DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This is a final office action in response to Applicant’s remarks and amendments filed on August 14, 2025. Claims 1, 7 and 24-26 are currently amended. Claims 1-5, 7, 20 and 22-26 are pending review in this action.
New grounds of rejection necessitated by Applicant’s amendments are presented below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
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 the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-5, 7, 20 and 22-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, 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 includes the limitation “the anode coating layer is selected from a carbon-coated copper film, a metal alloy, and a non-porous polymer layer”.
A review of the specification indicates that the “carbon-coated copper film” is a copper current collector coated with a carbon layer. That is, the copper film is the claimed “anode current collector” and the carbon coated on it is the “anode coating layer” (see paragraph [0032]).
As such, the specification appears to have support for an anode coating layer, which comprises carbon, but not for an anode coating layer, which is a carbon-coated copper film. Clarification and/or correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7, 20, 22 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2020/0203757, hereinafter Park in view of U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2020/0321604, hereinafter Koenig and U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2020/0335759, hereinafter Lane.
Regarding claim 1, Park teaches a battery cell (abstract, paragraphs [0163-0172] and figures 4-6). The battery cell comprises a negative electrode current collector (51). A protective layer (55, “anode coating layer”) coats the negative electrode current collector (51). The protective layer (55, “anode coating layer”) is formed of a lithium-ion conducting solid state electrolyte, which is a polymer (paragraphs [0088-0090]).
The battery cell further includes a positive electrode (43) and a separator (60). The separator (60) is a permeable membrane separator formed of a polyolefin-based polymer (paragraphs [0105, 0106]).
Park teaches lithium plating (53) located between the negative electrode current collector (51) and the protective layer (55, “anode coating layer”) after discharge of the cell (paragraphs [0024, 0088, 0187] and figure 6).
Park fails to: 1) specify the porosity of the protective layer (55, “anode coating layer”); and 2) teach a separator coating layer, first and second bonds having the claimed relative adhesion strengths and that the separator (60) contacts the positive electrode (43).
Regarding 1), the use of non-porous polymer electrolytes is well-known in the art – see, e.g. Koening (paragraph [0065]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to deposit the protective layer (55, “anode coating layer”) as a non-porous layer without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding 2), Lane teaches a battery separator (20) which comprises a microporous polyolefin membrane (24) and a coating layer (22) applied on one side of the microporous polyolefin membrane (24) (paragraphs [0143, 0147] and figure 13). The coating layer (22) faces the battery anode and its purpose is to optimize the shutdown temperature of the battery, prevent shrinkage and oxidation and block dendrite growth (paragraphs [0136, 0092, 0143]). The coating layer (22) further includes PVDF and is engineered to have a high adhesive strength to the anode, such as exceeding 20 N/m (paragraphs [0067, 0068, 0091, 0131, 0136, 0137]). The coating layer (22) is distinct from any electrolyte present within the membrane (24).
Therefore it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to coat Park’s membrane separator (60) with a coating layer on the anode electrode side of the separator (60), the coating layer including PVDF and being distinct from any electrolyte present within the separator (60) for the purpose of improving the separator’s properties such as its shutdown temperature and shrinkage and to assist in blocking dendrites and preventing oxidation as taught by Lane.
In the combination of Park and Lane, the separator (60) would have no coating layer on the side facing the positive electrode (43) and in the assembled state would thus be in contact with the positive electrode (43). The coating layer applied on the negative electrode side of the separator (60) would be the instantly claimed “separator coating layer”.
All the layers are stacked and coated on each other, therefore there inherently is a first bond between the negative current collector (51) and the protective layer (55, “anode coating layer”) and there is a second bond between the separator coating layer and the protective layer (55, “anode coating layer”).
As in the instant case, Park teaches that lithium metal plates onto the negative current collector (51), such that it is between the protective layer (55, “anode coating layer”) and the negative current collector (51) (paragraphs [0028, 0075]). Moreover, particularly taking into account the engineered high attachment strength of the separator coating layer, it would be expected that the adhesion strength of the second bond is greater than the adhesion strength of the first bond.
Alternatively, it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to ensure that the adhesion strength of the second bond is greater than the adhesion strength of the first bond for the purpose of ensuring Park’s desired effect of lithium plating (53) occurring between the protective layer (55, “anode coating layer”) and the negative current collector (51).
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Park as modified by Lane teaches the claimed structure. It is expected that the specified peel test would confirm the relative strength of the first and second bond.
Regarding claims 5 and 20, the examiner notes that the claim recites a product, but also includes a limitation directed to a particular method for obtaining the structure of the claimed product. Specifically, claims 5 and 20 recite that the battery cell is formed in part by applying heat (75-100 °C) and pressure (50-200 N/cm2). Patentability of product-by-process claims is based on the product itself. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from the product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. MPEP 2113 citing In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695,698, 227 USPQ964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
In the present case, the battery cell of Park as modified by Lane includes all of the claimed structural limitations. Moreover, Lane teaches heat-pressing the electrode-separator assembly at 90°C (paragraph [0068]). As such, the teaching of Park as modified by Lane is considered to meet claims 5 and 20.
Regarding claim 7, Park teaches that during charging the lithium plating is formed between the protective layer (55, “anode coating layer”) and the negative electrode current collector (51) (paragraphs [0024, 0088, 0187] and figure 6). During charging no lithium plating is located between the protective layer (55, “anode coating layer”) and the separator coating layer (figure 6).
Regarding claim 22, Park teaches that the separator (60) comprises porous polyethylene or porous polypropylene (paragraph [0106]). The separator (60) is capable of preventing short circuits between the electrodes and allows for transport of lithium ions (paragraph [0105]).
Regarding claim 25, Park teaches that the protective layer (55, “anode coating layer”) comprises PVDF (paragraph [0090]).
Claims 1-5, 7, 20, 22-24 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2007/0048606, hereinafter Saisho in view of U.S. Patent No. 6,322,599, hereinafter Hamano ‘599 and U.S. Patent No. 6,024,773, hereinafter Inuzuka.
Regarding claim 1, Saisho teaches a battery cell (paragraph [0011]).
The battery cell comprises an anode current collector. An anode active material layer, which is a metal alloy, coats the anode current collector (paragraphs [0022, 0025]). The anode active material layer is an “anode coating layer”.
There inherently is a first bond with a first adhesion strength between the anode current collector and the anode active material layer.
The battery cell further comprises a cathode electrode (paragraphs [0011, 0026]).
A permeable membrane separator contacts the cathode electrode (paragraph [0046]).
Saisho fails to teach a separator coating, a second bond between the separator coating and the anode active material layer (“anode coating layer”) having a second adhesion strength and the second adhesion strength being greater than the first adhesion strength.
Hamano ‘599 teaches a lithium-ion battery cell (abstract and figure 1). The battery cell comprises an anode current collector (10) and an anode active material (9, “anode coating layer”) coated on the anode current collector (10). The battery cell further comprises a cathode electrode (3) and a permeable membrane separator (4) (col. 4, lines 66-67; col. 5, lines 1-8). Hamano ‘599 teaches applying an adhesive layer (11, “separator coating”) onto the permeable membrane separator (4) to face the anode active material (9, “anode coating layer”) (col. 5, lines 9-11 and figure 1). The adhesive layer (11, “separator coating”) is distinct from any electrolyte present within the permeable membrane separator (4 and 11) (col. 6, lines 7-19; col. 7, lines 14-27).
Hamano ‘599 explicitly teaches that the adhesion strength (“second adhesion strength”) between the adhesive layer (11, “separator coating”) and the anode active material layer (6, “anode coating layer”) should be greater than the adhesion strength (“first adhesion strength”) between the anode active material (9, “anode coating layer”) and the anode current collector (10), such that peeling of the active material from the collector takes precedence over peeling between the electrode and the separator (col. 5, lines 54-67; col. 6, lines 1-4). The Inuzuka reference, which shares inventors with Hamano ‘599 and discloses an analogous assembly, teaches that the safety of the battery is enhanced if, when subjected to an external force or internal thermal stress, the current collector is separated from the active material rather than the active material is separated from the separator (col. 5, lines 27-31).
Therefore it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include an adhesive layer (“separator coating”) positioned between the anode active material layer (“anode coating layer”) and the permeable membrane separator, such that there is a second bond with a second adhesion strength between the anode active material layer (“anode coating layer”) and the permeable membrane separator and such that the second adhesion strength is greater than the first adhesion strength for the purpose of enhancing the safety of the battery as taught by Hamano ‘599 and Inuzuka.
Given that the structure of the battery cell taught by the combination of Saisho, Hamano ‘599 and Inuzuka is identical to the instantly disclosed battery cell, it is expected that it would be capable of being operated such that lithium plates between the anode active material layer (9, “anode coating layer”) and the current collector during charging and remains in-situ after discharge.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Saisho as modified by Hamano ‘599 and Inuzuka teaches the claimed structure and relative adhesion strengths.
It is expected that the specified peel test would confirm the relative adhesion strengths of the first and second bond.
Regarding claims 4 and 23, Saisho as modified by Hamano ‘599 and Inuzuka teaches that the adhesive layer (“separator coating”) consists of PVDF (Hamano ‘599’s col. 6, lines 7-12, 18-19; col. 8, lines 51-55; col. 9, lines 1-5 and col. 9, lines 10-19).
Regarding claim 5, Saisho as modified by Hamano ‘599 and Inuzuka teaches that heat and pressure are applied to the battery cell to increase adhesion between the adhesive layer (“separator coating”) and the anode active material layer (“anode coating layer”) (Inuzuka’s col. 5, lines 1-4).
Regarding claim 7, Hamano ‘599 teaches a battery cell with the instantly claimed and disclosed structure and the instantly claimed and disclosed relative adhesions strengths.
It is thus expected that it is capable of being operated such that lithium would plate as claimed.
Regarding claim 20, Saisho as modified by Hamano ‘599 and Inuzuka teaches that a temperature of the applied heat is in the range 60°C to 100°C (Inuzuka’s col. 5, lines 4-5).
The examiner notes that the claim recites a product, but also includes a limitation directed to a particular method for obtaining the structure of the claimed product. Specifically, claim 20 recites that the battery cell is formed in part by applying heat (75-100°C) and pressure (50-200 N/cm2). Patentability of product-by-process claims is based on the product itself. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from the product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. MPEP 2113 citing In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695,698, 227 USPQ964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
In the present case, the battery cell of Saisho as modified by Hamano ‘599 and Inuzuka includes all of the claimed structural limitations. As such, the teaching of Saisho as modified by Hamano ‘599 and Inuzuka is considered to meet claim 20.
Regarding claim 22, Saisho teaches that the permeable membrane separator comprises microporous polyolefin (paragraph [0046]). Polyolefin is an electrical insulator – therefore, the permeable membrane separator is capable of preventing short circuits. The permeable membrane separator is porous – therefore it allows for the transport of lithium ions.
Saisho does not explicitly teach that the polyolefin is polyethylene or polypropylene.
Polyethylene and polypropylene are both polyolefins and are the customary choice as the material for the formation of lithium-ion battery separators – see, e.g. both Hamano ‘599 (col. 7, lines 8-13) and Inuzuka (col. 3, lines 60-61).
Therefore it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select polyethylene or polypropylene as the polyolefin of the permeable membrane separator in Saisho’s battery without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 24, Saisho teaches that the metal alloy is deposited on the anode current collector by sputtering or CVD (paragraph [0022]).
Regarding claim 26, Saisho teaches that the metal alloy is deposited on the anode current collector by a thermal spraying method (paragraph [0022]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s newly added limitations have been considered. However, after further search and consideration, the combination of the Park, Koenig and Lane references has been provided, as recited above, to address the amended claims. Further, the previously presented combination of the Saisho, Hamano ‘599 and Inuzuka references was also found to address the amended claims.
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 LILIA V NEDIALKOVA whose telephone number is (571)270-1538. The examiner can normally be reached 8.30 - 5.00 PM.
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, Miriam Stagg can be reached at 571-270-5256. 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.
LILIA V. NEDIALKOVA
Examiner
Art Unit 1724
/MIRIAM STAGG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1724