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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 1 “wherein voltage is applied” should read “wherein the voltage is applied”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 1 “wherein current is applied” should read “wherein the current is applied”. 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.
Claims 4 and 5 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 4 recites the limitation “applying the voltage” in line 1 and “during the application of the voltage” in line 2. It is unclear whether the voltage is the same or different.
Additionally, dependent claim 5 is rejected as a result of its dependence on indefinite claim 4, as they include all the limitations of claim 4 and as they do not resolve the issues identified in rejections set forth above.
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.
Claims 1-7, 9, 11-12, 16-17, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lanning et al. (WO 2021080664 A1, “Lanning”).
Regarding claim 1, Lanning discloses a method of pre-forming anode particles bearing a solid electrolyte interphase (see [0022] “method of manufacturing an anode. The method can include nucleating a plurality of carbon particles at a first concentration level, forming a first film on a sacrificial substrate based on the first concentration level, each of the carbon particles defined by a plurality of aggregates formed of few layer graphene sheets fused together, defining a porous structure based on the few layer graphene sheets, and infusing a molten lithium (Li) metal into the porous structure.” & see [0158] describes “carbon scaffold 300” & see FIG. 3; see [0030] “carbon pre-form”; see [0066] “solid-electrolyte interface (SEI)”), the anode particles being for use in an anode of a lithium ion battery (see abstract “carbon particles” & “lithium (Li) ion battery” & see [0022]), where the lithium ion battery includes the anode, an anode current collector, a cathode, a cathode current collector an optional separator, and a battery electrolyte (see abstract “anode” & “cathode” & “separator” & “electrolyte” & see [0103] “current collectors”), the method comprising: providing a dispersion in a vessel configured for electrochemical reactions (see [0113] “synthesis and/or growth of carbon-based particle 100A within a reaction chamber”; see [0198] “dispersion of carbon-based particle 100A”), wherein the dispersion comprises anode precursor particles and a first liquid electrolyte solution (see [0163] “liquid electrolyte surrounding the carbon scaffold 300B”), and the dispersion includes an additive not found in the lithium ion battery (see [0117] “dopants” & “introduced into a chemical material to alter its original electrical or optical properties” & “or the like”), applying a voltage across the dispersion to form the anode particles bearing the solid electrolyte interphase (see [0094] “voltage” & see [0071] “SEI is formed”) and recovering the anode particles bearing the solid electrolyte interphase from the dispersion (see [0149] “referring to the synthesis, creation, formation, and/or growth of carbon-based particle 100 A”; see [0158] “The carbon scaffold 300 can be created in-reactor”).
Regarding claim 2, Lanning discloses the method of claim 1 and further discloses wherein the additive is present in the dispersion before applying the voltage (see [0117] “dopants” & “incorporated during synthesis”).
Regarding claim 3, Lanning discloses the method of claim 1 and further discloses wherein the additive is added to the dispersion during the application of the voltage (see [0117] “dopants” & “incorporated during synthesis”).
Regarding claim 4, Lanning discloses the method of claim 2 and further discloses wherein after applying the voltage and during the application of the voltage, introducing an additional additive to the dispersion to form a solid electrolyte interface having a first layer of a first composition and a second layer of a second composition (see [0022] “solid-electrolyte interface (SEI) can be formed within a vicinity of the porous structure. The electrochemical cell further can comprise an artificial solid- electrolyte interface (ASEI) positioned within a vicinity of the porous structure. The ASEI is formed in situ during formation of the porous structure or is formed ex situ as any one or more of a coating, a film, or a reactant.” & describes “sacrificial substrate” which reads on the first layer & ex situ reads on the first layer because pre-forming with the voltage applied forms the first SEI layer and in situ describes the second ASEI layer & a skilled artisan would find it obvious that during cycling of the battery, voltage is applied).
Regarding claim 5, Lanning discloses the method of claim 4 and further discloses repeating the step of introducing an additional additive and applying the voltage after introducing the additional additive (see [0030] “one or more of adding of a quantity of dopants” & “dopants, can also be introduced at different stages”).
Regarding claim 6, Lanning discloses the method of claim 1 and further discloses wherein the anode particles comprise graphite (see [0067] “graphite at the negative electrode”).
Regarding claim 7, Lanning discloses the method of claim 1 and further discloses wherein the anode particles have an average particle size of <200 nm which overlaps the claimed range (see [0093] “nano-sized graphite”; see [0099] “most preferably < 200 nm”).
Lanning discloses a range of <200 nm, which overlaps with the claimed range of 50 nm to 100 µm. MPEP 2144.05 I states that '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)'.
Regarding claim 9, Lanning discloses the method of claim 1 and further discloses wherein the first liquid electrolyte solution comprises a salt in a solvent wherein the salt comprises lithium bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide (see [0294] “LiTFSI electrolyte solution”; see [0071] describes “electrolyte/solvent co-intercalation”).
Regarding claim 11, Lanning discloses the method of claim 1 and further discloses wherein the dispersion comprises weight percent of the anode particles (see [0095] “exfoliated graphite amount is in the range of 5% to 90% by weight” which overlaps the claimed range of 1 to 25 weight percent), and 0.001 to 10 weight percent of the additive based on total weight of the dispersion (see [0095] “amount of coating is in the range of 95% to 10% by weight” which overlaps the claimed range at the end point of 10 weight percent).
Lanning discloses a range of 5 to 90 wt%, which overlaps with the claimed range of 1 to 25 weight percent. MPEP 2144.05 I states that '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)'.
Lanning discloses a range of 95% to 10% by weight, which overlaps with the claimed range of 0.0001 to 10 weight percent. MPEP 2144.05 I states that '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)'.
Regarding claim 12, Lanning discloses the method of claim 1 and further discloses wherein the electrochemical reaction vessel comprises a conductive shell as a current collector and an electrode comprising lithium metal (see [0247] “hardcase” & “Li ions can intercalate and deintercalated reversibly”; [0103] “including current collectors made form metal foil such as copper”; see FIG. 5).
Regarding claim 16, Lanning discloses the method of claim 1 and further discloses wherein the solid electrolyte interphase has a composition which varies along a gradient from a surface of the anode particle to a surface of the solid electrolyte interphase (see [0110] “carbon-based particle 100A having controllable electrical and ionic conducting gradients” & see [0162] “layer-by-layer deposition to grow carbon-based particle 100A incrementally” & FIG. 4B).
Regarding claim 17, Lanning discloses the method of claim 1 and further discloses wherein the solid electrolyte interphase is inorganic (see [0111] “inorganic materials”).
Regarding claim 19, Lanning discloses the method of claim 1 and further discloses comprising forming a slurry comprising the anode particles bearing the solid electrolyte interphase, a binder (see [0106]), a conductive component (see [0008] “conductive polymer”) and a solvent (see [0071] “solvent”), applying the slurry to a current collector (see [0102] “slurry cast electrodes”), drying (see [0281]) and optionally curing to form an anode (see [0184] “curing”).
Regarding claim 20, Lanning discloses a lithium ion battery comprising an anode disposed on an anode current collector, a cathode disposed on a cathode current collector, an optional separator, disposed between the anode and the cathode, and a battery electrolyte (see abstract “lithium (Li) ion battery”; see [0022]; see abstract “anode” & “cathode” & “electrolyte”; see [0103] “current collectors”), wherein the anode comprises anode particles having a pre-formed solid electrolyte interphase of a composition that could not be formed in situ in the lithium ion battery (see [0022] “method of manufacturing an anode”; see [0158] describes “carbon scaffold 300” & see FIG. 3; see [0030] “carbon pre-form”; see [0066] “solid-electrolyte interface (SEI)”; see [0022] “the ASEI is formed in situ during formation of the porous structure or is formed ex situ as any one or more of a coating, a film, or a reactant”).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lanning et al. (WO 2021080664 A1, “Lanning”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Adenusi et al. (Adenusi et al. “Lithium Batteries and the Solid Electrolyte Interphase (SEI)—Progress and Outlook”…).
Regarding claim 8, Lanning discloses the method of claim 1 and further discloses wherein the solid electrolyte interphase has a thickness (see [0019] “solid electrolyte can have a thickness in a range of approximately 0.5 µm to 40 µm” but does not explicitly disclose thickness of 1 to 100 nm, however, Lanning does disclose “the thickness can be configured to substantially prevent any one or more of Li dendrite formation or growth” (see [0019]).
Adenusi teaches thickness of the solid electrolyte interface see P2 col 2 par 1 SEI being approximately 10-50 nm thick.
Lanning and Adensui are analogous to the current invention because they are related to the same field of endeavor, namely lithium batteries (see Adensui title) & dendrite (see Adensui P2 & P3).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate thickness 10-50 nm thick as suggested by Adensui (see P2 col 2 par 1) into the method of Lanning because Adensui teaches a range of 10-50 nm, which lies within the claimed range of 1 to 100 nm. MPEP 2144.05 I states that '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)'.
Claims 10 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lanning et al. (WO 2021080664 A1, “Lanning”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zheng et al. (Jieyun Zheng et al. “3D visualization of inhomogeneous multi-layered structure…”).
Regarding claim 10, Lanning discloses the method of claim 1 and further discloses wherein the additive comprises fluorinated carbonate (see [0256] “carbonates” & see [0257] “fluorine (F)”). Lanning does not explicitly disclose vinylene carbonate.
Zheng teaches VC (see P13230 par 2 “SEI additive, vinylene carbonate (VC)”) & describes on P13232 col 2 “VC is favorable for forming a thicker SEI and the thickness distribution of the SEI is more continuous compared to the VC-free electrolyte”).
Lanning and Zheng are analogous to the current invention as they are related to the same field of endeavor, namely “multi-layered structure” & “solid electrolyte interphase (SEI) & lithium ion batteries (see Zheng title).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate VC, as suggested by Zheng (see P13230) into the method of Lanning because doing so provides a thicker SEI and more continuous compared to the VC-free, as suggested by Zheng (see P13232).
Regarding claim 13, Lanning discloses the method of claim 1 and further discloses voltage (see [0094] “voltage” & “Known methods for fabricating carbon and Li -ion electrodes for rechargeable Li cells include steps for forming a carbon electrode”). Lanning does not explicitly disclose wherein voltage is applied at a level of +/-10 to +/-7000 millivolts.
Zheng teaches voltage (see P13233 “double-layered SEI can be observed in the state of discharged to 0.005 V”).
Zheng teaches a range of 0.005 V (equivalent to 5 mV), which lies within the claimed range of +/-10 to +/-7000 millivolts. MPEP 2144.05 I states that '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)'.
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lanning et al. (WO 2021080664 A1, “Lanning”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Grant et al. (US 20130327648 A1, “Grant”).
Regarding claim 14, Lanning discloses the method of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein current is applied at a level of from +/-0.01 to +/-10 milliamps per square centimeter.
Grant teaches current control (see [0045] “Current control can alternatively be used if the subsequent operating voltage remains above the lithium halide salt dissociation threshold. This can be done by setting a sufficiently high initial current density (e.g. 2 mA/cm.sup.2) that will favor the dissociation rather than secondary side reactions”) & describes preforming (see [0011] “By lithiating the anode prior to battery assembly, a surplus of lithium is present that can support longer cycling life, initial losses due to SEI formation, cathode related alkali metal ion losses, and/or alkali metal free cathode material cycling needs” & “In one embodiment, a metal-intercalating material, such as carbon, graphite, tin oxide, and silicon, is coated onto a current collector of a conductive material such as copper, coated aluminum or carbon fiber, forming the intercalation-based anode.”).
Lanning and Grant are analogous to the current invention because they are related to the same field of endeavor, namely SEI formation (see [0011]).
Grant teaches a range of 2mA/cm2 which lies within the claimed range of +/-0.01 to +/-10 milliamps per square centimeter. MPEP 2144.05 I states that '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)'.
Regarding claim 15, Lanning discloses the method of claim 1 and further discloses wherein the solid electrolyte interphase is a uniform surface (see [0207] “pre-lithiate” &see [0217] “uniform surface” & “uniform deposition” & describes in [0044] “alloying a carbon-based structure”), but does not explicitly disclose a homogeneous composition.
Grant teaches a homogeneous mixture (see [0010] “SEI layer” & “Alloying refers to a plating process where lithium atoms wind up in a homogeneous mixture within the host substrate, such as with aluminum or tin”).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the SEI layer disclosed by Lanning would exhibit a homogeneous composition because Lanning discloses “alloying a carbon-based structure” (see [0044]) and Grant teaches alloying process produces a homogeneous mixture (see [0010]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 18 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 18 is drawn to the method of claim 1 further comprising forming a second dispersion comprising the anode particles bearing the solid electrolyte interphase, and a second liquid electrolyte solution which is different from first liquid electrolyte solution and applying a voltage or a current across the dispersion to form a second layer of solid electrolyte interphase on the anode particles.
Lanning (WO 2021080664 A1) is considered to be the closest relevant prior art to independent claims 1 and 20. Lanning discloses most of the claim limitations as set for previously.
However, Lanning (WO 2021080664 A1) does not disclose, teach, fairly suggest, nor render obvious the above noted limitations because Lanning does not explicitly disclose a method of pre-forming anode particles and forming a second dispersion comprising the anode particles bearing the solid electrolyte interphase, and a second liquid electrolyte solution which is different from first liquid electrolyte solution and applying a voltage or a current across the dispersion to form a second layer of solid electrolyte interphase on the anode particles.
Prior art Dai et al. (US 20160141598 A1) teaches in [0046] “lithium in the negative electrode 18 reacts immediately with the electrolyte solution 24 (i.e., without application of a voltage or load). This reaction may decompose at least some component (other than the additive 26 or the fluorinated additive 26′) in the electrolyte solution 24, and the decomposition product deposits on the exposed surface(s) of the negative electrode 18 to form another SEI layer (not shown in FIG. 1)” which describes double layered SEI formation without application of voltage, however, Dai is related to a lithium sulfur electrochemical cell (see [0046]) rather than a lithium ion battery, as required by claim 1.
Prior art Fabian et al. (Fabian Single et al 2017 J. Electrochem. Soc. 164 E3132) teaches on P E3133 “Furthermore, too many variables influence SEI properties significantly, preventing a systematic investigation. Not only the solvent/salt combination but also the electrode material and its surface treatment influence SEI formation and properties. Formation can take place at different potentials, cycling rates and temperatures.” & describes on P E3134 “mass balance equations are solved for all relevant electrolyte species” in equation [2] which describes different electrolytes. Fabian teaches on PE3140 “dual-layer SEI”. Fabian teaches on P E3132 “polymeric SEI compounds as found when FEC is used as solvent or additive” & “electrolyte salt has a large impact on SEI composition and performance”. Fabian teaches achieving a dual-layer SEI “by co-solvent reduction (II) or by conversion of Li2EDC (III)”, and describes with co-solvent reduction “Li2EDC and LiMC are both present in the dense layer” & describes with conversion reaction “each layer consists of the products of a single reaction” & describes “onset potential for these reactions is chosen as 0.3 V” (see Fabian PE3140).
However, Fabian et al. does not teach, fairly suggest, nor render obvious forming a second dispersion comprising the anode particles bearing the solid electrolyte interphase, and a second liquid electrolyte solution which is different from first liquid electrolyte solution and applying a voltage or a current across the dispersion to form a second layer of solid electrolyte interphase on the anode particles as required by claim 18.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAH APPLEGATE whose telephone number is (571)270-0370. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm ET.
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, Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at (571) 270-3879. 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.
/S.A.A./Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/JAMES M ERWIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725
08/07/2026
Prosecution Insights