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 .
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendment filed April 30, 2026:
Claims 1-9, 11-15 and 17-20 are pending. Claims 10 and 16 have been canceled as per Applicant’s request;
The specification objections set forth in the previous Office Action have been withdrawn in light of the amendment.
The claim objections set forth in the previous Office Action have been withdrawn in light of the amendment.
The 112 rejections set forth in the previous Office Action have been withdrawn in light of the amendment.
The 103 rejection of Cai et al. (CN 109256544A) in view of Lin et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0050597) to claims 13-15 and 17-20 set forth in the previous Office Action is withdrawn in light of the amendment.
The 103 rejection of Chen et al. (CN 109216693A) in view of Lin et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0050597) set forth in the previous Office Action stands as modified in light of the amendment.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: the specification has been amended to recite that the “polymer” is now an “amphipathic organic compound” and includes materials (NAPA and DMF) which may not be understood as “amphipathic organic compound” given the conventional understanding in the chemical art for “amphipathic organic compounds” (substance containing both a water attracting group and water repelling group). Amphipathic organic compounds are understood to have a clear polar group (and clear polar region) and a clear nonpolar group (and clear nonpolar region), a compound having just a polar and nonpolar region is not sufficient to be an “amphipathic organic compound” as polar and nonpolar regions are not polar and nonpolar groups themselves (not clear water attracting group and water repelling group).
For example, dimethylformamide (DMF) itself is n known as a small-molecule organic solvent that is polar aprotic. An amphipathic organic compound is understood to have hydrophobic and hydrophilic groups. DMF does not meet this definition as DMF is just one small molecule and does not define an amphipathic organic compound having hydrophobic and hydrophilic groups. Thus on a pure chemistry level, the application’s classification of DMF has consistently been incorrect (it’s not a polymer as originally disclosed and claimed (and still disclosed), not amphipathic and not amphoteric (see para. [0017] of the specification as amphoteric is understood as a substance that can act as either an acid or a base and DMF, a polar aprotic solvent, is not understood nor normally described as amphoteric).
Neither the claims nor the specification provide any guidance therein as to how the instant invention DMF clearly meets the definition of an amphipathic organic compound, much less one having both hydrophilic and hydrophobic groups.
Amphipathic organic compounds have distinct hydrophilic and hydrophobic groups. DMF is highly polar and miscible with water but it does not have the clear dual hydrophilic/hydrophobic group structure that a person of ordinary skill in the art of chemistry would typically come to understand is requisite of amphipathic organic compounds.
DMF is understood then to be a polar aprotic solvent rather than an amphipathic molecule. Again, the term amphipathic organic compound is understood to define a molecule which has clearly separated hydrophilic and hydrophobic domains. DMF, however is not amphipathic in the conventional sense, instead being understood to be a polar aprotic solvent with a single polar amid core with relatively weak hydrophobic character. As DMF is a material having a high dipole moment, dielectric constant, full miscibility with water and absence of hydrophobic domains (no hydrophobic group), it simply is not understood and would not be recognized by a person of ordinary skill in the art to be an amphipathic organic compound as now recited in the independent claims.
Appropriate correction is required.
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: the specification still recites that the polymer can be dimethylformamide. However, dimethylformamide (DMF) itself is not known as a polymer. It is known as a small-molecule organic solvent that can be used with polymers, but itself is not a polymer. A polymer is understood to be made of many repeating structural units into longer chains. DMF does not meet this definition as DMF is just one small molecule and is not built from repeating units. DMF is understood in the art as a solvent rather than polymer.
Neither the claims nor the specification provide any guidance therein as to how the instant invention employs DMF as a polymer and, as the general application of DMF (solvent rather than polymer) in the art is markedly different from the manner in which the instant application currently describes using DMF, the application does not provide sufficient written description relating to DMF as a polymer.
While the specification makes generic reference to the polymer as either NAPA, DMF or a combination thereof (such as para. [0017]), the specification lacks sufficient guidance pertaining to DMF as a polymer when DMF is not known to be a polymer material. It may be that DMF is in fact not meant to be recited as a polymer by the instant application, thus the specification would be objectionable. Alternatively, if DMF is in fact a binder, the specification fails to provide sufficient antecedent basis for this as DMF is not recognized as a polymer material and the specification provides insufficient guidance as to how DMF is obtained in polymer form.
Appropriate correction is required.
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). The amendment reciting the phrase “amphipathic organic compound”, previously undisclosed, is held further to introduce new matter into the specification and thus the application. Correction of the following is required: the specification has been amended from using the term “polymer” to now recite “amphipathic organic compound”. While the specification teaches of two specific materials (originally disclosed a polymers) the recitation of the phrase “amphipathic organic compound” and the breadth of this term “amphipathic” is not fully supported by the original disclosure. Recitation of only materials NAPA, DMF or a combination thereof (such as para. [0017]), for the “polymer” and now for the newly presented term ““amphipathic organic compound” is not coextensive in scope with the original disclosure.
The amendment appears to attempt to overcome the prior issue with the original disclosure reciting DMF as a polymer but not is unduly changing the scope of the originally disclosed invention to now recite that DMF is not a polymer (when the original disclosure only taught that DMF is a polymer – itself being problematic, but the disclosure not being sufficiently clear as to what DMF is). DMF is known as a small-molecule organic solvent that can be used with polymers, but itself is not a polymer. A polymer is understood to be made of many repeating structural units into longer chains. DMF does not meet this definition as DMF is just one small molecule and is not built from repeating units. DMF is understood in the art as a solvent rather than polymer.
But amending the independent claims and specification to use the term “amphipathic organic compound” is held to introduce new matter into the application as the term is not limited only to those materials of the disclosure ( only materials NAPA, DMF or a combination thereof (such as para. [0017])) and, as being broader in scope than the original disclosure, is held to change the material of the independent claims (from a polymer to an amphipathic organic compound and the terms are not coextensive in scope). Therefore the amendment to the specification, attempting to change the term polymer to amphipathic organic compound is held to introduce new matter into the instant application.
Appropriate correction is required.
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: claim 18 has been amended to recite that the positive pole piece comprises a silicon-carbon pre-lithium composite anode material whereas original claim 18 and the original disclosure teach the opposite, notably that the negative pole piece comprises the silicon carbon composite electrode material (see original claim 18 and, para. [0028] for example).
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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-9, 11-15 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains 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 or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 1-9, 1-15 and 17-20, have been amended to replace the term “polymer” with ““amphipathic organic compound”. The two terms are not synonymous and replacement of the term polymer with “amphipathic organic compound” is held to introduce new matter into the application. This is further evidenced by the fact that at least one material previously disclosed as a suitable polymer (DMF, which is not recognized as a polymer) is also not recognized as a “amphipathic organic compound”.
Neither the claims nor the specification provide any guidance therein as to how the instant invention employs DMF as an amphipathic organic compound, much less one having both hydrophilic and hydrophobic groups. However DMF still is not held to be an amphipathic organic compound in the conventional sense of the term.
Amphipathic organic compounds have distinct hydrophilic and hydrophobic groups. DMF is highly polar and miscible with water but it does not have the clear dual hydrophilic/hydrophobic group structure that a person of ordinary skill in the art of chemistry would typically come to understand is requisite of amphipathic organic compounds.
DMF is understood then to be a polar aprotic solvent rather than an amphipathic organic molecule. Again, the term amphipathic organic compound is understood to define a molecule which has clearly separated hydrophilic and hydrophobic groups. DMF, however is not amphipathic in the conventional sense, instead being understood to be a polar aprotic solvent with a single polar amid core with relatively weak hydrophobic character. As DMF is a material having a high dipole moment, dielectric constant, full miscibility with water and absence of hydrophobic domains (no hydrophobic group), it simply is not understood and would not be recognized by a person of ordinary skill in the art to be an amphipathic organic compound as now recited in the independent claims.
Therefore, the amendment to the claims, now reciting the previously claimed term “polymer” to be an “amphipathic organic compound” is held to introduce new matter into the application.
Claims 3 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains 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 or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 3 and 16 recite that the “amphipathic organic compound “can be dimethylformamide. However, dimethylformamide (DMF) itself is not known as a “amphipathic organic compound”. DMF is known as a small-molecule organic solvent that can be used with polymers, but itself is not a polymer. Amphipathic organic compounds have distinct hydrophilic and hydrophobic groups. DMF is highly polar and miscible with water but it does not have the clear dual hydrophilic/hydrophobic group structure that a person of ordinary skill in the art of chemistry would typically come to understand is requisite of amphipathic organic compounds.
DMF is understood then to be a polar aprotic solvent rather than an amphipathic molecule. Again, the term amphipathic organic compound is understood to define a molecule which has clearly separated hydrophilic and hydrophobic groups. DMF, however is not amphipathic in the conventional sense, instead being understood to be a polar aprotic solvent with a single polar amid core with relatively weak hydrophobic character. As DMF is a material having a high dipole moment, dielectric constant, full miscibility with water and absence of hydrophobic domains (no hydrophobic group), it simply is not understood and would not be recognized by a person of ordinary skill in the art to be an amphipathic organic compound as now recited in the independent claims.
DMF is understood in the art as a molecule rather than amphipathic organic compound”. See example of structural formula of DMF below:
PNG
media_image1.png
352
588
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Neither the claims nor the specification provide any guidance therein as to how the instant invention employs DMF as a “amphipathic organic compound” as there are no clear hydrophobic group and no clear hydrophilic group in DMF. The general application of DMF (molecular solvent rather than “amphipathic organic compound”) in the art is markedly different from the manner in which the instant application currently appears to describe using DMF and application does not provide sufficient written description relating to DMF as a “amphipathic organic compound”. For this reason, claims 3 and 16 fail to comply with the written description requirement.
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains 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 or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 18 has been amended to recite that the positive pole piece comprises a silicon-carbon pre-lithium composite anode material whereas original claim 18 and the original disclosure teach the opposite, notably that the negative pole piece comprises the silicon carbon composite electrode material (see original claim 18 and, para. [0028] for example).
Thus, claim 18 now appears to recite a positive pole piece which is outside the bounds of the original disclosure and contrary to the explicit teachings of the original closure and original claim 18. In light of this claims 18-20 appear to present new matter via the amendment and do not comply with the written description requirement.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-9, 11-15 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
With respect to claims 1, 13 and 18 and all dependent claims, where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “amphipathic organic compound” in claims 1-9, 11-15 and 17-20 are is used by the claims to mean NAPA, DMF or a combination of. However DMF still is not held to be an amphipathic organic compound in the conventional sense of the term for at least those reasons discussed above, incorporated herein.
Amphipathic organic compounds have distinct hydrophilic and hydrophobic groups. DMF is highly polar and miscible with water but it does not have the clear dual hydrophilic/hydrophobic structure that a person of ordinary skill in the art of chemistry would typically come to understand by the term “amphipathic”.
DMF is understood then to be a polar aprotic solvent rather than an amphipathic molecule. Again, the term amphipathic is understood to define a molecule which as clearly separated hydrophilic and hydrophobic groups. DMF, however is not amphipathic in the conventional sense, instead being understood to be a polar aprotic solvent with a single polar amid core with relatively weak hydrophobic character. As DMF is a material having a high dipole moment, dielectric constant, full miscibility with water and absence of hydrophobic domains (no hydrophobic group), it simply is not understood and would not be recognized by a person of ordinary skill in the art to be an amphipathic organic compound as now recited in the independent claims.
Claim Interpretation
The term DMF in claims 3 and 16 is not interpreted to fall under the scope of the plain meaning of the term “amphipathic organic compound” (defined above) and is interpreted as a molecule shown below having both a hydrophilic and hydrophobic character.
PNG
media_image1.png
352
588
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a hydrophilic part (C=O part is attached to N) is highly polar and interacts with water (i.e., hydrophilic part); and
a hydrophobic part (two methyl groups on N (N(CH3)2)) which are nonpolar parts that would contribute to hydrophobicity (i.e., hydrophobic part).
As can be seen above, DMF is a molecule, but is not an “amphipathic organic compound”.
As to the claimed “amphipathic organic compound “in claims 13-20 (particularly in claims 13, 16 and 20) it is noted that there is some issue with the materials disclosed and claimed, DMF, and being described as a type of “amphipathic organic compound” in the invention. As discussed above, DMF is not understood nor recognized to be a “amphipathic organic compound” but is instead a polar aprotic solvent having a hydrophilic part (polar region) and hydrophobic part (nonpolar region). For examination purposes, pending resolution of the issues above, the term “amphipathic organic compound” therein is held to include NAPA and DMF. The material being interpreted with DMF based on the example, whether or not DMF is or is not a “amphipathic organic compound” as understood by the conventional definition of what a “amphipathic organic compound” is.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 13-15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (CN 109216693A) in view of Lin et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0050597).
As to claim 13, Chen discloses a silicon-carbon composite anode material comprising a silicon-carbon composite, the silicon-carbon composite is
a composite structure formed by nano-silicon (para. [0036]),
carbon material (para. [0036]),
and DMF (“polymer” para. [0036]).
As best that the claim is understood in light of the issues above, Chen teaches of mixing in the presence of DMF (examples such as para. [0036]).
As to claim 17, the carbon material is carbon nanotubes (para. [0036], examples).
As to claims 13-15, Chen does not teach of prelithiating using a nanolayer material selected from the group consisting of B, Si, Ge, Sn, N, O, F, Cl, I, S, P, AlO2, TiO2 or of the nano-silicon particles being 15-50nm (claim 13); the lithium-containing compound (LiyM) comprises a material selected from the group consisting of Li5B4, Li22Si5, Li22Sn5, Li22Ge5, Li3N, Li2O, LiF, LiCl, LiI, Li2S, LiAlO2 (claim 14) or the pre-lithium nanolayer being a solid electrolyte interface (SEI) on a surface of the composite film (claim 15).
Lin, drawn to the same field of endeavor, that being silicon-carbon composite anode active materials and further teaches that prelithiating can be achieved by providing various lithium compounds as a coating which acts as an SEI layer to prevent further contact between the electrolyte and the active material (abstract, para. [0027]; examples). Lin teaches of LiyM where M is F (claim 13), LiF teaches of LiF (claim 14). Lin teaches that the SEI film layer on the composite can be any number of materials including LiCl, LiI, Li2O, LiF, etc. (claim 15).
Lin teaches that modifying a silicon-carbon composite anode active material with an artificial SEI layer such as those noted above would have improved electrochemical performance and would have effectively protected the anode active material from adverse contact with the electrolyte.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Si-C composite active material of Chen to further include an SEI nanolayer such as LiCl, LiI, Li2O, LiF, etc. as taught by Lin since it would have provided a number of predictable results associated with the inclusion of a lithium based SEI layer, including but not limited to, protection of the anode active material, improved electrochemical performance such as cycling stability (para. [0149]).
As to the nano-particles being in the range of 15-50nm, Chen teaches that the average particle diameter is preferably 50-200nm which at worst is a slight difference of range but is better to be of similar relative dimension to 15-50nm where the differences in ranges are minor and obvious differences, absent clear evidence to the contrary.
Generally, differences in ranges will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such ranges is critical. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969). It has been held that when the difference between a claimed invention and the prior art is the range or value of a particular variable, then a prima facie rejection is properly established when the difference in the range or value is minor. Titanium Metals Corp. of Am. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (CN 109216693A) in view of Lin et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0050597) and Wang et al. (CN 108649182A).
The silicon carbon material of claim 18 is read in light of the specification to refer to the negative pole piece (original claim 18 and para. [0027]) and has been interpreted as such pending clarification of the contradictory amendment to claim 18.
As to claim 18, Chen further discloses a battery comprising a counter electrode, negative electrode; wherein the negative pole piece comprises a silicon-carbon pre-lithium composite anode material comprising a silicon-carbon composite wherein the silicon-carbon composite is a composite structure formed by nano-silicon, and carbon material (such as in Examples 1-2, paras. [0034]-[0045], for example).
Chen discloses a silicon-carbon composite anode material comprising a silicon-carbon composite
the silicon-carbon composite is
a composite structure formed by nano-silicon (para. [0036]),
carbon material (para. [0036]),
and DMF (“polymer” para. [0036]).
As best that the claim is understood in light of the issues above, Chen teaches of mixing in the presence of DMF (examples such as para. [0036]).
As to claims 18-20, Chen does not teach of prelithiating using a nanolayer material selected from the group consisting of B, Si, Ge, Sn, N, O, F, Cl, I, S, P, AlO2, TiO2, of the grain size of the nano-silicon being 15-50nm, or of the particulars of the battery including a battery separator (claim 18); the lithium-containing compound (LiyM) comprises a material selected from the group consisting of Li5B4, Li22Si5, Li22Sn5, Li22Ge5, Li3N, Li2O, LiF, LiCl, LiI, Li2S, LiAlO2 (claim 19) or the pre-lithium nanolayer being a solid electrolyte interface (SEI) on a surface of the composite film (claim 20).
Lin, drawn to the same field of endeavor, that being silicon-carbon composite anode active materials and further teaches that prelithiating can be achieved by providing various lithium compounds as a coating which acts as an SEI layer to prevent further contact between the electrolyte and the active material (abstract, para. [0027]; examples). Lin teaches of LiyM where M is F (claim 18), LiF teaches of LiF (claim 19). Lin teaches that the SEI film layer on the composite can be any number of materials including LiCl, LiI, Li2O, LiF, etc. (claim 20).
Lin teaches that modifying a silicon-carbon composite anode active material with an artificial SEI layer such as those noted above would have improved electrochemical performance and would have effectively protected the anode active material from adverse contact with the electrolyte.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Si-C composite active material of Chen to further include an SEI nanolayer such as LiCl, LiI, Li2O, LiF, etc. as taught by Lin since it would have provided a number of predictable results associated with the inclusion of a lithium based SEI layer, including but not limited to, protection of the anode active material, improved electrochemical performance such as cycling stability (para. [0149]).
As to the nano-particles being in the range of 15-50nm, Chen teaches that the average particle diameter is preferably 50-200nm which at worst is a slight difference of range but is better to be of similar relative dimension to 15-50nm where the differences in ranges are minor and obvious differences, absent clear evidence to the contrary.
Generally, differences in ranges will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such ranges is critical. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969). It has been held that when the difference between a claimed invention and the prior art is the range or value of a particular variable, then a prima facie rejection is properly established when the difference in the range or value is minor. Titanium Metals Corp. of Am. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
As to the battery system including a separator, Wang, is drawn to the same field of endeavor (high safety lithium ion batteries) wherein conventional battery designs were known to include core components of electrodes, electrolyte and a separator. The separator is well-known by a person of ordinary skill in the art to effectively provide an electrical barrier between the opposing electrodes while remaining ion conducting.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the battery of Chen to include a separator as taught by Wang since it would have provided an electrical barrier between the opposing electrodes while remaining ion conducting, thereby improving electrochemical performance. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) See also In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). MPEP § 2144.07.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 30, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Chen does not disclose pre-lithium layers, granulation/sintering, or any amphiphilic polymer for dispersion control. Chen does not disclose multicomponent LiyM layer and amphipathic organic compound for dispersion.
Applicant argues that Lin does not suggest a multicomponent LiyM system, granulation/sintering, or an amphiphilic xanthate amide polymer. In one or more non-limiting implementations of the present application, amphipathic organic compound acts as a molecular bridge between hydrophilic nano silicon and hydrophobic carbon materials, thereby reducing agglomeration of nano silicon.
As to the combination of Chen in view of Lin, Applicant argues that Chen in view of Lin fails to disclose, teach or suggest, at least the features of "the polymer has a hydrophobic group and a hydrophilic group, the polymer is N-allyl-(2-ethyl-xanthate) propionamide (NAPA)" as recited in amended claim 13.
Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive for the following reasons:
First amended claim 13 is not limited to NAPA and can include NAPA or DMF (see claim 13, 10-11). In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., "the polymer has a hydrophobic group and a hydrophilic group, the polymer is N-allyl-(2-ethyl-xanthate) propionamide (NAPA)", amphiphilic xanthate amide polymer) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Furthermore, claim 13 no longer recites the term “the polymer” for various reasons set forth above and in the previous Office Action. Yet Applicant continues to reference the materials of note above as a polymer when, as previously stated, DMF (still currently claimed) is not a polymer and is not held to be an amphipathic organic compound either. Clarification is respectfully requested.
Second, Applicant’s allegations as to what each of Chen and Lin fail to teach themselves, is held to be a piecemeal analysis of these references.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Finally, as discussed above, Chen teaches of an Si-C composite including DMF (“amphipathic organic compound”) and carbon materials. Lin is provided to obviate the addition of prelithiating Si-C composites. Notably, Lin teaches that modifying a silicon-carbon composite anode active material with an artificial SEI layer such as those noted above would have improved electrochemical performance and would have effectively protected the anode active material from adverse contact with the electrolyte. Providing the lithium compound of Lin to Chen to effectively provide an SEI layer on the Si-C composite will effectively provide for lithiation of the Si-C composite of Chen while additionally improved electrochemical performance and would have effectively protected the anode active material from adverse contact with the electrolyte.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Si-C composite active material of Chen to further include an SEI nanolayer such as LiCl, LiI, Li2O, LiF, etc. as taught by Lin since it would have provided a number of predictable results associated with the inclusion of a lithium based SEI layer, including but not limited to, protection of the anode active material, improved electrochemical performance such as cycling stability (para. [0149]).
Accordingly, the 103 rejection to claims 13-15 and 17-20 above stands.
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 GREGG CANTELMO whose telephone number is (571)272-1283. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 7am to 5pm.
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, Basia Ridley can be reached at (571) 272-1453. 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.
/GREGG CANTELMO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights