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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 26 June 2026 has been entered.
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claim 22 is directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: claim 22 includes the limitation “wherein the shell penetrates into the core to form ionically conductive pathways therethrough.” This is disclosed in the specification at FIG. 6C and [0069]. The limitation of claim 22 and the limitation of claim 4, “wherein the core is entirely enclosed within an interior volume of the shell, and wherein the shell and the core are distinct physical regions of the anode that do not overlap volumetrically” ([0070] and FIG. 6D) are mutually exclusive. The invention of claim 4 has been previously presented.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claim 22 is withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 4, 11, 15, 17, and 18 are amended. Claim 21 is cancelled. Claim 22 is newly added and stands withdrawn. Claims 1-2, and 4-20, as filed 26 June 2026, are examined herein. No new matter is included.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the rejection under 35 USC 103, Applicant argues that the cited references do not teach or suggest “a support structure positioned in the core; the support structure comprising material selected from …3D graphene”. Applicant specifically argues that Zhamu does not teach 3D graphene in the final product. Applicant arguments are moot in light of newly cited references, Lanning and Yang.
Claim Interpretation
The limitations of claim 1 are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The limitation “a support structure positioned in the core” of claim 1 could include any structure in the core of the particle which “supports” the core material. Said differently, the support structure is in contact with the core material. This is supported by para [0074] of the specification disclosing a support structure which may be graphite, 3D-graphene, or graphene oxide, and is electrically conductive, and is further supported by FIG. 6C showing support structure 626 as a particle in the center of the core. The broadest reasonable interpretation of “a support structure positioned in the core” is determined to include a particle or particles which are in contact with the core material and are at least partially positioned inside the core.
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) 1-2, 4-5, 7-16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong (US 20160164078 A1) in view of Lanning (US 20210057751 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Hong teaches an anode ([0047]), comprising:
a core; ([0048-0050]). Hong teaches that the core an anode active material particle having a lithium-alloy/metal core (e.g., Li-Mg) and an ion-conducting shell (e.g., LTO, LVO) surrounding the core. Hong explicitly teaches the core can comprise carbon or a mixture of carbon and lithium alloys.
at [0050] Hong teaches wherein the metal compound of the core may represent Mg, and may be alloyed with lithium, which is a candidate within the scope of the claimed list of alternatives. While Hong does not explicitly teach an example where core comprises both a lithium Mg alloy, 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 an Li-Mg thereof from the metals, alloys and compounds set forth by Hong, since such a person would have expected these exemplary materials of Hong to form a successful core. 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).
[0071] a shell including lithium metal oxide particles and the polymer is formed on the core.
[0052-0053] the shell comprising a polymer and lithium metal oxide particles selected from lithium manganese phosphate, lithium titanate, lithium vanadium oxide and mixtures thereof. These candidates are within the scope of the claimed list of alternatives. Examiner notes that lithium manganese phosphate, lithium titanate, and lithium vanadium oxide are known solid electrolyte materials.
Regarding the limitation wherein the shell forms a continuous, ion-conducting network between the core and an environment external to the anode. Hong at [0071] discloses that the shell is formed on the core. Regarding the shell being continuous, Hong at [0061-0062] discloses that if the polymer is in a range of 0.1 – 3 parts by weight, the shell will be sufficient to cover the surface of the core. At [0033-0034] Hong discloses that conventional active material impedes movement of lithium ions, and that Hong’s shell solves this problem.
Lanning, in the field of (abstract) an electrode having a carbon-based structure, discloses ([0059-0062] an expansion-tolerant 3D porous graphene network (interconnected graphene platelets fused at orthogonal angles) used as a compliant internal host/support into which lithium-based active materials are infiltrated. (Lanning [0007], [0058-0062], [0150], [0206-0210], [0234-0237])
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to incorporate the 3D porous graphene structure of Lanning into the lithium-based core of Hong to accommodate volumetric expansion during lithiation/delithiation, prevent pulverization/electrode collapse, and preserve continuous electrical contact throughout the core (Lanning [0043], [0058-0062]) with a reasonable expectation of successfully preserving continuous electrical contact throughout the core.
Regarding claim 2, Hong in view of Lanning discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Hong teaches that the core may comprise a metal compound including Mg as well as other elements, the compound being a lithium alloy or one of various other types ([0050]).
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 Li-Mg as the material of the core of Hong, since such a person would have reasonably expected the selection of this alloy from the materials of Hong to be successful. 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).
Regarding claim 4, Hong in view of Lanning discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Regarding the limitation “wherein the core is entirely enclosed within an interior volume of the shell,” Hong at [0061-0062] discloses that if the polymer is in a range of 0.1 – 3 parts by weight, the shell will be sufficient to cover the surface of the core. Regarding the limitation “wherein the shell and the core are distinct physical regions of the anode that do not overlap volumetrically, Hong at [0052] describes the shell as a physical region distinct from the core, since the shell is on the core, as opposed to the shell being in the core or a surface thereof.
Regarding the limitation “wherein the support structure is porous”, Lanning at [0298] contemplates a 3D carbon-based host architecture and at [0150] contemplates interconnected 3D agglomerations of graphene sheets. 3D agglomeration of graphene sheets is understood to be porous. 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).
Regarding claim 5, Hong in view of Lanning discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Regarding the limitation “wherein the shell is a single layer of the plurality of particles disposed on an external surface of the core”, Hong discloses [0014] “a lithium metal oxide particle layer formed on the core.” At [0058] Hong discloses “When the content of the lithium metal oxide particles satisfies the above range, the lithium metal oxide particles sufficiently surround the surface of the core, thereby producing a coating effect, and in contrast, when the content exceeds the range, residual metal oxide particles after getting involved in coating behave at a different potential and thus may act as a resistor, and when the content is less than the range, the lithium metal oxide particles cannot completely coat the core, and thus there is a limitation in suppressing reactivity with an electrolyte solution, thereby it is difficult to attain the object intended to be achieved by the present disclosure.”
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 lithium metal oxide content of the shell in order to product a coating effect without gaps and without residual metal oxide particles, with a reasonable expectation of successfully achieving a successful active material, thus rendering obvious the selection of a shell having a single layer of particles.
Regarding claim 7, Hong in view of Lanning discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Regarding the limitation “the one or more layers form a cage of the plurality of particles surrounding the core”, Examiner notes that the specification does not have a special definition for “cage”. However, at [0073] the instant specification states “The cage may be formed from one or more layers of the particles, or agglomerates thereof that form during the melt-and-infusion-based process described in greater detail below with respect to Figure 7, or may comprise a substantially continuous structure surrounding the core 622. Preferably, the cage is a physically distinct structure from the core 622, which may be in contact with outer surface(s) of the core 622 but does not extend into an interior volume thereof”. Examiner notes that the melt infusion process is not explicitly claimed. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the instant claim limitation is determined to include particles surrounding the core. Hong does not explicitly teach a cage.
Hong at [0052-0060] discloses a shell including lithium metal oxide particles (e.g. ion conducting materials). At [0061-0062] Hong discloses that if the polymer is in a range of 0.1 – 3 parts by weight, the shell will be sufficient to cover the surface of the core. If the polymer content is higher, initial efficiency of the battery will be reduced. (e.g. the ion conductivity will be reduced causing the initial efficiency to be reduced). Hong’s shell of particles surrounding the core meets the broadest reasonable interpretation of “cage”.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select a polymer content and particle coverage as disclosed by Hong, in order to obtain both full coverage of the core and good initial efficiency, thus creating the claimed cage.
Regarding claims 8, 11, and 19, Hong in view of Lanning discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Hong does not explicitly teach that the core is a three-dimensional free standing (3D) monolithic structure.
Lanning, in the field of (abstract) an electrode having a carbon-based structure, discloses ([0059-0062] an expansion tolerant carbon-based electrode having engineered failure points and using interconnected graphene sheets. At [0248] Lanning contemplates a mechanically robust hybrid composite electrode comprising graphene, which can be a free-standing electrode. At [0150], interconnected 3D agglomerations of graphene sheets are contemplated. At [0291] Lanning discloses the desirability of gravimetric energy density.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that graphene is lighter than the conventional copper for a negative current collector, and would been motivated, as of before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to select Lanning’s free-standing graphene electrode for use with the anode active materials of modified Hong, with a reasonable expectation of successfully improving gravimetric energy density.
This also renders obvious the limitation of claim 11, wherein the support structure is a monolith of the 3D graphene and claim 19, wherein the core and support structure together form a three-dimensional (3D) monolithic structure; and wherein the electrochemical cell neither includes nor is coupled to any distinct structure serving as a current collector other than the three-dimensional (3D) monolith.
Regarding claim 9, Hong in view of Lanning discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Regarding the limitation “wherein the anode is characterized by a thin foil physical form factor”, Hong at [0075] teaches a slurry coated onto a current collector, therefore modified Hong’s negative electrode has a thin foil physical form factor.
Regarding claims 10, 12, and 13, Hong in view of Lanning discloses all of the limitations as set forth above.
Hong teaches the specific capacity of the batteries of the exemplary embodiments (Table 2, fig. 5), but Hong does not specifically discuss the specific capacity and capacity decay of the anode made with the combination of materials rendered obvious above.
Regarding property claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.). This also renders obvious the limitation of claim 12 (wherein the anode exhibits a cycling capacity of at least about 600 mAh/g at a fifth charge cycle, wherein the support structure is monolithic) and claim 13 (wherein the anode exhibits a capacity utilization of at least about 75% relative to a discharge capacity at C/3.)
Regarding claim 14, Hong in view of Lanning discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Hong further teaches an electrochemical cell (“lithium secondary battery”) comprising the anode as recited in claim 1 ([0077], [0078]).
Regarding claim 15, Hong in view of Lanning discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Hong further teaches that the electrochemical cell is characterized by a coin configuration ([0087]), which is a candidate within the scope of the claimed list of alternatives.
Regarding claim 16, Hong in view of Lanning discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Hong further teaches that the electrochemical cell is characterized by a cylindrical configuration (“a circular shape using a can”, in other words a cylinder, [0087]).
Regarding claim 20, Hong in view of Lanning discloses all of the limitations as set forth above.
Lanning explicitly teaches Li-S battery electrodes where electroactive sulfur is actively loaded/infiltrated into the 3D carbon scaffold to undergo electrochemical conversion (Lanning [0008, [0058-0062], [0205], [0222], [0276])
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to load the modified anode of Hong (incorporating Lanning’s 3D graphene structure) with sulfur in an amount up to 7.5 mg/cm² as taught by Lanning to operate the cell as a high-capacity Li-S battery, with Lanning's 3D scaffold micro-confining the sulfur to mitigate polysulfide shuttle (Lanning [0008, [0058-0062], [0276]) Target the range up to 7.5 mg/cm² as a matter of routine optimization to balance active mass loading against ion transport resistance [MPEP 2144.05(II)]
Claim(s) 6 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong (US 20160164078 A1) in view of Lanning (US 20210057751 A1), as set forth in claim 1, above, and in further view of Du (US 12322782 B1).
Regarding claims 6 and 18, Hong in view of Lanning discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Regarding the limitation “wherein the shell consists essentially of particles of the one or more ion-conducting materials”, at claim 1 above the shell comprises an ion conducting material. Hong at [0052-0060] discloses a shell including lithium metal oxide particles (e.g. ion conducting materials). However, Hong’s shell includes a binder.
Du, in the field of (abstract) binderless coatings for electroactive materials, discloses at (col. 7 lines 5-15) the use of energy assisted spray processing, for example supersonic particle deposition, to form binder-free layers for solid-state batteries. At col. 8 line 33 to col. 9 line 29 and col. 15 lines 4 – 67, a wide range of ion conducting materials may be used. At col. 36 lined 53-67, LAGP/LTO may be used as the coating material. At col. 5 lines 7-18, binder-free processing enables better ionic contact and high-throughput production.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated, as of before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to apply Du’s binderless coating to the active material of modified Hong, with a reasonable expectation of improving ionic contact and enabling high throughput production. This also renders obvious the limitation of claim 18, wherein the shell consists essentially of the one or more ion-conducting materials.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong (US 20160164078 A1) in view of Lanning (US 20210057751 A1), as set forth in claim 1, above, and in further view of Yang (US 20180097235 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Hong in view of Lanning discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Hong does not explicitly teach wherein a mass of the shell is from about 30 wt% to about 50 wt% of a total mass of the anode. At [0057] Hong discloses that the lithium metal oxide particles (shell) may be 0.5 – 5 weight% based on 100 parts by weight of the core. This is under the range of the instant claim limitation. At [0058] Hong discloses that if the amount of lithium metal oxide is too high, it may act as a resistor.
Yang, in the field of (abstract) negative electrodes for lithium batteries, discloses at [0048] a protective layer including an inorganic material having a surface treated with an organic silane, and a binder. At [0078], the inorganic material may include a titanium oxide, graphite, carbon nanotubes, or a combination thereof. At [0097] the protective layer may be coated from 1 to 50 weight % based on the total weight of the negative active material layer. At [0044-0045] the protection layer includes a high-strength binder which will suppress expansion of the electrode, resulting in enhanced durability of the negative electrode. At [0091], graphite and carbon nanotubes are listed as conductive agents. At [0133], the protective layer contains graphite. Examiner note that addition of a graphite conductive agent to the protective layer will increase electrical conductivity.
A person of ordinary skill would be motivated to add Yang’s graphite conductive agent, organic silane surface treatment of Hong’s inorganic particle, and Yang’s high strength binder, with a reasonable expectation of successfully achieving the desirable effects of suppressed expansion and enhanced durability. Examiner notes that adding the graphite conductive agent to Hong’s shell increases the electrical conductivity of the shell, therefore removing the need to limit the coating to 5 weight %.
The person of ordinary skill would be further motivated to optimize the mass of the shell to balance the desirable effects of suppressed expansion and enhanced durability with the loss of gravimetric energy density caused by adding the protective coating, with a reasonable expectation of selecting a value in the overlapping part of the range.
Conclusion
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 on 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.
/C.A.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/Haroon S. Sheikh/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1751
