Introductory Notes
Any paragraph citation of the instant is in reference to the U.S. published patent application.
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 .
Joint Inventors
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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I and Species C in the reply filed on 8/18/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there would not be a serious search and/or examination burden.
This argument is not found persuasive regarding the Groups (method claims 1-18 and product claims 19-20). The reasons for this restriction are outlined in the restriction requirement of 7/2/2026 and are still deemed proper and the relevant restriction is therefore made FINAL.
This argument is found persuasive regarding the Species (based on Figs. 4-6 which depict first, second, and third methods). It is noted that the instant provides three methods of manufacture, as shown in Figs. 4-6 and detailed in [0063-0066]. While the instant clearly notes the benefits of “Introducing the nitrate additive into the negative electrode 22 during manufacture … instead of … the electrolyte” as outlined in [0062], in contrast no benefits or comparisons regarding the methods which relate to the order of combining the components into the slurry may be found in the instant. Furthermore, the instant lacks any examples and/or comparative examples which may distinguish the three methods or provide unexpected results. As such applicant’s arguments that there is no search and/or examination burden relating to distinguishing the three methods outlined in Figs. 4-6 is persuasive. Therefore, the restriction of Species of 7/2/2026 is withdrawn. As a result, claims 6 and 7 are notably not withdrawn.
Claims 19 and 20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 8/18/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 6, 8, 10-14 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by QI (Qi, Wenbin, et al "Improving the rate capability of a SiOx/graphite anode by adding LiNO3" Progress in Natural Science Materials International 30 (2020) 321-327, supplied with an IDS).
Regarding claim 1, QI discloses a method of manufacturing a negative electrode for a battery that cycles lithium ions (Abstract), the method comprising:
depositing a precursor mixture on a substrate to form a precursor layer (“paste was evenly spread on a copper foil to prepare the anode” pg. 322 section 2.1), the precursor mixture comprising an electroactive negative electrode material (“SiOx/graphite anode material” pg. 322 section 2.1), a polymer binder (“carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC), and styrene-butadiene rubber (SBR)” pg. 322 section 2.1), a nitrate additive (“lithium nitrate” pg. 322 section 2.1), and an aqueous solvent (“deionized water” pg. 322 section 2.1), the electroactive negative electrode material comprising silicon, silicon oxide, lithiated silicon suboxide, graphite, or a combination thereof (“SiOx/graphite anode material” pg. 322 section 2.1); and
removing the aqueous solvent from the precursor layer to form the negative electrode on the substrate (“prepared anode was then transferred into an oven at 120 °C for 6 h and cut into disks” pg. 322 section 2.1).
Regarding claim 2, QI discloses the nitrate additive comprises lithium nitrate (LiNO3), sodium nitrate (NaNO3), potassium nitrate (KNO3), copper nitrate (Cu(NO3)2), or a combination thereof (“lithium nitrate” pg. 322 section 2.1).
Regarding claim 3, QI discloses the nitrate additive constitutes, by weight, greater than or equal to about 0.01% and less than or equal to about 2% of the negative electrode (“93-x:x:2:2:3 (x = 0, 1, 3, 5, or 10)” as well as example “SiGLNO-1” which corresponds to 1 wt% LiNO3, all per pg. 322 section 2.1).
Regarding claim 6, QI discloses preparing the precursor mixture by:
preparing a first solution comprising the polymer binder, the nitrate additive, and at least a portion of the aqueous solvent; and introducing the electroactive negative electrode material into the first solution to form the precursor mixture (“preparation of a SiOx/graphite anode, lithium nitrate, Super P (a conducting additive), carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC), and styrene-butadiene rubber (SBR) were mixed with a weight ratio of 93-x:x:2:2:3 (x = 0, 1, 3, 5, or 10) into deionized water to form a uniform paste” pg. 322 section 2.1; notably no order of combination is required in this claim, the “and” alone does not establish an order of operation).
Regarding claim 8, QI discloses preparing the precursor mixture by:
preparing a binder solution comprising the polymer binder and the aqueous solvent; preparing a nitrate solution comprising the nitrate additive and the aqueous solvent; and mixing the binder solution, the nitrate solution, and the electroactive negative electrode material together to form the precursor mixture (“preparation of a SiOx/graphite anode, lithium nitrate, Super P (a conducting additive), carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC), and styrene-butadiene rubber (SBR) were mixed with a weight ratio of 93-x:x:2:2:3 (x = 0, 1, 3, 5, or 10) into deionized water to form a uniform paste” pg. 322 section 2.1; notably no order of combination is required in this claim, the solution of QI is both a binder solution and a nitrate solution as it comprises elements reading on each).
Regarding claim 10, QI discloses the polymer binder comprises styrene butadiene rubber (SBR), carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC), polyacrylic acid (PAA), sodium alginate, or a combination thereof, and wherein the polymer binder constitutes, by weight, greater than or equal to about 2% and less than or equal to about 10% of the negative electrode (“preparation of a SiOx/graphite anode, lithium nitrate, Super P (a conducting additive), carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC), and styrene-butadiene rubber (SBR) were mixed with a weight ratio of 93-x:x:2:2:3” pg. 322 section 2.1; where the combination fo CMC and SBR is 2 + 3 = 5%, central to the claimed range).
Regarding claim 11, QI discloses the precursor mixture further comprises an electrically conductive material (“Super P (a conducting additive)” pg. 322 section 2.1), and wherein the electrically conductive material constitutes, by weight, greater than or equal to about 2% and less than or equal to about 10% of the negative electrode (“a weight ratio of 93-x:x:2:2:3” as such Super P is 2% per pg. 322 section 2.1).
Regarding claim 12, QI discloses the electroactive negative electrode material constitutes, by weight, greater than or equal to about 80% and less than or equal to about 97% of the negative electrode (“weight ratio of 93-x:x:2:2:3 (x = 0, 1, 3, 5, or 10)” where 93-x is the “SiOx/graphite” and as such SiOx/graphite is 83 to 93%, all per pg. 322 section 2.1).
Regarding claim 13, QI discloses the electroactive negative electrode material further comprises graphite (““SiOx/graphite” pg. 322 section 2.1).
Regarding claim 14, QI discloses a method of manufacturing a battery that cycles lithium ions (Abstract), the method comprising:
depositing a precursor mixture on a copper current collector to form a precursor layer (“paste was evenly spread on a copper foil to prepare the anode” pg. 322 section 2.1), the precursor mixture comprising an electroactive negative electrode material, a polymer binder, a nitrate additive, and an aqueous solvent, the electroactive negative electrode material comprising silicon, silicon oxide, lithiated silicon suboxide, graphite, or a combination thereof, the nitrate additive comprising lithium nitrate (LiNO3), sodium nitrate (NaNO3), potassium nitrate (KNO3), copper nitrate (Cu(NO3)2), or a combination thereof (“preparation of a SiOx/graphite anode, lithium nitrate, Super P (a conducting additive), carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC), and styrene-butadiene rubber (SBR) were mixed with a weight ratio of 93-x:x:2:2:3 (x = 0, 1, 3, 5, or 10) into deionized water to form a uniform paste” pg. 322 section 2.1);
removing the aqueous solvent from the precursor layer to form a negative electrode on the copper current collector (“prepared anode was then transferred into an oven at 120 °C for 6 h and cut into disks” pg. 322 section 2.1); and
assembling the negative electrode and the copper current collector into a stack comprising a positive electrode disposed on a positive electrode current collector and a separator sandwiched between opposed facing surfaces of the negative electrode and the positive electrode, the positive electrode comprising lithium ions (“electrodes were assembled into CR2032 coin-type half-cells in an argon-filled glove box using lithium plates as the counter electrode, lithium hexafluorophosphate (1 M) dissolved in ethylene (EC):dimethyl carbonate (DMC) (1:1 by volume with 1% VC) as the electrolyte and PP/PE/PP as the separator” pg. 322 section 2.2; the lithium plates and associated lead read on positive electrode and current collector respectively).
Regarding claim 16, QI discloses the polymer binder comprises styrene butadiene rubber (SBR), carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC), polyacrylic acid (PAA), sodium alginate, or a combination thereof (“carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC), and styrene-butadiene rubber (SBR)” pg. 322 section 2.1).
Regarding claim 17, QI discloses infiltrating the negative electrode, the positive electrode, and the separator with an electrolyte comprising a lithium salt in a polar aprotic organic solvent, the electrolyte being substantially free of nitrate compounds (“lithium hexafluorophosphate (1 M) dissolved in ethylene (EC):dimethyl carbonate (DMC) (1:1 by volume with 1% VC) as the electrolyte” pg. 322 section 2.2); and
charging the battery by electrically coupling the negative electrode current collector and the positive electrode current collector to a power source such that lithium ions are released from the positive electrode and incorporated into the negative electrode (“discharging and charging cycles” pg. 322 section 2.2),
wherein, during charge of the battery, the nitrate additive reacts with the electroactive negative electrode material to form an electrically insulating and ionically conductive solid interphase layer on surfaces of the electroactive negative electrode material (“N was evenly distributed on the surface of the uncycled and cycled SiOx/graphite electrodes. This further confirms that N was successfully involved in surface modification after electrochemical cycling, and was the origin for the improved rate performance observed for the SiOx/graphite anode”, pg. 324, col. 2, para. 2).
Regarding claim 18, QI discloses the polar aprotic organic solvent comprises a mixture of a cyclic carbonate and a linear carbonate (“lithium hexafluorophosphate (1 M) dissolved in ethylene (EC):dimethyl carbonate (DMC) (1:1 by volume with 1% VC) as the electrolyte” pg. 322 section 2.2).
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 4-5, 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over QI.
Regarding claim 4, QI discloses preparing the precursor mixture by:
preparing a binder solution comprising the polymer binder and at least a portion of the aqueous solvent; and then introducing the electroactive negative electrode material and the nitrate additive into the binder solution to form the precursor mixture (“preparation of a SiOx/graphite anode, lithium nitrate, Super P (a conducting additive), carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC), and styrene-butadiene rubber (SBR) were mixed with a weight ratio of 93-x:x:2:2:3 (x = 0, 1, 3, 5, or 10) into deionized water to form a uniform paste” pg. 322 section 2.1).
Regarding QI’s order of combining the five listed components, two of which reading on binder, with the solvent, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that there were limited permutations and of those permutations nearly half (40% or two-fifths, which account for CMC and SBR) begin with a binder. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to begin with a binder then add the electroactive negative electrode material and the nitrate additive with a rationale of obvious to try due to choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success.
It is noted that the instant provides three methods of manufacture, as shown in Figs. 4-6 and detailed in [0063-0066]. While the instant clearly notes the benefits of “Introducing the nitrate additive into the negative electrode 22 during manufacture … instead of … the electrolyte” as outlined in [0062], in contrast no benefits or comparisons regarding the methods which relate to the order of combining the components into the slurry may be found in the instant. Furthermore, the instant lacks any examples and/or comparative examples which may distinguish the three methods or provide unexpected results.
Regarding claim 5, QI discloses introducing an electrically conductive material (“Super P (a conducting additive)” pg. 322 section 2.1) into the binder solution prior to introducing the electroactive negative electrode material and the nitrate additive into the binder solution.
Regarding QI’s order of combining the listed components, like claim 4, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that there were limited permutations and of those permutations one-third introduce the electrically conductive material prior to the electroactive negative electrode material and the nitrate additive. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing with a rationale of obvious to try due to choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 7, QI discloses introducing an electrically conductive material (“Super P (a conducting additive)” pg. 322 section 2.1) into the first solution prior to introducing the electroactive negative electrode material into the first solution.
Regarding QI’s order of combining the listed components, like claim 4, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that there were limited permutations and of those permutations one-half introduce the electrically conductive material prior to the electroactive negative electrode material. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing with a rationale of obvious to try due to choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 9, QI introducing an electrically conductive material (“Super P (a conducting additive)” pg. 322 section 2.1) into the binder solution prior to mixing the binder solution with the nitrate solution and the electroactive negative electrode material.
Regarding QI’s order of combining the listed components, like claim 4, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that there were limited permutations and of those permutations one-third introduce the electrically conductive material prior to the electroactive negative electrode material and the nitrate additive. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing with a rationale of obvious to try due to choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over QI in view of WANG (CN 112563465 A, English translation used for citations).
Regarding claim 15, QI discloses the nitrate additive comprises LiNO3 (“lithium nitrate” pg. 322 section 2.1).
Regarding the amount of lithium nitrate, QI discloses “x = 0, 1, 3, 5, or 10” (pg. 322 section 2.1) in regards to the tested weight percents for the lithium nitrate. As such, QI does not expressly teach the claimed range of 0.05% to 0.4%.
WANG is directed to a negative electrode active material comprising a silicon-based composite material with lithium nitrate as an additive, like QI. Furthermore, it is noted that WANG could serve as the basis for rejections of at least independent claims 1 and 14.
WANG discloses “the mass of the lithium nitrate is 0.2% to 5.0% of the mass of the negative electrode active material” [0011]. WANG also discloses example 1 where “an aqueous solution of lithium nitrate is added, with the mass of lithium nitrate being 0.5% of the total mass of the negative electrode active material” [0039], which is on the edge of the claimed range.
WANG teaches “If the amount of lithium nitrate used is too small, its passivation effect on the negative electrode active material will be limited, thus the improvement effect on the electrochemical performance of the lithium-ion cell will not be obvious; if the amount of lithium nitrate used is too large, there will be a lot of lithium nitrate left after the lithium-ion cell is formed, which will deteriorate the high-temperature storage gas generation performance of the lithium-ion cell” [0011]. Therefore, WANG teaches the amount of nitrate is a result effective variable where the benefits and drawbacks of various percentages are understood by one of ordinary skill in the art.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the amount of nitrate in the electrode of QI based on the teachings of WANG.
The motivation to do so being to avoid deterioration of the high-temperature storage gas generation performance of the lithium-ion cell.
Therefore, modified QI discloses the LiNO3 constitutes, by weight, greater than or equal to about 0.05% and less than or equal to about 0.4% of the negative electrode (as taught by WANG).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
YANG (US 20250038189 A1) directed to a negative film layer that contains a nitrate (claim 1), which may be lithium nitrate (claim 2), at a mass percent of 0.2 wt % to 4.5 wt % (claim 3); where the negative film layer includes a negative active material comprises at least one of a carbon-based negative active material or a silicon-based negative active material (claim 4); as well as a binder of SBR and/or PAA [0076]; as well as the use of water as a solvent [0079]; as well as the use of copper foil as a current collector [0074]. YANG thus reads on at least independent claims 1 and 14.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRAVIS L MARTIN whose telephone number is (703)756-5449. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8am-5pm 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, Allison Bourke can be reached at (303)297-4684. 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.
/T.L.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1721
/ALLISON BOURKE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1721
Prosecution Insights