore art-recognized equivalents for the same purpose, and substituting equivalents known for the same purpose is prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.06 II). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to replace lithium oxalate with lithium peroxide, since they are art-recognized equivalents for the same purpose.
Claim(s) 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fan in view of Xiao and Holtstiege.
Regarding claim 8, Fan teaches a lithium-ion battery comprising a positive electrode (LFP), negative electrode (graphite), and separator (Celgard 2500) (Fan 4 Experimental Section, The Regeneration Simulation Experiments in Coin Cell), with a porous layer (Li2C2O4/CMK-3 and PVDF) between the separator and the positive electrode (Fan 4 Experimental Section, Preparation of the Li2C2O4/CMK-3 Composite and the Functionalized Prelithiation Separator). The porous material has a porosity of approximately 30% (90% Li2C2O4/CMK-3 at a 7:2 ratio and 10% PVDF), which falls within the range of the instant claim, with the lithium oxalate filling approximately 100% of the porosity (Fan 4 Experimental Section, Preparation of the Li2C2O4/CMK-3 Composite and the Functionalized Prelithiation Separator).
The porous material has a porosity of greater than 30% (90% Li2C2O4/CMK-3 at a 7:2 ratio and 10% PVDF in an NMP solvent, which will evaporate and leave additional pore volume), which overlaps the range of the instant claim, with the lithium oxalate filling some fraction of the porosity (4 Experimental Section, Preparation of the Li2C2O4/CMK-3 Composite and the Functionalized Prelithiation Separator). 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). Fan indicates that the lithium oxalate is depleted during the lithiation process, leaving holes in the places it originally occupied (2.3 Electrochemical Evaluation of the Regeneration Strategy Based on FPS, 2nd paragraph). The porosity filled by the lithium oxalate will therefore necessarily decrease over the course of the lithiation process, including to values from 30-60%, which falls within the range of the instant claim.
Fan does not teach that the porous layer has a "base porosity" that is filled with the lithiating material. However, this product-by-process limitation does not patentably distinguish the instant claim over the prior art. The resulting product is a porous layer with pores filled by lithiating material, whether the pores are filled during or after formation. See MPEP 2113 I and In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to fill the pores of the prelithiation layer of Fan at any point, including after formation.
Fan does not teach the use of lithium peroxide. Holtstiege teaches that both lithium peroxide (Holtstiege p. 19, 3rd paragraph) and lithium oxalate (Holtstiege p. 19, last paragraph) can be used as cathode additives for prelithiation. Lithium peroxide and lithium oxalate are therefore art-recognized equivalents for the same purpose, and substituting equivalents known for the same purpose is prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.06 II). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to replace lithium oxalate with lithium peroxide, since they are art-recognized equivalents for the same purpose.
Fan does not teach that porous layer comprises a zeolite. Xiao is directed to a lithium-ion battery. Xiao teaches that incorporating lithiated zeolite into a component of a lithium-ion battery, such as a coating on one of the electrodes, improves the life and cycle performance of the battery (Xiao [0034] and [0057]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to incorporate the lithiated zeolite of Xiao into the prelithiation layer of Fan in order to improve the life and cycle performance of the battery.
Regarding claim 9, the porous layer is a continuous coating on the surface of the separating layer (Fan 4 Experimental Section, Preparation of the Li2C2O4/CMK-3 Composite and the Functionalized Prelithiation Separator).
Regarding claim 10, modified Fan teaches that the porous layer is coated onto the separator, which is then applied to the positive electrode (Fan 4 Experimental Section). However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to apply the coating to either surface, as the final product will still be between the two layers and held in place by compression. Changing the initial location of the coating would not be expected to impact the functioning of the final product. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fan in view of Xiao and Holtstiege as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Zhou.
Regarding claim 12, modified Fan does not teach the use of an aerogel. Modified Fan teaches the use of ordered mesoporous carbon as a conductive substrate with high specific surface area and good electrical conductivity (Fan 2.2 Fabrication and Characterization of FPS). Zhou teaches that carbon aerogel is superior to ordered mesoporous carbon as a substrate (Zhou 3 Conclusions). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to replace the mesoporous carbon of modified Fan with carbon aerogel in order to improve performance.
The porous layer has an average thickness of 25 µm (Fan Fig. 4c), which falls within the range of the instant claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES A CORNO JR whose telephone number is (571)270-0745. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 am - 5:00 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, Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at (571) 272-3433. 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.A.C/ Examiner, Art Unit 1722
/ANCA EOFF/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722
Prosecution Insights