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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 10-12, and 19 are amended. Claim 21 stands withdrawn. Claims 1 and 3-20, as filed 19 December 2025, 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 core; a support structure positioned in the core; and a shell surrounding the core …” Applicant specifically argues that Hong does not teach this core. Applicant arguments are moot in light of newly cited references, Su and Zhamu.
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, 4-10, 13-18 and 20 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong (US 2016/0164078 A1) in view of Zhamu (US 20120064409 A1).
Regarding claim 1, 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.
Further regarding claim 1, Hong teaches an anode ([0047]), comprising: a core ([0048-0050]); and a shell surrounding the core ([0052]).
Hong further teaches that the core comprises carbon material, lithium metal, and metal compounds including oxides, nitrides and alloys especially alloys with lithium, or mixtures thereof ([0048-0050]). However, Hong does not explicitly teach an example where core comprised both a carbon material (support structure) and a lithium alloy.
Zhamu, in the field of (abstract) particulate anode active material, discloses (FIG. 3A and [0071]) both graphene sheets (support structure) and anode active material in the core of a negative active material secondary particle, acting as an electron conducting path. At FIG. 9, the use of graphene-enhanced core shows improved specific capacity retention.
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 a core made from both the graphene and the lithium metal oxide of Hong, based on Zhamu’s teaching specific capacity retention, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Returning to Hong, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have selected a Li-Mg alloy or an Li-Si alloy as specific compounds from the suggested metal compounds of Hong, since such a person would have reasonably expected these materials to form a successful anode 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).
Hong at [0071] “a shell including lithium metal oxide particles and the polymer is formed on the core” renders obvious the limitation “the shell is disposed on an external surface of the core.” Regarding “the shell comprises one or more layers of a plurality of particles”, Hong at [0052-0053] discloses the shell comprising a polymer and 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.
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 Li4Ti5O12 (LTO, lithium titanium oxide), LiVO2 (LVO, lithium vanadium oxide), and Li-LiMgPO4 (lithium manganese phosphate) or combinations thereof from the lithium metal oxide particle materials set forth by Hong, since such a person would have expected these exemplary materials of Hong to form a successful anode shell. 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 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] Hong discloses that conventional active material impedes movement of lithium ions, and that Hong’s shell solves this problem.
Regarding claim 2, Hong in view of Zhamu 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 Zhamu 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 includes a porous electrically conductive material”, Examiner notes that the graphene sheets as illustrated in Zhamu FIG. 3(A) which are rendered obvious above at claim 1, form a porous structure and are electrically conductive, therefore rendering obvious the instant claim limitation.
Regarding claim 5, Hong in view of Zhamu 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 6, Hong in view of Zhamu 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 consists of an ion conducting material an a polymer binder. 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. 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)
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 a polymer content as taught by Hong, in order to obtain both full coverage of the core and good initial efficiency, thus creating a shell which consists essentially of ion conducting materials.
Regarding claim 7, Hong in view of Zhamu discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Hong further teaches that the one or more layers form a cage of the plurality of particles surrounding the core ([0054], [0055], [0058]; the particles are dispersed throughout the shell to form a cage that surrounds the core).
Hong discusses the size of the particles in the shell, which may have a size of 10 nm-1 µm ([0055], such that a single layer of particles would form a cage having the claimed thickness). Hong also discusses the content amount of lithium oxide particles, which must be enough to ensure the desired coating effect and yet not so much that particles have a resistive effect ([0057], [0058]), but Hong does not explicitly teach the thickness of the cage.
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 thickness of the cage in order to ensure sufficient material to attain the desired coating effect while minimizing the resistive effect and other detrimental results of using too much of the lithium oxide particles ([0058] of Hong). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Regarding claim 8, Hong in view of Zhamu discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Hong further teaches that the core is a three-dimensional free standing (3D) monolithic structure ([0032], [0048]; the core is a rounded particle, such as that shown in fig. 1, which is a 3D monolithic structure).
Regarding claim 9, Hong in view of Zhamu 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 [0098] teaches a slurry coated onto a copper foil.
Regarding claim 10, Hong in view of Zhamu 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 claimed materials.
Regarding product 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.).
Regarding claim 13, Hong in view of Zhamu discloses all of the limitations as set forth above.
Hong provides charge/discharge graphs for some battery embodiments in fig. 2, but Hong does not explicitly discuss the anode capacity utilization rate relative to a discharge capacity at C/3.
Regarding product 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.).
Regarding claim 14, Hong in view of Zhamu 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 Zhamu discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Hong further teaches that the electrochemical cell is characterized by a coin configuration ([0087]).
Regarding claim 16, Hong in view of Zhamu 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 17, Hong in view of Zhamu discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Hong further teaches that the electrochemical cell is characterized by a prismatic configuration ([0087]).
Regarding claim 18, Hong in view of Zhamu discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Hong further teaches that the electrochemical cell is characterized by a pouch configuration ([0087]).
Regarding claim 20, Hong in view of Zhamu discloses all of the limitations as set forth above.
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]).
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.I).
Claim(s) 11-12 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong (US 2016/0164078 A1) in view of Zhamu (US 20120064409 A1) and in further view of Su (US 20180108909 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Hong in view of Zhamu discloses all of the limitations as set forth above.
Hong does not explicitly teach wherein the support structure is a monolith that includes a material selected from the group consisting of: graphene, graphite, and graphene oxide. However, Zhamu as rendered obvious in claim 1, above, provides motivation for the use of a graphene support structure. However, Zhamu does not explicitly disclose a monolithic graphene support structure.
Su, in the field of (abstract) anode active material, discloses [0092] the use of monolithic graphene as a support for the anode active material, and further discloses [0081] that the graphene sheets form electron-conducting pathways. (e.g. monolithic graphene), for the purpose of [0026] improved specific capacity. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated, as of before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to modify the secondary particle of modified Hong with the monolithic graphene of Su, with a reasonable expectation of successfully improving the specific capacity of the battery.
Regarding claim 12, Hong discloses all of the limitations as set forth above.
Hong discusses the battery efficiency after 500 cycles (Table 3), but does not explicitly discuss the cycling capacity of the anode at a fifth charge cycle, wherein the support structure is monolithic.
Su, in the field of (abstract) anode active material, discloses [0092] the use of monolithic graphene as a support for the anode active material, and further discloses [0081] that the graphene sheets form electron-conducting pathways. (e.g. monolithic graphene), for the purpose of [0026] improved specific capacity. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated, as of before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to modify the secondary particle of modified Hong with the monolithic graphene of Su, with a reasonable expectation of successfully improving the specific capacity of the battery.
Regarding the 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.).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong et al. (US 2016/0164078 A1) in view of Zhamu (US 20120064409 A1) as set forth in claim 14 above, and further in view of view of Su (US 20180108909 A1) and Park et al. (US 20200227740 A1 ).
Regarding claim 19, Hong in view of Zhamu discloses all of the limitations as set forth above.
Hong does not explicitly teach 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.
Su, in the field of (abstract) anode active material, discloses [0092] the use of monolithic graphene as a support for the anode active material, and further discloses [0081] that the graphene sheets form electron-conducting pathways. (e.g. monolithic graphene), for the purpose of [0026] improved specific capacity. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated, as of before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to modify the secondary particle of modified Hong with the monolithic graphene of Su, with a reasonable expectation of successfully improving the specific capacity of the battery.
Hong further teaches that the core is a three-dimensional (3D) monolithic structure ([0032], [0048]; the core is a rounded particle, such as that shown in fig. 1, which is a 3D monolithic structure).
Hong teaches that the cell includes distinct current collectors ([0075]) in addition to the 3D monolithic core. Hong also teaches conductive carbon as an additive to the shell to improve conductivity, and that the electrode may include conductive additives ([0064], [0076]).
Hong in view of Zhamu and Su does not explicitly teach 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.
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) monolith (figs. 5 and 8, [0087] to [0091], [0109]).
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, other than the 3D monolithic core, 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).
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 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
/JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 4/7/2026