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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Invention I in the reply filed on 3/04/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that it would not be a significant burden on the Office to search and examine each of the identified inventions. This is not found persuasive because Inventions I and II are classified in different groups and subgroups, Invention I being classified in H01M4/134, H01M2004/027 and H01M10/052, and Invention II being classified in H01M4/139 and H01M4/0442. This creates a search burden because the inventions will require a different field of search.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 8-11 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction requirement in the reply filed on 3/04/2026.
Claims 1-7, 12-15 are under examination.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 7 are objected to for the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, page 1 in line 6, “at least part of surface” is grammatically incorrect. The examiner suggests the following correction: “at least part of -a surface”.
Regarding claim 7 on page 2 in line 3, “on surface of” is grammatically incorrect. The examiner suggests the following correction: “on the surface of”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 5-7 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.
Regarding claim 5, “of surface of particles” lacks antecedent basis. One of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine if the “surface of particles” is the same as the “surface of the negative electrode active material” of claim 1 or a different surface. Furthermore, “particles” lacks antecedent basis on its own, as nothing referred to as “particles” is claimed in claim 1 nor in the preceding part of claim 5.
Regarding claim 6, the claim language creates uncertainty because one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine what is meant by “a mass percentage of the negative electrode active material provided with the artificial solid electrolyte film on surface is 80% to 100%”.
Regarding claim 7, “at least part of the surface of the negative electrode active material” creates uncertainty because one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine if the “at least part (…)” is the same as “the at least part (…)” of claim 1 or not. The examiner suggests adding “the” in front of the phrase to resolve this issue.
Still regarding claim 7, “an artificial solid electrolyte interface film” creates uncertainty because one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine if this is the same artificial solid electrolyte of claim 1 or a different one.
Appropriate correction is required for all of the above rejections.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 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 considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-7, 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wen et. al., 2021.
Regarding claim 1, Wen teaches a negative electrode plate (pg. 3, Col. 1, “Electrochemical measurements”, line 6, “the electrodes”), comprising a negative electrode current collector (pg. 3, Col. 1, “Electrochemical measurements”, line 4, “copper foils”) and a negative electrode film layer (pg. 3, Col. 1, “Electrochemical measurements”, line 4, “electrode slurry”), wherein the negative electrode film layer is provided on at least one surface of the negative electrode current collector (pg. 3, Col. 1 “Electrochemical measurements”, line 4, “electrode slurry was then coated onto copper foils”) and comprises a negative electrode active material (pg. 2, Col. 2, “Material preparation”, line 1, “SnO2”); wherein at least part of surface of the negative electrode active material is provided with an artificial solid electrolyte interface film (pg. 10, Fig. 6 f), wherein the artificial solid electrolyte interface film comprises a first inorganic lithium salt, and the first inorganic lithium salt is Li2CO3- (pg. 10, Fig. 6 f).
Regarding the claim limitation “and the first inorganic lithium salt is selected from one or two of Li2CO3 and Li2SO3” The examiner has provided prior art teaching Li2CO3, which anticipates the claimed subject matter of claim 1 because Li2SO3 is an optional requirement due to the word “or”.
Regarding the claim limitation “calculated based on a total mass of the artificial solid electrolyte interface film, a mass percentage of the first inorganic lithium salt is 20% to 90%”, because the claim states this is an optional limitation, the examiner will not provide art teaching this.
Regarding claim 2, Wen teaches the artificial solid electrolyte interface film further comprises Li2O (pg. 10, Fig. 6 f).
Regarding claim 3, Wen teaches the SEI layer is uniform and ~10 nm thick (pg. 11, Col. 1, Paragraph 2, line 7). This falls within the range of the claimed range of instant claim 3 (5 nm to 10 nm), which means Wen anticipates the claimed matter of claim 3 of the instant.
Regarding the following claim limitation: “calculated based on the total mass of the artificial solid electrolyte interface film, a mass percentage of the Li20 is 10% to 80%.”, because the limitation is stated as optional, the examiner will not provide art teaching this.
Regarding claim 4, the teachings of Wen are explained in the above rejections. Additionally, Wen provides Figure 1 (c), which shows high angle annular dark field-scanning TEM (HAADF-STEM) image and corresponding EDS elemental mapping of C, Sn and O (pg. 4). The distributions of these elements have little to no deviation in concentration, and the distribution of lithium carbonate and SnO2 are described as uniform (pg. 3, Col. 2, Paragraph 2, line 15).
Wen does not explicitly teach mass concentration deviations of elements C, O, S, and Li at any point of the artificial solid electrolyte interface film are all below 2%.
However, in absence of evidence to the contrary, a composition which is described as being “uniform” must have a mass deviation that lies within this range. Therefore, claim 4 is unpatentable over Wen as being anticipated by Wen.
Regarding claim 5, as explained in the rejection of claim 4, Wen teaches a uniform distribution of lithium carbonate and SnO2. Furthermore, Wen teaches an inorganic layer on the surface of the anode particles (pg. 11, Col. 1, Paragraph 2, line 12). In absentia of absence to the contrary, this means that the artificial SEI layer is found on all of the particles in the anode active material, which anticipates the limitation of “the artificial solid electrolyte interface film is located on 80% to 100% of surface of particles of the negative electrode active material.” of claim 5.
Regarding claim 6, as discussed under the 112(b) rejection above, it is unclear what is meant by “a mass percentage of the negative electrode active material provided with the artificial solid electrolyte film on surface is 80% to 100%”.
This claim limitation is disregarded for prior art analysis until the 112(b) rejection is resolved so that the Examiner can understand what is meant by this claim.
Regarding claim 7, Wen teaches the negative electrode plate is applied to a secondary battery; and after formation ends, at least part of the surface of the negative electrode active material is provided with both an artificial solid electrolyte interface film and a conventional solid electrolyte interface film located on surface of the artificial solid electrolyte interface film (pg. 11, Col. 1, Paragraph 2).
Regarding claim 12, Wen teaches a secondary battery comprising the negative electrode plate (pg. 3, Col. 1, “Electrochemical measurements”, line 12, “coin type-cells”).
Regarding claim 13, Wen teaches a battery module comprising the secondary battery (pg. 3, Col. 1, “Electrochemical measurements”, line 12, “coin type-cells”).
Regarding claim 14, Wen teaches a battery pack comprising the battery module (pg. 3, Col 1, “Electrochemical measurements”, line 12, “coin type-cells”).
Regarding claim 15, Wen teaches an electric apparatus comprising the battery pack (pg. 3, Col. 1, “Electrochemical measurements”, line 22, “a LAND battery test system”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LOUISE JAMES IANNUCCI whose telephone number is (571)272-6917. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00 A.M. - 5:00 P.M..
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. 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.
/LOUISE JAMES IANNUCCI/Examiner, Art Unit 1721
/ALLISON BOURKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1721