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
Claims 23-25 were withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim, in the Non-final office action dated 16 October 2025. Applicant did not traverse this requirement, therefore the restriction requirement is made final.
Status of Claims
Claim 1 is cancelled. Claims 3, 5-8, 12-15, and 26 are newly amended. Claims 23-25 stand withdrawn. Claim 28 is newly added. Claims 3-19, and 26-28, as filed 16 October 2025, are examined herein. No new matter is included.
Response to Amendment
The reply filed on 16 October 2025 is not fully responsive to the prior Office action because of the following omission(s) or matter(s): Applicant does not address the nonstatutory double patenting rejection (NSDP) . (MPEP 804 I-B1) explains: “A complete response to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection is either a reply by applicant showing that the claims subject to the rejection are patentably distinct from the reference claims, or the filing of a terminal disclaimer in accordance with 37 CFR 1.321 in the pending application(s) with a reply to the Office action (see MPEP § 1490 for a discussion of terminal disclaimers). Such a response is required even when the nonstatutory double patenting rejection is provisional.”
In the interest of compact prosecution, Examiner has examined the amended claims on the merits and notes that in the response to this Office Action, the applicant must fully reply including to the double patenting rejection otherwise the response may be considered incomplete and not bona-fide.
Response to Arguments
The objection to claim 13 is withdrawn.
Regarding the rejection of claim 10 under 35 USC 103, Applicant argues that Zhamu does not teach or suggest “wherein the one or more ion-conducting materials are homogenously distributed throughout the bulk of the anode.” This is not persuasive. Zhamu discloses [0035-0037] producing the material by assembling a porous conductive structure with at least 70% pore volume prior to impregnation, and impregnating the conductive porous structure with a suspension of an anode active material to create an anode active material loading level of no less than 20 mg/cm2. Zhamu discloses at [0054] that the pore walls cover the entire anode layer, and that conductive pore walls are in the immediate vicinity of every anode active material particle. At [0100] Zhamu discloses that preferably, substantially all of the pores are filled with the electrode active material.
Because the porous structure is 70% pore volume or higher, and substantially all of the pores are filled with the electrode active material, the anode active material is therefore distributed homogeneously.
The rejection under 35 USC 102 is withdrawn in light of the amendment of claim 1 by the limitations of claim 3. The rejection under 35 USC 103 is maintained.
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.
Claim(s) 3, 5, 7-8, 10-11, 15-19, and 26-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhamu (US 20170207484 A1).
Regarding claims 3 and 15, Zhamu teaches an anode (abstract), comprising:
a three-dimensional (3D) monolith comprising at least one anode active material; ([0029] conductive porous structure acting as a 3D anode current collector; [0039] anode active material coated on … an anode current collector.)
a continuous ion-conducting network formed on at least surface(s) of the 3D monolith, wherein the continuous ion-conducting network comprises one or more ion-conducting materials, and wherein the one or more ion-conducting materials are selected from the group consisting of: Li4Ti5O12 (LTO). ([0046] lithium titanate) Examiner notes that lithium titanate is an ion-conducting material, see [0048] of the instant specification.
Regarding the limitation wherein the ion-conducting network further comprises a plurality of particles of the one or more ion-conducting materials homogenously distributed throughout a bulk of the 3D monolith anode, Zhamu discloses [0035-0037] producing the material by assembling a porous conductive structure with at least 70% pore volume prior to impregnation, and impregnating the conductive porous structure with a suspension of an anode active material to create an anode active material loading level of no less than 20 mg/cm2. Zhamu discloses at [0054] that the pore walls cover the entire anode layer, and that conductive pore walls are in the immediate vicinity of every anode active material particle. At [0100] Zhamu discloses that preferably, substantially all of the pores are filled with the electrode active material. Because the porous structure is 70% pore volume or higher, and substantially all of the pores are filled with the electrode active material, a person of ordinary skill in the art would consider that the anode active material is therefore distributed homogeneously.
Regarding claim 15, Zhamu at (abstract) teaches an electrochemical cell (battery) comprising the anode as recited in claim 3.
Regarding claim 5, Zhamu teaches all of the limitations as set forth above, and Zhamu further teaches [0055] “the anode active material layer is typically 80-100 µm”, which falls within the claimed range of about 20 µm to about 500 µm and thus reads on/renders obvious “the anode is characterized by a physical form factor of a thin foil”.
Regarding claim 6, Zhamu teaches all of the limitations as set forth above, and Zhamu further teaches wherein the three-dimensional (3D) monolith is a free-standing structure. [0162] free-standing film of graphene. [0039] anode active materials coated onto … an anode current collector. Examiner notes that at [0046] Zhamu states that graphite is an alkali intercalation compound (an active material). Therefore, a person of ordinary skill would expect Zhamu’s graphene to also act as an active material, thus meeting the instant claim limitation.
Regarding claim 7, Zhamu teaches all of the limitations as set forth above, and Zhamu further teaches a current collector disposed within a bulk of the 3D monolith and electrically coupled to the 3D monolith. ([0029] conductive porous structure acting as a 3D anode current collector; [0039] anode active material coated on … an anode current collector.) Examiner notes that because the anode active material is coated onto the current collector, it is electrically coupled.
Regarding claim 8, Zhamu teaches all of the limitations as set forth above, and Zhamu further teaches a current collector electrically coupled to the 3D monolith; wherein the current collector comprises a porous, 3D support structure; and wherein the 3D monolith is formed on outer surfaces of the porous, 3D support structure. ([0029] conductive porous structure acting as a 3D anode current collector; [0039] anode active material coated on … an anode current collector.) Examiner notes that because the anode active material is coated onto the current collector, it is electrically coupled.
Regarding claim 9, modified Zhamu teaches all of the limitations as set forth above, and Zhamu further teaches wherein the porous, 3D support structure comprises one or more electrically conductive materials selected from the group consisting of [0053] graphite foam and graphene foam. These candidates are within the scope of the claimed list of alternatives.
Regarding claim 10, Zhamu teaches an anode, comprising:
a three-dimensional (3D) monolith, comprising: at least one anode active material, wherein the at least one anode active material is selected from the group consisting of: … one or more lithium alloys, one or more sodium alloys, … ([0047] lithium or sodium containing alloys [0039] anode active material coated on … an anode current collector) At [0029] and [0162] Zhamu contemplates a conductive porous structure acting as a 3D anode current collector. Examiner notes that at [0046] Zhamu states that graphite is an alkali intercalation compound (an active material). Therefore, a person of ordinary skill would expect Zhamu’s graphene to also act as an active material, thus creating an active material 3D monolith.
a continuous ion-conducting network formed on surface(s) and/or in a bulk of the 3D monolith, wherein the continuous ion-conducting network comprises one or more ion-conducting materials, and wherein the one or more ion- conducting materials are distributed throughout the bulk of the anode. ([0046] lithium titanate) Examiner notes that lithium titanate is an ion-conducting material, see [0048] of the instant specification.
Zhamu does not explicitly teach that the one or more ion- conducting materials are homogenously distributed throughout the bulk of the anode.
Zhamu discloses [0035-0037] producing the material by assembling a porous conductive structure with at least 70% pore volume prior to impregnation, and impregnating the conductive porous structure with a suspension of an anode active material to create an anode active material loading level of no less than 20 mg/cm2. Zhamu discloses at [0054] that the pore walls cover the entire anode layer, and that conductive pore walls are in the immediate vicinity of every anode active material particle. At [0100] Zhamu discloses that preferably, substantially all of the pores are filled with the electrode active material.
Because the porous structure is 70% pore volume or higher, and substantially all of the pores are filled with the electrode active material, the anode active material is therefore distributed homogeneously.
Regarding claim 11, Zhamu teaches all of the limitations as set forth above, and Zhamu further teaches [0047] the inclusion of alkali containing compounds including lithium – or sodium- doped silicon, lithium – or sodium- doped tin, or lithium or sodium containing alloys) These candidates are within the scope of the claimed list of alternatives.
Regarding claim 12, modified Zhamu teaches all of the limitations as set forth above, and Zhamu does not explicitly teach wherein the at least one anode active material comprises about 1-99 wt% of a total mass of the anode; ([0060-0062] anode active material … occupies at least 25% by weight of the entire battery cell. anode active material … occupies at least 35% by weight of the entire battery cell. At [0083] Zhamu discloses the importance of obtaining minimum overhead weight and maximum sodium storage capability of the battery, therefore a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated, as of before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to optimize the percentage of anode active material, with a reasonable expectation of selecting a value within the claimed range.
Regarding wherein the one or more ion-conducting materials collectively comprise about 1-99 wt% of a total mass of the anode, at [0093] Zhamu discloses the motivation of minimizing the “overhead weight” or weights of other device components (binder, conductive additive, current collectors, separator, electrolyte, and packaging) in order to maximize energy density. A person of ordinary skill in the art would therefore have been motivated, as of before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to optimize the ion-conducting material (electrolyte) weight of the claimed anode, with a reasonable expectation of successfully improving energy density.
Regarding claim 15, Zhamu teaches all of the limitations as set forth above, and Zhamu further teaches electrochemical cell comprising the anode as recited in claim 1. (abstract: alkali metal-sulfur battery)
Regarding claims 16-19, Zhamu teaches all of the limitations as set forth above, and Zhamu further teaches wherein the electrochemical cell is characterized by a coin configuration; a cylindrical configuration; a prismatic configuration; or a pouch configuration. ([0081] cylindrical, square, button-like, etc; [1092] pouch)
Regarding claim 26, Zhamu teaches all of the limitations as set forth above, and Zhamu further teaches wherein the at least one anode active material is selected from [0047] lithium – or sodium- doped silicon; lithium – or sodium- doped tin; and lithium or sodium containing alloys. These candidates are within the scope of the claimed list of alternatives.
Regarding claim 27, Zhamu teaches all of the limitations as set forth above, and Zhamu further teaches wherein the one or more lithium alloys or the one or more lithium composite materials are selected from [0047] lithium – or sodium doped silicon; lithium – or sodium doped tin; and lithium or sodium containing alloys of Si … Sn. These candidates are within the scope of the claimed list of alternatives.
Claim 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhamu (US 20170207484 A1) as set forth in claim 1, and in further view of Nakanishi (US 20130108923 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Zhamu discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Zhamu teaches [0057] that the anode active materials having a primary or secondary particle size most typically from 50 nm to 10 µm (encompassing the claimed range) and teaches that the pore sizes in the structure are designed to accommodate particles. However, Zhamu does not explicitly disclose wherein the ion conducting particles are each independently characterized by a diameter in a range from about 6.66 µm to about 10 µm.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that if the particles are too large, they will not fit in the pores. However, Zhamu does not explicitly teach a motivation for avoiding particles that are too small.
Nakanishi discloses an active material powder for a negative electrode material. At [0028] Nakanishi discloses an average diameter D50 between 1 µm and 20 µm, encompassing the claimed range. At [0029] Nakanishi discloses that if the D50 is too small, the resulting negative electrode has low [packing] density. At [0051] Nakanishi discloses the demand for high energy density. Examiner notes that while Nakanishi’s teaching of low packing density is with respect to active material powder, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that Nakanishi’s teaching of low packing density would also apply to solid electrolyte materials, as in the instant claim.
The person of ordinary skill would have been motivated, as of before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to optimize the particle size of the ion conducting material of modified Zhamu, with a reasonable expectation of balancing a particle size small enough to fit in the pores against the desire to avoid low packing density, with a reasonable expectation of selecting a value meeting the instant claim limitation.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being anticipated by Zhamu (US 20170207484 A1) as set forth in claim 1, above, and in further view of Cai et al. (CN 111430676 B, see machine translation provided 5 September 2024).
Regarding claim 13, Modified Zhamu discloses all of the limitations as set forth above, and Zhamu further discloses ([0047] anode active material is lithium or sodium- containing sulfides). At [0051] Zhamu discloses the use of sulfur-containing electrolytes.
However, Zhamu does not explicitly teach wherein the anode is loaded with sulfur in an amount of about 7.5 mg/cm2. [0143]
Cai teaches that a variety of materials may be selected as the solid electrolyte, including sulfide-based solid electrolytes ([0012], [0038], [0061]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected a sulfide-based solid electrolyte as the material for the ion-conducting solid electrolyte of modified Zhamu, since Cai teaches sulfide-based solid electrolytes as suitable materials for the solid electrolyte ([0038], [0061]). Such a person would have thus reasonably expected a sulfide-based solid electrolyte to be successful as the ion-conducting solid electrolyte in the anode of modified Zhamu. The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP § 2144.07). The anode of Zhamu comprising a sulfide-based solid electrolyte thus is loaded with the sulfur of the sulfide-based solid electrolyte.
Cai teaches that the mass content of the sulfide-based solid electrolyte can be 5-30 wt%, in order to achieve high ionic conductivity and high-rate performance ([0046]), but Cai does not disclose a specific sulfur loading amount.
It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have optimized the sulfur loading amount via the sulfide-based solid electrolyte in order to achieve the desired balance between ionic conductivity provided by the solid electrolyte and rate performance provided by the active material (see [0046] of Cai). Such a person would have optimized the amount of sulfur to ensure enough solid electrolyte to provide high ionic conductivity while also ensuring that the solid electrolyte does not displace too much of the anode active material such that rate performance is impeded. See MPEP § 2144.05, II.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhamu (US 20170207484 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chu et al. (CN 110034280 B, see machine translation provided 5 September 2024).
Regarding claim 14, modified Zhamu teaches all of the limitations as set forth above. Zhamu teaches [0047] that the material may contain lithium cobalt oxide (LCO). (At [0040] of the instant application, lithium cobalt oxide is disclosed to be an ion-conducting material. Examiner notes that a solid ion conducting material is also known as a solid electrolyte material.) However, Zhamu does not explicitly teach wherein the solid electrolyte material is a NASICON compounds characterized by a chemical composition Na1+xZr2SixP3-xO12, where x is characterized by a value in a range 0 < x < 3.
Chu teaches [0059] an in situ composite negative electrode material comprising [0011] anode active material and a solid electrolyte, which may be selected from garnet-type, LISICON, and NASICON ([0018] to [0020]). At [0054] the NASICON may comprise Zr, thus meeting the instant limitation.
Because Chu teaches NASICON as one of a finite number of identified, predictable solutions for use as an electrolyte material in a negative electrode, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have replaced the LCO electrolyte material of Zhamu with the NASICON electrolyte material of Chu, with a reasonable expectation of creating a successful negative electrode.
Claim(s) 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhamu (US 20170207484 A1) in view of Fan (CN 103236519 A), with reference to the provided English translation.
Regarding claim 28, Zhamu teaches all of the limitations as set forth above. While Zhamu does not explicitly teach wherein the anode comprises about 1 wt% to about 99 wt% of the at least one anode active material and the balance is the one or more ion-conducting materials, Zhamu discloses [0047] lithium or sodium containing alloys [0039] anode active material coated on … an anode current collector. At [0029], [0063], and [0162] Zhamu contemplates a conductive porous structure acting as a 3D anode current collector, which may be made from graphene. Examiner notes that at [0046] Zhamu states that graphite is an alkali intercalation compound (an active material). Therefore, a person of ordinary skill would expect Zhamu’s graphene to also act as an active material, thus creating an active material 3D monolith. At [0046] the negative electrode further comprises lithium titanate, which is an ion-conducting material, see [0048] of the instant specification. The negative electrode of Zhamu therefore comprises active materials (graphene and lithium or sodium alloys) and an ion-conducting material (lithium titanate), thus meeting the instant claim limitation, however, Zhamu does not explicitly teach and amount of the lithium titanate, and therefore does not teach wherein the anode comprises about 1 wt% to about 99 wt% of the at least one anode active material and the balance is the one or more ion-conducting materials.
Fan, in the field of (abstract) porous carbon-based monolithic composite materials for lithium ion batteries, teaches [0009] the use of a porous carbon-based material to control volume change during charge-discharge cycles, in order to have the structure remain intact. Fan discloses at [0039-0040] a carbon/lithium titanate monolithic composite material, at [0011] the mass fraction of active material is 99% to 1%. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated, as of before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to select Fan’s mass fraction of active material for the monolithic composite of modified Zhamu, with a reasonable expectation of successfully controlling volume change and having the structure remain intact.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 3 and 10 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 2 of copending Application No. 18/241,688 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other:
Claims 1 and 2 of copending application 18/241,688 claim an anode comprising a 3D monolithic core comprising an anode active material, and a shell forming a continuous ion-conducting network on a surface of the 3D monolithic core, comprising certain ion-conducting materials wherein the one or more ion-conducting materials are homogeneously distributed throughout the bulk of the anode, which reads on instant claims 3 and 10.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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 CLAIRE A RUTISER whose telephone number is (571)272-1969. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM M-F.
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, Jonathan Leong can be reached at 571-270-1292. 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.
CLAIRE A. RUTISER
Examiner
Art Unit 1751
/C.A.R./
Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 2/19/2026