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
Claims 19-20 remain withdrawn without traverse from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking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. The 3/10/26 oral election of Group I without traverse was confirmed in the Remarks 07/09/2026.
Applicant’s confirmation of said election in the reply filed on 07/09/2026 is acknowledged.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-7, 11, 14-15 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rangasamy et al. (US 20220052307 A1) and optionally further in view of Affinito et al. (US 2011068001 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Rangasamy, drawn to inline contact pre-lithiation of negative electrode, discloses a method of fabricating a pre-lithiated electrode, comprising: disposing a carrier substrate comprising a layer of lithium metal adjacent to a prefabricated electrode comprising a layer of anode material; contacting a surface of the layer of anode material with a surface of the layer of lithium metal; and calendering the layer of lithium metal and the prefabricated electrode together (para 9), the calendering comprising transferring the layer of lithium metal and the prefabricated electrode through a pair of calendering rolls (para 10), the calendering further comprising applying uniform pressure to a back surface of the carrier substrate to transfer lithium from the layer of lithium metal to the layer of anode material (para 10 and 63).
Rangasamy discloses the uniform pressure is a pressure ranging from about 0.3 MPa to about 10 MPa. The claimed range of 3.2 MPa to about 5.3 MPa lies inside the range disclosed by Rangasamy. It has been held that in the case where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05).
Rangasamy does not explicitly disclose use of Li-PET sheet, a front roll and/or a back roll is heated to a temperature in the range of from about 40°C to about 75°C, and PET denotes polyethylene terephthalate or a derivative of polyethylene terephthalate.
Rangasamy discloses a substitution for Li-PET sheet, the carrier substrate comprising a layer of lithium metal (para 9). Rangasamy additionally discloses that the carrier film can simply be a flexible polymer web (para 57). In light of the foregoing, it would have been obvious to have chosen a flexible polymer sheet such as PET as Rangasamy discloses that such general classes of materials are suitable for acting as a carrier sheet. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute one known element for another, and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. See MPEP 2143 (I)(B).
In order to facilitate compact prosecution, the examiner additionally notes that Affinito, drawn also to the lithium battery art, discloses the use of PET-based carriers for anodes (para 159). As such, and further in view of the disclosure provided above in Rangasamy, it would have been obvious and predictably successful to use such a material for the purpose of functioning as a carrier sheet. This is even further obvious in light of the fact that Affinito discloses such a carrier sheet provides good delamination without breakage (para 159).
Rangasamy discloses roller temperature ranges from about 50°C to about 180°C (para 10, 64-67). The optimum temperature range disclosed by Rangasamy overlaps the optimum range of 40°C to about 75°C claimed in the instant application. It has been held that in the case where claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05
Regarding claim 2, Rangasamy discloses separating the carrier substrate from the surface of the layer of anode material to form the pre-lithiated electrode (para 14).
Regarding claim 4, Rangasamy discloses the heating process and the compression process “can be performed simultaneously” (refer to rejection of claim 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to heat the front roll to a temperature in the range of 40°C to about 75°C as selecting the front roll as the heated roll would have been a predictable solution of the disclosed simultaneous heating and calendaring process with a reasonable expectation of success. MPEP2143.
Regarding claim 5, Rangasamy discloses the heating process and the compression process “can be performed simultaneously” (refer to rejection of claim 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to heat the back roll to a temperature in the range of 40°C to about 75°C as selecting the front roll as the heated roll would have been a predictable solution of the disclosed simultaneous heating and calendaring process with a reasonable expectation of success. MPEP2143.
Regarding claim 6, Rangasamy discloses the prefabricated electrode is a negative electrode (para 10) comprising a Cu carrier foil (para 57).
Regarding claim 7, Rangasamy discloses the prefabricated electrode is a negative electrode comprising a carbonaceous material, silicon, silicon oxide or combinations thereof (para 10).
Regarding claim 11, Rangasamy discloses incorporating the pre-lithiated electrode into an electrochemical cell further comprising a positive electrode, a separator, and an electrolyte (para 10).
Regarding claim 14, Rangasamy discloses the Cu foil has a thickness of approximately 10-12 μm (para 78). The range disclosed by Rangasamy overlaps the range of about 6μm to about 12 μm claimed in the instant application. It has been held that in the case where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 15, Rangasamy discloses the carbonaceous material comprises natural graphite, artificial graphite, or combinations thereof (para 10).
Regarding claim 22, Although Rangasamy does not explicitly disclose alloying the prefabricated electrode, Rangasamy discloses storing the lithium-contacted prefabricated electrode for a period sufficient to substantially or completely lithiate the electrode (para 66). Such lithiation necessarily involves lithium being absorbed into the electrode. Accordingly, Rangasamy discloses alloying the prefabricated electrode.
Claim(s) 3, 12 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rangasamy et al. (US 20220052307 A1), as applied to claim 1 and 2 above, in view of Affinito et al. (US 2011068001 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Rangasamy discloses carrier sheet (para 9). Rangasamy fails to explicitly state carrier sheet is Li-PET sheet with a release layer. Affinito discloses PET carrier substrate with a release layer (para 151). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the method of fabricating a pre-lithiated electrode such that the PET layer comprises a release layer as taught by Affinito above as doing such allows the release layer and the electrode assembly to be “easily delaminated from the PET substrate without mechanical disintegration” (para 152).
Regarding claim 12, Rangasamy discloses carrier sheet (para 9). Rangasamy fails to disclose carrier sheet is PET sheet with a thickness of about 20 μm to about 200 μm. Affinito, which is relied upon to disclose the PET carrier sheet, discloses a 76-micron thick PET film (para 149). The thickness disclosed by Affinito lies inside the range of about 20 μm to about 200 μm claimed in the instant application. It has been held that in the case where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 13, Rangasamy discloses carrier sheet (para 9). Rangasamy fails to explicitly state carrier sheet is PET sheet with a release layer with thickness of about 0.005 μm to about 1 μm. Affinito discloses varying thickness of release layer including a suitable thickness of “0.001-1 micron thick” (para 79). The thickness disclosed by Affinito overlaps with the range of about 0.005 μm to about 1 μm claimed in the instant application. It has been held that in the case where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05.
Claim(s) 8, 9 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rangasamy et al. (US 20220052307 A1) and Affinito et al. (US 2011068001 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Yi (CN 113826246 A, see machine translation of record).
Regarding claim 8, Rangasamy discloses the prefabricated electrode is a negative electrode (para 10). Rangasamy fails to disclose negative electrode having a coating. Yi, also drawn to lithium-ion battery art, discloses negative electrode having a coating (para 16, “functional layer”). Yi additionally discloses the functional layer comprises SiOC composite material (para 16). Yi teaches that the inclusion of SiOC mitigates volume expansion and poor conductivity during battery cycling (para 6). In light of the forgoing, it would have been obvious to have chosen the SiOC comprising functional layer as Yi discloses it addresses the known problem of volume expansion in negative electrodes (para 9). The examiner additionally notes that it has been held to not be patently distinguishable to substitute one known element for another when the results of the substitution would have been predictable. See MPEP 2143 (I)(B).
Regarding claim 9, Rangasamy fails to disclose coating is a double-sided coating and/or has a thickness of about 10 μm to about 80 μm. Yi, relied upon for the coating, discloses the “functional layer has a thickness of 70 μm - 90 μm” (para 16). The thickness disclosed by Yi overlaps with the range of about 10 μm to about 80 μm claimed in the instant application. It has been held that in the case where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 16, Rangasamy fails to disclose coating comprises SiOyCz, wherein y is from 0 to 2 and z is 0 or 1. As stated in claim 8, Yi discloses coating comprising SiOC (para 16). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the method of fabricating a pre-lithiated electrode such that coating comprised of SiOC as taught by Yi above as doing such solves the problems of volume expansion and poor conductivity of silicon materials during battery cycling (para 6).
Claim(s) 10 and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rangasamy et al. (US 20220052307 A1) and Affinito et al. (US 2011068001 A1), as applied to claim 1, in view of Jin et al. (CN 104953091 A, see machine translation of record).
Regarding claim 10, Rangasamy discloses calendering rolls (para 10). Rangasamy fails to disclose gap between the calendering rolls is from about 160 μm to about 200 μm.
Jin, drawn to preparation process of lithium battery pole piece, discloses gap of 150-175 μm between the pressure rollers (calendering rolls) is suitable to form a pole piece (para 15). Jin suggests steps such as the gap between pressure rollers effects the conductivity of the pole piece (para 6-9). The range disclosed by Jin overlaps the range of about 160 μm to about 200 μm claimed in the instant application. It has been held that in the case where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05). Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the gap through routine experimentation to achieve desired conductivity, absent evidence of critically or unexpected results.
Regarding claim 17, Rangasamy discloses calendering rolls (para 10). Rangasamy fails to disclose gap between the calendering rolls is from about 170 μm to about 190 μm.
As discussed in claim 10, Jin discloses gap of 150-175 μm between the calendering rolls is suitable to form a pole piece (para 15). The range disclosed by Jin lies inside the range of about 170 μm to about 190 μm claimed in the instant application. It has been held that in the case where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 18, Rangasamy discloses calendering rolls (para 10). Rangasamy fails to disclose gap between the calendering rolls is about 180 μm.
As discussed in claim 10 and 17, Jin discloses gap of 150-175 μm between the calendering rolls is suitable to form a pole piece (para 15). The gap of about 180 μm claimed in the instant application is merely close to the range disclosed by Jin. It has been held that “a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close”. See MPEP 2144.05.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rangasamy et al. (US 20220052307 A1), Affinito et al. (US 2011068001 A1) and Jin et al. (CN 104953091 A, see machine translation of record), as applied to claims 1 and 10, in view of Primo et al. (Calendering of Li(Ni0.33Mn0.33Co0.33)O2-Based Cathodes: Analyzing the Link Between Process Parameters and Electrode Properties by Advanced Statistics).
Regarding claim 21, Primo, drawn to optimization of the calendering process for lithium-electrode processing, discloses the applied pressure during calendering is controlled by the gap between the rolls and subsequently discloses calendering at various different temperatures (page 841, Electrode processing). Primo further discloses best condition to influence electrode capacity is applied pressures between 60 and 120 MPa and roll temperatures between 60 and 75°C (Abstract). Primo recognizes roll gap, applied pressure and roll temperature as interrelated calendering parameters. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to optimize the roll gap and roll temperature of calendering rolls of Rangasamy to obtain a desired applied pressure as one would have achieved such by performing routine experimenting to achieve only the expected results. MPEP 2144.05.
Furthermore, with regards to claims 1 and 10 (upon which claim 21 is dependent), Primo discloses calendering roll gap of 300 µm and teaches that “the gap between the rolls controls the pressure applied to the electrodes” (page 841, Electrode processing). Primo further discloses performing calendering at various applied pressures. Primo teaches roll gap is a result effective variable. A skilled artisan would have known to optimize the recognized result effective variable to obtain desired applied pressure. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to adjust the roll gap of calendering rolls of Rangasamy to about 160-200 µm, as one would have achieved such by performing routine experimenting to achieve only the expected results. MPEP 2144.05.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 7/09/2026, have been fully considered but they are
either not persuasive or moot in light of the new grounds of rejection.
Regarding the rejection of claims 1-2, 4-7, 11, and 14-15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, on page 8 of the Remarks, the applicant asserts Rangasamy fails to disclose the calendrring comprises applying uniform pressure to a back surface of the Li-PET sheet to transfer lithium from the layer of lithium metal to the layer of anode material, wherein the uniform pressure is a pressure ranging from about 3.2 MPa to about 5.3 MPa. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because Rangasamy discloses applying uniform pressure of 0.3 MPa to about 10 MPa to a back surface of the Li-PET sheet to transfer lithium from the layer of lithium metal to the layer of anode material and varying the pressure range would have been obvious (see rejection of claim 1 and fig 4).
Applicant also states Rangasamy fails to disclose a front roll or a back roll is heated to a temperature in the range of from about 40°C to about 75°C. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because para 63-67 of Rangasamy discloses the “heating at least one of the carrier substrate comprising the layer of lithium metal or the prefabricated electrode” to a temperature range from about 50°C to about 180°C (para 10, 64-65). Rangasamy also discloses the lithium metal film and the anode is pressed between the calendaring rollers (fig 3). Rangasamy further discloses the heating process and the compression process “can be performed simultaneously” (para 67). These cited portions of Rangasamy amount to a disclosure that the roller(s) is/are heated to within the claimed temperature range since simultaneous heating and compressing indicates at least one heated roller. See rejection above claim 1 above.
In the succeeding paragraph, Applicant asserts “it would not be obvious to select the combined claimed temperature and pressure ranges for pre-lithiated electrode fabrication process without the hindsight of the instant application”. In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). Further, Applicant’s assertion that the “the claimed combination provides novel benefits, such as providing for the homogeneous transfer of lithium to the anode without damaging the anode structure” is not persuasive because it is not commensurate with the scope of the claims. The claims do not require homogeneous transfer of lithium to the anode without damaging the anode structure. Accordingly, the rejection is maintained.
On page 9, the Applicant asserts Jin fails to disclose “the pressure applied to the back surface of a Li-PET sheet is governed by a gap between the calendaring rolls and the temperature of the front and back rolls”. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because Jin is not relied upon to reject the new limitation. The newly added limitation was not part of the claims previously under consideration. The rejection has been revised in view of the amendment, and the present rejection is based on a new reference which addresses the added limitation.
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 ARTI KHANAL whose telephone number is (571)272-8608. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:00am-5pm.
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, Michael N Orlando can be reached at (571) 270-5038. 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.
/A.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1746
/CHRISTOPHER T SCHATZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746
Prosecution Insights