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 .
Status of Amendment
The amendment filed on 16 October 2025 fails to place the application in condition for allowance.
Claims 1-4, 6-17, and 19-22 are currently under examination.
Status of Rejections
The rejection under previously cited Lin, Grant, and Chae are herein withdrawn due to Applicant’s Amendment filed 16 October 2025.
New rejections are provided herein.
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, 3,4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 13, 15, and 16, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cain et al (US 2021/0175486 A1).
As to claim 1, Cain discloses a method for forming an electroactive material (Title), the method comprising:
sourcing a current or voltage (Fig. 2 line 242 electron path OR external voltage applied – [0082]-[0083]) to an electrochemical reactor comprising a cation source (Fig. 2 #240), an electrolyte mixture (Fig. 2 #s 210 and #260), and an electroactive material precursor in contact with one another (Fig. 2 #s 220/222/224),
wherein the current or voltage serves to ionize and form cations at the cation source that react with the electroactive material precursor in the electrolyte mixture to form the electroactive material ([0076],[0084] #270).
As to claims 3 and 4, Cain discloses the cation is lithium thus resulting in a pre-lithiated electroactive material (Title “lithiating”, [0078] #224 lithiated electroactive particles).
As to claim 6, Cain discloses negative electroactive materials of silicon or tin ([0073]).
As to claim 8, Cain further discloses wherein the temperature is between 25 and 150 °C ([0076] “equal to about 25° C”).
As to claim 12, Cain further discloses filtering inherently through the further processing of adding a polymer layer thus absent the specific filtering method, any step which removes the particles is deemed to be filtering. ([0084]).
As to claim 13, Cain discloses a method for forming an electroactive material (Title), the method comprising:
Suspending (See Fig. 2) an electroactive material precursor (Fig. 2 #s 220/222/224), with an electrolyte (Fig. 2 #s 210 and #260) in an electrochemical reactor (Fig. 2) further comprising a cation source comprising a cation selected from the group consisting of: lithium, calcium, sodium, potassium, and combinations thereof (Fig. 2 #240 Title “lithiating”, [0078] #224 lithiated electroactive particles), the electrolyte having a temperature greater than or equal to about 25 °C to less than or equal to about 150 °C ([0076] “equal to about 25° C”).
sourcing a current or voltage (Fig. 2 line 242 electron path OR external voltage applied – [0082]-[0083]) to an electrochemical reactor comprising a cation source (Fig. 2 #240), an electrolyte mixture (Fig. 2 #s 210 and #260), and an electroactive material precursor in contact with one another (Fig. 2 #s 220/222/224),
wherein the current or voltage serves to ionize and form cations at the cation source that react with the electroactive material precursor in the electrolyte mixture to form the electroactive material ([0076],[0084] #270).
As to claim 15, Cain discloses the cation is lithium thus resulting in a pre-lithiated electroactive material (Title “lithiating”, [0078] #224 lithiated electroactive particles).
As to claim 16, Cain discloses negative electroactive materials of silicon or tin ([0073]).
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 nonobviousness.
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.
Claims 2, 10, 13, 14, and 20-22 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cain.
As to claim 10, Cain further discloses wherein the time for the current is performed for 1 minute to 24 hours thus overlapping the instantly claimed range thus prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
As to claims 2, 14, and 21, Cain discloses preparing the electrolyte mixture by contacting the electroactive material precursor with an electrolyte prior to being disposed in the electrochemical reactor, (via Fig. 2 inlet and/or tank 230 before the particles enter tank 250).
As to the limitation “wherein the electrolyte mixture comprises greater than or equal to about 1 gram of the electroactive material precursor per 20 milliliters of electrolyte”, such limitation is drawn towards the concentration of precursor to electrolyte. 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). Thus, selection of an appropriate amount of electrolyte for 1 gram of precursor would be prima facie obvious based on providing an appropriate amount of electrolyte necessary to carry out the prelithiation.
As to claim 20, Cain discloses a method for forming an electroactive material (Title), the method comprising:
Suspending (See Fig. 2) an electroactive material precursor (Fig. 2 #s 220/222/224), with an electrolyte (Fig. 2 #s 210 and #260) in an electrochemical reactor (Fig. 2) further comprising a cation source comprising a cation selected from the group consisting of: lithium, calcium, sodium, potassium, and combinations thereof (Fig. 2 #240 Title “lithiating”, [0078] #224 lithiated electroactive particles), the electrolyte having a temperature greater than or equal to about 25 °C to less than or equal to about 150 °C ([0076] “equal to about 25° C”).
sourcing a current or voltage (Fig. 2 line 242 electron path OR external voltage applied – [0082]-[0083]) to an electrochemical reactor comprising a cation source (Fig. 2 #240), an electrolyte mixture (Fig. 2 #s 210 and #260), and an electroactive material precursor in contact with one another (Fig. 2 #s 220/222/224),
wherein the current or voltage serves to ionize and form cations at the cation source that react with the electroactive material precursor in the electrolyte mixture to form the electroactive material ([0076],[0084] #270).
As to the limitation “wherein the electrolyte mixture comprises greater than or equal to about 1 gram of the electroactive material precursor per 20 milliliters of electrolyte”, such limitation is drawn towards the concentration of precursor to electrolyte. 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). Thus, selection of an appropriate amount of electrolyte for 1 gram of precursor would be prima facie obvious based on providing an appropriate amount of electrolyte necessary to carry out the prelithiation.
As to claim 22, Cain discloses applying the vias for 24 hours when processing the electroactive particles to completetion. Cain also discloses the use of the processes during a continuous flow process ([0026]) thus would have been obvious to continually run the processor for multiple batches of particles thus amounting to an obvious extension of the time the current or voltage being sources for, such as 72 hour for 3 batches of electroactive particles. The claim does not preclude stopping and staring the voltage sources such that the cumulative time the voltage source is applied amounts to greater than 55 hours or less than 100 hours.
Claims 7, 9, and 17, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cain in view of Chae et al (US 2021/0159500 A1)
As to claims 7, 9, and 17 ,Cain fails to explicitly disclose wherein the electroactive material comprises a plurality of solid-state electroactive material particles, wherein at least a portion of the plurality of solid-state electroactive material particles comprises a solid electrolyte interphase layer.
Chae discloses a pre-lithiation process (Title, claim 1) wherein the electroactive material comprises a plurality of solid-state electroactive material particles ([0031]), wherein at least a portion of the plurality of solid-state electroactive material particles comprises a solid electrolyte interphase layer via incorporation of an additive ([0050]). Chae discloses using a current density at 0.1-10 mA/cm2 ([0050]) and a specific example of 2 mA/cm2 ([0088]) falls within the instantly claimed range of instant claims 9 and 17.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have used an additive during the prelithiation which forms an SEI layer via the lithiations process as taught by Chae in the method of Cain because the formation of the SI layer is formed uniformly and improves the lifecycle characteristics when subsequently used as an negative electrode (Chae [0051]).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cain in view of Lin et al (US 2021/0013490 A1)
As to claim 11, Cain fails to explicitly discloses wherein the current or voltage is a first current or voltage, the first current or voltage is sourced for a first time period, and the method further comprises sourcing a second current or voltage for a second time period, wherein the second current or voltage is different from the first current or voltage.
Lin discloses a method for forming an electroactive material, the method comprising:
sourcing a current or voltage (Fig. 1A power supply) to an electrochemical reactor comprising a cation source (Fig. 1A “Li Metal), an electrolyte mixture (Fig. 1A “electrolyte”), and an electroactive material precursor in contact with one another (Fig. 1A compacted mass of anode particles),
wherein the current or voltage serves to ionize and form cations at the cation source that react with the electroactive material precursor in the electrolyte mixture to form the electroactive material ([0080]).
Lin further discloses wherein the current or voltage is a first current or voltage, the first current or voltage is sourced for a first time period, and the method further comprises sourcing a second current or voltage for a second time period, wherein the second current or voltage is different from the first current or voltage. ([0080] “An electric current is then applied between the anode and the cathode. This is similar to an electro-plating procedure, but, surprisingly, Li atoms are capable of permeating into the bulk of the Si or graphite particles.” [0081] “After the anode active material particles (e.g. Si or graphite) are pre-lithiated to a desired extent (e.g. up to the full lithium storage capacity of Si or graphite), the electric current can be reversed in polarity (e.g. instead of pumping electrons into the Si/graphite electrode, electrons are drawn out of the Si/graphite electrode).”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have used a first and second voltage/current different from each other as taught by Lin in the method of Cain because use of a voltage to lithiate and de-lithiate allows for the recognized method if lithiating silicon particles which leave the surface void of lithium making the particle more air stable and safer (Lin [0081]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-4, 6-17, and 19-22 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
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 LOUIS J RUFO whose telephone number is (571)270-7716. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 9 am to 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, Luan Van can be reached at 571-272-8521. 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.
/LOUIS J RUFO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1795