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 .
The Applicant’s amendment filed on July 22, 2025 was received. Claim 1,11,24 were amended. Claim 12 was canceled. The text of those sections of Title 35 U.S.C. code not included in this action can be found in the prior office actions.
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.
Claims 1,2,5-11,13,14,20,25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Hong et al. (US 20160164078 A1).
Regarding claims 1,20,25, Hong et al. teach an anode of an electrochemical cell ([0047) comprising a core ([0048]) and a shell surrounding the core ([0052]) wherein the core is formed from one selected from the group consisting of lithium-containing transition metal oxide (lithium ion-conducting material, such as LiCoO2 and LiFePO4), a lithium metal, and a metal compound or mixtures thereof. See ([0010,0082]). The anode active material is prepared as a slurry such that the lithium transition metal oxide is homogeneously distribute in the core. The shell comprises lithium metal oxide particles such as LiFePO4 and Li4Ti5O12. See ([0089,0096])
Regarding claim 2, Hong et al. teach the core is a porous 3D monolithic microstructure. See Figure 1.
Regarding claim 5, Hong et al. teach the particle size of the lithium containing transition metal oxide is in the range of 6 to 16 micron. See ([0039]).
Regarding claim 6, Hong et al. teach the core has a substantially spherical shape. Also, In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.).
Regarding claim 7, Hong et al. teach the core is characterized by the average particle size of the lithium containing transition metal oxide in the range of 1 to 16 micron. See ([[0039,0056]).
Regarding claim 8, the average particle size of the lithium metal oxide is less than or equal to 1 micron. See ([0019]).
Regarding claims 9,10, Hong et al. teach the core/shell microstructure is prepared by dry coating and thermal treatment such that the ion-conducting materials are interfaced with the core material. See Embodiment Examples. ([0089-0104]).
Regarding claim 11, Hong et al. teach the average particle size of the lithium metal oxide particles is in the range of100 nm to 800 nm. See ([0055]).
Regarding claim 13, Hong et al. teach the particles are in the form of agglomerates. See Figure 1.
Regarding claim 14, Hong et al. teach the surface area of the anode active material is shown in Table 1. Hong et al. do not specifically disclose the surface area to volume ratio of the core material. However, it is the position of the examiner that such properties are inherent, given that both Hong et al. and the present application utilize the same core material with similar particle sizes and surface areas. A reference which is silent about a claimed invention’s features is inherently anticipatory if the missing feature is necessarily present in that which is described in the reference. In re Robertson, 49 USPQ2d 1949 (1999).
Claims 24,31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Cho et al. (US 10,797,303 B2).
Regarding claim 24,31, Cho et al. tach an anode of an electrochemical cell comprising a core of silicon (anode active material) and a shell of silicon oxide (SiO2) formed on the core. See Title, Column 7, Lines 3-21. Figure 1A and 1B.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The rejections of claims 24,31 as being unpatentable over Chu et al. are withdrawn because the independent claim 24 has been amended. The rejections of claims 1,5-14,18-20,23,25 as being unpatentable over Chu in view of Guo are withdrawn because the independent claim 1 has been amended. The rejections of claims 2,15-17 as being unpatentable over Chu in view of Guo and Liu are withdrawn because the independent claim 1 has been amended. The rejections of claims 26-29 as being unpatentable over Chu in view of Guo and Ahn are withdrawn because the independent claim 1 has been amended. The rejections of claim 30 as being unpatentable over Chu in view of Guo and Park are withdrawn because the independent claim 1 has been amended.
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong et al. (US 20160164078 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Stucky et al. (WO 2013003846 A2)
Regarding claims 15,16, Hong et al. disclose an anode active material in an electrochemical cell as describe above in Paragraph 2. However, Hong et al. do not specifically teach the current collector comprising a porous, 3D graphene. Stucky et al. teach a lithium-ion battery comprising a 3D porous current collector, including a 3D graphene, which can be used to eliminate the dendrite formation in lithium-ion rechargeable batteries. See title, page 4, line 2-3, page 5, lines 10-15. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a 3D graphene current collector in the rechargeable battery of Hong et al. because Stucky et al. teach the use of the porous 3D graphene as the current collector to minimize the dendrite formations in the rechargeable batteries.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong et al. (US 20160164078 A1) and Stucky et al. (WO 2013003846 A2) as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Yuan et al. (CN 104377361 A).
Regarding claim 17, Hong et al. and Stucky et al. disclose the anode active material and the 3D graphene current collector in an electrochemical cell as describe above in Paragraph 4 above. However, the combined references do not specifically teach the weight ratio between the 3D graphene and the anode material. Yuan et al. disclose a rechargeable battery in which the anode material and the graphene current collector is processed such that the weight of the battery can be reduced and the performance can be enhanced. See ([0021]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the weight percentage of the 3D graphene to the anode material, because Yuan et al. recognize the desired weight ratio between the current collector and the anode material can be achieved by weight reduction and performance enhancement. Discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art. In re Boesch, CCPA 1980, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ215.
Claims 18,19,23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong et al. (US 20160164078 A1).
Regarding claim 18, Hong et al. disclose an anode active material in an electrochemical cell as describe above in Paragraph 2. However, Hong et al. do not specifically the weight percentage of the core with respect to the anode. Nevertheless, Hong et al. teach the shell may include a polymer and lithium metal oxide particles layer formed on the core, and a polymer layer coated on the surface of the polymer and the lithium metal oxide particle layer. See ([0043]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the amount of the polymer layer such that a desirable weight ratio between the core and the anode can be achieved, because Hong et al. recognize the amount of polymer in the anode material can be optimized. Discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art. In re Boesch, CCPA 1980, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ215.
Regarding claim 19, Hong teaches that the anode comprises lithium alloys and/or lithium composite materials, ([0048] to [0050]), and that a variety of cathode materials may be used ([0037], [0038]). The anode of Hong necessarily includes some of the electrolyte solution since the anode is impregnated with electrolyte during the formation of the electrochemical cell ([0083], [0099]). The electrolyte compounds disclosed by Hong include sulfur-containing lithium salts ([0083)]). Thus, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected one of the sulfur-containing lithium salts from the electrolytes disclosed by Hong. Such a person would have expected these materials to be suitable for a cell using the anode material, since Hong teaches sulfur-containing lithium salts as suitable electrolyte materials. 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).
Thus, the anode of Hong would necessarily possess some loading with sulfur in an amount that is either within or overlaps the claimed range of a nonzero amount of sulfur up to about 7.5 mg/cm2. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05.1).
Regarding claim 23, Hong et al. disclose an anode active material in an electrochemical cell as describe above in Paragraph 2. However, Hong et al. do not specifically the weight percentage of the shell with respect to the anode. Nevertheless, Hong et al. teach the shell may include a polymer and lithium metal oxide particles layer formed on the core, and a polymer layer coated on the surface of the polymer and the lithium metal oxide particle layer. See ([0043]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the amount of the polymer layer such that a desirable weight ratio between the shell and the anode can be achieved, because Hong et al. recognize the amount of polymer in the anode material can be optimized. Discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art. In re Boesch, CCPA 1980, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ215.
Claims 26-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong et al. (US 20160164078 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ahn et al. (US 20160336594 A1)
Regarding claim 26, Hong et al. teach an electrochemical cell comprising the anode as recited in paragraph 2 above. However, Hong does not discuss the configuration of the electrochemical cell. Ahn teaches an anode material for a lithium battery, and battery cell comprising the anode ([0130], fig. 2). Specifically, Ann teaches that the battery may have a cylindrical shape and may be a coin type ([0127], [0130]). Ahn further notes that methods of forming battery cells of the various shapes are known in the art ([0128]). Therefore, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the cell of Hong to have a coin configuration, as taught by Ahn. Such a person would have reasonably expected the cell of Hong to be successful in a coin type configuration. The change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Regarding claim 27, Hong et al. teach an electrochemical cell comprising the anode as recited in paragraph 2 above. However, Hong does not discuss the configuration of the electrochemical cell. Ahn teaches an anode material for a lithium battery, and battery cell comprising the anode. ([0130], fig. 2). Specifically, Ann teaches that the battery may have a cylindrical shape and may be a cylindrical type ([0127], [0130]). Ahn further notes that methods of forming battery cells of the various shapes are known in the art ([0128]). Therefore, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the cell of Hong to have a cylindrical configuration, as taught by Ahn. Such a person would have reasonably expected the cell of Hong to be successful in a cylindrical type configuration. The change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Regarding claim 28, Hong et al. teach an electrochemical cell comprising the anode as recited in paragraph 2 above. However, Hong does not discuss the configuration of the electrochemical cell. Ahn teaches an anode material for a lithium battery, and battery cell comprising the anode ([0130], fig. 2). Specifically, Ann teaches that the battery may have a rectangular shape and may be a prismatic type ([0127], [0130]). Ahn further notes that methods of forming battery cells of the various shapes are known in the art ([0128]). Therefore, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the cell of Hong to have a prismatic configuration, as taught by Ahn. Such a person would have reasonably expected the cell of Hong to be successful in a prismatic type configuration. The change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Regarding claim 29, Hong et al. teach an electrochemical cell comprising the anode as recited in paragraph 2 above. However, Hong does not discuss the configuration of the electrochemical cell. Ahn teaches an anode material for a lithium battery, and battery cell comprising the anode ([0130], fig. 2). Specifically, Ann teaches that the battery may have a rectangular shape and may be a pouch type ([0127], [0130]). Ahn further notes that methods of forming battery cells of the various shapes are known in the art ([0128]). Therefore, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the cell of Hong to have a pouch configuration, as taught by Ahn. Such a person would have reasonably expected the cell of Hong to be successful in a pouch type configuration. The change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Claims 30,32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong et al. (US 20160164078 A1) as applied to claim 25 above, and further in view of Park et al. (US 2020/0227740 A1).
Regarding claims 30,32, Hong et al. teach an electrochemical cell comprising the anode as recited in paragraph 2 above. However, Hong et al. do not explicitly teach the electrochemical cell neither include nor is coupled to any distinct structure serving as a current collector other than the core. Park teaches an anode comprising a core comprising at least one anode active material and a shell comprising a continuous ion-conducting network surrounding the core ([0028] to [0030] describing the core-shell anode material; [0071], figs. 1 and 3). Specifically, Park teaches that the electrochemical cell (electrode assembly) neither includes nor is coupled to any distinct structure serving as a current collector other than the three-dimensional (3D) monolithic core (figs. 5 and 8, [0087] to [0091], [0109]). Therefore, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the cell of Hong without a distinct structure serving as a current collector, as taught by Park, in order to improve the energy density and performance of the cell ([0011] and [0012] of Park. Such a person would have reasonably expected success in forming the cell of Hong without a distinct structure serving as a current collector, in part since the electrodes of Hong contain conductive material. The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results (see MPEP § 2143, A).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/22/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s principal arguments are:
Chu et al. do not disclose the Markush group as recited in the amended claim 1.
In response to Applicant’s arguments, please consider the following comments:
Applicant’s arguments are moot because they do not refer to the newly cited 102 rejections by Hong alone in which Chu is withdrawn as a prior art.
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 DAH-WEI YUAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1295. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-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.
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.
/Dah-Wei D. Yuan/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1717