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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/08/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed 01/08/2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 3, 5-6, and 8-23 are currently pending. Claims 4, 7, and 24-27 have been cancelled. Claims 1, 3, 6, 17, and 20 are amended. Support for the amendments is found in the claims as originally filed as well as in paragraph 0045 of the present specification.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 8-15, and 17-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yakovleva et al. (WO 2019183361 A1) in view of Hosono et al. (JP 2015185403A).
Regarding claim 1, Yakovleva discloses a dry process for forming a prelithiated anode (paragraphs 0010, 0052, lines 3-9) comprising: preparing a dry anode material mixture comprising a) an active component comprising an active anode material, a binder and a conductive material (paragraphs 0046, 0049) mixed with a prelithiation agent comprising either a printable lithium composition comprising either a lithium metal powder, a polymer binder compatible with the lithium metal powder, and a rheology modifier compatible with the lithium metal powder or a solvent-free stabilized lithium metal powder to form a dry electrode material mixture (paragraphs 0026, 0040, 0052, lines 3-9); and c) depositing the dry anode material mixture to a current collector as a non self-supported layer or interface to form the prelithiated anode (paragraphs 0038-0041). Yakovleva does not explicitly disclose applying an adhesion promoting agent to a current collector and depositing the dry anode material mixture on the collector having the adhesion promoting agent.
Hosono discloses a method for manufacturing an electrode for a lithium ion battery comprising applying a binder to a surface of a foil to obtain a binder-coated current collector, and a step of forming an electrode active material on the coated current collector by a dry method (Hosono paragraphs 0009, 0016, figure 1). Hosono further discloses that this method removes distortion that occurs in a dry method (Hosono paragraph 0010). Furthermore, the reference teaches that applying an adhesive to the current collector allows the components to be firmly held in place (Hosono paragraph 0019) and that the binder layer provides an adhesive substrate for the active material layer to be molded on (Hosono paragraphs 0014-0015). Hosono and Yakovleva are analogous because they both disclose dry processes for forming an electrode.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the process disclosed by Yakovleva to include the step of applying an adhesive to the current collector and forming the active material thereon. Doing so would provide firm adhesion between the electrode components, improving strength.
Regarding claim 3, modified Yakovleva discloses the limitations of claim 1. Yakovleva further discloses that depositing the dry anode material mixture on the current collector is performed by a method selected from the group consisting of extruding, roll compaction, electrostatic deposition and combinations thereof (paragraphs 0038-0041).
Regarding claim 5, modified Yakovleva discloses the limitations of claim 4. Yakovleva further discloses that the adhesion promoting agent is selected from the group consisting of unsaturated elastomers, saturated elastomers, thermoplastics, polyvinylidene chloride, and polyvinyl acetate. poly(ethylene oxide), polystyrene, polyisobutylene, natural rubbers, butadiene rubbers, styrene-butadiene rubber, polyisoprene rubbers, butyl rubbers, hydrogenated nitrile butadiene rubbers, epichlorohydrin rubbers, acrylate rubbers, silicon rubbers, nitrile rubbers, polyacrylic acid, polyvinylidene chloride, polyvinyl acetate, ethylene propylene diene termonomer, ethylene vinyl acetate copolymer, ethylene-propylene copolymers, ethylene-propylene terpolymers, polybutenes, wax and combinations thereof (paragraph 0028).
Regarding claim 8, modified Yakovleva discloses the limitations of claim 1. Yakovleva further discloses that the active anode material comprises a carbon-based material selected from the group consisting of graphite, hard carbon, carbon alloys, and combinations thereof (paragraphs 0038, 0040).
Regarding claim 9, modified Yakovleva discloses the limitations of claim 1. Yakovleva further discloses that the active anode material is selected from the group consisting of graphite-SiOx composites, SiO, Si powder, SiC, Si/C composites, Si-based alloys, graphite-SnO, Sn/C composites, and combinations thereof (paragraphs 0038, 0040).
Regarding claim 10, modified Yakovleva discloses the limitations of claim 1. Yakovleva further discloses that the printable lithium composition comprises on a solution basis between 0.5% to 50% by weight of the lithium metal powder (paragraph 0037, 5% to 50%, within the claimed range) and between 0.1 % to 20% by weight of the polymer binder and of the rheology modifier (paragraph 0037, 0.1% to 20% binder, and 0.5 to 0.9% rheology modifier, within the claimed range).
Regarding claim 11, modified Yakovleva discloses the limitations of claim 10. Yakovleva further discloses that the printable lithium composition comprises on a solution basis between 10% to 30% by weight of the lithium metal powder (paragraph 0037, 15% to 25%, within the claimed range), between 0.1 % to 5% by weight of the polymer binder (paragraph 0037, 0.3% to 0.6%, within the claimed range), and between 0.5% to 5% of the rheology modifier (paragraph 0037, 0.5% to 0.9%, within the claimed range).
Regarding claim 12, modified Yakovleva discloses the limitations of claim 1. Yakovleva further discloses that the lithium metal powder is stabilized lithium metal powder (paragraph 0026).
Regarding claim 13, modified Yakovleva discloses the limitations of claim 1. Yakovleva further discloses that the rheology modifier is a conductive material (paragraph 0029).
Regarding claim 14, modified Yakovleva discloses the limitations of claim 1. Yakovleva further discloses that the process is essentially solvent-free (paragraph 0052, lithium composition can form the electrode film in a dry process).
Regarding claim 15, modified Yakovleva discloses the limitations of claim 1. Yakovleva further discloses that it is a one-step process (paragraphs 0040, 0052, components are extruded together in a single step).
Regarding claim 17, modified Yakovleva discloses the limitations of claim 1. Yakovleva further discloses a prelithiated anode (paragraph 0038, lines 1-2).
Regarding claim 18, modified Yakovleva discloses the limitations of claim 5. Yakovleva further discloses that the thermoplastic is selected from the group consisting of polystyrene, polyethylene and polymers of ethylene oxide (paragraph 0028).
Regarding claim 19, modified Yakovleva discloses the limitations of claim 18. Yakovleva further discloses that the polymers of ethylene oxide is selected from the group consisting of poly(ethylene glycol) and poly(ethylene oxide) (paragraph 0028, claim 20).
Regarding claim 20, Yakovleva discloses the limitations of claim 1 further including forming a solid electrolyte interface layer after applying the dry electrode material mixture to the
Current collector (paragraph 0007, lines 1-8). Yakovleva further discloses that the solid electrolyte interface layer is formed during the first charge of the cell (paragraph 0007, lines 1-8). Yakovleva is silent with respect to forming the solid electrolyte interface layer within 24 hours after applying the dry electrode material mixture to the substrate.
Forming the solid electrolyte interface layer within 24 hours of applying the material mixture would prevent the electrode from remaining in unnecessary storage. Additionally, the solid electrolyte interface layer is formed during the first charge cycle which may be performed within 24 hours. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the solid electrolyte interface layer within 24 hours after applying the dry material mixture for the purpose of reducing manufacturing inefficiency and unnecessary storage time.
Regarding claim 21, Yakovleva discloses the limitations of claim 1. Yakovleva further discloses a battery formed by the process (paragraph 0023).
Regarding claim 22, Yakovleva discloses the limitations of claim 21. Yakovleva further discloses that the battery has a first cycle efficiency greater than 80% (paragraph 0063).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yakovleva et al. (WO 2019183361 A1) in view of Hosono et al. (JP 2015185403A) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Chiang et al. (US 20100323244 A1).
Regarding claim 6, modified Yakovleva discloses the limitations of claim 1, wherein applying the dry electrode material mixture to the current collector comprises pressing the dry electrode material mixture onto the substrate (paragraph 0045, line 11-12). Yakovleva further discloses that heating and applied pressure facilitates lithium transfer onto the substrate (paragraph 0045, lines 12 -17). Yakovleva is silent regarding pressing at a temperature between about 80 and about 180 °C and at a pressure between 5000 and 50000 PSI.
Chiang discloses a method of forming an electrode (Chiang paragraph 0017) wherein a dry electrode material mixture is pressed under applied compressive force and heat (Chiang paragraph 0024). Chiang teaches that the compaction may be performed at temperatures above room temperature (Chiang paragraph 0064, lines 1-3). Chiang further discloses that as greater force is applied, the particles of the electrode pack more tightly together and that the compressive force required to produce electrodes of the desired density and thickness depends on the properties of the particles (Chiang paragraph 0063, lines 6-12).
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 process disclosed by Yakovleva with the pressing temperature and pressure disclosed by Chiang. Doing so would allow for control of the desired electrode density. The temperature and pressure disclosed in the instant application would have been obvious to try and would have provided predictable results of optimizing electrode density for the provided material mixture properties. Moreover, generally differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical.
“[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In this case, Chiang discloses temperatures above room temperature are used (Chiang paragraph 0064), and it would have been obvious to a one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the pressing temperature through routine experimentation depending on the particular composition of the electrode being pressed. Chiang further discloses the pressure applied is about 10 kpsi to about 200 kpsi. This overlaps the claimed pressure. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). Furthermore, “[t]he normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.” In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). See also In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); and MPEP 2144.05.
Claims 16 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yakovleva et al. (WO 2019183361 A1) in view of Hosono et al. (JP 2015185403A) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Shin et al. (WO 2020150266 A1).
Regarding claim 16, modified Yakovleva discloses the limitations of claim 1. Yakovleva further discloses that the printable lithium composition is stable against metallic lithium loss up to 180° C (paragraph 0036, lines 3-6). Yakovleva is silent with respect to the temperature of the process being below the melting point of lithium.
Shin discloses a dry method for forming a prelithiated electrode (Shin paragraph 0005), wherein the temperature of the process is below the melting point of lithium (Shin paragraph 0082, lines 4-7). Shin further discloses that the optimal temperature is determined by the configuration of the material mixture (Shin paragraph 0082, lines 7-8).
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 process of Yakovleva with the temperature disclosed by Shin. Doing so would provide chemical stability for the configuration of the electrode material mixture.
Regarding claim 23, modified Yakovleva discloses the limitations of claim 1. Yakovleva is silent with respect to the first cycle efficiency being greater than 90%.
It is deemed that the cycle efficiency is an inherent characteristic and/or property of the specifically disclosed battery. In this respect, MPEP 2112 sets forth the following:
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
“When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
“Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. Id.
The cycle efficiency is deemed an inherent property of the battery because batteries of identical structure and composition will produce equivalent cycle efficiencies, therefore cycle efficiency is an inherent characteristic of the battery structure.
Additionally, Shin discloses a battery formed by a dry process (Shin paragraph 0043) with a cycle efficiency greater than 90% (Shin figure 19C). Shin further discloses that greater efficiency represents improved performance (Shin paragraph 0052, lines 1-3).
Even if the battery does not inherently possess the claimed first cycle efficiency, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the battery disclosed by Yakovleva to have the efficiency disclosed by Shin for the purpose of improving battery performance as Shin links the selection of electrode components to the first cycle efficiency (Shin Table 7 and Fig. 19C).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/08/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Yakovleva fails to teach depositing the electrode mixture as a non self-supported layer. Applicant asserts that the reference teaches only standalone layers of the composition. However, Yakovleva discloses the deposition of the printable lithium composition directly onto the current collector through techniques such as printing, extrusion, spraying, coating, or rolling (paragraphs 0038-0043). The disclosed methods of application do not involve a separate step of forming a standalone layer before applying the layer to the substrate (current collector). As best understood by the examined application specification, a standalone or non self-supported layer does not need to be formed first then laminated to the substrate and is instead directly deposited onto the collector (see instant specification paragraphs 0012, 0014). Further, the examined application describes substantially identical techniques to the referenced application for applying the composition as a standalone layer. Therefore, since Yakovleva et al. (WO 2019183361 A1) teaches the application of the composition directly onto the substrate without an additional freestanding layer formation step, the reference does disclose the claimed configuration.
For example, Yakovleva teaches that the anode material and printable lithium composition are mixed and co-extruded together on the current collector (paragraph 0040). The highlighted production methods disclosed by Yakovleva involve direct deposition or application of the electrode material onto the current collector. This is consistent with the interpretation of the term in view of the examined specification, wherein the material is applied as a non self-supported layer in a one-step process rather than being formed separately. Furthermore, as evidenced by references such as Yang et al. (US 20200208287 A1, see paragraph 0057), a non freestanding layer is understood in the art to be one adhered to or on a substrate. Yakovleva refers to methods of applying the material directly onto, and therefore supported by, the current collector. Therefore, the claimed limitation is anticipated by Yakovleva.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the adhesion promoting agent 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 BENJAMIN T LUSTGRAAF whose telephone number is (571)272-0165. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 am - 6:00 pm.
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.
/B.T.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1727
/BARBARA L GILLIAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1727