DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-7 and 14) in the reply filed on March 18, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 8-13 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on March 18, 2026.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “a target region ratio C ≥ 15% wherein the target region ratio C is obtained by following test method: dividing a SEM section of an anode material particle into regions with an area of AxB, wherein A and B are both ≤ 1 micrometer, counting distribution of the active material within all of the regions of single the anode material particle, setting number of regions having the active material with a spacing to each other of 10 nm to 300 nm as N1, setting a total number of regions having the active material with a spacing to each other of less than 10 nm and the regions having the active material with a spacing to each other of greater than 300 nm as N2, and defining a target region ratio X of single the anode material particle as X=N1/N2, wherein C is an arithmetic average of X values of any five of the anode material particles” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 7 which recites “…setting number of regions…”should recite “...setting a number of regions…” for purposes of consistency and clarity.
Claim 1, line 5 which recites the acronym SEM should recite “scanning electron microscope (SEM)” for purposes of clarity.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1-7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1, line 7, recites “…counting distribution of the active material within all of the regions of single the anode material particle…”. This claim language meaning is unclear, as it is unclear if Applicant is claiming counting distribution of the active material within all of the regions of the single anode material particle (and if so, how is the active material distributed within a single anode particles particle?) or if the meaning is regarding counting distribution of the active material within all of the regions having a single anode material particle?
Claim 2-7 and 14 also rejected due to dependency on claim 1.
Claim 5 recites “at least one of the following features (1) to (6)” wherein feature (2) “the conductive carbon” lacks antecedent basis, e.g., when it is the only feature selected from the list or when feature (1) is not selected. Examiner suggests incorporating “the conductivity enhancer comprises a conductive carbon” with feature (2).
Claim 7 recites “at least one of the following features (1) to (8)” wherein features (2) and (3) reciting “the carbon layer” lacks antecedent basis, e.g., when (2) or (3) are the only feature selected from the list or when feature (1) is not selected. Examiner suggests incorporating “the anode material further comprises a carbon layer” with features (2) and (3).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yushin et al. (US 2021/0313617) in view of Lu (US 2009/0246625).
Regarding Claim 1, Yushin et al. teaches a blended anode (i.e. anode material) comprising conversion-type anode material particles (Para. [0061]) wherein conversion-type anode powders may comprise an anode powder comprising a plurality of agglomerated nanocomposites (Para. [0070]) (i.e. comprising an aggregate) comprising carbonaceous conductive additives (i.e. a carbon material) which may be attached or grown on the surface of carbonaceous active materials (Para. [0118]) (i.e. an active material and a carbon material) and a porosity of the blended electrodes is about 5 vol% to about 50 vol% (Para. [0100]) (i.e. overlapping with the anode material has a porosity of ≤10%). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).” See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Yushin et al. does not teach a target region ratio C ≥ 15% wherein the target region ratio C is obtained by following test method: dividing a SEM section of an anode material particle into regions with an area of AxB, wherein A and B are both ≤ 1 micrometer, counting distribution of the active material within all of the regions of single the anode material particle, setting number of regions having the active material with a spacing to each other of 10 nm to 300 nm as N1, setting a total number of regions having the active material with a spacing to each other of less than 10 nm and the regions having the active material with a spacing to each other of greater than 300 nm as N2, and defining a target region ratio X of single the anode material particle as X=N1/N2, wherein C is an arithmetic average of X values of any five of the anode material particles.
However, Lu teaches anodic electrodes including a number of graphene nano-ribbons, wherein lithium-ions are intercalated on graphene nano-ribbons (i.e. a carbonaceous active material) having spacing ranging the spacing preferably ranging from about 10 nm to about 250 nm (Para. [0243] and claim 3) as such sized nanopores are accessible to ionic liquid electrolyte (Para. [0243]) providing substantially sufficient large lithium-ion intercalation/deintercalation and ionic liquid accessibility (Para. [0269]) (i.e. the number of regions having active material with a spacing of 10 nm to 250 nm affects intercalation and ionic liquid accessibility properties). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to optimize the target region ratio C (which is an arithmetic average of X values of any five of the anode material particles, wherein X = N1/N2, wherein N1 is the number of regions having the active material with a spacing to each other of 10 nm to 300 nm and N2 is the number of regions having a total number of regions with a spacing to each other of less than 10 nm and greater than 300 nm) of the anode material of Yushin et al., in order to achieve desirable large lithium-ion intercalation/deintercalation and ionic liquid accessibility. Thus, the target ratio C ( ≥ 15%) as claimed (obtained by the test method as claimed), is result effective variable (i.e. a variable that achieves a recognized result) and modifying the target region ratio of the anode material of Yushin et al. to be ≥ 15% would be discovering the optimum range through routine experimentation.
It has been held that when the general conditions are disclosed in the art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (See MPEP §2144.05).
Absent any showing of critical or unexpected results, such limitations appear to be routine optimization within the skill of the ordinary artisan before the effective filing date of the invention are therefore prima facie obvious.
Regarding Claim 2, Yushin et al. as modified by Lu teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Yushin et al. further teaches composite anodes may comprise metal oxides (Para. [0057]) (i.e. wherein the aggregate further comprises a metal oxide).
Regarding Claim 3, Yushin et al. as modified by Lu teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Yushin et al. further teaches conductive additives in the anode such as carbon nanotubes and carbon nanofibers (Para. [0117]) (i.e. the aggregate further comprises a conductivity enhancer).
Regarding Claim 4, Yushin et al. as modified by Lu teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 2 as explained above.
Yushin et al. further teaches composite anodes may comprise metal oxides such as silicon oxide [SiO2] (Para. [0057]) (i.e. comprising at least feature (3) the metal oxide has a chemical formula of MxOy wherein y/x = 2 (within 0.2 ≤y/x≤3) and M is Si).
Regarding Claim 5, Yushin et al. as modified by Lu teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 3 as explained above.
Yushin et al. further teaches conductive additives in the anode such as carbon nanotubes and carbon nanofibers (Para. [0117]) (i.e. the conductive carbon comprises at least one of carbon nanotube and carbon fiber).
Regarding Claim 6, Yushin et al. as modified by Lu teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Yushin et al. further teaches the nanocomposite anodes comprising alloying-type active material such as aluminum (i.e. Al), magnesium (i.e. Mg), zinc (i.e. Zn), germanium (i.e. Ge), phosphorus (i.e. P), tin (i.e. Sn) (Para. [0057]) (i.e. comprising at least feature (1) the active material comprises at least one of Al, Mg, Zn, Ge, P, and Sn).
Regarding Claim 7, Yushin et al. as modified by Lu teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Yushin et al. further teaches the anode intercalation-type carbonaceous powders exhibits a median particle size of about 2.5 to about 25 micron (Para.[0085]) (i.e. comprising at least feature (4) a median particle size of the anode material is 0.5 micrometers to 30 micrometers).
Regarding Claim 14, Yushin et al. as modified by Lu teaches all of the elements of the anode material in claim 1 as explained above.
Yushin et al. further teaches a Li-ion battery cell with the suitable blended anode (Para. [0183] and claim 1) (i.e. a lithium ion battery, comprising the anode material).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARMINDO CARVALHO JR. whose telephone number is (571)272-5292. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30a.m.-5p.m..
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ula Ruddock can be reached at 571 272-1481. 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.
/ARMINDO CARVALHO JR./ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights