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 .
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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I (claims 13-22) in the reply filed on 12/02/25 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 13-31 are pending, wherein claims 23-31 have been withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 8, “wherein β if” should be changed to --wherein β is--. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 13-16 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hao et al (US 2020/0067129, cited in IDS filed 2/21/23) in view of Kim et al (US 2022/0285744, cited in PTO-892 mailed 8/21/25).
Regarding claim 13, Hao et al teaches a method for pre-lithiating a silicon-containing anode in a lithium-ion battery (abstract, paragraph [0048], silicon-based active material), comprising:
providing a lithium-ion battery (abstract, lithium ion battery), wherein the lithium-ion battery comprises a cathode of lithium transition metal oxide (paragraph [0059], cathode active material may be selected from lithium transition metal composite oxides), an anode (paragraph [0047], anode), a separator (paragraph [0066-0068], note Celgard2325 employed as a separator), and an organic electrolyte (paragraph [0045], electrolyte, paragraph [0063-0064], see non-aqueous solvents);
wherein the end voltage during a battery charging cycle procedure U1 is between 4.35 V and 4.80 V (abstract, charging to about 4.2 to about 4.5 V, corresponding to an overlapping U1 voltage);
wherein during subsequent battery charging cycles, the end voltage during discharging of the battery U2 does not drop below 3.01 V (abstract, discharging to a voltage from about 2.5 to about 3.2 V, corresponding to an overlapping U2 voltage).
Hao et al teaches of subsequent battery charging cycles (paragraph [0009], steps (a) and (b) conducted for 1 to 3 cycles, paragraph [0010], after the cycles of steps (a) and (b), further comprises step (c) charging and discharging within a voltage range from about 2.5 to about 4.5 V at the second temperature during subsequent cycles, see example in paragraph [0070], 2nd and 3rd cycle, 4th to 200th cycle), but is quiet to the end voltage during charging of the lithium-ion battery U3 is lower than the end voltage during charging of the lithium-ion battery U1, wherein the lithium-ion battery is charged by the cc/cv method, and wherein the end voltage during subsequent discharging of the lithium-ion battery U4 is lower than the end voltage during discharging of the lithium-ion battery U2 and does not drop below 3.01 V.
Kim et al teaches a battery system including a negative electrode including a silicon-based active
material (abstract) and a positive electrode including a positive electrode active material such as a lithium-transition metal composite oxide (paragraph [0058-0059]). Kim et al teaches that in general, secondary batteries operate by being charged and discharged to a voltage range of 4.3 V to 2.5 V, however, when silicon-based active material is used, the degree of volume expansion/contraction of the silicon-based active material may be excessive when charging and discharging in the above-described range, resulting in a rapid deterioration in lifespan performance, and thus Kim et al narrows the voltage range for charging and discharging (paragraph [0026]). Kim et al teaches a driving voltage range for charging and discharging set by a control unit in a BMS (paragraph [0085]) to be charged at a voltage of 4.00 V to 4.08 V, and discharged to 2.98 V to 3.07 V (paragraph [0086]), with examples of 4.05V and 3.05 V (paragraph [0112], Table 1, note that these values, corresponding to U3 and U4, are lower than U1 and U2 of Hao et al, and above 3.01 V), in a CC/CV mode (paragraph [0120]), for up to 200 cycles (paragraph [0119]), and maintains an improved capacity retention rate and energy density compared to the batteries operating at voltages outside the claimed range (Table 2, paragraph [0127-0128]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Hao et al for the pre-lithiating of the anode and the teachings of Kim et al for the operation of the lithium-ion battery, as Kim et al teaches the narrow voltage ranges during operation prevents volume expansion of silicon-based active material (paragraph [0016]) to thereby improve battery lifespan while maintaining high energy density (paragraph [0016]).
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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 14, the combination teaches wherein U1 is between 4.37 V and 4.70 V (Hao et al, abstract, charging to about 4.2 to about 4.5 V, corresponding to an overlapping U1 voltage).
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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 15, the combination teaches wherein U2 for C-rates < C/5 is between 3.30 V and 3.10 V and for C-rates > C/5 is between 3.02 V and 3.20 V (note combination, where Hao teaches the discharge U2 is to a voltage from about 2.5 V to about 3.2 V (abstract) and discloses an example of discharging at a current of 0.1 C (corresponding to C/10, which is less than C/5) for the 1st discharge cycle (paragraph [0070])).
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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 16, the combination teaches wherein the method is part of the lithium-ion battery formation procedure (note combination, Hao, paragraph [0036], the first steps (a) and (b) corresponding to U1 and U2 (paragraph [0029-0031]) are for formation).
Regarding claim 21, Hao et al teaches wherein the silicon-containing anode comprises silicon as active anode material (paragraph [0047-0048], no specific limitation to the anode active material, may be a silicon-based activematerial), but is quiet to the silicon being silicon particles.
Kim et al teaches the silicon based active anode material may include particles having an average particle diameter of 1 to 10µm, in view of ensuring structural stability of the active material during charging and discharging, more smoothly forming a conductive network for maintaining electrical conductivity, and making it easier to settle on the binder for binding the active material and the current collector (paragraph [0036]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Hao et al such that the silicon-based active material are particles, as taught in Kim et al, in view of ensuring structural stability of the active material during charging and discharging, more smoothly forming a conductive network for maintaining electrical conductivity, and making it easier to settle on the binder for binding the active material and the current collector (Kim, paragraph [0036]).
Claim(s) 17-20 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hao et al as modified by Kim et al as applied to claims 13 and 21 above, and further in view of Bernhard et al (WO 2020/233799 A1, cited in IDS filed 2/21/23).
Regarding claims 17-18, the combination is quiet to (re: claim 17) wherein the ratio of the lithium atoms to the silicon atoms in the partially lithiated anode material of the fully charged lithium-ion battery corresponds to the formula Li0.45Si to Li3.30Si and (re: claim 18) wherein the capacity of silicon is utilized at 400 to 3200 mAh per gram of silicon in the partially lithiated anode material of the fully charged lithium-ion battery; wherein the capacity of silicon is given by the degree of lithiation α and by the maximum lithiation capacity of silicon (4200 mAh per gram of silicon) and the degree of lithiation α of the active material is computed using the following formula I: α = β/γFGωAM; wherein β is a delithiation capacity per unit area of the active material-containing anode at the respective end-of-charging voltage of the lithium-ion battery which has been delithiated in a half-cell measurement against lithium; wherein γ is a maximum capacity of the active material for lithium (corresponds to 4200 mAh/g for silicon with a stoichiometry of Li4,4Si); wherein FG is a surface weight of the anode coating in g/cm2; and wherein ωAM is a percentage weight fraction of active material in the anode coating.
Bernhard et al teaches lithium-ion batteries whose anode contained silicon (paragraph [0008]) and were only partially lithiated in the fully charged state (paragraph [0008]), with the total degree of lithiation α being 10% to 75% based on the maximum capacity of silicon (paragraph [0011]). The maximum specific capacity of silicon for lithium, generally corresponds to 4200 mAh per gram of silicon, and can be recognized by the formula Li4.4Si (paragraph [0021]). The ratio of lithium atoms preferably corresponds to Li0.45Si to Li3.30Si (paragraph [0024]), corresponding to a capacity preferably 400 to 3200 mAh per gram of silicon (paragraph [0025]), where degree of lithiation α is calculated by formula I (machine translation, paragraph [0086-0093], see WO document p.21, Formula I). Bernhard teaches that surprisingly, the synergistic effects of prelithiation and partial lithiation according to the invention increases the total cell capacity and the stability of the lithium ion battery during cycling (paragraph [0084]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination such that the silicon anodes are partially lithiated in the fully charged state with a total degree of 10% to 75% as taught in Bernhard et al (corresponding to the claimed Li/Si ratio and capacity utilized), as Bernhard teaches that partial lithiation together with prelithiation according to their invention has a synergistic interaction that surprisingly increases the total cell capacity and the stability of the lithium ion battery during cycling (Bernhard, paragraph [0084]).
Regarding claims 19-20, the combination is quiet to (re: claim 19) wherein the amount of lithium introduced into the silicon through pre-lithiation corresponds to the formula Li0.20Si to Li2.20Si and (re: claim 20) wherein the amount of lithium introduced into the silicon through pre-lithiation corresponds to a lithiation capacity of 200 to 2100 mAh per gram of silicon; wherein the lithiation capacity is given by the degree of prelithiation α1 and by the maximum lithiation capacity of silicon (4200 mAh per gram of silicon) and the degree of pre-lithiation α1 is computed using the following formula II: α1 = δ/γFGωAM; wherein δ is a delithiation capacity per unit area of the active material-containing anode at the respective end-of-discharge voltage of the lithium-ion battery which has been further delithiated in a half-cell measurement against lithium; wherein γ is a maximum capacity of the active material for lithium (corresponds to 4200 mAh/g for silicon with a stoichiometry of Li4,4Si); wherein FG is a surface weight of the anode coating in g/cm2; and wherein ωAM is a percentage weight fraction of active material in the anode coating.
Bernhard et al teaches lithium-ion batteries whose anode contained silicon (paragraph [0008]) and were only partially lithiated in the fully charged state (paragraph [0008]), with the total degree of lithiation α being 10% to 75% based on the maximum capacity of silicon (paragraph [0011]). The maximum specific capacity of silicon for lithium, generally corresponds to 4200 mAh per gram of silicon, and can be recognized by the formula Li4.4Si (paragraph [0021]). Bernhard et al further teaches the anodes are pre-lithiated to a degree of preferably 5 to 50% of the lithiation capacity of silicon (paragraph [0028]).
The amount of lithium introduced by prelithiation corresponds to Li0.20Si to Li2.20Si (paragraph [0029]), corresponding to a capacity preferably 200 to 2100 mAh per gram of silicon (paragraph [0030]), where degree of prelithiation α1 is calculated by formula II (machine translation, paragraph [0098-0104], see WO document p.23, Formula II). Bernhard teaches that surprisingly, the synergistic effects of prelithiation and partial lithiation according to the invention increases the total cell capacity and the stability of the lithium ion battery during cycling (paragraph [0084]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination such that the silicon anodes are prelithiated with a degree of 5% to 50% as taught in Bernhard et al (corresponding to the claimed Li/Si ratio and amount introduced), as Bernhard teaches that partial lithiation together with prelithiation according to their invention has a synergistic interaction that surprisingly increases the total cell capacity and the stability of the lithium ion battery during cycling (Bernhard, paragraph [0084]).
Regarding claim 22, the combination is quiet to wherein the volume-weighted particle size distribution of the silicon particles is between the diameter percentiles d10 ≥ 0.2 µm and d90 ≤ 20.0 µm.
Bernhard et al teaches volume-weighted particle size distribution of the silicon particles preferably lies between d10 > 0.2 µm and d90 < 20.0 µm (machine translation, paragraph [0050-0051]), where the silicon particles are not aggregated and preferably not nanostructured (paragraph [0054]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination such that the particle size distribution of the silicon particles is between the diameter percentiles d10 ≥ 0.2 µm and d90 ≤ 20.0 µm as Bernhard et al teaches that the distribution is known (paragraph [0050-0051]), and that lithium-ion batteries having said silicon-containing anodes partially lithiated in the fully charged state can achieve a high reversible capacity and high cycle stability (paragraph [0007-0008]).
All the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would yield nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR, 550 U.S. at 416, 82 USPQ2d at 1395. MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACKY YUEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5749. The examiner can normally be reached 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, Keith Walker can be reached at 571-272-3458. 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.All the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would yield nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR, 550 U.S. at 416, 82 USPQ2d at 1395. MPEP 2143(I)(A).
/JACKY YUEN/
Examiner
Art Unit 1735
/KEITH WALKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1735