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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 05/08/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1, 3-5, 7, 9-12, 14-20 are pending, with claims 15-20 withdrawn according to a previous office action. The amendment to claim 1 overcomes the previous prior art rejections. The amendments to claim 1 and claim 4 overcome the previous 35 USC 112(b) rejections to the original claims; however, the amendments to claim 1 regarding recited color of the lithium-source core body and recited greyscale of the lithium supplement additive pose new 35 USC 112(b) issues.
New rejections follow.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 7, 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 7 recites “wherein the carbon material comprises at least one of graphene, carbon nanotubes, amorphous carbon, graphite, and carbon black.” Parent claim 1 provides a method for forming the dense isolating capsulation layer made of the carbon material, but the instant specification does not disclose the claimed method as resulting in a carbon material comprising of one of graphene, carbon nanotubes, amorphous carbon, graphite, and carbon black (instant spec: [¶ 0077], [¶ 0051], [¶ 0057]). Therefore, the instant specification does not provide support for claim 7 in the context of amended claim 1.
Claim 9 recites “wherein the functional capsulation layer further comprises at least one of an ionic conductor capsulation layer and an electronic conductor capsulation layer” but claim 1 already recites an electronic conductor capsulation layer. The instant specification does not provide support for two electronic conductor capsulation layers; see Figs. 4-5: electronic conductor capsulation layer 23 in addition to [¶ 0048-0049, 0052, 0054-0055, 0058, 0082-0088].
Claims 10-12 depend on claim 9 and therefore also do not satisfy the new matter requirement.
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 1, 3-5, 7, 9-12, 14 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 1 recites multiple instances of “a dense isolating capsulation layer” (first introduced in line 7) and a method of forming a dense carbon layer that serves as the dense isolating capsulation layer but does not provide guidance in the specification as to what is meant by the term “dense” in terms of structural features, such as, for example, porosity and degree of density.
Claim 1 also recites “a color of the lithium-source core body corresponds to grades 2 to 6 in a standard color chart defined by RGB values and HSL values as set forth in Table 1 of the specification, and the color of the lithium-source core body is correlated with purity of the lithium-source core body” and also recites “wherein the standard greyscale color chart is defined by RGB values and HSL values as set forth in Table 2 of the specification.” The MPEP 2173.05(s) states that “Where possible, claims are to be complete in themselves. Incorporation by reference to a specific figure or table "is permitted only in exceptional circumstances where there is no practical way to define the invention in words and where it is more concise to incorporate by reference than duplicating a drawing or table into the claim. Incorporation by reference is a necessity doctrine, not for applicant’s convenience." Ex parte Fressola, 27 USPQ2d 1608, 1609 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1993) (citations omitted).” In this case, the relevant limitations can be incorporated in the claim without reference to the Tables in the specification.
Claims 3-5, 7, 9-12, 14 depend on claim 1 and are also indefinite.
Claims 5 and 9 recite “the isolating capsulation layer” but there is no antecedent basis for “the isolating capsulation layer,” only for “a dense isolating capsulation layer.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 also recites “and the functional capsulation layer having a composite multi-layer structure is formed by the at least one of the ionic conductor capsulation layer and the electronic conductor capsulation layer with the isolating capsulation layer” (lines 4-6). It is unclear whether the recited “electronic conductor capsulation layer” in the limitation corresponds to the instance introduced in line 3 of claim 9 or the instance introduced in line 8 of amended claim 1, or if the two instances correspond to the same electronic conductor capsulation layer. To advance prosecution, the term will be interpreted as the same electronic conductor capsulation layer in light of the instant specification [¶ 0048-0049, 0052, 0054-0055, 0058, 0082-0088]. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 10-12 depend on claim 9 and therefore also are indefinite.
Claim 10 recites “the functional capsulation layer comprises the isolating capsulation layer and the electronic conductor capsulation layer, the lithium-source core body is coated with the isolating capsulation layer, and the isolating capsulation layer is coated with the electronic conductor capsulation layer.” It is unclear whether the recited “electronic conductor capsulation layer” corresponds to the instance introduced in claim 9 or in claim 1, or if they are the same. To advance prosecution, the term will be interpreted as the same electronic conductor capsulation layer in light of the instant specification [¶ 0048-0049, 0052, 0054-0055, 0058, 0082-0088]. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 recites “a thickness of the electronic conductor capsulation layer is between 5 nm and 200 nm.” It is unclear whether the recited “electronic conductor capsulation layer” corresponds to the instance introduced in claim 9 or in claim 1, or if they are the same. To advance prosecution, the term will be interpreted as the same electronic conductor capsulation layer in light of the instant specification [¶ 0048-0049, 0052, 0054-0055, 0058, 0082-0088]. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7, 9-12, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maxwell et al (WO 2020132622 A1) in view of Jiao et al (CN 110729451 A).
Support is provided by evidentiary reference Li et al, “Polymers in Lithium-Ion and Lithium Metal Batteries,” Adv. Energy Mater. 2021, 11, 2003239; “dense”, Merriam-Webster, definition 1a; and “Lithium-ion Battery Chemicals,” table on p4 with entry “Lithium Nitride.”
Regarding claim 1, Maxwell teaches a lithium supplement additive ([¶ 0009], [¶ 00047]; Fig. 1) having a core-shell structure, the core-shell structure comprising: a core body 102; and
A shell layer (104 + 112) coated on the core body 102;
Wherein the core body is a lithium-source core body for supplying lithium
(Maxwell teaches the core body 102 may be composed of a lithium composite oxide that is a lithium metal oxide (LMO) as a positive electrode active material and also discloses that positive electrode active materials pass Li ions to Li-based negative electrodes during charging [¶ 0004]). Therefore, core body 102 is a lithium-source that supplies lithium)
and the shell layer is a functional capsulation layer
(Maxwell teaches surface layer 104 may provide at least a partial blocking interface such that the entire surface of the core particles 102 may not be fully exposed directly to an electrolyte in a battery [¶ 0050] and also teaches that passivating layer 112 may function as a shield to mitigate undesired side reactions between the core body and encapsulated components from electrolyte and air/moisture [¶ 0069]; thereby teaching the shell layer, comprising layers 104 and 112, is a functional capsulation layer),
and the functional capsulation layer comprises a dense isolating capsulation layer 112 which completely covers the lithium-source core body and an electronic conductor capsulation layer
(Maxwell teaches a passivating layer 112 may uniformly, continuously, and conformally coat the surface coating 104 such that the surface coating 104 may be considered completely covered by the passivating layer 112 [¶ 0069]; the carbon coating, which may be amorphous carbon, can be made by a polymer coating followed by a carbonization step [¶ 0113]. Such a coating functions as a dense isolating capsulation layer which completely covers the lithium-source core body, especially in the context of evidentiary reference Merriam-Webster definition of “dense” as ‘marked by compactness or crowding together of parts’; see definition 1a. Maxwell also discloses the passivating layer may be selected to be ionically and electrically conductive [¶ 0067]. Therefore, Maxwell teaches a functional capsulation layer comprising a passivating layer which corresponds to a dense isolating capsulation layer and an electronic conductor capsulation layer as claimed, and consistent with a configuration disclosed in [¶ 0058] of the instant specification, wherein “With this configuration, the carbon material coating layer has the above-mentioned functions of the isolating capsulation layer 22 and the electronic conductor capsulation layer 23 at the same time.”
Alternatively, Maxwell can also be relied on to teach a dense isolating capsulation layer and electronic conductor capsulation layer which are separate layers. Specifically, Maxwell teaches one or more passivating layers may be applied to a surface of a positive active material particle [¶ 0182]; that is, the passivating layer may be a plurality of passivating layers. Accordingly, a skilled artisan would have found it obvious to have combined multiple passivating layers with ionic and electric conductivity because Maxwell teaches it is known to have passivating layers be ionically and electrically conductive [¶ 0067] and that multiple passivating layers are a known and suitable configuration. The skilled artisan would have found it obvious to have combined individual passivating layers by known methods and with the expectation of success that in combination each dense layer would perform the same function as each does separately. According to this teaching, the combination of multiple passivating layers would provide at least one layer corresponding to the claimed dense isolating capsulation layer and another layer corresponding to the claimed electronic conductor capsulation layer.)
Wherein
The lithium-source core body is LixA1-y-4z/3ByCzO3/2 + x/2, A is selected from Fe and Ni, and B and C represent doping metal elements with different valencies, and 1≤x≤ 6, 0≤ y≤ 0.5, 0≤ z≤ 0.375, and 0≤ 6y+8z≤ 3 (Maxwell teaches the core may consist of LiNi0.8Mn0.1Co0.1O2 (NMC811) which satisfies the formula for A as Ni, B as Co, C as Mn, x=1, y=0.1, z=0.1, and 1-y-4z/3 = 0.77 which is about 0.8; [¶ 0047]);
An outermost layer of the functional capsulation layer is made of a carbon material, and the electronic conductor capsulation layer is made of the carbon material
(Maxwell’s passivation layer or at least one of Maxwell’s plurality of passivation layers corresponding to the claimed dense isolating capsulation layer, corresponds to an outermost layer of the functional capsulation layer (Fig. 1). The taught passivation layer, or alternatively, at least one of the plurality of passivation layers which corresponds to the electronic conductor capsulation layer, may include a carbon coating and comprise amorphous carbon [¶ 0067, 0113].);
A greyscale of the lithium supplement additive corresponds to grades 9 to 17 in a standard greyscale color chart, wherein the standard greyscale color chart is defined by RGB values and HSL values as set forth in Table 2 of the specification, and the greyscale of the lithium supplement additive is correlated with the density of the carbon material as the outermost layer of the functional encapsulation layer,
and a material of the dense isolating capsulation layer is made of the carbon material,
(As noted in addressing the earlier limitations of claim 1, Maxwell’s passivation layer, or alternatively, at least one of Maxwell’s plurality of passivation layers which corresponds to the claimed dense isolating capsulation layer can comprise amorphous carbon [¶ 0067], thus teaching a material of the dense isolating layer is made of the carbon material.
In the same field of endeavor, Jiao teaches that a more complete coating of a carbon layer around a core body for a lithium supplement material improves the isolating function of the layer and improves the conductivity and stability of the lithium supplement material (translation: [0056]). Therefore, Jiao is relied upon to teach that completeness of the coating, or its density of coverage, is a result-effective variable.
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have recognized from Jiao’s teaching that the density of carbon coating would have an impact on the isolating function of the layer and the conductivity and stability of the core body. They would have been motivated by Jiao’s teaching to adjust the coverage density of Maxwell’s passivating layer corresponding to an outermost layer of the functional capsulation layer, which can comprise a carbon coating, as noted previously, to optimize the conductivity and stability of the lithium supplement material. The motivation to do so would have been consistent with Maxwell’s teaching of the function of the passivating layer to protect further components of the coated positive electrode material from degradation by air, moisture, and an electrolyte in the battery [Maxwell ¶ 0187]. According to Applicant’s greyscale color chart as defined by RGB values and HSL values as set forth in Table 2 of the instant specification, a greater greyscale value corresponds to higher coating coverage and a lower greyscale value corresponds to lower coating coverage (instant spec [¶ 0058]). The optimized passivating layer forming the outermost layer of the functional encapsulation layer would have accordingly satisfied the claimed greyscale grades of the lithium supplement additive based on the optimized carbon material density in the outermost layer of the functional capsulation layer.)
Regarding the limitation “a method for forming the dense isolating capsulation layer comprises the following steps: uniformly mixing lithium-source particles with PEO… and then sintering the coated material in the presence of inert gas at 600°C for 16 hours, thereby forming a dense carbon layer that serves as the dense isolating capsulation layer on a surface of the lithium source particles,” the Examiner respectfully notes Maxwell teaches the passivation layer can be a carbon layer made by a polymer coating followed by a carbonization step [¶ 0113], and Maxwell also teaches the passivation layer may uniformly, continuously, and conformally coat the surface coating 104 such that the surface coating 104 may be considered completely covered by the passivating layer 112 [¶ 0069]; the taught passivation layer as described and prepared would thus read on the limitation of a dense carbon layer that serves as the dense isolating capsulation layer on a surface of the lithium source particles as claimed, given the interpretation of “dense” as provided by Merriam-Webster (as ‘marked by compactness or crowding together of parts’; see definition 1a). Furthermore, Applicant has not provided evidence of structural features that would differentiate the dense carbon layer formed from their recited PEO polymer coating + sintering process from the prior art. Hence, the new product-by-process limitation does not structurally differentiate the product of the claimed invention from the product taught by modified Maxwell. If the product in the product-by-process claim in the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable; see MPEP 2113, I.
Regarding the limitation of “a color of the lithium-source core body corresponds to grades 2 to 6 in a standard color chart defined by RGB values and HSL values as set forth in Table 1 of the specification, and the color of the lithium-source core body is correlated with purity of the lithium-source core body,” Maxwell teaches the passivating layer 112 may protect the core particles 102, sacrificial lithium source particles 106, and/or CC particles 108 from air and/or moisture, such that the coated positive electrode active material particles 100 may be stable in air and/or moisture and that contaminants can cause undesired side reactions[¶ 0069]. A skilled artisan would have been motivated by Maxwell’s teaching to protect the core, i.e. the lithium-source core body, from air and/or moisture, in order to avoid undesired side reactions, and would have consequently minimized impurities in the lithium-source core body, i.e. optimized its purity from moisture and from air, the latter which contains carbon dioxide. Applicant’s specification teaches a color of the lithium-source core body with a higher grade in the standard color chart defined by RGB values and HSL values in Table 1 corresponds to a lower purity based on contact of the core body with moisture and carbon dioxide and that a lower grade in color corresponds to a higher purity [¶ 0045], Maxwell’s lithium-source core body 102 with the optimized purity would have resulted in the claimed color of the lithium-source core body.
Regarding the limitation “before the method for forming the dense isolating capsulation layer on the surface of the lithium source particles, a method for ensure the purity of the lithium source particles is to store the lithium source particles under the following conditions…,” the prior art provides purified lithium that would satisfy the claimed structural limitation regarding the purity of the lithium source particles, regardless of how it was sourced or prepared.
Regarding claim 3, modified Maxwell teaches the lithium supplement additive of claim 1, wherein the doping element B can be Co, and doping element C can be Mn as claimed.
Regarding claim 4, modified Maxwell teaches the lithium supplement additive of claim 1 and teaches wherein the lithium-source core body 102 is at least one of a primary particle and a secondary particle (Maxwell teaches “In additional or alternative examples, the core particles 102 may be larger, secondary particles composed of smaller, primary particles” [¶ 0048])
And teaches a particle size of the lithium-source core body is between 50 nm and 10 µm (Maxwell teaches “in some examples, an average size of core particles 102 may be at least 1 µm and at most 20 µm” [¶ 0048] which overlaps with the claimed range. Overlapping ranges provides a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05, I.)
Regarding claim 5, modified Maxwell teaches the lithium supplement additive of claim 1 and Maxwell further teaches a thickness of passivating layer 112 may be less than 0.1 µm [¶ 0068], or 100 nm, which overlaps with the claimed range for a thickness of the (dense) isolating capsulation layer. Overlapping ranges provides a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05, I.
Regarding claim 7, modified Maxwell teaches the lithium supplement additive of claim 5, and as pointed out previously in addressing the limitations of claim 1, Maxwell teaches the carbon material can comprise amorphous carbon [¶ 0067, 0113].
Regarding claim 9, modified Maxwell teaches the lithium supplement additive of claim 1, and Maxwell teaches a surface layer 104, [¶ 0050], which can comprise particles 106 of lithium nitride [¶ 0051], which is known to exhibit ionic conductivity (“Lithium-ion Battery Chemicals,” table on p4 with entry “Lithium Nitride”). Maxwell also teaches the surface coating 104 can comprise a polymer such as polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) and poly(ethylene oxide) (PEO) [¶ 0060], which are known to have ionic conductivity, as disclosed by evidentiary reference Li (p5 left col para 2; right col para 3). Thus, Maxwell teaches the surface coating 104 can comprise of ionically conductive components and thus reads on an ionic conductor capsulation layer.
The passivating layer 112, or alternatively, at least one of the plurality of passivating layers 112 taught by Maxwell corresponds to the electronic conductor capsulation layer, as pointed out previously in addressing the limitations of claim 1.
As previously pointed out in addressing the limitations of claim 1, the functional capsulation layer comprises surface layer 104 and passivating layer(s) 112, therefore the functional capsulation layer further comprises at least one of an ionic conductor capsulation layer 104 and an electronic conductor capsulation layer 112. The ionic conductor capsulation layer 104 and the electronic conductor capsulation layer with the (dense) isolating layer formed by passivating layer(s) 112 form a composite multi-layer structure. Surface layer 104 may provide at least a partial blocking interface such that the entire surface of the core particles 102 may not be fully exposed directly to an electrolyte in a battery [¶ 0050] and passivating layer 112 may function as a shield to mitigate undesired side reactions between the core body and encapsulated components from electrolyte and air/moisture [¶ 0069], thus Maxwell teaches the composite multi-layer structure formed by at least one of the ionic conductor capsulation layer and the electronic conductor capsulation layer with the isolating capsulation layer functions to cover and protect the lithium source core body 102.
Regarding claim 10, modified Maxwell teaches the lithium supplement additive of claim 9.
As previously pointed out in addressing the limitations of claim 1, Maxwell’s functional capsulation layer comprises surface layer 104 and passivating layer 112, wherein passivating layer 112 can be a plurality of passivating layers which correspond to the (dense) isolating capsulation layer and the electronic conductor capsulation layer. Fig. 1 of Maxwell also shows the lithium-source core body 102 is coated with passivating layer 112. The combination of multiple passivating layers would provide at least one layer corresponding to the claimed dense isolating capsulation layer and another layer corresponding to the claimed electronic conductor capsulation layer, and the structure would read upon “the isolating capsulation layer is coated with the electronic conductor capsulation layer”, as either the configuration of an outer isolating capsulation layer coated with an inner electronic conductor capsulation layer, or the layers in the reverse order would read upon the recited limitation.
Regarding claim 11, modified Maxwell teaches the lithium supplement additive of claim 9, and Maxwell further teaches a thickness of passivating layer 112 may be less than 0.1 µm [¶ 0068], or 100 nm, which overlaps with the claimed range for a thickness of the electronic conductor capsulation layer. Overlapping ranges provides a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05, I.
Regarding claim 12, modified Maxwell teaches the lithium supplement additive of claim 9 and further teaches the surface coating 104 (i.e., the ionic conductor capsulation layer) may be no more than 3 µm thick [¶ 0065], which overlaps with the claimed range. Overlapping ranges provides a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05, I.).
Additionally, Maxwell teaches a material of the surface coating 104 (i.e., ionic conductor capsulation layer) can comprise a polymer such as polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) and poly(ethylene oxide) (PEO) [¶ 0060], which correspond to solid-state electrolyte materials, as disclosed by evidentiary reference Li (p5 left col para 2; right col para 3).
Regarding claim 14, modified Maxwell teaches the lithium supplement additive of claim 1, and Maxwell further teaches that the surface coating 104 (i.e., ionic conductor capsulation layer) may comprise catalyst particles (ACC) 108 that lower the overpotential of the decomposition of sacrificial lithium source particles 106 ([¶ 0005], [¶ 0055], [¶ 0141]), wherein an increase in the overall available surface area of the catalyst may promote catalysis of the decomposition of the lithium sacrificial lithium source particles, resulting in an increased amount of lithium ion available for pre-lithiation and lithium ion batteries with lower operating potentials [¶ 0141]. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized a specific area of the catalyst particles 108, which corresponds to a specific surface area of the lithium supplement additive, as a result-effective variable that affects the amount of lithium ion for pre-lithiation and the operating potential of lithium ion batteries. They would have found it obvious to have adjusted it the specific surface area of the catalyst particles 108 to optimize the operating potential of the lithium ion batteries, and consequently, would have arrived at the claimed range for a specific surface area of the lithium supplement additive.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/08/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Maxwell’s core-shell particle does not teach the claimed structure of a dense carbon layer coated on the surface of the lithium supplement particle. However, the majority of Applicant’s arguments are against Maxwell’s surface layer 104, but the Examiner’s rejection is based upon Maxwell’s passivating layer(s) 112 as the dense isolating capsulation layer and electronic conductor capsulation layer. Barring evidence otherwise, the term “dense” can be interpreted broadly according to evidentiary reference Merriam-Webster definition of “dense” as ‘marked by compactness or crowding together of parts’; see definition 1a. In the context of that definition, Maxwell’s teaching that a passivating layer may uniformly, continuously, and conformally coat the surface coating 104 such that the surface coating 104 may be considered completely covered by the passivating layer 112 [¶ 0069] and that the carbon coating, which may be amorphous carbon, can be made by a polymer coating followed by a carbonization step [¶ 0113] provides the passivating layer as a dense isolating capsulation layer which can be made of carbon. Maxwell also discloses the passivating layer 112 may protect the core particles 102 from air and/or moisture, such that the coated positive electrode active material particles 100 may be stable in air and/or moisture and that contaminants can cause undesired side reactions [¶ 0069], which is consistent with the protective function of the recited dense carbon layer [instant spec: ¶ 0048].
As for Applicant’s arguments that their PEO coating + sintering method to form a dense carbon layer with unique, verifiable microstructural features, Applicant has not provided evidence of structural features that would differentiate the dense carbon layer formed from their recited method from the prior art. Hence, the new product-by-process limitation does not structurally differentiate the product of the claimed invention from the product taught by modified Maxwell. If the product in the product-by-process claim in the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable; see MPEP 2113, I.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments pertaining to the prior art failing to teach the limitations of the recited methods for ensuring and determining the purity of the lithium supplement particles, Maxwell teaches the passivating layer 112 may protect the core particles 102, sacrificial lithium source particles 106, and/or CC particles 108 from air and/or moisture, such that the coated positive electrode active material particles 100 may be stable in air and/or moisture and that contaminants can cause undesired side reactions [¶ 0069]. A skilled artisan would have been motivated by Maxwell’s teaching to protect the core, i.e. the lithium-source core body, from air and/or moisture, in order to avoid undesired side reactions, and would have consequently minimized impurities in the lithium-source core body, i.e. optimized its purity from moisture and from air, the latter which contains carbon dioxide. Thus, the prior art provides purified lithium that would satisfy the claimed structural limitation regarding the purity of the lithium source particles, regardless of how it was sourced or prepared.
In response to Applicant's arguments against the reference Jiao individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). As pointed out in the previous and current office action, Jiao is relied upon to teach that a more complete coating of a carbon layer around a core body for a lithium supplement material improves the isolating function of the layer and improves the conductivity and stability of the lithium supplement material (translation: [0056]). Therefore, Jiao is relied upon to teach that completeness of the coating, or its density of coverage, is a result-effective variable. 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).
In response to Applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Additionally, Applicant’s emphasis of “dense” in describing their isolating capsulation layer comprising a dense carbon layer is not supported by guidance in the specification as to what is meant by the term dense in terms of structural features, therefore the term poses an indefiniteness issue as well.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GIGI LIN whose telephone number is (571)272-2017. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:30 - 6.
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 T 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.
/G.L.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1726
/BACH T DINH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726 10/14/2026
