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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 June 22, 2026 has been entered.
Summary
The Applicant’s arguments and claim amendments received May 14, 2026 have been entered into the file. Currently, claims 1-11 and 19-20 are withdrawn; claim 12 is amended; and claims 13-16 are cancelled; resulting in claims 12 and 17-18 pending for examination.
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 12 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dudney, et al. (US 2016/0218351 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Dudney teaches an electrode material which is formed by the lithiation and passivation of an anode active material (¶ [0006], Ln. 1-6). The anode active material may be any suitable active material that provides an effective electrochemical potential suitable for a battery anode, specifically a carbonaceous material such as graphite (¶ [0038], Ln. 1-8). The lithium ion conducting passivating material (SEI) is coated on the lithium active material to provide an electrode material (¶ [0018], Ln. 3-5). Dudney teaches that the lithium ion conducting passivating material is one that inhibits or eliminates the transport of gas or liquid to the reactive lithium active material composition, and inhibits or eliminates the transport of electrons (¶ [0042], Ln. 1-4), specifically teaching that the lithium ion conducting passivating material can include lithium carbonate, lithium fluoride, polycarbonates such as polyethylene oxides, poly carbonates, and copolymers thereof; and lithium alkyl carbonate salts such as lithium alkyl carbonates including lithium alkyl dicarbonate, dilithium butylene dicarbonate, and all their fluorinated counter parts (¶ [0043], Ln. 4-10). The lithium ion conducting passivating material is applied as a coating over the lithium active material without gaps (SEI layer on each of a plurality of the graphite particles, directly formed over and covering the exterior surface of each of the plurality of the graphite particles) and the coating can be as thin as sub nanometer, <1-3 nanometers, and is preferably less than 50 nm thick (¶ [0044], Ln. 1-8). Dudney additionally teaches that the lithium ion passivating material coating is porous (¶ [0046], Ln. 6-9), and that the formed SEI roughens the surface of the graphite particles (¶ [0030], Ln. 2-4). Dudney teaches that the pre-passivation step refers to passivation of the reactive lithium active material before being incorporated into the battery, which eliminates the long and restrictive passivation of the newly formed battery to form a protective SEI and makes the lithium active material composition more stable in air (¶ [0037], Ln. 1-8). While Dudney teaches an example of a 1-3 nm SEI layer including Li2CO3 on graphite particles (¶ [0074], Ln. 1-16), the reference does not expressly teach an SEI layer including both Li2CO3 and LiF which is 3-4 nm thick.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention, to include an SEI layer including both Li2CO3 and LiF that is approximately 3 nm thick based on the teachings of Dudney. As Dudney teaches several lithium ion conductive passivating materials including lithium carbonate and lithium fluoride, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the combination of the two could be used in the SEI layer. One of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to include LiF as Dudney teaches its use as a material capable of functioning as a lithium ion conductive passivating material. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to include the SEI layer at a thickness of approximately 3 nm as the example including Li2CO3 is 1-3 nm and the reference teaches that the coating is preferably less than 50 nm thick. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Regarding claim 17, Dudney teaches a pre-passivated graphite electrode material meeting the limitations of claim 12 above. Dudney further teaches that the electrode material is mixed with a binder and applied to a current collector to form an anode (first electrode) (¶ [0020], Ln. 1-10). The anode is assembled with a cathode (second electrode), separator, and electrolyte to form a battery (¶ [0020], Ln. 10-12). The electrolyte is a liquid which can access the surface area of the electrode materials (¶ [0046], Ln. 1-5), allowing ions to flow from one electrode to the other.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dudney, et al. (US 2016/0218351 A1) as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Dasgupta, et al. (US 2021/0376310 A1).
Regarding claim 18, Dudney teaches a battery cell meeting the limitations of claim 17 above. Dudney further teaches that the anode is formed by mixing the electrode material, comprising pre-passivated graphite particles, with a binder (¶ [0045], Ln. 1-6). Dudney teaches that the binder may be mixed with a conductive additive to improve conductivity (¶ [0046], Ln. 11-13). Dudney teaches that the battery is assembled with the anode, a suitable cathode, separator, and electrolyte (¶ [0020], Ln. 10-12) and teaches that the anode is lithiated and pre-passivated with a lithium ion conducting coating, indicating that the battery assembled is a lithium ion battery. Dudney does not expressly teach the conductive additive used, the cathode material included, or the electrolyte solution included, and therefore does not expressly teach that the anode is mixed with conductive carbon, the cathode includes a lithium transition metal oxide, and that the electrolyte includes a lithium salt dissolved in a solvent.
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 LBCO (Li3BO3-Li2CO3) coated graphite particles (¶ [0067], Ln. 1-5), C65 conductive additive (carbon black), and a binder (¶ [0155], Ln. 1-8). Dasgupta teaches that the cathode includes LiNi0.5Mn0.3Co0.2O2 (lithium transition metal oxide) (¶ [0156], Ln. 1-2). Dasgupta further teaches that the cells are filled with an electrolyte including LiPF6 in EC/EMC/VC (¶ [0159], Ln. 8-10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention, to use a lithium transition metal oxide such as NMC532 in the cathode and an electrolyte including LiPF6 based on the teachings of Dasgupta. Additionally, it would be obvious to include carbon black as the conductive additive in the anode. As NMC is a very common cathode material for lithium ion batteries, LiPF6 is a very common salt in electrolyte solutions, and carbon black is very common conductive additive included in electrodes, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to use the materials in the battery of Dudney. Further, as both Dudney and Dasgupta teach lithium ion batteries and anode materials including graphite with a preformed SEI layer, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to include the components taught by Dasgupta with reasonable expectation of success.
Response to Arguments
Response-Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103
In light of the Applicant's amendments to claim 12 and cancellation of claims 13-16, the previous rejections of claims 12-13 and 16-18 under 35 U.S.C. 102 over Dasgupta, et al. (US 2021/0376310 A1) and of claims 12-15 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Lin, et al. (US 2021/0050597 A1) in view of Ise, et al. (US 2018/0277835 A1) have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to amended claim 12 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
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 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
Prosecution Insights