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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1, 3-5, 7, 9-12, 14-20 are pending in the application, with claims 15-20 withdrawn as the nonelected group per the response to restriction, filed August 05, 2025. The amendment filed November 14, 2025 has been entered but does not place the application in condition for allowance.
Applicant’s amendment to claim 5 overcomes the original 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection to the claim. Applicant’s amendment to claims 4 and 13 overcomes the original 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection to the term “apparent” in the claim but does not overcome the indefiniteness associated with the use of term “color” because the scope of the color comparison remains unclear.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims overcomes the original 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections over the prior art.
New rejections follow.
Claim Interpretation
The phrase “and/or” is used several times in Applicant’s claims. In examination, the phrase is interpreted as being open to “or” as the broader alternative. That is, if a claim recites elements of A and/or B, and/or C, the claim can be satisfied if either elements A, or B, or C, or a combination thereof are present.
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 1, 3-5, 7, 9-12, and 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 the limitation "the lithium source particle material" in line 20. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the dense carbon isolating capsulation layer” in line 21. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim only recites “a dense isolating capsulation layer” in line 7 and “a material of the isolating capsulation layer is made of carbon” in line 18 which does not represent a sufficient antecedent basis.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the surface of the lithium source particles” in line 22. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, because neither “lithium source particles” nor “the surface of the lithium source particles” has a proper antecedent basis.
Claim 1 also recites “a greyscale of the lithium supplement additive corresponds to grades 9 to 17 in a standard greyscale color chart.” This is indefinite because the scope of the color comparison is unclear. The assignment of color of the lithium-source body can depend on multiple factors including sample preparation for imaging, and selection of equipment, image capture parameters, and/or image processing.
Claims 3-5, 7, 9-12, 14 depend on claim 1 and therefore are also indefinite.
Claim 4 recites “a color of the lithium-source core body corresponds to grades 2 to 6 in a standard color chart.” The claim is indefinite because the scope of the color comparison is unclear. The assignment of color of the lithium-source body can depend on multiple factors including sample preparation for imaging, and selection of equipment, image capture parameters, and/or image processing.
Claim 7 recites “wherein the carbon material comprises at least one of graphene, carbon nanotubes, amorphous carbon, graphite, and carbon black.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For example, it is unclear whether the carbon material is referring to the carbon of limitation “an outermost layer of the functional capsulation layer is made of carbon” as recited in claim 1 or “a material of the isolating capsulation layer is made of carbon” as recited in claim 1 or the carbon of “a carbon source” as recited in claim 1, or something else. For the purposes of advancing prosecution, “the carbon material” will be interpreted as corresponding to “a material of the isolating capsulation layer” as was originally recited in the limitation of claim 5.
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, published 2020-06-25) 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.
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 complete covers the lithium-source core body (Maxwell teaches the 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, thus reading on the limitation of a dense isolating capsulation layer which completely covers the lithium-source core body)
Where
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]);
And outermost layer of the functional capsulation layer is made of carbon (Maxwell teaches the outermost layer of the functional capsulation layer is passivation layer 112 (Fig. 1) and that the passivation layer may include a carbon coating, such as one made of graphene [¶ 0067].);
A greyscale of the lithium supplement additive corresponds to grades 9 to 17 in a standard greyscale color chart, 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 isolating capsulation layer is made of carbon.
(As noted in addressing the earlier limitations of claim 1, the passivation layer 112 is the outermost layer of the functional capsulation layer and also corresponds to the dense isolating capsulation layer. Maxwell teaches the passivating layer 112, which is the outermost layer of the functional capsulation 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]. As stated previously, Maxwell teaches a passivation layer that is a carbon coating made of graphene is a suitable option in [¶ 0067].
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 teaches 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 will 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, which Maxwell teaches as the outermost layer of the functional capsulation layer and can be a carbon coating, to optimize the conductivity and stability of the lithium supplement material, and 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 new limitation of “a method for forming the isolating capsulation layer comprises the following steps: dispersing the lithium source particle material in a solution containing a carbon source, and performing carbonization treatment after drying to form the dense carbon isolating capsulation layer on the surface of the lithium source particles”, the limitation recited above is a product-by-process limitation and does not imply additional structural considerations as a result of the process steps. Hence, the new limitation does not structurally differentiate the product of the claimed invention from the product taught by 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 claim 3, 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, 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, Maxwell teaches the lithium supplement additive of claim 1 and further teaches wherein a thickness of the isolating layer (i.e., passivating layer 112) is between 5 nm and 200 nm (Maxwell teaches the thickness of the passivating layer 112 may be less than 0.1 µm [¶ 0068], or 100 nm, which overlaps with the claimed range. Overlapping ranges provides a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05, I.).
Regarding claim 7, Maxwell teaches the lithium supplement additive of claim 1, and Maxwell further teaches the passivation layer 112 may include a carbon coating, such as one made of graphene [¶ 0067].
Regarding claim 9, Maxwell teaches the lithium supplement additive of claim 1, and as previously pointed out in addressing claim 1, Maxwell teaches the functional capsulation layer further comprises surface coating 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. Accordingly, Maxwell’s functional capsulation layer has a composite multi-layer structure formed by the ionic conductor capsulation layer with the isolating capsulation layer. As previously pointed out in addressing the limitations of claim 1, 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], thus the multi-layer structure formed by the ionic conductor capsulation layer with the isolating capsulation layer functions to cover and protect the lithium source core body 102.
Regarding claim 10, Maxwell teaches the lithium supplement additive of claim 9, and as pointed out previously in addressing claim 1, Maxwell teaches the functional capsulation layer comprises the isolating capsulation layer 112 and the ionic conductor capsulation layer 104 (Fig. 1; [¶ 0050], [¶ 0069]). the lithium-source core body 102 is coated with the ionic conductor capsulation layer 104, and the ionic conductor capsulation layer 104 is coated with the isolating capsulation layer 112 (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 11, Maxwell teaches the lithium supplement of claim 9. Claim 11 further limits the thickness of the electronic conductor capsulation layer recited in claim 9 but does not require selection of the electronic conductor capsulation material to meet the claim. In this case, Maxwell satisfies claim 11, because Maxwell already teaches the ionic conductor capsulation layer of claim 9 and its inclusion within the functional capsulation layer with the isolating capsulation layer.
Regarding claim 12, 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, 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
Regarding Applicant’s argument against Jiao, the Examiner notes that in the current office action, Jiao is relied upon to teach the concept that a more complete carbon coating, or increased density of coverage of the carbon coating will have an impact on the isolating function of the layer and the conductivity and stability of the encapsulated core body (translation: [0056]). Specifically, Jiao teaches that their carbon layer coating the lithium-ion compound (core body) has pores, and filling of the pores to achieve a more complete coating results in better isolation and improved conductivity and stability of the lithium replenishment material (translation: [0056] lines 15-18). Consequently, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated by Jiao’s teaching to adjust the coverage density of Maxwell’s passivating layer, which Maxwell teaches as the outermost layer of the functional capsulation layer and can be a carbon coating [¶ 0067, 0069], to optimize the conductivity and stability of the lithium supplement material, and 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.)
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
/JEFFREY T BARTON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1726 11 February 2026