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 .
Summary
The Applicant’s arguments and claim amendments received on December 11, 2025 have been entered into the file. Currently, claims 1-3, 10, 12, and 15 are amended; and claims 1-11 and 19-20 are withdrawn; resulting in claims 12-18 pending for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 12-13 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Dasgupta, et al. (US 2021/0376310 A1).
Regarding claims 12-13, Dasgupta teaches a surface coating on graphite particles (¶ [0009], Ln. 1-5). The coating is a Li3BO3–Li2CO3 (LBCO) film which conformally coats the graphite particles (¶ [0009], Ln. 5-8). Dasgupta teaches that the LBCO film serves as an artificial solid electrolyte interphase (SEI) (¶ [0106], Ln. 5-6). Shown in Figure 5D, the LBCO coating encapsulates the graphite particle (covers the exterior surface) (¶ [0046], Ln. 6-8). Dasgupta teaches that the particles may be used in a lithium ion battery, wherein an electrode is formed by depositing the film on a powdered electrode material (graphite powder comprising separate individual graphite particles) and forming a slurry comprising the coated electrode material (¶ [0097], Ln. 1-7). Dasgupta further teaches that the LBCO coating has a porous and rough morphology, as shown in the SEM image of the coating in Figure 5C.
Regarding claim 16, Dasgupta teaches all of the limitations of claim 12 above and further teaches an embodiment in which the graphite includes a coating with a thickness of 4 nm (¶ [0125], Ln. 1-4).
Regarding claims 17-18, Dasgupta teaches an electrochemical cell formed by placing a side of a separator in contact with an anode and placing an opposite side of the separator in contact with a cathode (¶ [0067], Ln. 14-17). The anode is formed using a slurry comprising the LBCO coated graphite particles meeting the limitations of claim 12 above (¶ [0067], Ln. 1-5). Specifically, Dasgupta teaches pouch cells assembled using the graphite electrodes (first electrode) with the coated graphite particles meeting the limitations of claim 12 and NMC532 cathodes (second electrode) (¶ [0125], Ln. 1-8). The graphite electrodes include graphite, C65 conductive additive (carbon black), and a binder (¶ [0155], Ln. 1-8). The NMC532 cathode includes LiNi0.5Mn0.3Co0.2O2 (lithium transition metal oxide cathode) (¶ [0156], Ln. 1-2). Dasgupta further teaches a separator included in between the two electrodes (¶ [0159], Ln. 4-5) and that the cells are filled with an electrolyte including LiPF6 in EC/EMC/VC (lithium salt dissolved in a solvent and allowing ions to flow from one of the electrodes to the other of the electrodes (¶ [0159], Ln. 8-10).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 12-15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin, et al. (US 2021/0050597 A1) in view of Ise, et al. (US 2018/0277835 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Lin teaches an anode material comprising a plurality of particles having SEI pre-formed on a surface of the particles (¶ [0028], Ln. 1-3). Lin also teaches that the anode active material is normally used in a powder form (¶ [0004], Ln. 1-3). Lin specifically teaches artificial graphite particles electrochemically lithiated and then de-lithiated to create artificial SEI on the anode materials (¶ [0145], Ln. 1-4). Lin teaches that the procedure is repeated 5 times to add additional SEI to the anode materials (cover the exterior surface) (¶ [0145], Ln. 4-7). Lin does not expressly teach that the SEI pre-formed on a surface of the particles has a porous and rough morphology.
Ise teaches that in a negative electrode using a carbonaceous material such as graphite, a coating film referred to as a solid electrolyte interface (SEI) is formed on at least a part of the main surface of the negative electrode (¶ [0052], Ln. 1-6). Ise teaches a secondary battery wherein a coating film that plays the same role as that of an SEI is provided on the surface of a graphite-containing negative electrode (¶ [0064], Ln. 1-6). As shown in Figure 1, the SEI coating film covers the outer surface of the negative electrode active material particles. Ise teaches that the coating film SEI is a porous body, which allows lithium ions to permeate and is less likely to make the nonaqueous solvent of the nonaqueous electrolyte permeate, suppressing decomposition of the nonaqueous electrolyte in the negative electrode (¶ [0114], Ln. 1-9).
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 artificial SEI of Lin to be a porous body, therefore having a rough morphology, based on the teachings of Ise. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to include an artificial SEI with a porous body such that lithium ions can permeate the SEI layer and the nonaqueous solvent of the nonaqueous electrolyte is less likely to permeate the SEI layer. Thus, the SEI layer would better suppress decomposition of the nonaqueous electrolyte in the negative electrode.
Regarding claims 13-15, Lin in view of Ise teaches all of the limitations of claim 12 above and Lin further teaches that in the preferred embodiment, the SEI comprising a lithium or sodium containing species selected from a list including Li2CO3, Li2O or LiF, or a combination of Li2O or LiF with one of the species selected from a list including Li2CO3 (¶ [0044], Ln. 1-9). Lin further teaches that the SEI is formed in the presence of a liquid electrolyte containing a lithium salt dissolved in a liquid (¶ [0073], Ln. 12-16). Specifically, Lin teaches that the SEI is formed on the surface of the intended anode active material in an electrochemical reactor containing an electrolyte, citing LiPF6 dissolved in ethylene carbonate and dimethyl carbonate as an example (¶ [0092], Ln. 1-11). Based on the provided electrolyte, the SEI would include both Li2CO3 and LiF.
Regarding claim 17, Lin in view of Ise teaches an anode active material having a preformed SEI meeting the limitations of claim 12 above, and Lin further teaches a lithium-ion battery containing an anode including the anode active material, a cathode and an electrolyte in ionic contact with the anode and cathode (¶ [0040], Ln. 1-11).
Response to Arguments
Response-Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. 102
In light of Applicant’s amendment to claim 1 to include the limitations of dependent claim 15, the previous rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102 over Lin, et al. (US 2021/0050597 A1) is overcome, however, upon further consideration, the reference is applicable under 35 U.S.C. 103 and used in combination with Ise, et al. (US 2018/0277835 A1) in the rejections above.
In light of Applicant’s amendment to claim 1 to include the limitations of dependent claim 15, the previous rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102 over Dasgupta, et al. (US 2021/0376310 A1) has been modified above. Any arguments with respect to the reference that are still deemed valid will be addressed herein. The Applicant argues, see pages 14-15 of the remarks filed December 11, 2025, that Dasgupta does not teach a LBCO layer having a porous and rough morphology and that Dasgupta does not teach a LBCO layer with a thickness within the claimed range.
With respect to the argument that Dasgupta does not teach a LBCO layer having a porous and rough morphology, this argument is not persuasive. The Applicant argues that the image in Figure 5C shows a torn cross-section of LBCO and not a graphite particle, that the image in Figure 5D shows a cross-section through a single graphite particle, and that the image in Figure 5D does not appear porous. While it is acknowledged that the image in Figure 5C shows a torn cross-section of LBCO, the LBCO coating is clearly labelled on the figure, and does appear to have a rough and porous morphology. The Applicant further argues that the reference teaches a glassy LBCO layer formed by the ALD process. The reference does disclose that ALD of glassy LBCO solid electrolytes exhibits the property of being stable when in contact with lithium metal, but does not disclose that the LBCO coating formed on the graphite particles does not have a rough and porous morphology. Additionally, the reference teaches that the ALD process of coating allows for conformal coating of porous materials (¶ [0122], Ln. 7-10). As the definition of conformal includes “leaving the size of the angle between corresponding curves unchanged,” it is understood that a conformal coating on a porous surface would result in a rough surface morphology.
With respect to the argument that Dasgupta does not teach an LBCO layer with a thickness within the claimed range, this argument is not persuasive. The Applicant argues that the reference teaches a film having a thickness of 40 nm, outside of the claimed range. However, the reference teaches that the graphite electrodes were prepared with varying numbers of ALD cycles, resulting in LBCO coatings with thicknesses of 4 nm, 20 nm, and 40 nm (¶ [0125], Ln. 1-4). Therefore, the reference teaches an embodiment with an LBCO coating of 4 nm, within the claimed range of 3-4 nm.
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 SARAH J JACOBSON whose telephone number is (703)756-1647. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at (571) 272-1291.
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.
/SARAH J JACOBSON/Examiner, Art Unit 1785
/MARK RUTHKOSKY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1785