Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Status of Application
Applicant’s amendments and remarks filed 8/7/2026 have been acknowledged. Claims 1-12 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 11 are objected to because the number in “LiFePO4” should be turned into a subscript. Additionally, claim 11 is essentially identical to claim 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 12 is 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. The instant claim requires that step d) is repeated at incrementally higher voltages to stimulate further SEI loss. However, the specification discloses that step c) or the partial charging step is repeated possibly at incrementally higher voltages to stimulate further SEI loss (for example, see Page 3, lines 11-16 and claim 7). For examination purposes, the claim is considered to refer to step c) not step d).
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claims 1-5 and 7-12 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over US 2002/0160253 to Vaidyanathan (cited by Applicant), in view of US 5,595,837 to Olsen et al.
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Vaidyanathan teaches a process of maximizing specific capacity and capacity retention of a lithium ion cell ([0010]; [0018-25]) comprising: a) proving a carbonaceous anode; b) assembling the anode, a cathode, a separator and electrolyte into a sealed cell, wherein the cathode is, for example, LiCoO2 cathode (abstract; [0011-17]); c) charging the cell to a voltage above that of electrolyte reduction but below that voltage that would violate the anode maximum safe lithium capacity ([0018-24]); d) discharging or partially discharging the cell ([0025]); and e) charging by the user ([0007]), where charging the cell to full voltage is expected.
Vaidyanathan does not expressly teach pre-lithiating the anode in step a).
Olsen et al. also relates to a method of maximizing specific capacity and capacity retention of a lithium ion cell (from column 1, line 14 to column 2, line 4) and teaches pre-lithiating or prealkaliating a carbon anode prior to packaging the electrochemical cell (column 2, lines 7-36).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at time of invention to have pre-lithiated the anode of Vaidyanathan, motivated by the fact that Olsen et al. teaches that by subjecting the anode carbon to the prealkalization process prior to packaging the electrochemical cell, substantially all the alkali metal (e.g., lithium) originally incorporated in the cathode when the cell is packaged, for instance, will be available for migration between the anode and cathode during charge/discharge (column 2, lines 30-60).
Regarding claim 2, the discharging step d) is repeated as Vaidyanathan teaches that the cell is used at a variety of charge and discharge rates following the discharge ([0026]).
Regarding claim 3, Vaidyanathan teaches that an elevated temperature is applied to the cell after an initial partial charge in step c) for about eight hours or less ([0020]).
Regarding claim 7, Vaidyanathan teaches a process of maximizing specific capacity and capacity retention of a lithium ion cell ([0010]; [0018-25]) comprising: a) proving a carbonaceous anode; b) assembling the anode, a cathode, a separator and electrolyte into a sealed cell, wherein the cathode is, for example, LiCoO2 cathode (abstract; [0011-17]); c) heating the cell to an elevated temperature when the cell is allowed to stand ([0016]; [0020]); d) charging the cell to a voltage above that of electrolyte reduction but below that voltage that would violate the anode maximum safe lithium capacity ([0018-24]); and g) charging by the user ([0007]), where charging the cell to full voltage is expected. The claimed steps e) and f) are optional thus not required.
Vaidyanathan does not expressly teach pre-lithiating the anode in step a).
Olsen et al. also relates to a method of maximizing specific capacity and capacity retention of a lithium ion cell (from column 1, line 14 to column 2, line 4) and teaches pre-lithiating or prealkaliating a carbon anode prior to packaging the electrochemical cell (column 2, lines 7-36).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at time of invention to have pre-lithiated the anode of Vaidyanathan, motivated by the fact that Olsen et al. teaches that by subjecting the anode carbon to the prealkalization process prior to packaging the electrochemical cell, substantially all the alkali metal (e.g., lithium) originally incorporated in the cathode when the cell is packaged, for instance, will be available for migration between the anode and cathode during charge/discharge (column 2, lines 30-60).
Regarding claims 4, 5, 8, and 9, since prior arts render obvious the claimed method, the claimed effects of increased cell specific capacity, volumetric capacity density, and cell capacity retention are expected to follow.
Regarding claim 10, Vaidyanathan teaches a storage step at elevated temperature is used prior to step g as the cell is allowed to stand at raised temperature ([0016]; [0020]).
Regarding claim 12, Vaidyanathan teaches a first charging ([0018]; [0019]) and a second charging at a greater current density than during the first charging interval ([0021]). The charging step c) is thus repeated at incrementally higher voltages to stimulate further SEI loss.
Claim 6 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Vaidyanathan and Olsen et al. as applied to claim 1 above, in view of US 9,112,212 to Fasching et al. (cited by Applicant).
Regarding claim 6, Vaidyanathan does not expressly teach that steps (c) is performed at elevated temperatures.
Fasching et al. also relates to a method of forming an electrochemical cell such as a lithium ion cell and teaches that cell’s temperature is changed during formation to initiate different chemical reactions during SEI formation (abstract; column 2, lines 18-51; column 4, lines 19-37). For example, the initial formation may be performed at a cell temperature of between about 30 ºC and 60 ºC (Column 13, lines 39-56).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at time of invention to have perform step (c) at an elevated temperature as claimed in the method of Vaidyanathan, motivated by the fact that Fasching et al. demonstrates that elevated cell temperature during initial formation (charge/discharge) helps form multilayered solid electrolyte interphase (SEI) structures on the active material surface during cell fabrication that contribute to a rechargeable electrochemical cell with high gravimetric and/or volumetric capacity and improved cell performance (column 1, line 25 to column 2, line 51).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-12 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. Applicant amended independent claims 1, 7, and 11 to require that the cathode is LiFePO4 or LiCoO2 cathode. In response, the Examiner has applied a new ground of rejection over Vaidyanathan and Olsen (see rejections above).
Finally, the previous ODP rejections have been withdrawn in light of the amendments requiring the specified lithium-containing cathode.
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 HENG M CHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5859. The examiner can normally be reached 9 am - 5:30 pm on Monday, 9 am - 3 pm on Tuesday, and 9 am to 1 pm on Wednesday and Thursday.
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, Basia Ridley can be reached at 571-272-1453. 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.
/Heng M. Chan/Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/BASIA A RIDLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1725
