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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 May 12, 2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 1 rejected on the basis that it contains an improper Markush grouping of alternatives. See In re Harnisch, 631 F.2d 716, 721-22 (CCPA 1980) and Ex parte Hozumi, 3 USPQ2d 1059, 1060 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1984). A Markush grouping is proper if the alternatives defined by the Markush group (i.e., alternatives from which a selection is to be made in the context of a combination or process, or alternative chemical compounds as a whole) share a “single structural similarity” and a common use. A Markush grouping meets these requirements in two situations. First, a Markush grouping is proper if the alternatives are all members of the same recognized physical or chemical class or the same art-recognized class, and are disclosed in the specification or known in the art to be functionally equivalent and have a common use. Second, where a Markush grouping describes alternative chemical compounds, whether by words or chemical formulas, and the alternatives do not belong to a recognized class as set forth above, the members of the Markush grouping may be considered to share a “single structural similarity” and common use where the alternatives share both a substantial structural feature and a common use that flows from the substantial structural feature. See MPEP § 2117.
The Markush grouping of the porous host particles is improper because the alternatives defined by the Markush grouping do not share both a single structural similarity and a common use for the following reasons: the porous host particles may be selected from carbonaceous, graphitic, graphene or metallic particles. This Markush grouping describes alternative chemical compounds that are not functionally equivalent and have a common use.
To overcome this rejection, Applicant may set forth each alternative (or grouping of patentably indistinct alternatives) within an improper Markush grouping in a series of independent or dependent claims and/or present convincing arguments that the group members recited in the alternative within a single claim in fact share a single structural similarity as well as a common use.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 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 non-obviousness.
Claims 1-4, 6 and 15-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rayner et al. (US Patent Application Publication no. 2014/0170303) in view of Stowell et al. (US Patent Application Publication no. 2020/0028155).
Regarding claim 1, Rayner discloses a process for producing a solid powder mass of multiple individual anode material particulates (abstract; paragraphs 79, 171), said process comprising:
(a) providing a working electrode (207; paragraphs 23) having a porous template (paragraph 195);
(b) dissolving a source of a selected anode active material in a liquid electrolyte (paragraphs 136, 177, 206 – a source of silicon is dissolved in the electrolyte);
(c) providing a counter electrode (207; figure 2); and
(d) disposing the working electrode (205), the liquid electrolyte (203), and the counter electrode (207) in a first electrodeposition chamber (201) and applying a desired current or voltage sequence across the working electrode (205) and the counter electrode (207) to electrodeposit an anode active material (paragraphs 23-25; 172-174; 195).
Rayner fails to teach wherein the working electrode comprises a solid powder mass comprising multiple porous host particles having a volume fraction of pores from 5% to 99.9 %, wherein the porous host particles are selected from carbonaceous, graphitic, graphene, or metallic particles and wherein the active material is deposited into the pores of the porous particles to obtain the solid powder mass of separate or non-bonded multiple anode material particulates, wherein said porous graphene particles comprise graphene sheets selected from pristine graphene, graphene fluoride, graphene chloride, graphene bromide, graphene iodide, chemically functionalized graphene, reduced graphene oxide, or a combination thereof.
Stowell teaches a method of producing a structured composite material for cathodes (abstract; paragraph 98), the method comprising providing a plurality of metallic porous host particles (paragraphs 47, 53, 65, 69, 98); and
depositing an active material on the surfaces or within the pores of the plurality of porous media particles to coalesce the plurality of porous media particles together and form the structure composite material with improved chemical properties, such as elastic moduli, abrasion resistance and electrical conductivity, compared to conventional composites (paragraphs 32-34, 37, 39, 50-63, 121; figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to deposit the active material of Rayner into pores of particles of the working electrode because as taught by Stowell, the structured composite material obtained exhibits improved elastic moduli, abrasion resistance and electrical conductivity.
It is important to note that claim 1 recites, in part, “wherein the host particles are selected from carbonaceous, graphitic, graphene, or metallic particles”. Claim 1 further recites the limitation “wherein said porous graphene particles comprise graphene sheets selected from pristine graphene, graphene fluoride, graphene chloride, graphene bromide, graphene iodide, nitrogenated graphene, hydrogenated graphene, doped graphene, chemically functionalized graphene, graphene oxide, reduced graphene oxide, or a combination thereof”, which further limits the porous graphene particles. Accordingly, this limitation has not been given patentable weight as it does not further limit the metallic porous particles recited in the alternative within the claim.
Regarding claim 2, the anode active material of Rayner is silicon (paragraphs 135, 144, 148).
Regarding claim 3, the anode active material source of Rayner includes compounds of formula SiX4 or SiHX3, wherein X is selected from Cl or Br (paragraph 136).
Regarding claim 4, Rayner further teaches wherein the electrolyte may be a non-aqueous electrolyte including propylene carbonate, ethylene carbonate, acetonitrile, tetrahydrofuran, dimethyl carbonate and diethyl carbonate (paragraph 135).
Regarding claim 6, Stowell discloses wherein the porous media comprises particles of carbon nanoparticles, i.e. graphene (paragraphs 53, 65; claims 1-3).
Regarding claim 15, Rayner teaches a step of forming said multiple anode material particulates into an anode electrode (paragraphs 152, 194-199, 236).
Regarding claims 16-18, the step of forming of Rayner includes adding a binder and additives (paragraphs 150, 235).
Regarding claim 19, Rayner combines said anode electrode with a cathode, and an electrolyte to form a battery cell (paragraph 78).
Regarding claim 20, Rayner in view of Stowell teach a solid powder mass of multiple anode material particulates produced by the process of claim 1 (as discussed in detail above).
Regarding claim 21, Rayner discloses an anode or negative electrode comprising multiple anode material particulates produced by the process discussed in claim 1, a conductive additive and a binder (paragraphs 150, 235).
Regarding claim 22, Rayner teaches a lithium-ion or lithium metal battery containing the anode of claim 21, a cathode (205), and an electrolyte (203) in ionic contact with the anode (207) and the cathode (205; figure 2; paragraph 135).
Claims 7-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rayner in view of Stowell as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lin et al. (US Patent Application Publication no. 2021/0050597).
Regarding claim 7, Rayner in view of Stowell discloses all the features discussed above, but fails to teach a further step of encapsulating or coating the porous anode material particulates with a thin protecting layer having a thickness from 0.5 nm to 2 µm, wherein the protecting lay comprises carbon, graphene, electron-conducting polymer, lithium ion-conducting polymer, or a combination thereof.
Lin discloses a process for producing a solid powder mass of multiple individual anode material particulates (abstract; paragraphs 4, 29, 40), wherein the anode active material particle further comprises a protecting shell having a thickness from 0.5 nm to 2 µm, the protective shell may contain a lithium ion-conducting polymer (paragraphs 34-42; 76-78).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to encapsulate the porous anode material particulates of the modified Rayner, as taught by Lin, in order to form a protective layer around the particulates while allowing for ion conduction.
Regarding claim 8, the method of Lin further includes a procedure of pre-lithiating the anode material prior to incorporation of the anode active material into a Li-ion cell under electrochemical conditions (paragraph 87). Absent a showing of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have conducted routine experimentation to determine suitable pre-lithiation amounts contained in said anode active material. MPEP 2144.05.II.A.
Regarding claims 9 and 10, Lin further discloses a step of encapsulating or coating the prelithiated multiple anode material particulates with a thin protecting layer having a thickness from 0.5 nm to 2 µm, wherein said protecting layer contains a polymer comprising a lithium salt selected from Li2CO3, LiOH, LiCl, LiI, LiBr, and combinations thereof (paragraphs 76, 84).
Regarding claim 11, the anode active material of Lin comprises silicon and said pre-lithiated Si particle is selected from LixSi, wherein numerical x is from 1 to 4.4 (paragraph 59).
Regarding claim 12, the protecting layer of Lin comprises a thin layer of a high- elasticity polymer having a lithium-ion conductivity from 10-8 S/cm to 5 x10-2 S/cm at room temperature (paragraphs 42, 76-77, 117-121).
Regarding claim 13, the step of prelithiating of Lin includes a procedure selected from chemical prelithiation, electrochemical lithiation, or physical lithiation (paragraph 87).
Regarding claim 14, one having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to conduct the electrochemical prelithiation of Lin in the first electrodeposition chamber or in a second electrodeposition chamber different than the first chamber.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on February 11, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues that the prior art made of record fails to teach “wherein the porous host particles are selected from carbonaceous, graphitic, graphene, or metallic particles, wherein said porous graphene particles comprise graphene sheets selected from pristine graphene, graphene fluoride, graphene chloride, graphene bromide, graphene iodide, chemically functionalized graphene, reduced graphene oxide, or a combination thereof”, as amended.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 1 recites, in part, “wherein the host particles are selected from carbonaceous, graphitic, graphene, or metallic particles”. Stowell teaches a method of producing a structured composite material for cathodes (abstract; paragraph 98), the method comprising providing a plurality of metallic porous host particles (paragraphs 47, 53, 65, 69, 98).
Claim 1 further recites the limitation “wherein said porous graphene particles comprise graphene sheets selected from pristine graphene, graphene fluoride, graphene chloride, graphene bromide, graphene iodide, chemically functionalized graphene, reduced graphene oxide, or a combination thereof”, which further limits the porous graphene particles. Accordingly, this limitation has not been given patentable weight as it does not further limit the metallic porous particles recited in the alternative within claim 1.
The previous rejections in view of Rayner and Stowell are still deemed proper, and are maintained.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZULMARIAM MENDEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-9805. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-4:30p.
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, James Lin can be reached at 571-272-8902. 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.
/ZULMARIAM MENDEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794
Prosecution Insights