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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/09/2026 has been entered.
Claim Status
Claims 2-4, 6-9, 11, 13, 14, 18-22, 25, 28, 30, 31, 34, 35, 38-40, 46, 47 are canceled.
Claims 50-53 are newly added; partial support for these claim can be found in [0051], [0121] and [0123].
Claims 1 and 23 have been amended; support for the amendment can be found in [0051], [0121] and [0123].
Claims 1, 5, 10, 12, 15-17, 23, 24, 26, 27, 29, 32, 33, 36, 37, 41-45, 48-53 have been examined on the merits.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 7-8, section on rejections under U.S.C. 112, filed 04/09/2026, with respect to the U.S.C. 112 rejections of the claims for the limitation “dry”, have been fully considered and are persuasive. The U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of claims 1, 4, 5, 10, 12, 15-17, 23, 24, 26, 27, 29, 32, 33, 36, 37, 41-46, 48 and 49 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 23 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
The new grounds of rejection relies on Ruan and Yakovleva to teach the amended limitations of claims 1 and 23.
Applicant’s arguments for unexpected results (see pg. 9-11) are not found persuasive because the results pointed to by applicant are expected beneficial results.
Applicant has pointed to the results of Fig. 19A-19C, 20A-20B, and 21A-21B and argued that the type A and B configurations demonstrate improved characteristics indicative of full prelithiation. The examiner notes that Chae teaches that an electrode configuration, wherein a prelithiating layer (of lithium foil or powder) is provided between active material layers ([0042-0047]), improves a prelithiation effect in (Chae [0021]) and electrochemical performance (Chae [0022]) of an energy storage device. Thus, a PHOSITA would expect improvements in the characteristics of the electrode configurations pointed to by applicant.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the dry prelithiating layer comprising both SLMP (see claim 1) and lithium foil (see claim 50) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
The examiner notes that the limitation “dry” found in the claims may be interpreted as meaning initial fabrication by a solvent free and/or liquid free process or initial fabrication involving a drying process to remove liquid components. The examiner notes that the limitation “dry” found in the claims may also be interpreted as meaning free of liquid components and free of contact with liquid components.
The examiner notes that the recitations “solvent-free” and “free of solvent residue” have been interpreted as meaning either initially fabricated without solvent or initially fabricated by a process in which solvent residue is removed so that no detectable solvent, solvent residue, or solvent impurity remains. The examiner notes that the special definition of “solvent-free” found in [0045] does not preclude initial fabrication by a process using solvent, wherein the solvent, solvent residue and solvent impurity are removed to the point that they are undetectable.
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 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 51-52 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 51 recites “99.3 wt% of lithium”. Table 1 of the specification supports at least 99.3% of lithium but does not specify that the percentage is a percentage by weight. Therefore, the limitation “wt%” qualifies as new matter.
Claim 52 recites “97 wt% of lithium”. Table 1 of the specification supports 97% of lithium but does not specify that the percentage is a percentage by weight. Therefore, the limitation “wt%” qualifies as new matter.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 26, 27, 29 and 51-53 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 26 is indefinite because it is unclear if the recitation “stabilized lithium metal powder (SLMP)” in line 2 refers to the previously recited “stabilized lithium metal powder (SLMP)” of claim 23 or to another “stabilized lithium metal powder (SLMP)”. For examination, the former interpretation is used. Claims 27 and 29 are rejected for dependence on claim 26.
Claim 27 is indefinite because it is unclear if the recitation “compressing” in line 2 refers to the previously recited “compressing” of claim 26 or to another “compressing”. For examination, the former interpretation is used.
Claim 51 is indefinite because it is unclear if the recitation “lithium” in line 2 refers to the previously recited “lithium” of line 10 in claim 1 or to another lithium. For examination, the former interpretation is used.
Claim 52 is indefinite because it is unclear if the recitation “lithium” in line 2 refers to the previously recited “lithium” of line 10 in claim 1 or to another lithium. For examination, the former interpretation is used.
Claim 53 is indefinite because it is unclear if the recitation “PTFE” in line 2 refers to the previously recited “PTFE” of line 8 in claim 1, of line 13 in claim 1, to a total amount of PTFE or to another PTFE altogether. For examination, the third interpretation is used.
Claim 53 is indefinite because it is unclear if the recitation “PVDF” in line 2 refers to the previously recited “PVDF” of line 8 in claim 1, of line 13 in claim 1, to a total amount of PVDF or to another PVDF altogether. For examination, the third interpretation is used.
Claim 53 is indefinite because it is unclear if the recitation “CMC” in line 2 refers to the previously recited “CMC” of line 8 in claim 1, of line 13 in claim 1, to a total amount of CMC or to another CMC altogether. For examination, the third interpretation is used.
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 1, 5, 10, 12, 15, 16, 23-24, 26-27, 29, 32, 33, 36, 41-45, 48, 49, 52 and 53 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raman (US 2017/0256782 A1) in view of Duong (US20150303481A1), Chae (US-20210218016-A1), Ruan (CN-106654177-A, machine translation used for rejection below) and Yakovleva (US-20080283155-A1).
Regarding claim 1, Raman discloses an energy storage device (Fig. 1; 100) comprising a multilayer electrode (Fig. 1; element 104 combined with lithium layer of [0042] or [0067]) positioned within a housing (Fig. 1; element 120; [0033]), the multilayer electrode (104, [0042, 0067]) comprising:
a current collector (Fig. 1; element 110) comprising a first side (annotated Fig. 1; 1S) and a second side (annotated Fig. 1; 2S); and
PNG
media_image1.png
518
760
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a multilayer electrode film (combination of lithium metal [0067] or printed lithium [0042] and electrode film 116; “MEF”) disposed over the first side (1S) of the current collector (110), the multilayer electrode film (MEF) comprising:
a dry (“dry process”; [0012]; [0041]; [0067]) self-supporting (“the fibrils providing desired mechanical support”; [0040]; “free-standing”; [0012]; [0041]; [0067]) active layer (“an electrode film”; [0039]; [0067]; Fig. 1; 116) comprising a first dry ([0041]) active layer (Fig. 1; 116), the first dry active layer (116) comprising a first dry ([0041]) active material (“carbon configured to reversibly intercalate lithium ions”; [0039]) comprising graphite ([0008]) and a first dry ([0041]) binder (“binder material”; [0039]; [0040]) comprising PTFE ([0040]), wherein the dry self-supporting active layer (116) is free of solvent residue (“no…solvents are used”; [0041]);
a dry (“powder”; [0042] of “SLMP” [0046]) prelithiating layer ([0042]) comprising lithium ([0042]), wherein the dry self-supporting active layer (116) and the dry prelithiating layer ([0042]) are laminated to each other (“onto a surface of the anode”; [0042]), wherein the dry prelithiating layer ([0042]) comprises stabilized lithium metal powder (SLMP) ([0046]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have employed SLMP as the lithium powder of the prelithiating layer because Raman identifies SLMP as a material suitable for prelithiating an anode in [0046].
Raman’s disclosure of “printing a lithium powder or a mixture comprising lithium powder” wherein “the mixture can include lithium powder, carbon , a binder material and / or a solvent” ([0042]) makes it clear that solvent is optional and that one of ordinary skill in the art may not use it in the printing process.
Raman fails to explicitly disclose a carbon-coated current collector, the first dry binder also comprising PVDF and CMC, wherein the multilayer electrode film further comprises a second dry active layer comprising a second active material comprising graphite and a second dry binder comprising PTFE, PVDF and CMC, the second dry active layer is free of solvent residue, wherein the dry prelithiating layer is positioned between the first dry active layer and the second dry active layer and the SLMP having a D50 particle size distribution of 25 um to 60 um.
Duong discloses an electrode film ([0120]) disposed over a carbon-coated current collector (“carbon coated copper foil”; [0120]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Raman by substituting the carbon-coated current collector of Duong for the current collector of Raman in order to predictably facilitate electrical coupling between the electrode film and an external circuit as taught by Duong ([0076]).
Raman in view of Duong still fails to disclose the first dry binder also comprising PVDF and CMC, wherein the multilayer electrode film further comprises a second dry active layer comprising a second active material comprising graphite and a second dry binder comprising PTFE, PVDF and CMC, the second dry active layer is free of solvent residue, wherein the dry prelithiating layer is positioned between the first dry active layer and the second dry active layer and the SLMP having a D50 particle size distribution of 25 um to 60 um.
Chae discloses a multilayer electrode (Fig. 1; 112-130) comprising: a current collector (Fig. 1; 130) comprising a first side (Fig. 1; side of 130 directly contacting 112; “1S”) and a second side (Fig. 1; side of 130 directly opposing 1S); and
a multilayer electrode film (Fig. 1; 112, 114, 120) disposed over the first side (1S) of the current collector (130),
the multilayer electrode film (112, 114, 120) comprising:
an active layer (Fig. 1; 112) comprising a first active layer (Fig. 1; 112), a prelithiating layer (Fig. 1; 120) comprising lithium ([0035]), wherein the active layer (112) and the prelithiating layer (120) are laminated to each other (Fig. 1); and a second active layer (Fig. 1; 114) comprising a second active material ([0036]);wherein the prelithiating layer (120) is positioned between the first active layer (112) and the second active layer (114).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Raman in view Duong’s multilayer electrode film by adding a second of the dry active layers taught by Raman in view of Duong– comprising a second dry active material comprising graphite, a second dry binder comprising PTFE and the second dry active layer being free of solvent residue– on the first side of the current collector such that the dry prelithiating layer is positioned between the first dry active layer and the second dry active layer in order to improve the prelithiation effect in (Chae [0021]) and electrochemical performance (Chae [0022]) of the energy storage device and address the problem of oxidation of the prelithiating layer (Chae [0010]) as taught by Chae.
Raman in view of Duong and Chae still fails to disclose the first dry binder also comprising PVDF and CMC, the second dry binder also comprising PVDF and CMC, the SLMP having a D50 particle size distribution of 25 um to 60 um.
Ruan discloses an electrode ([009]) comprising: a dry ([0023]) binder ([0023]) comprising PTFE ([0023]), PVDF ([0023]) and (“or more”; [0023]) CMC ([0023]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Raman in view of Duong and Chae by adding the PVDF and CMC binders of Ruan to the PTFE binder of the first and second dry binders of Raman in view of Duong and Chae, such that the first dry binder comprised PTFE, PVDF and CMC, and the second dry binder comprised PTFE, PVDF and CMC, in order to predictably achieve a binding effect in an electrode produced through a dry preparation process as Ruan teaches ([0029]). The examiner notes that the courts have held that the combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.
Raman in view of Duong, Chae and Ruan still fails to disclose the SLMP having a D50 particle size distribution of 25 um to 60 um.
Yakovleva discloses SLMP ([0002]) having a D50 particle size distribution ([0032]; Table 1) of 25 um to 60 um (example 1 is 31 um; [0032]; table 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Raman in view of Duong, Chae and Ruan by substituting the SLMP of Yakovleva for the SLMP of Raman in view of Duong, Chae and Ruan such that the SLMP had a D50 particle size distribution of 31 um, in order to achieve an SLMP powder that has improved stability and storage life as taught by Yakovleva ([0002]).
Regarding claim 5, Raman in view of Duong, Chae, Ruan and Yakovleva fails to disclose wherein at least one of a type and an amount of the first dry active material and the second dry active material is different between the first dry active layer and the second dry active layer.
Chae discloses wherein at least one of a type ([0037]) and an amount ([0038]) of a first active material (“a first negative electrode active material”; [0035]) and a second dry active material (“a second negative electrode active material”; [0036]) is different (a PHOSITA may select different materials per [0037] and amounts per [0038]) between a first active layer (Fig. 1; 112) and the second active layer (Fig. 1; 114).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Raman in view of Duong, Chae, Ruan and Yakovleva by using a different type or amount of active material between the first and second dry active materials because Chae teaches that doing so is suitable for creating a multilayer electrode film ([0037-0038]).
Regarding claim 10, Raman in view of Duong, Chae, Ruan and Yakovleva fails to disclose wherein compositions of the first dry active layer and the second dry active layer are substantially the same.
Chae discloses wherein compositions ([0037-0038]) of a first active layer (Fig. 1; 112) and a second dry active layer (Fig. 1; 114) are substantially the same ([0037-0038] allow a PHOSITA to select the same composition).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have further modified Raman in view of Duong, Chae, Ruan and Yakovleva by using the same composition between the first and second dry active layers because Chae teaches that doing so is suitable for creating a multilayer electrode film ([0037-0038]).
Regarding claim 12, Raman in view of Duong, Chae, Ruan and Yakovleva discloses wherein the multilayer electrode film (MEF modified by Chae) is laminated to the first side (1S) of the current collector (110).
Regarding claim 15, Raman in view of Duong, Chae, Ruan and Yakovleva discloses wherein the multilayer electrode (104 modified by Chae) is a double sided multilayer electrode (modified Raman Fig. 1; 104) and wherein a second multilayer electrode film (Fig. 1; 118 in combination with lithium powder of [0042] or lithium metal of [0037]; “2MEF”) is laminated to the second side (2S) of the carbon coated (Duong) current collector (110]).
Regarding claim 16, Raman in view of Duong, Chae, Ruan and Yakovleva discloses wherein the dry prelithiating layer (lithium powder of [0042] as SLMP per [0046]) is a different material ([0042] and [0067] allow a PHOSITA to select different lithiation materials) from a second prelithiating layer (lithium powder of [0042] or lithium metal of [0067] on electrode film 118 of Fig. 1) of the second multilayer electrode film (2MEF).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected different materials for the dry and second prelithiating layers because doing so would have predictably resulted in a prelithiated multilayer electrode and it has been held that the combination of familiar elements according to known methods is obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 23, Raman discloses a method ([0039-0042]; [0067]) of fabricating a pre-lithiated (“pre-doping”; abstract) energy storage device (Fig. 1; 100), comprising:
forming a multilayer electrode (Fig. 1; element 104 combined with lithium layer of [0042, 0067]), comprising:
providing a dry (“dry process”; [0012]; [0041]; [0067]) free-standing (“the fibrils providing desired mechanical support”; [0040]; “free-standing”; [0012]; [0041]; [0067]) active layer (“an electrode film”; [0039]; [0067]; Fig. 1; 116) comprising a first dry ([0041]) active material (“carbon configured to reversibly intercalate lithium ions”; [0039]) comprising graphite ([0008]) and a first dry ([0041]) binder (“binder material”; [0039]; [0040]) comprising PTFE ([0040]), wherein the dry free-standing active layer ([0039-0041]) is free of solvent residue ([0041]); and
forming a multilayer (Fig. 1; 116 combined with lithium layer of [0042]) electrode film (Fig. 1; 116 combined with lithium layer of [0042]; “MEF”) by disposing a dry (“powder”; [0042] in the form of SLMP per [0046]; “and/or a solvent”; [0042] indicates a dry process may be used) prelithiating layer ([0042]) comprising lithium ([0042]) over (“onto a surface”; [0042]) the dry free-standing active layer (116), wherein the dry prelithiating layer ([0042]) comprises stabilized lithium metal powder (SLMP) ([0046]),
wherein the multilayer electrode film (MEF) is disposed on a first side (annotated Fig. 1; 1S) of a current collector (Fig. 1; element 110); and
placing the multilayer electrode (104) in a housing (Fig. 1; element 120; [0033]), wherein the multilayer electrode (104) comprises the dry prelithiating layer ([0042]; [0067]) when placed ([0067]) in the housing (120).
PNG
media_image1.png
518
760
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have employed SLMP as the lithium powder of the prelithiating layer because Raman identifies SLMP as a material suitable for prelithiating an anode in [0046].
Raman’s disclosure of “printing a lithium powder or a mixture comprising lithium powder” wherein “the mixture can include lithium powder, carbon , a binder material and / or a solvent” ([0042]) makes it clear that solvent is optional and that one of ordinary skill in the art may not use it in the printing process. Therefore, Raman’s dry prelithiating layer would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art to be free of solvent residue.
Raman fails to explicitly disclose a carbon-coated current collector, the first dry binder also comprising PVDF and CMC, wherein the multilayer electrode film further comprises a second dry active layer comprising a second active material comprising graphite and a second dry binder comprising PTFE, PVDF and CMC, over the dry free-standing active layer, the second dry active layer is free of solvent residue, wherein the dry prelithiating layer is positioned between the first dry active layer and the second dry active layer and the SLMP having a D50 particle size distribution of 25 um to 60 um.
Duong discloses an electrode film ([0120]) disposed over a carbon-coated current collector (“carbon coated copper foil”; [0120]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Raman by substituting the carbon-coated current collector of Duong for the current collector of Raman in order to predictably facilitate electrical coupling between the electrode film and an external circuit as taught by Duong ([0076]).
Raman in view of Duong still fails to disclose wherein the multilayer electrode film further comprises a second dry active layer on the first side, the second dry active layer comprises a second active material, the second dry active layer is free of solvent residue, and wherein the dry prelithiating layer is positioned between the first dry active layer and the second dry active layer.
Chae discloses a multilayer electrode (Fig. 1; 112-130) comprising: a current collector (Fig. 1; 130) comprising a first side (Fig. 1; side of 130 directly contacting 112; “1S”) and a second side (Fig. 1; side of 130 directly opposing 1S); and
a multilayer electrode film (Fig. 1; 112, 114, 120) disposed over the first side (1S) of the current collector (130),
the multilayer electrode film (112, 114, 120) comprising:
an active layer (Fig. 1; 112) comprising a first active layer (Fig. 1; 112), a prelithiating layer (Fig. 1; 120) comprising lithium ([0035]), wherein the active layer (112) and the prelithiating layer (120) are laminated to each other (Fig. 1); and a second active layer (Fig. 1; 114) comprising a second active material ([0036]);wherein the prelithiating layer (120) is positioned between the first active layer (112) and the second active layer (114).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Raman in view Duong’s multilayer electrode film by adding a second of the dry active layers taught by Raman in view of Duong–comprising a second dry active material comprising graphite, a second dry binder comprising PTFE and the second dry active layer being free of solvent residue– on the first side of the current collector, over the dry free-standing active layer, such that the dry prelithiating layer is positioned between the first dry active layer and the second dry active layer in order to improve the prelithiation effect in (Chae [0021]) and electrochemical performance (Chae [0022]) of the energy storage device and address the problem of oxidation of the prelithiating layer (Chae [0010]) as taught by Chae.
Raman in view of Duong and Chae still fails to disclose the first dry binder also comprising PVDF and CMC, the second dry binder also comprising PVDF and CMC, the SLMP having a D50 particle size distribution of 25 um to 60 um.
Ruan discloses an electrode ([009]) comprising: a dry ([0023]) binder ([0023]) comprising PTFE ([0023]), PVDF ([0023]) and (“or more”; [0023]) CMC ([0023]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Raman in view of Duong and Chae by adding the PVDF and CMC binders of Ruan to the PTFE binder of the first and second dry binders of Raman in view of Duong and Chae, such that the first dry binder comprised PTFE, PVDF and CMC, and the second dry binder comprised PTFE, PVDF and CMC, in order to predictably achieve a binding effect in an electrode produced through a dry preparation process as Ruan teaches ([0029]). The examiner notes that the courts have held that the combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.
Raman in view of Duong, Chae and Ruan still fails to disclose the SLMP having a D50 particle size distribution of 25 um to 60 um.
Yakovleva discloses SLMP ([0002]) having a D50 particle size distribution ([0032]; Table 1) of 25 um to 60 um (example 1 is 31 um; [0032]; table 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Raman in view of Duong, Chae and Ruan by substituting the SLMP of Yakovleva for the SLMP of Raman in view of Duong, Chae and Ruan such that the SLMP had a D50 particle size distribution of 31 um, in order to achieve an SLMP powder that has improved stability and storage life as taught by Yakovleva ([0002]).
Regarding claim 24, Raman in view of Duong, Chae, Ruan and Yakovleva discloses wherein forming the multilayer electrode film (116 combined with lithium layer of [0042] and a second dry active layer) further comprises laminating (Raman “onto a surface of the anode”; [0042]) the second (a second of the dry active layers taught by Raman) dry active layer (Raman [0039 and 0067]) onto the dry prelithiating layer ([0042]).
Regarding claim 26, Raman in view of Duong, Chae, Ruan and Yakovleva discloses compressing (Raman “pressed by a roller”; [0046]) stabilized lithium metal powder (SLMP) (Raman [0046]) to form the dry prelithiating layer.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified Raman in view of Duong, Chae, Ruan and Yakovleva by employing the pressing process taught by Raman to form the dry prelithiating layer with a reasonable expectation of success of creating a suitably doped electrode as taught by Raman ([0046]).
Regarding claim 27, Raman in view of Duong, Chae, Ruan and Yakovleva discloses wherein compressing the SLMP ([0046]) and forming ([0046]) the free-standing multilayer dry film (116 combined with lithium layer of [0046]) approximately simultaneously (“printing the lithium powder or mixture onto the anode can be performed during or after the anode fabrication process” ([0042]).
Regarding claim 29, Raman in view of Duong, Chae, Ruan and Yakovleva discloses placing SLMP powder ([0046]) onto an active layer prior to compressing the SLMP ([0046]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have further modified Raman in view of Duong, Chae, Ruan and Yakovleva by placing the SLMP onto the dry free-standing active layer prior to the compressing of the SLMP with a reasonable expectation of success in producing a suitably doped electrode as taught by Raman ([0046]).
Regarding claim 32, Raman in view of Duong, Chae, Ruan and Yakovleva discloses laminating the multilayer electrode film (116, lithium layer of [0042 or 0067], and a second of Raman’s dry active layers) to the first side (1S) of the current collector (110) to form the multilayer electrode (104, lithium layer of [0042], and a second of Raman’s dry active layers).
Regarding claim 33, Raman in view of Duong, Chae, Ruan and Yakovleva discloses providing a second multilayer electrode film (Fig. 1; 118 combined with the lithium layer of [0042] or [0067]); and laminating (Fig. 1) the second multilayer electrode film (118, [0042 or 0067]) to a second side (annotated Fig. 1; 2S) of the carbon coated (Duong) current collector (110) to form a double sided (Fig. 1; 104) multilayer electrode (116 combined with a second dry active layer and lithium layer of [0042 or 0067] on 1S, 118 combined with lithium layer of [0042] or [0067] on 2S, and 110).
PNG
media_image1.png
518
760
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 36, Raman in view of Duong, Chae, Ruan and Yakovleva discloses tuning ([0051]) an amount of prelithiation ([0051]) of the multilayer dry film (116 combined with lithium layer of [0042]).
Regarding claim 41, Raman in view of Duong, Chae, Ruan and Yakovleva discloses wherein the method of fabricating the multilayer dry film (Raman 116 combined with lithium layer of [0042 or 0067]) is a solvent free process ([0041-0042]; [0067]).
Regarding claim 42, Raman in view of Duong, Chae, Ruan and Yakovleva discloses fabricating a multilayer dry film (Raman 116 combined with lithium layer of [0042]) by laminating the dry prelithiating layer (Raman [0042]) onto the dry (“dry process”; [0012]; [0041]; [0067]) free-standing (“the fibrils providing desired mechanical support”; [0040]; “free-standing”; [0012]; [0041]; [0067]) active layer (“an electrode film”; [0039]; [0067]; Fig. 1; 116)
Regarding claim 43, Raman in view of Duong, Chae, Ruan and Yakovleva fails to explicitly disclose wherein the energy storage device does not comprise a liquid electrolyte.
Raman does disclose that any of a number of different types of electrolyte can be employed in the invention ([0034]).
Chae discloses an energy storage device that does not comprise a liquid electrolyte ([0065] teaches a solid polymer electrolyte , a gel type polymer electrolyte , or a solid inorganic electrolyte).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have further modified Raman in view of Duong, Chae, Ruan and Yakovleva by substituting any of the solid electrolytes taught by Chae for the electrolyte of Raman in view of Duong, Chae, Ruan and Yakovleva. By doing so one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably and predictably expect to achieve a functional energy device as taught by Chae ([0002]).
Regarding claim 44, Raman in view of Duong, Chae, Ruan and Yakovleva fails to disclose wherein the energy storage device comprises a solid state electrolyte.
Raman does disclose that any of a number of different types of electrolyte can be employed in the invention ([0034]).
Chae discloses an energy storage device (“secondary battery”; [0065]) comprising a solid state electrolyte ([0065] teaches a solid polymer electrolyte , a gel type polymer electrolyte , or a solid inorganic electrolyte).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have further modified Raman in view of Duong, Chae, Ruan and Yakovleva by substituting any of the solid electrolytes taught by Chae for the electrolyte of Raman in view of Duong, Chae, Ruan and Yakovleva. By doing so one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably and predictably expect to achieve a functional energy device as taught by Chae ([0002]).
Regarding claim 45, Raman in view of Duong, Chae, Ruan and Yakovleva discloses disposing an electrolyte ([0033]) into the housing ([0033]).
Regarding claim 48, Raman in view of Duong, Chae, Ruan and Yakovleva discloses wherein the carbon coated current collector (Duong current collector substituted for 110) comprises a carbon layer (Duong “carbon-coated”; [0120]) disposed over (a coating on any of the sides of the 110 would result in the coating “over” 1S) the first side (1S).
Regarding claim 49, Raman in view of Duong, Chae, Ruan and Yakovleva discloses wherein the carbon coated current collector (Duong current collector substituted for 110) comprises a copper foil (Duong [0120]).
Regarding claim 52, Raman in view of Duong, Chae, Ruan and Yakovleva fails to disclose wherein the SLMP comprises at least 97 wt% of lithium.
Yakovleva discloses an SLMP material comprising at least 97 wt% of lithium ([0021] teaches a range of 80 to 99.5 wt% lithium).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have further modified Raman in view of Duong, Chae, Ruan and Yakovleva by substituting the undisclosed weight percent of lithium of the SLMP particles for a weight percentage of at least 97% as taught by Yakovleva in order to achieve SLMP particles having better stability and a longer storage life as taught by Yakovleva ([0002]).
Regarding claim 53, Raman in view of Duong, Chae, Ruan and Yakovleva fails to disclose wherein the multilayer electrode film comprises 2 wt% of PTFE, 1 wt% of PVDF and 0.85 wt% of CMC.
Ruan discloses wherein an electrode film comprises 2 wt% ([0016] teaches binder may be present in an amount 2 to 10%) of PTFE ([0023]), 1 wt% ([0016] teaches binder may be present in an amount 2 to 10%; [0023] allows selection of multiple binders; ergo the wt% of each binder may be less than 2 wt%) of PVDF ([0023]) and 0.85 wt% ([0016] teaches binder may be present in an amount 2 to 10%; [0023] allows selection of multiple binders; ergo the wt% of each binder may be less than 2 wt%) of CMC ([0023]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have further modified Raman in view of Duong, Chae, Ruan and Yakovleva by substituting the undisclosed weight percentages of PTFE, PVDF and CMC of Raman in view of Duong, Chae, Ruan and Yakovleva for 2 wt% of PTFE, 1 wt% of PVDF and 0.85 wt% of CMC as allowed for in Ruan. In doing so one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably and predictably expect to achieve a binding effect in an electrode produced through a dry preparation process as Ruan teaches ([0029]).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raman (US 2017 / 0256782 A1) in view of Duong (US20150303481A1), Chae (US-20210218016-A1), Ruan (CN-106654177-A, machine translation used for rejection below) and Yakovleva (US-20080283155-A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tazaki (JP 2010160985 A, machine translation used below).
Raman in view of Duong, Chae, Ruan and Yakovleva discloses a first polarity (negative per [0033]) of the multilayer electrode film (116, combined with the lithium layer of [0042 or 0067]) but fails to disclose wherein a first polarity of the multilayer electrode film is opposite of a second polarity of the second multilayer electrode film.
Tazaki teaches an energy storage device ( Fig. 5; 300), comprising a multilayer electrode film (Fig. 5; 320, 450) and a second multilayer electrode film (Fig. 5; 330, 350), wherein a first polarity (“negative”; [00110]) of the multilayer electrode film (320, 450) is opposite of a second polarity (“positive”; [00110]) of the second multilayer electrode film (330, 350).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Raman in view of Duong, Chae, Ruan and Yakovleva by making the energy storage device of Raman in view of Duong, Chae, Ruan and Yakovleva a bipolar battery such that the second multilayer electrode film of Tazaki, with the positive polarity, was substituted for the second multilayer electrode film of Raman in view of Duong and Chae. In doing so, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in providing a higher power density and voltage to the energy storage device as taught by Tazaki ([00108]).
Claim 37 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raman et al. (US 2017/0256782 A1) in view of Duong (US20150303481A1), Chae (US-20210218016-A1), Ruan (CN-106654177-A, machine translation used for rejection below) and Yakovleva (US-20080283155-A1), as applied to claim 36 above and further in view of Zhang et al. (US 2014/0272567 A1).
Raman in view of Duong, Chae, Ruan and Yakovleva fails to disclose wherein the tuning is achieved by compressing the multilayer dry film.
Zhang discloses a method comprising tuning (“calendered under appropriate pressure”; [0045]; [0046]) an amount of prelithiation (“the lithium metal inside to come into contact with the anodic material”; [0045]) of a film (“electroactive composition”; [0045]), wherein the tuning ([0045-0046]) comprises compressing the film ([0045]; [0046]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have further modified Raman in view of Duong, Chae, Ruan and Yakovleva by adding a step of tuning the multilayer dry film by applying a range of pressures and adjusting the thickness of the film as taught by Zhang in order to activate the electroactive material (Zhang [0046]) of Raman in view of Duong, Chae, Ruan and Yakovleva.
Claim 50 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raman et al. (US 2017/0256782 A1) in view of Duong (US20150303481A1), Chae (US-20210218016-A1), Ruan (CN-106654177-A, machine translation used for rejection below) and Yakovleva (US-20080283155-A1), as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Amiruddin (US20120107680A1) and Teranishi (US 20180233773 A1).
Regarding claim 50, Raman in view of Duong, Chae, Ruan and Yakovleva fails to disclose wherein the dry prelithiating layer further comprises a lithium foil having a thickness of 100 um.
Amiruddin discloses an energy storage device (“lithium ion battery”; [0004]) comprising a prelithiating layer comprising lithium powder (“supplemental lithium powder”; [0118]) and a lithium foil ([0118]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Raman in view of Duong, Chae, Ruan and Yakovleva by adding a lithium foil to the dry prelithiating layer of Raman in view of Duong, Chae, Ruan and Yakovleva in order to stabilize the performance of the energy storage device of Raman in view of Duong, Chae, Ruan and Yakovleva as taught by Amiruddin ([0080]).
Raman in view of Duong, Chae, Ruan, Yakovleva and Amiruddin fails to disclose a thickness of 100 um.
Teranishi discloses a prelithiating ([0020]) layer comprising a lithium foil ([0020]) having a thickness of 100 um ([0020] teaches 10 to 500 um).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Raman in view of Duong, Chae, Ruan, Yakovleva and Amiruddin by substituting the lithium foil of Raman in view of Duong, Chae, Ruan, Yakovleva and Amiruddin for a lithium foil having a thickness of 100 um as taught by Teranishi in order to predictably provide a supply source of lithium in a pre-doping treatment as taught by Teranishi ([0020]).
Claim 51 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raman et al. (US 2017/0256782 A1) in view of Duong (US20150303481A1), Chae (US-20210218016-A1), Ruan (CN-106654177-A, machine translation used for rejection below), Yakovleva (US-20080283155-A1), Amiruddin (US20120107680A1) and Teranishi (US 20180233773 A1), as applied to claim 50 above and further in view of Yu (US 20170170511 A1).
Regarding claim 51, Raman in view of Duong, Chae, Ruan, Yakovleva, Amiruddin and Teranishi fails to disclose wherein the lithium foil comprises at least 99.3 wt% lithium.
Yu discloses a prelithiating layer (“Li metal foil”; [0053]) comprising at least 99.3 wt% lithium ([0053] teaches 99.9% metals basis).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Raman in view of Duong, Chae, Ruan, Yakovleva, Amiruddin and Teranishi by substituting the undisclosed composition of the foil of Raman in view of Duong, Chae, Ruan, Yakovleva, Amiruddin and Teranishi for the composition of the foil taught by Yu in order to obtain a lithium foil having high purity.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GRACE A KENLAW whose telephone number is (571)272-1253. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM-6:00 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, Tiffany Legette-Thompson can be reached at (571) 270-7078. 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.
/G.A.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1723 /TIFFANY LEGETTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights