DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendments
Applicant’s amendments and arguments have been entered. A reply to the Applicant’s remarks/arguments is presented after addressing the claims.
Any rejections and/or objections made in the previous Office Action and not repeated below, are hereby withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments or/and arguments.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. References cited in the current Office action can be found in a prior Office action.
Status of Claims
Claims 4-7 are canceled. Claims 1, 9-10, 14, 16 and 19 are amended. Claims 3, 11 and 13 are withdrawn. Claims 1-2, 8-10, 12 and 14-20 are being examined on the merits in this office action.
Drawings
The amended Fig. 1, filed Dec. 09, 2025, is acknowledged and accepted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-2, 10, 12 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al. (US 20200194785 A1, hereafter Jung) in view of Liu et al. (“A disordered rock salt anode for fast-charging lithium-ion batteries”, Nature, 2020, 585, 63-67., hereafter Liu).
Regarding claim 1, Jung teaches an anode material (“negative active material”, see at least Title, Abstract and Fig. 1) comprising:
(a) a porous anode phase comprising silicon (e.g., [0082]), and having a porous-phase volumetric porosity of 0% to 10% (e.g., [0093]), which overlaps that as claimed. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP § 2144.05 (I).; and
(b) a first solid-state mediator layer (“30”, Fig. 1) outwardly disposed on said porous anode phase, wherein said first solid-state mediator layer contains a lithium vanadium oxide material having a composition represented by a charge-balanced formula LixVyOz (e.g., [0065]-[0067]). The formula teaches the formula LiaVbOc as claimed. The molar fractions of each element in the claimed formula overlaps that in Jung’s formula, respectively. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP § 2144.05 (I).
Jung further teaches that the weight of the lithium vanadium oxide material included in the first solid-state mediator layer as well as the thickness (corresponding to the volume) of the first solid-state mediator layer are adjustable (at least: [0075], [0077]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have arrived at the claimed density (weight/volume) through routine experimentation by adjusting weight and thickness said above.
Jung teaches the same lithium vanadium oxide material as claimed and therefore teaches the claimed functional/property limitation “capable of being reversibly lithiated”. Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.
Jung is silent as to “at least 90% wt% of said LiaVbOc has a disordered rock salt structure in the Fm3m group”. In the same field of endeavor, however, Liu discloses that a lithium-ion battery with an anode of a disordered rock salt Li3V2O5 in the Fm3m group can yield a much higher cell voltage, and disordered rock salt Li3V2O5 can perform over 1000 charge-discharge cycles with negligible capacity decay and exhibit exceptional rate capability (See, at least, Abstract, and right column on page 63). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have employed a disordered rock salt Li3V2O5 in the Fm3m group taught by Liu as an alternative to Jung’s lithium vanadium oxide in order to achieve advantages stated above. After LiaVbOc of Jung is replaced by that of Liu, the LiaVbOc having a disordered rock salt structure in the Fm3m group is 100 wt% of LiaVbOc and is crystalline (implied by the crystal structure and space group).
Regarding claim 2, Jung in view of Liu teaches the anode material of claim 1, wherein said anode material is a core-shell material in which said first solid-state mediator layer forms a shell that encapsulates said porous anode phase (Fig. 1, Jung).
Regarding claim 10, Jung in view of Liu teaches the anode material of claim 1, where said silicon is present in said porous anode phase in an amount of about 50 wt% to 99 wt% (e.g., [0088], Jung).
Regarding claim 12, Jung in view of Liu teaches the anode material of claim 1, where said silicon is polycrystalline silicon (e.g., [0084], Jung).
Regarding claim 14, Jung in view of Liu teaches the anode material of claim 1, where said silicon may have an average particle size of about 50 nm to about 150 nm ([0086], Jung), overlapping the range as claimed. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP § 2144.05 (I).
Regarding claim 15, Jung in view of Liu teaches the anode material of claim 1, where said silicon is present as particles with a particle geometry of fibers, for example ([0085], Jung).
Regarding claim 16, Jung in view of Liu teaches the anode material of claim 1, wherein said porous anode phase may further contains graphite ([0087], [0070], Jung).
Regarding claim 17, Jung in view of Liu teaches the anode material of claim 1, wherein said anode material is present in an anode ([0119]-[0120], Jung).
Regarding claim 18, Jung in view of Liu teaches the anode material of claim 17, wherein said anode further contains graphite ([0125], Jung).
Regarding claim 19, Jung in view of Liu teaches the anode material of claim 17, wherein said anode further contains a binder such as PVDF ([0128], Jung).
Regarding claim 20, Jung in view of Liu teaches the anode material of claim 17, wherein said anode is present in a cell, said cell further comprises a cathode ([0119], Jung), and said cathode comprises a cathode material represented by LiαNi1-b-cCobB’cDα ([0136]-[0137], Jung). When B’=Mn, D=O, and α=2, the formula reads on the formula as instantly claimed.
Although Jung in view of Liu teaches the instantly claimed limitations, it is noted that the instantly claimed limitation represents an intended-use of the anode material in a cell, which does not patentably distinguishable, since Jung have already taught all the structural and compositional limitations of the anode material, which (rather than the cathode, the cathode material, or/and the cell) is the present invention.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung in view of Liu, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Vogler et al. (US 20160268593, hereafter Vogler).
Regarding claim 8, Jung in view of Liu teaches the anode material of claim 1, but is silent about a doped lithium vanadium oxide material as instantly claimed.
Vogler discloses that both non-doped and doped lithium vanadium oxides (e.g., LixV2O4, LixV2O3, LiM’2M’’O5, etc., see at least [0100]-[0105]) can be used electrode active materials in a lithium-ion battery (Abstract, [0003], etc.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have, for example, LiM’2M’’O5, as an alternative to the lithium vanadium oxide of Jung in view of Liu, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See MPEP § 2144.07.
As a result, when M’= V amd M’’= Ti ([0102]-[0103]), the formula LiM’2M’’O5 becomes LiV2TiO5, which reads on the formula as instantly claimed.
Furthermore, Jung in view of Liu and Vogler teaches the same lithium vanadium oxide material as instantly claimed, and therefore teaches the claimed functional/property limitation “capable of being reversibly lithiated”. Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung in view of Liu, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jeon et al. (US 20160315311 A1, hereafter Jeon).
Regarding claim 9, Jung in view of Liu teaches the anode material of claim 1, but is silent on a porosity as instantly claimed.
In the same field of endeavor, Jeon disclose that a similar anode structure comprises a complex (“100”, Fig. 3, corresponding to a porous anode phase as claimed) containing metal particles such as silicon particles (e.g., [0030]), and that when the complex has a porosity of about 10% to about 85% ([0098]), the volume expansion of the metal particles may be reduced during charging and discharging and thereby a volume expansion ratio of the electrode and lifespan deterioration of the anode may be reduced ([0100]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have employed a porosity of about 10% to about 85% taught by Jeon as an alternative to that of Jung in view of Liu in order to achieve advantages stated above. The instantly claimed range lies inside the above range. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP § 2144.05 (I).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-2, 8-10, 12 and 14-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 7-10, 13-14, 16, 18-23, 25-27, 29-30, 32-34, 38-41, 43-47 and 49-50 of copending Application No. 18276513 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all the limitations in claims 1-2, 8-10, 12 and 14-20 of the instant application are taught by the limitations recited in claims -2, 7-10, 13-14, 16, 18-23, 25-27, 29-30, 32-34, 38-41, 43-47 and 49-50 of the reference application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed Dec. 9, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
1) In response to the arguments presented in the paragraph bridging pages 6 and 7, paragraphs [0121] and [0123] of Jung were not relied on in the rejections.
2) In response to the arguments associated with the replacement of Jung’s lithium vanadium oxide having an orthorhombic structure by Liu’s lithium vanadium oxide having a disordered rocksalt structure in the Fm3m space group (bottom two paragraphs of page 7/11 to top two paragraphs of page 8/11), nowhere in Jung discloses that its lithium vanadium oxide having an orthorhombic structure cannot be replaced by a lithium vanadium oxide having other types of crystal structure.
3) In response to applicant's argument with respect to “combine references must come from the prior art, not Applicant’s own specification” (the paragraph bridging pages 8 and 9), 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). In the instant case, the motivation for combining Jung and Liu was/is clearly provided in the rejections. The combination was not based on Applicant’s disclosure.
Additionally, in the combination of Jung and Liu, Jung is the primary reference. The teaching of Liu’s lithium vanadium oxide having a disordered rocksalt structure in the Fm3m space group was/is incorporated into Jung, not vice versa (See the 2nd paragraph on page 9 of the Applicant’s arguments).
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 ZHONGQING WEI whose telephone number is (571)272-4809. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:30 - 6:00.
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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at (571)272-1330. 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.
/ZHONGQING WEI/
ZHONGQING WEI, Ph.D.Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1727