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 . If status of the application as subject to 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 a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Status of Claims
Claims 21-23, 25-30, 35-36, & 38-46 are pending in the application. Claims 39-40 are withdrawn. Claims 21-23, 25-30, 35-36, 38, & 41-46 are presently examined. Claims 21-38 were rejected in the 1/15/2026 office action. Applicant cancelled claims 24, 31-34, & 37. Applicant added new claims 41-46.
Response to Amendment / Arguments
The 6/15/2026 amendment, in response to the 1/15/2026 office action, has been entered.
Applicant’s claim amendments overcame the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejections; however, the claims rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 are now rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 based on the same prior art.
New claims are discussed below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 21-23, 25-30, 35-36, & 38-46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. Claims 21, 41, & 45-46 contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey, to one skilled in the relevant art, that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 41 states:
“at least during the diffusion of the lithium ions to the electrode active material, the system is configured separately control each battery of the batteries, and is configured to individually control of each battery of the batteries”
Claim 21 includes a similar limitation as option (i). Examiner couldn’t find support for this limitation of claims 21 & 41 in the specification.
Claim 45 states:
“the system is configured to couple with enclosures, each of the enclosures being of the respective battery of the batteries, each of the enclosures being configured to separately enclose a respective electrolyte solution”
Claim 21 includes a similar limitation as option (v). Examiner couldn’t find support for this limitation of claims 21 & 45 in the specification.
Claim 46 states:
“the at least one pre-lithiation module is configured to direct pre-lithiation of each battery of the batteries using the separate lithium source for each battery of the batteries”
Claim 21 includes a similar limitation as option (vi). Examiner couldn’t find support for this limitation of claims 21 & 46 in the specification.
Claims 22-23, 25-30, 35-36, & 38-46 are rejected due to their dependence on claim 21.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 21-23, 25-30, 35-36, & 38-46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor(s) regard as the invention.
Claims 1 & 45 state “the system is configured to couple with enclosures, each of the enclosures being of the respective battery of the batteries”. The meaning of this claim limitation is unclear.
Claims 22-23, 25-30, 35-36, & 38-46 are rejected due to their dependence on claim 21.
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:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
The claims are in bold font, the prior art is in parentheses.
Claims 21-23, 25-26, 29-30, 38, 42, & 45-46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20150017543A1 (Lee).
Lee teaches the following claim 21 limitations:
A system for forming batteries (paragraph 27; figure 2: plurality of unit cells), the system comprising:
at least one connector configured to operatively couple with the batteries (paragraph 27; figure 2: unit cells), each of the batteries comprising an electrode active material (paragraph 31);
at least one charging module operatively coupled with the connector, the charging module configured to charge the batteries (figure 2);
at least one pre-lithiation module operatively coupled with the connector, pre-lithiation module configured to diffuse lithium ions to the electrode active material of the batteries (paragraphs 23, 27 & 63-64; Figure A below: prelithiation of the unit cells; lithium metal plate); and
at least one discharging module operatively coupled with the at least one connector, the discharging module being configured to discharge the batteries (Figure A below), the forming of the batteries comprising buffering (paragraph 27 & 63-64; figure 2)
Regarding the buffering claim limitation, the present specification teaches that pre-lithiation is buffering. Lee teaches pre-lithiation (paragraph 27 & 63-64; figure 2).
Figure A: Annotated Lee figure 2
PNG
media_image1.png
669
734
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 21 also states:
(ii) the system comprising formation clusters, each of the formation clusters comprising (a) a connector of the at least one connector, (b) a charging module of the at least one charging module, (c) a pre-lithiation module of the at least one pre-lithiation module, and (d) a discharging module of the at least one discharging module
Lee teaches one formation cluster. Lee, however, fails to teach duplicating the formation cluster (singular) into formation clusters (plural). MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B) provides guidance for this issue: “mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced”. Here, it would be obvious to duplicate Lee’s formation cluster and form multiple formation clusters, based on MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B). This claim limitation is merely duplicating parts, and thus is not patentable without an unexpected result.
Claim 21 also presents alternatives (i), (iii), (iv), (v), and (vi) to (ii). These alternatives are not considered in claim 21 because (ii) is obvious based on Lee.
With regard to claim 22, Lee teaches the limitations of claim 21 as described above. Claim 22 recites:
the pre-lithiation module is configured to diffuse lithium ions to the electrode active material of the battery after the battery has been charged
Lee teaches both battery pre-lithiation and battery charging (see discussion under claim 21; paragraphs 27 & 63-64; figure 2; Figure A above). Lee, however, fails to teach charging the battery, and then diffusing lithium ions to the battery active material, in this order.
MPEP 2144.04(IV)(C) provides guidance for this issue: “selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results”.
This claim for charging the battery, and then diffusing lithium ions to the battery active material, is not patentable without a new or unexpected result.
With regard to claim 23, Lee teaches the limitations of claim 21 as described above. Claim 23 recites:
the discharge module is configured to discharge the battery after lithium ions have been diffused to the electrode active material of the battery
Lee teaches both battery discharging and diffusing lithium ions to the battery active material (see discussion under claim 21). Lee, however, fails to teach diffusing lithium ions to the battery active material, and then discharging the battery, in this order.
MPEP 2144.04(IV)(C) provides guidance for this issue: “selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results”.
This claim for diffusing lithium ions to the battery active material, and then discharging the battery, is not patentable without a new or unexpected result.
With regard to claim 25, Lee teaches the limitations of claim 21 as discussed above. Lee also teaches the following claim 25 limitations:
the battery comprises bilayers (paragraph 27; figure 2: plurality of unit cells), each bilayer of the bilayers comprises an electrode, a separator, and a counter-electrode (paragraph 27; figure 2: “each including an anode, a separator, and a cathode”); and wherein (A) the electrode of each member of the bilayers comprises an electrode current collector coupled with an electrode active material (paragraph 31), and/or (B) the counter-electrode of each member of the bilayers comprises a counter-electrode current collector coupled with a counter-electrode active material (paragraph 31)
With regard to claim 26, Lee teaches the limitations of claims 21 & 25 as discussed above. Lee also teaches the following claim 26 limitation:
the battery comprises an electrode busbar coupled to the electrode of each of the bilayers, and/or a counter-electrode busbar coupled to the counter-electrode of each of the bilayers (Figure B below)
Figure B: Annotated Lee figure 2
PNG
media_image2.png
578
687
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With regard to claim 29, Lee teaches the limitations of claim 21 as discussed above. Lee also teaches the following claim 29 limitation:
the active material comprises an anode active material comprising silicon, graphite, a composite material (paragraph 32: lithium composite oxides), a blended material, carbon nanotube, or any combination thereof
With regard to claim 30, Lee teaches the limitations of claim 21 as discussed above. Lee also teaches the following limitation of claim 30 (Figure C below):
the device is configured to couple with an auxiliary electrode to generate the lithium ions from the auxiliary electrode
Figure C: Annotated Lee figure 2
PNG
media_image3.png
584
690
media_image3.png
Greyscale
With regard to claim 38, Lee teaches the limitations of claim 21 as discussed above. Lee also teaches the following claim 38 limitations:
A method of buffering the batteries, the method comprising (a) providing the system in claim 21, and (b) performing one or more operations associated with the system for the forming of the batteries (paragraphs 27 & 63-64; figure 2: prelithiation).
With regard to claim 42, Lee teaches the limitations of claim 21 as discussed above. Lee also teaches the following claim 42 limitations:
the system comprises the formation clusters, each of the formation clusters comprising (a) the connector of the at least one connector, (b) the charging module of the at least one charging module, (c) the pre-lithiation module of the at least one pre-lithiation module, and (d) the discharging module of the at least one discharging module
As discussed in claim 1 above, it would be obvious to duplicate Lee’s formation cluster and form multiple formation clusters.
With regard to claims 45-46, Lee teaches the limitations of claim 21 as discussed above. Claims 45-46 state:
Claim 45
the system is configured to couple with enclosures, each of the enclosures being of the respective battery of the batteries, each of the enclosures being configured to separately enclose a respective electrolyte solution
Claim 46
the at least one pre-lithiation module is configured to direct pre-lithiation of each battery of the batteries using the separate lithium source for each battery of the batteries
A divider can be installed between Lee’s unit cells, separating them into different enclosures. Thus, Lee’s unit cells are “configured to” have separate enclosures.
2144.04(V)(C) provides added guidance for this claim limitation:
“C. Making Separable In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961) (The claimed structure, a lipstick holder with a removable cap, was fully met by the prior art except that in the prior art the cap is ‘press fitted’ and therefore not manually removable. The court held that ‘if it were considered desirable for any reason to obtain access to the end of [the prior art’s] holder to which the cap is applied, it would be obvious to make the cap removable for that purpose.’).”
Each separate enclosure would need its own lithium metal plate. 2144.04(VI)(B) provides added guidance for this issue:
“the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced”
It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, to separate the unit cells into individual enclosures, and to duplicate the lithium metal plate in order to provide a lithium metal plate for each enclosure, so that each unit cell could operate and provide electrical power separately from the others. This ability to provide electrical power separately is useful in case multiple, different devices needing power.
Claims 27-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20150017543A1 (Lee), as applied to claim 21, and further in view of US20210347787A1 (Lee2). Lee fails to teach the following limitations of claims 27-28, which are taught by Lee2:
Claim 27
at least one sensor operatively coupled with at least one controller (paragraphs 93-94: measuring and controlling prelithiation solution temperature), the at least one controller being programmed to receive a signal output by the at least one sensor and to transmit the received signal output, the at least one controller being configured to control a formation cluster, the formation cluster comprising the connector, the charging module, the pre-lithiation module (paragraphs 93-94), and the discharging module
Claim 28
the at least one sensor comprises a temperature sensor (paragraphs 93-94: measuring temperature), a voltage sensor, a current sensor, or any combination thereof
Lee2 is directed to “a highly reducing prelithiation solution capable of prelithiating a high-capacity anode for a lithium secondary battery” (paragraph 9). The lithium secondary battery can have high energy density (abstract). It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, for Lee’s plurality of unit cells to measure and control prelithiation solution temperature, as taught by Lee2, as part of a high-capacity anode for a high energy density lithium secondary battery.
Claims 35-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20150017543A1 (Lee), as applied to claim 21, and further in view of US10256507B1 (Busacca). Lee fails to teach the following limitations of claims 35-36, which are taught by Busacca (column 60, lines 1-11; figures 31C-D: openings 680 in constraint 158 to allow electrolyte flow into the electrode assembly 106):
Claim 35
the battery comprises a constraint enclosing an electrode assembly of the battery, the constraint being configured to house the battery and to facilitate distribution or flow of an electrolyte solution there though, the electrolyte solution carrying the lithium ions
Claim 36
the distribution or the flow of the electrolyte solution, is through perforations in the constraint
It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to add a constraint with openings to Lee’s unit cells, as taught by Busacca, to guide or direct electrolyte flow.
Claim 41 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20150017543A1 (Lee), as applied to claim 21, and further in view of US20220102704A1 (Verbrugge). Lee fails to teach the following limitation, which is taught by Verbrugge:
at least during the diffusion of the lithium ions to the electrode active material, the system is configured… control… the batteries
Verbrugge is directed to improved electrodes and improved methods of making and using electrodes, for decreased capacity loss (paragraphs 5 & 69). Verbrugge teaches controlling the amount of prelithiated lithium (paragraph 82). It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, to control prelithiation of Lee’s unit cells, as taught by Verbrugge, for decreased capacity loss.
Claim 41 also states:
the system is configured separately control each battery of the batteries, and is configured to individually control of each battery of the batteries
Lee and Verbrugge fail to teach this separate control. 2144.04(V)(C) provides guidance for this issue:
“C. Making Separable In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961) (The claimed structure, a lipstick holder with a removable cap, was fully met by the prior art except that in the prior art the cap is ‘press fitted’ and therefore not manually removable. The court held that ‘if it were considered desirable for any reason to obtain access to the end of [the prior art’s] holder to which the cap is applied, it would be obvious to make the cap removable for that purpose.’).”
In the present case, separately controlling pre-lithiation for each unit cell can provide different unit cells with different amounts of lithium for different applications. Also, in case the amount of lithium is desired to be the same for each unit cell, separate control can correct for variation between separate units. It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, to separately control each unit cell pre-lithiation for these reasons.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 43-44 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, and if the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) & 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections are overcome. The following is a statement of reasons for allowable subject matter:
US20150017543A1 (Lee) is the closest prior art of record. Lee teaches the prelithiation module of claim 21, as discussed above. Lee, however, fails to teach that the pre-lithiation module comprises a switched capacitor circuit (claim 43) or pulse frequency modulation (claim 44).
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT WEST whose telephone number is 703-756-1363 and email address is Robert.West@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10 am - 7 pm ET.
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, Allison Bourke can be reached at 303-297-4684.
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.
/R.G.W./Examiner, Art Unit 1721
/ALLISON BOURKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1721
Prosecution Insights