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 .
Priority
This application is a 371 of PCT/CN2021/089658 (filed 04/25/21), which application claims priority to CN 202011538533.7 (filed 12/23/20).
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Amendment(s)
The Preliminary Amendment filed 11/06/25 is entered.
Claims 1-10, 12-15 are pending.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-9, 13-15) in the Reply filed 11/06/25 is acknowledged.
Drawings
The Drawing filed 06/22/23 is objected to:
37 CFR 1.84(u)(1) states (emphasis added):
The different views must be numbered in consecutive Arabic numerals, starting with 1, independent of the numbering of the sheets and, if possible, in the order in which they appear on the drawing sheet(s). Partial views intended to form one complete view, on one or several sheets, must be identified by the same number followed by a capital letter. View numbers must be preceded by the abbreviation "FIG." Where only a single view is used in an application to illustrate the claimed invention, it must not be numbered and the abbreviation "FIG." must not appear.
Accordingly, applicant should submit a corrected Drawing without “Figure 1” and amend the specification to –-the Drawing-—(each occurrence).
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS statements filed 06/22/23, 08/08/24, and 12/02/24 have been considered. Initialed copies accompany this action.
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.
Claims 1-9 and 13-15 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.
The examiner construes the use of “product-by-process” type limitation(s) (i.e. is prepared by…) in the instant method claim indefinite as such is open to multiple interpretations and therefore confuses the scope of the instant claims. Specifically, it is unclear of the recited “mixing metal lithium with an alcohol solvent” is a positively recited method step, or if the “product-by-process” recitation allows for alkoxide solutions made by a different process. See MPEP 2113. Clarification is required.
Dependent claims 4, 5, and 8 contains language interpreted as improper Markush language. Specifically, the open claim terminology “comprises…” is considered indefinite as it is unclear if such if open (e.g. comprising) or closed (consisting of). A Markush grouping is a closed group of alternatives, i.e., the selection is made from a group "consisting of" (rather than "comprising" or "including") the alternative members. Abbott Labs., 334 F.3d at 1280, 67 USPQ2d at 1196. If a Markush grouping requires a material selected from an open list of alternatives (e.g., selected from the group "comprising" or "consisting essentially of" the recited alternatives), the claim should generally be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as indefinite because it is unclear what other alternatives are intended to be encompassed by the claim. If a claim is intended to encompass combinations or mixtures of the alternatives set forth in the Markush grouping, the claim may include qualifying language preceding the recited alternatives (such as "at least one member" selected from the group), or within the list of alternatives (such as "or mixtures thereof"). Id. at 1281. See also MPEP § 2111.03.
In order to conform to current US practice, applicant is suggested to amend the instant terminology to -–selected from the group consisting of--.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1-9 and 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 111584853 in view of US 6,652,605.
CN 111584853 discloses a prelithiated negative electrode active material prepared by the following steps: mixing a lithium elementary substance with a first solvent to obtain a lithium elementary substance solution; mixing a negative electrode material with a second solvent to obtain a negative electrode material dispersion liquid; adding the lithium elementary substance solution into the negative electrode material dispersion liquid to obtain a mixed solution; and carrying out vacuum drying on the mixed solution to obtain the pre-lithiated negative electrode material (Abstract; Embodiment 1 pages 7-8 of English translation). The reference specifies silicon carbon material as a preferred electrode material (page 6).
The reference differs from the instant method claims in failing to recite use of silicon alkoxide during the solvothermal reaction, and alcohol wash and drying.
US 6,652,605 discloses a process for lithiated or overlithiated transition metal oxide electrode materials (Abstract). The method entails forming a lithium alkoxide solution by dissolving lithium metal and alcohol, performing lithium insertion into the electrode material via contact and heating at 50-260°C, and subsequently washing with alcohol and drying (Column 5, lines1-19; lines 35-50; Column 7, lines 1-5; Column 8, lines 25-60). The reference specifies advantages of Li alkoxide solution reaction including expense, reduction of intermediate steps, and control of stoichiometry (Column 6).
Accordingly, the examiner submits that the use of lithium alkoxide, and subsequent alcohol washing and drying, as taught in US ‘605, would have been an obvious methodology for the prelithiation of carbon/Si electrode materials as disclosed in CN ‘853, as such is specifically disclosed as beneficial for production of prelithiated electrode materials. The combination of references as discussed above meets each of the instantly claimed method steps. With respect to dependent claims 2-4, 6, 8-9, and 13-15, the examiner respectfully submits that the selection of known alcohol solvents and particle size of reactants, and optimization of drying times and/or temperatures would have been well within the purview of the skilled artisan as each are known result-effective variables. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
In view of the foregoing, the above claims have failed to patentably distinguish over the applied art.
The remaining references listed on forms 892 and 1449 have been reviewed by the examiner and are considered to be cumulative to or less material than the prior art references relied upon in the rejection above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK T KOPEC whose telephone number is (571)272-1319. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00a-5:00p EST.
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, Robert Jones can be reached at 5712707733. 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.
/MARK KOPEC/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1762
MK
February 7, 2026