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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 6/3/26 has been entered.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 120 as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed applications, Application No. 62/464167, 63/067948, 15/906776, and 17/369058, fail to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application. Claim 1 contain matters (a weight ratio of said graphene to said nanoparticles of the anode active material) not supported by the prior-filed application. Therefore, effective filing date for claim 1 is 8/6/2021.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 9, 10, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lim et al. (“High Volumetric Energy and Power Density Li2TiSiO5 Battery Anodes via Graphene Functionalization,” Matter, Vol. 3, pp. 522-533, 8/5/2020, hereinafter Lim, cited by applicant).
Re Claim 1. Lim teaches a composite (P522), comprising:
solution-exfoliated graphene (P530);
nanoparticles of an anode active material (LTSO nanoparticles, P524) for an electrochemical device, wherein individual said nanoparticles, rather than multi-particle particulates, are uniformly and conformally coated and networked by said solution-exfoliated graphene (P522 & 524, Fig. 1); and
an amorphous carbon coating with sp2-carbon content along with said graphene conformally enveloping individual said nanoparticles of the anode active material, wherein the amorphous carbon coating is an annealation product of ethyl cellulose (P530 & 531);
wherein a weight ratio of said solution-exfoliated graphene to said nanoparticles of the anode active material is in a range of 1:19 (0.111 g of Gr/EC with 45 w% of graphene = 0.04995 g of graphene:0.95g of LTSO = 1:19, P530 & 531) ; and
wherein said anode active material comprises Li2TiSiO5 (LTSO) (P522).
"[W]hen, as by a recitation of ranges or otherwise, a claim covers several compositions, the claim is ‘anticipated’ if one of them is in the prior art." Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2131.03.
Lim does not expressly disclose an amorphous carbon coating with sp2-carbon content along with said graphene conformally enveloping individual said nanoparticles of the anode active material, wherein the amorphous carbon coating is an annealation product of ethyl cellulose.
However, since Lim and the claimed composite employ substantially similar materials and process, it is reasonable to believe that the claimed amorphous carbon coating with sp2-carbon content would have naturally flowed following the teachings of Lim. See MPEP 2112.01 & In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). MPEP 2145 & Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985)
Re Claim 9. Lim teaches being formed by annealing a mixture of said nanoparticles, said graphene, and the ethyl cellulose at a temperature for a period of time to decompose the ethyl cellulose, thereby resulting in said composite having said annealation product of the ethyl cellulose (P530 & 531).
Re Claim 10. Lim teaches wherein the atomic structure of said composite is maintained during or/and after lithiation (P525).
Re Claim 12. Lim teaches wherein the d-spacing along the [010] orientation of said composite is 0.648 nm (P524).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 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
The rejections above rely on the references for all the teachings expressed in the text of the references and/or one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably understood from the texts. Only specific portions of the texts have been pointed out to emphasize certain aspects of the prior art, however, each reference as a whole should be reviewed in responding to the rejection, since other sections of the same reference and/or various combinations of the cited references may be relied on in future rejections in view of amendments.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN E YOON whose telephone number is (571)270-5932. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9 AM- 5 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, 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.
/KEVIN E YOON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735
6/18/2026
Prosecution Insights