DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1, 7-8, 10 and 18-20 are amended. Claims 4-6 and 11-20 are withdrawn. Claims 1-3 and 7-10 are being examined on the merits in this office action.
Remarks
Applicant’s amendments and arguments have been entered. A reply to the Applicant’s remarks/arguments is presented after addressing the claims.
Any rejections and/or objections made in the previous Office Action and not repeated below, are hereby withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments or/and arguments.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. References cited in the current Office action can be found in a prior Office action.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “protective coating” must be shown in the drawing(s) or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. The reference number “401” merely represents deposition methods, rather than a “protective coating”. Even if the reference number “401” implies a protective coating, the protective coating as a claimed essential feature must be shown in the drawings.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show “protecting coating” as described in the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The amendments to paragraphs [0038] and [0041] of the specification is acknowledged and accepted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-3 and 7-10 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.
1) Claim 1 recites “combining precursors to produce …”. It is unclear as to what the claimed precursors combine with to produce … over the prelithiated anode substrate …? In other words, what is combined with precursors to produce …? The claim is indefinite. For purposes of examination, the related limitations are interpreted as referring to combining precursors with the prelithiated anode substrate.
2) Claim 1 also recites “processing … using a laser to …”. However, what does “processing” mean in this scenario? What is defined as “processing … using a laser”? The issue renders the claim(s) indefinite. Note that although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). For purposes of examination, a BRI is being applied (See the rejection below). Applicant was non-response to this rejection presented previously; thus, the rejection remains in this office action.
3) The term “a carbon-nature matrix” recited in the amended claims 7 and 8 renders the claims indefinite since it is unclear as to what composition it refers to. No definition is provided for the term in the specification. It can be interpreted in many ways: 1) a carbon substance as a matrix (for LiF); 2) a carbon substance together with other substances to form a matrix (for LiF); 3) an elemental carbon substance as a matrix (for LiF); 4) a carbon-element containing substance as a matrix for (LiF); 5) an elemental carbon substance together with other substance(s) as a matrix (for LiF); 4) a carbon-element containing substance together with other substance(s) as a matrix for (LiF); etc.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “a carbon-nature matrix” is indefinite because the specification does not clearly define the term.
Furthermore, since LiF is not hydrophobic as alleged by Applicant, it is unclear how to produce a hydrophobic coating using “LiF plus a carbon-nature matrix”. The “carbon-nature matrix” is hydrophobic? How to understand the term “plus”, physically mix LiF with carbon-nature matrix? All these issues render the claims 7-8 indefinite. The scope of the claims is unascertainable due to the use of the terms “a carbon-nature matrix” and “LiF plus a carbon-nature matrix”. The specification does not appear to provide a clear disclosure.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1, 3 and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiao et al. (US 20210234153 A1, hereafter Xiao) in view of Mäntymäki et al. (US 2016/0369397 A1, hereafter Mäntymäki) and Peng et al. (CN 109950540 A, whose English machine translation is being used for citation purposes, hereafter Peng).
Regarding claims 1 and 7-8, Xiao teaches a method for manufacturing an anode, comprising:
prelithiating a pristine anode material to produce a prelithated anode substrate and forming a protective coating over the prelithated anode substrate to yield a protected Si-anode substrate (See, at least, [0050]: “prelithating an electroactive material”, “silicon-based composition”, “also applying a mechanically protective coating”, etc.; Fig. 2). The protecting coating may be formed of, for example, silicon dioxide (SiO2), hafnium dioxide (HfO2), or a combination of SiO2 (or HfO2) and LiF ([0079]). It is generally knowledge that a coating of SiO2 (or HfO2) is hydrophobic. It is also expected that a combination of LiF and hydrophobic SiO2 (or HfO2) and LiF is hydrophobic (like a hydrophobic combination of LiF and a carbon-nature matrix as disclosed in the instant specification (at least [0058]) and as claimed in the newly amended claims 7-8).
Xiao appears silent as to a formation process of the protecting coating of LiF or the protecting coating of the combined LiF and SiO2 (or HfO2). Mäntymäki discloses that forming a LiF coating on a substrate with good conformality can be performed by depositing a phase lithium precursor and a fluoride reactant precursor on the substrate (at least: [0035]-[0036], [0088]), wherein the fluoride reactant precursor may be benzoyl fluoride ([0091], [0081]), a fluoro-based monomer. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have employed the technique of Mäntymäki using a fluoro-based monomer for forming a LiF coating or a coating of LiF and SiO2 (or HfO2) on the prethiated anode substrate of Xiao, in order to achieve good conformality between the LiF coating or the coating of LiF and SiO2 (or HfO2) and the substrate ([0014], Mäntymäki). As a result, the combination of LiF and SiO2 (or HfO2) reads on “a target chemical formulation” as claimed.
Xiao further teaches the target chemical formulation can be AlF3 ([0079]).
Xiao as modified is silent as to the limitation “processing the protected anode substrate using a laser to form the anode” as claimed. However, a laser processing of an anode substrate is a routine operation for one of ordinary skill in the art. For instance, Peng discloses a silicon-containing anode is laser-cut to have a desired size ([0068]). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have incorporated the teachings of Pend into Xiao as modified such that the protected anode substrate is laser-cut into a desired size since the operation involves merely ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art.
Regarding claim 3, Xiao as modified teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the protective coating is formed over the prelithiated anode substrate from the target chemical formation using chemical vapor deposition (“CVD”, [0007], [0014], [0085]-[0092]), Mäntymäki).
Regarding claims 9-10, Xiao as modified teaches the method of claim 1, and since Xiao as modified teaches a similar LiF-containing hydrophobic protective coating, it is reasonably expected that the functional limitations as recited in claims 9-10 are present.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiao as modified, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jiang et al. (US 20210126250 A1, hereafter Jiang).
Regarding claim 2, Xiao as modified teaches the method of claim 1, but is silent as to “a blend thereof” as instantly claimed.
Jiang discloses that a prelithiated anode comprising silicon, graphite, and silicon oxide (one of ordinary skill in the art knows that a native silicon oxide present on the surface of silicon, although Jiang does not explicitly mention silicon oxide) is coated with a protecting coating (at least: [0046]-[0049]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have incorporated the teachings of Jiang into Xiao as modified such that depositing the protective coating is performed on the prelithiated anode substrate comprising a blend of silicon, silicon oxide and graphite instead of silicon. The results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. The substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is prima facie obvious. See MPEP § 2143.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed Oct. 8, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Due to the claim amendments and 112 issues, the previous office action has been slightly modified in this office action to better clarify how the claim limitations are rejected.
In response to Applicant’s arguments related to “protective coating” being hydrophobic. Xiao explicitly teaches a hydrophobic coating of SiO2 or HfO2.
In response to the request of rejoining claims 4-6 and 11-20, it is respectfully noted that claim 1 is not allowable and that independent claim 11 (representing a process invention) does not include all the claimed subject matters of claim 1 (representing a product invention). Thus, claims 4-6 and 11-20 cannot be rejoined for allowance.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ZHONGQING WEI whose telephone number is (571)272-4809. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:30 - 6:00.
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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at (571)272-1330. 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.
/ZHONGQING WEI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1727
Prosecution Insights