DETAILED ACTION
Notice to Applicant
In the amendment dated 2026-08-12, the following has occurred: Claim 1 has been amended; Claims 2-4 have been canceled; Claims 7-8 have been added.
Claims 1 and 5-8 are pending and are examined herein. This is a Final Rejection.
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
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.
Claims 1 and 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 requires “preparing a first solution including a compound capable of forming a complex with lithium and organolithium; and pre-doping a negative electrode active precursor material with lithium by immersing the negative electrode active precursor material including silicon and substantially not containing lithium, in the first solution, thereby forming a negative electrode active material pre-doped with lithium.” This language is not supported in the instantly filed specification.
The instant specification indicates that “The compound capable of forming a complex with lithium is, for example, at least one of an aromatic compound or a derivative thereof. The aromatic compound is preferably a condensed ring aromatic compound, and is, for example, at least one of acenes […] The acenes are, for example, at least one of naphthalene, anthracene […]” (¶ 0042 of PGPUB US 2024/0088349). The examples include missing a silicon oxide in a solution containing lithium naphthalenide “as organolithium 6 is prepared by dissolving naphthalene as a condensed ring aromatic compound in a solvent such as an ether and then immersing lithium metal in the solvent 5” (¶ 0067). Naphthalene appears to be the only “compound capable of forming a complex with lithium” and/or “organolithium” used in the instant examples.
Claim 1 requires “a first solution including a compound capable of forming a complex with lithium and organolithium.” This text does not appear in the specification is written. It is unclear whether the claim refers to two different species—naphthalene and lithium naphthalenide—or whether the claim is referring to a “compound capable of forming a complex” as described in ¶ 0042 and an additional “organolithium” compound. The claims are therefore rejected, including the claims dependent on claim 1.
Claims 1 and 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1 now requires “preparing a first solution including a compound capable of forming a complex with lithium and organolithium; and pre-doping a negative electrode active precursor material with lithium by immersing the negative electrode active precursor material including silicon and substantially not containing lithium, in the first solution, thereby forming a negative electrode active material pre-doped with lithium.” It is unclear whether the “compound capable of forming a complex with lithium” is the same as, a different species from, or totally different from the claimed “organolithium.” It is unclear whether the phrase “a compound capable of forming a complex with lithium and organolithium” refers to a single compound capable of forming a complex with both lithium and organolithium or whether it refers to two distinct compositions. It is unclear whether the “organolithium” is formed in situ or added to the solution.
In addition, Claim 5 lacks proper antecedent basis for claim “the compound.” Claim 6 appears to indicate that “the compound capable of forming a complex with lithium (and organolithium)” is naphthalene. Claims 6-8 are rejected for depending on claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claim(s) 1 and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tabuchi (Tabuchi et al. “Li-doping process for LixSiO-negative active material synthesized by chemical method for lithium-ion cells.” Journal of Power Sources 146 (2005) 507-509).
Regarding Claim 1, Tabuchi teaches:
a method of forming an anode material comprising reacting a silicon oxide material on an electrode which is then immersed into a solution containing naphthalene (i.e. “a compound capable of forming a complex with lithium”) and metallic Li (“Experimental” p. 507)
wherein naphthalene and metallic Li in organic solvent form lithium naphthalenide, with the lithium ion stabilized by the aromatic anion, as described in the instant specification, as well as p. 509 of Tabuchi
wherein the SiO active material is doped with lithium ions during the immersion (p. 509)
Regarding Claims 5-6, Tabuchi teaches:
naphthalene (“Experimental” p. 507)
Regarding Claim 7, Tabuchi teaches:
after the pre-doping, washing with dimethyl carbonate, which is read broadly as a compound capable of forming a complex with lithium, particularly in dual-cation electrolyte systems, to remove the excess lithium from the material
Claims 1 and 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ito (US 2018/0047981 to Ito).
Regarding Claims 1 and 5-6, Ito teaches:
a negative electrode active material comprising silicon oxide is immersed in a solution with naphthalene (i.e. “a compound capable of forming a complex with lithium”) and lithium metal (¶ 0281)
the silicon oxide is doped during the immersion in substantially the same process as that instantly described (¶ 0282)
Regarding Claim 7, Ito teaches:
washing with dimethyl carbonate, a compound capable of forming a complex with lithium, to remove excess Li (¶ 0283)
Regarding Claim 8, Ito teaches:
after the reaction and DMC washing, the doped silicon oxide is vacuum-treated and then washed with water (¶ 0285)
Response to Arguments
The Remarks submitted 2026-08-12 have been considered but do not place the application in condition for allowance. The amendments are rejected for adding new matter and for being indefinite. It is not clear what Applicant intended to accomplish with the instant amendments.
Applicant argues, for instance that Tabuchi teaches “a method of forming an anode material comprising reacting a silicon oxide material on an electrode which is then immersed into a solution containing naphthalene” and then argues that it therefore does not read on claim 1 (Remarks at 5). Yet, Tabuchi teaches preparing a first solution of solvent, naphthalene, and lithium, which forms lithium naphthalenide in solution, as described by the instant specification and relied upon in the instant examples. Then it immerses a negative electrode active material precursor, silicon oxide, into that solution to form a doped active material. Ito does the same. It is baffling why Applicant asserts that, “Clearly then, the cited art is distinguished from the claimed invention” (Remarks at 5). On the contrary, the claimed invention is clearly anticipated by the prior art of record. The inclusion of “organolithium” in the claim, as though that could be relevant (not to mention previously described or definite), seems to indicate a lack of understanding about what is even described in the instant specification, which makes it hard to compare the prior art.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Michael Dignan, whose telephone number is (571) 272-6425. The examiner can normally be reached from Monday to Friday between 10 AM and 6:30 PM. If any attempt to reach the examiner by telephone is unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tiffany Legette, can be reached at (571)270-7078. Another resource that is available to applicants is the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR). Information regarding the status of an application can be obtained from the (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAX. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, please feel free to contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). Applicants are invited to contact the Office to schedule an in-person interview to discuss and resolve the issues set forth in this Office Action. Although an interview is not required, the Office believes that an interview can be of use to resolve any issues related to a patent application in an efficient and prompt manner.
/MICHAEL L DIGNAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights