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
Claims 7-10 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on January 7th, 2026.
Priority
Applicant has made a claim of domestic priority to U.S. Provisional Application No. 63/234,676 filed August 18th, 2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS)’s submitted on 05/31/2023 (2), 05/28/2024, and 10/16/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 5 recites "the spherical-shaped nanoparticles a diameter of less" in which is not grammatically correct. It Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim language “lithium-metal oxide in intercalated between layers of metal oxide” is not grammatically correct (specifically “in intercalated”); it appears the applicant intended to recite “lithium-metal oxide intercalated between layers of metal oxide” (said interpretation is used for examination purposes). Appropriate correction is required.
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 17-20 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 17 recites the limitation "the electrically insulating container." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. An electrically insulating container has not been described previously in the claim or dependent claims. Claim 11 recites a container but does not describe it as electrically insulating. Appropriate correction is required.
Further, Claim 17 recites the phrase “enhanced performance” in which is broad and is not sufficiently defined in the disclosure to provide a meaning that lacks ambiguity. It is unclear what specific improvements would constitute a performance enhancement. Therefore, the scope of the claims is not clear in view of the claim language. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 18-20 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20100273057 A1) in view of Miller (U.S. Pat. No. 20130337189 A1), and further in view of Niedermeyer (U.S. Pat. No. 10610934 B2).
Regarding Claim 1, Watanabe et al. discloses an electrolyte for use in lithium-ion batteries ([0252], [0275]); an electrolyte carrier that is a gel (an electrolyte that is formed in a gel state), comprising one or more complexes of lithium ions such as from LiPF6 or LiClO4 or mixtures thereof ([0252]).
Watanabe et al. does not teach the electrolyte comprising ground state metal nanoparticles formed by laser ablation.
Miller teaches an electrolyte comprising ground state metal nanoparticles (Miller discloses a method of improving the performance of a lithium battery by providing a metal nanoparticle [0050]; as the metal is not described as possessing a charge, it is implied that the metal nanoparticle is in ground state). "[I]n considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom." In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968) (see MPEP 2144.01). Utilizing the electrolyte of Miller in a lithium battery prevents dendrite formation and removes the obstacle caused by utilizing lithium as a battery anode ([0291])). Miller teaches that the nanoparticles are of uniform composition.
Niedermeyer teaches a method of forming uniform and spherical nanoparticles by laser ablation (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electrolyte of Watanabe et al. to include ground state metal nanoparticles as taught by Miller in which are formed by laser ablation as taught by Niedermeyer. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the described modification to provide an electrolyte for a lithium battery in which prevents dendrite formation and reduces the problems related to utilizing lithium as a battery anode (Miller, [0290]-[0291])); and to determine a suitable method to maximize the spherical shape uniformity as taught by Niedermeyer. As Miller does not disclose a particular method for forming the uniform nanoparticles, one of ordinary skill in the art would find the teachings of Niedermeyer useful when making, using, or understanding Miller’s invention.
Regarding Claim 2, Watanabe et al. is modified by Miller and Niedermeyer and teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. Watanabe et al. discloses that the carrier (gel) can comprise ethylene carbonate in which is an organic carbonate ([0135]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to utilize the teachings of Watanabe to provide a lithium ion battery having enhanced performance (increased charge current capacity and energy density, [0007]). Therefore, all claim limitations are met.
Regarding Claim 3, Watanabe et al. is modified by Miller and Niedermeyer teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. Watanabe et al. discloses that the carrier (gel) comprises a polymer ([0134]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to utilize the teachings of Watanabe to provide a lithium ion battery having enhanced performance (increased charge current capacity and energy density, [0007]). Therefore, all claim limitations are met.
Regarding Claim 4, Watanabe et al. is modified by Miller and Niedermeyer teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. As applied to Claim 1, the electrolyte of Watanabe et al. is modified by Miller to include ground state metal nanoparticles with a motivation to prevent dendrite formation, solving the problem of utilizing lithium as a battery anode in a lithium battery.
Watanabe et al. does not teach the ground state metal nanoparticles comprising spherical-shaped gold nanoparticles.
Miller teaches that the ground state metal nanoparticles can comprise spherical-shaped gold nanoparticles ([0050], [0053]). Utilizing the electrolyte of Miller in a lithium battery prevents dendrite formation and removes the obstacle caused by utilizing lithium as a battery anode ([0291])).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electrolyte of Watanabe et al. to include spherical-shaped gold nanoparticles as taught by Miller. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the described modification to provide an electrolyte for a lithium battery in which prevents dendrite formation, solving the problem of utilizing lithium as a battery anode in a lithium battery ([0290]-[0291])).
Regarding Claim 5, Watanabe et al. is modified by Miller and Niedermeyer teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 4 above. As applied to Claim 4, the electrolyte of Watanabe et al. is modified by Miller to include spherical-shaped gold nanoparticles with a motivation to prevent dendrite formation, solving the problem of utilizing lithium as a battery anode in a lithium battery.
Watanabe et al. does not teach the spherical-shaped nanoparticles having a diameter of less than about 20 nm, or less than about 15 nm, less than about 10 nm, or less than about 7 nm.
Miller teaches that the spherical-shaped nanoparticles can have a diameter of less than about 20 nm ([0016]). Utilizing the electrolyte of Miller in a lithium battery prevents dendrite formation and removes the obstacle caused by utilizing lithium as a battery anode ([0291])).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the electrolyte of Watanabe et al. to include spherical-shaped nanoparticles with a diameter of less than about 20 nm as taught by Miller, meeting the limitations of the claimed range. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the described modification to provide an electrolyte for a lithium battery in which prevents dendrite formation and reduces the problems related to utilizing lithium as a battery anode ([0290]-[0291])).
Regarding Claim 6, Watanabe et al. is modified by Miller and Niedermeyer teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. As applied to Claim 1, the electrolyte of Watanabe et al. is modified by Miller to include ground state metal nanoparticles with a motivation to prevent dendrite formation, solving the problem of utilizing lithium as a battery anode in a lithium battery.
Watanabe et al. does not teach that the ground state metal nanoparticles are included in a concentration of at least 100 ppb and up to 100 ppm, or up to 50 ppm, or up to 25 ppm, or up to 10 ppm, or up to 5 ppm by weight of the electrolyte.
Miller teaches wherein the amount of nanoparticles is a result-effective variable depending on the application ([0064]) in which it would be obvious to arrive at a concentration within the range of 100 ppb to 100 ppm. At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the amount or concentration of nanoparticles because Miller teaches that a composite containing larger particles will be stiffer and flow less easily compared to smaller particles depending on a given volume fraction ([106]); therefore, Miller teaches the size and amount (volume) of particles has an effect on the particle flow. Correspondingly, Miller teaches that the mechanical and thermal stability can be improved ([0107]). The courts have held that “a particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation," (See MPEP 2144.05, II, B). Furthermore, the courts have held that “generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical” (See MPEP 2144.05, II, A).
Claims 11-13, 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20100273057 A1) in view of Miller (U.S. Pat. No. 20130337189 A1) and Niedermeyer (U.S. Pat. No. 10610934 B2) and further in view of Guo et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20200123008 A1).
Regarding Claim 11, Watanabe teaches a lithium ion battery having enhanced performance (increased charge current capacity and energy density, [0007]), comprising:
a negative electrode capable of intercalating/deintercalating lithium ([0247]) in which comprises lithium during the charging process,
a positive electrode comprising a lithium metal-oxide ([0007])
an electrolyte in which is inherently in contact or between the negative electrode and positive electrode to function as a medium for ion transport ([0123])
a container (battery can) in which the negative electrode, positive electrode, and electrolyte are positioned ([0158]).
Watanabe et al. discloses the electrolyte comprising a carrier that is a gel (an electrolyte that is formed in a gel state), comprising one or more complexes of lithium ions such as from LiPF-6 or LiClO4 or mixtures thereof ([0252]).
Watanabe does not teach the negative electrode comprising ground state lithium (Li).
Guo et al. teaches a negative electrode for a lithium ion battery comprising ground state lithium (Li) in a lithium-carbon composite material to improve the cycle stability of the battery ([0012]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the negative electrode of Watanabe to include ground state lithium as taught by Guo et al. to improve the cycle stability of the battery as described above.
Watanabe et al. does not teach the electrolyte comprising ground state metal nanoparticles formed by laser ablation.
Miller teaches an electrolyte comprising ground state metal nanoparticles (Miller discloses a method of improving the performance of a lithium battery by providing a metal nanoparticle [0050]; as the metal is not described as possessing a charge, it is implied that the metal nanoparticle is in ground state). Utilizing the electrolyte of Miller in a lithium battery prevents dendrite formation and removes the obstacle caused by utilizing lithium as a battery anode ([0291])). Miller teaches that the nanoparticles are of uniform composition.
Niedermeyer teaches a method of forming uniform and spherical nanoparticles by laser ablation (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electrolyte of Watanabe et al. to include ground state metal nanoparticles as taught by Miller in which are formed by laser ablation as taught by Niedermeyer. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the described modification to provide an electrolyte for a lithium battery in which prevents dendrite formation and reduces the problems related to utilizing lithium as a battery anode (Miller, [0290]-[0291])); and to determine a suitable method to maximize the spherical shape uniformity as taught by Niedermeyer (Abstract). As Miller does not disclose a particular method for forming the uniform nanoparticles, one of ordinary skill in the art would find the teachings of Niedermeyer useful when making, using, or understanding Miller’s invention.
Regarding Claim 12, Watanabe et al. is modified by Miller, Niedermeyer, and Guo et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 11 above. Watanabe et al. discloses that the negative electrode active material is capable of intercalation and deintercalation lithium such as graphite ([0127]).
Watanabe et al. does not teach lithium metal intercalated between layers of graphite.
Guo et al. teaches lithium metal intercalated between layers of graphite ([0007], [0049] teaches metallic lithium dispersed in pores of carbon material which can include graphite in a sheet-like (layered) form). Guo et al. teaches a negative electrode for a lithium ion battery comprising ground state lithium (Li) in a lithium-carbon composite material to improve the cycle stability of the battery ([0012]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the negative electrode of Watanabe et al. to include lithium metal intercalated between layers of graphite as taught by Guo et al. to improve the cycle stability of the battery as described above.
Regarding Claim 13, Watanabe et al. is modified by Miller, Niedermeyer, and Guo et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 11 above. As applied to Claim 11, Watanabe discloses a positive electrode comprising a lithium metal-oxide in which can include LiNiO₂ or LiCoO₂ from the standpoints of high potential, stability, and long life ([0007]). Therefore, all claim limitations are met.
Regarding Claim 15, Watanabe et al. is modified by Miller, Niedermeyer, and Guo et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 11 above. As applied to Claim 11, the electrolyte of Watanabe et al. is modified by Miller to include ground state metal nanoparticles with a motivation to prevent dendrite formation, solving the problem of utilizing lithium as a battery anode in a lithium battery.
Watanabe et al. does not teach the ground state metal nanoparticles comprising spherical-shaped gold nanoparticles.
Miller teaches that the ground state metal nanoparticles can comprise spherical-shaped gold nanoparticles ([0050], [0053]). Utilizing the electrolyte of Miller in a lithium battery prevents dendrite formation and removes the obstacle caused by utilizing lithium as a battery anode ([0291])).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electrolyte of Watanabe et al. to include spherical-shaped gold nanoparticles as taught by Miller. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the described modification to provide an electrolyte for a lithium battery in which prevents dendrite formation, solving the problem of utilizing lithium as a battery anode in a lithium battery ([0290]-[0291])).
Regarding Claim 16, Watanabe et al. is modified by Miller, Niedermeyer, and Guo et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 11 above. As applied to Claim 11, the electrolyte of Watanabe et al. is modified by Miller to include ground state metal nanoparticles with a motivation to prevent dendrite formation, solving the problem of utilizing lithium as a battery anode in a lithium battery.
Watanabe et al. does not teach that the ground state metal nanoparticles are included in a concentration of at least 100 ppb and up to 100 ppm, or up to 50 ppm, or up to 25 ppm, or up to 10 ppm, or up to 5 ppm by weight of the electrolyte.
Miller teaches wherein the amount of nanoparticles is a result-effective variable depending on the application ([0064]). At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the amount of nanoparticles because Miller teaches that a composite containing larger particles will be stiffer and flow less easily compared to smaller particles depending on a given volume fraction ([106]); therefore, Miller teaches the size and amount (volume) of particles has an effect on the particle flow. Correspondingly, Miller teaches that the mechanical and thermal stability can be improved ([0107]). The courts have held that “a particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation," (See MPEP 2144.05, II, B). Furthermore, the courts have held that “generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical” (See MPEP 2144.05, II, A).
Regarding Claim 17, Watanabe et al. is modified by Miller, Niedermeyer, and Guo et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 11 above. As applied to Claim 11, the negative electrode of Watanabe is modified to include ground state lithium as taught by Guo et al. to improve the cycle stability of the battery. Watanabe et al. discloses a method of manufacturing a lithium ion battery ([0118]) of enhanced performance (increased charge current capacity and energy density, [0007]) comprising:
providing the electrolyte ([0158]),
placing the electrolyte in contact with the negative electrode, placing the electrolyte in contact with the positive electrode (injecting the electrolyte inside of the battery can and impregnating into the separator in which implies contact between the electrolyte and the negative/positive electrode ([0158]); the negative electrode such as graphite comprises lithium during the charging process and is further modified by Guo to include ground state lithium as applied to Claim 11; and Watanabe discloses the positive electrode comprises a lithium metal-oxide ([0007]);
positioning the negative and positive electrodes and the electrolyte within the electrically insulating container ([0158]); the exterior member can comprise an insulating layer forming an electrically insulating container ([0120]) in which the negative/positive electrodes and the electrolyte are arranged within the electrically insulating container.
“Although the specification discussed only a single embodiment, the court held that it was improper to read a specific order of steps into method claims where, as a matter of logic or grammar, the language of the method claims did not impose a specific order on the performance of the method steps, and the specification did not directly or implicitly require a particular order. See Altiris Inc. v. Symantec Corp., 318 F.3d 1363, 1371, 65 USPQ2d 1865, 1869-70 (Fed. Cir. 2003)” (see MPEP 2111.01(II)); further, applicant acknowledges that the steps can be performed in any order (spec. [0016]).
Regarding Claim 18, Watanabe et al. is modified by Miller, Niedermeyer, and Guo et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 17 above. Watanabe et al. discloses that the negative electrode active material is capable of intercalation and deintercalation lithium such as graphite ([0127]).
Watanabe et al. does not teach lithium metal intercalated between layers of graphite.
Guo et al. teaches lithium metal intercalated between layers of graphite ([0007], [0049] teaches metallic lithium dispersed in pores of carbon material which can include graphite in a sheet-like (layered) form). Guo et al. teaches a negative electrode for a lithium ion battery comprising ground state lithium (Li) in a lithium-carbon composite material to improve the cycle stability of the battery ([0012]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the negative electrode of Watanabe et al. to include lithium metal intercalated between layers of graphite as taught by Guo et al. to improve the cycle stability of the battery as described above.
Regarding Claim 19, Watanabe et al. is modified by Miller, Niedermeyer, and Guo et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 17 above. As applied to Claim 11, Watanabe discloses a positive electrode comprising a lithium metal-oxide in which can include LiNiO₂ or LiCoO₂ from the standpoints of high potential, stability, and long life ([0007]). Therefore, all claim limitations are met.
Regarding Claim 20, Watanabe et al. is modified by Miller, Niedermeyer, and Guo et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 17 above. As applied to Claim 11, the electrolyte of Watanabe et al. is modified by Miller to include ground state metal nanoparticles with a motivation to prevent dendrite formation, solving the problem of utilizing lithium as a battery anode in a lithium battery providing enhanced battery performance ([0291])). The fact that appellant has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious" Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985) (see MPEP 2145(II)).
Claims 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20100273057 A1) in view of Niedermeyer (U.S. Pat. No. 20190165426 A1) as further evidenced by Amatucci et al. (Amatucci, G. G., Tarascon, J. M., & Klein, L. C. (2024, March 11). Lithium cobalt oxide - licoo2 - conduction animation. ChemTube3D. https://www.chemtube3d.com/lib_lco-2/) and Jeon et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20190165412 A1).
Regarding Claim 14, Watanabe et al. is modified by Miller, Niedermeyer, and Guo et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 13 above. Watanabe discloses a positive electrode comprising a lithium metal-oxide in which can include LiNiO₂ or LiCoO₂ from the standpoints of high potential, stability, and long life ([0007]). Watanabe discloses that the lithium-metal oxide comprises a layered rock salt structure ([0172]). In this case, the structure of a lithium metal oxide inherently possesses lithium intercalated between layers of cobalt oxide (metal oxide) as further evident by Amatucci et al.; Amatucci et al. provides a structure of LiCoO--2 in which visibly includes lithium intercalated between layers of CoO2. It is further known that a cathode material can include both a lithium metal oxide and cobalt oxide as further evidenced by Jeon et al. (Jeon et al. teaches a cathode material comprising a mixture of CoO2 and LiCoO2 with benefits of improving battery performance and capacity ([0035]). It would be obvious to apply a known technique such as intercalation to said active materials to modify the interlayer interactions and provide uniformity within the electrode; "Applying a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is likely to be obvious. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, D.)."
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINA RENEE DAULTON whose telephone number is (703)756-5413. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 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, ULA RUDDOCK can be reached at (571) 272-1481. 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.
/C.R.D./Examiner, Art Unit 1729
/ULA C RUDDOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729