DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Claim Status
Claims 2, 3, 6-9, 11, 13, 14, 18-2, 25, 28, 30, 31, 34, 35, 38-40 and 47 have been canceled.
Claims 48 and 49 are newly added; support for these claims can be found in Fig. 2B and 2D.
Claims 1, 12, 15, 23, 32 and 33 have been amended; support for the amendment can be found in Fig. 2B and 2D.
Claims 1, 4, 5, 10, 12, 15-17, 23, 24, 26, 27, 29, 32, 33, 36, 37, 41-46, 48 and 49 have been examined on the merits.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see pg. 6, para. 3-4 and pg. 7, para. 1, filed 09/16/2025, with respect to the U.S.C. 112 rejections of the claims have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the limitation “dry” in combination with the limitation “free of solvent residue” indicate initial fabrication by a solvent free process, without the use of any liquid components and that a PHOSITA would understand the meaning of the limitation “dry” as it pertains to the claimed active materials, active layers, prelithiating layer and binders (pg. 6, para. 4).
This argument is not found persuasive for the following reasons. First, the specification does not set forth a special definition of the limitation “dry”. In [0045], the specification teaches that a dry film may be solvent-free but fails to require it. Further, the ordinary and customary meaning of “dry” is free of or relatively free of liquid (“Dry.” Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dry. Accessed 5 Jan. 2026). Therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation, consistent with the specification, of the limitation “dry” would not be limited to an initial fabrication process that is solvent free.
Further, the claimed “dry” active materials, active layers, prelithiating layer and binders could mean active materials, active layers, prelithiating layer and binders initially fabricated by a solvent/liquid free process (as applicant acknowledges) but assembled, post-fabrication, with a liquid or gel electrolyte that contacts said materials, layers and binders, to form an energy storage device, or could mean active materials, active layers, prelithiating layers and binders initially fabricated by a solvent/liquid free process and assembled, without any liquid or gel components coming into contact with the “dry” materials, or layers, into an energy storage device. In other words, it is unclear if in claim 1, the energy storage device may contain liquid or gel electrolytes, or other liquid components that come into contact with the “dry” materials, binders or layers, or if in claim 1, the energy storage device does not contain liquid or gel electrolytes, or other liquid components that come into contact with the “dry” materials, or layers. Further, the examiner notes that the limitation “dry” could mean that a material or layer has been dried to remove liquid. Thus, the metes and bounds of the instant claims are not clear and the claims are rendered indefinite.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 23, see pg. 7, para. 4-6 and pg. 8 , para. 1-3, 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.
Duong is now relied on to teach a carbon coated current collector as set forth below.
Applicant's arguments filed 09/16/2025, see pg. 8, para. 4-5-pg. 14 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that a PHOSITA would not be motivated to combine Raman and Chae with a reasonable expectation of success because Chae’s lithium metal layer is applied as a solution between active layers which are subsequently impregnated in a prelithiating solution (pg. 9, para. 2). Applicant argues that a PHOSITA would not have been motivated to use the wet slurry fabrication process and ingredients of Chae’s electrode structure within the dry fabrication process and films of Raman because doing so would have destroyed the primary intended purpose of Raman of forming and maintaining dry films (pg. 9, para. 2-pg. 10, para. 1)
These arguments are not found persuasive for the following reasons. First, the combination of Raman and Chae as presented in the rejection of record does not involve the application of the prelithiating layer as a wet slurry as alleged. The combination of Raman and Chae involves the addition of a second of Raman’s dry active layers on top of the dry prelithiating layer taught by Raman, such that the dry prelithiating layer is between the two dry active layers in order to achieve the performance and prelithiation advantages taught by Chae. The combination of Chae and Raman is motivated by Chae’s teaching that an electrode structure in which an active material layer, a pre-lithiation layer and another active material layer are laminated sequentially, results in improved pre-lithiation effects, initial reversibility and electrochemical performance ([0021-0022]).
Chae provides clear motivation for one of ordinary skill in the art to employ the aforementioned electrode structure in the pre-lithiation process of a negative electrode with the disclosure that “pre-lithiation is not sufficiently achieved in cases other than the case in which the negative electrode active material layers surround the lithium metal layer above and below as in the present invention” ([0055]), and “the structure of the lithium secondary battery of the present invention may be the optimal structure of the negative electrode in pre-lithiation” ([0056]). As Raman is directed to the pre-lithiation of negative electrodes ([0003]), one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have employed the structure taught by Chae in order to achieve all of the advantages taught by Chae. It is the office’s position that the differences in the fabrication techniques of Raman and Chae would not have precluded one of ordinary skill in the art from seeing the advantages of combining Raman with the structure taught by Chae.
Further, Chae teaches that in the conventional pre-lithiation method (i.e. the same method taught by Raman), the lithiated material serving as the prelithiating layer is vulnerable to oxidation and may be easily oxidized when exposed to moisture or oxygen ([0010]). Chae solves this problem by sandwiching the prelithiating layer between two active layers as set forth above. Thus, even assuming arguendo that one of ordinary skill did not have a reasonable expectation of success in achieving the other advantageous results taught by Chae in the invention of Raman in view of Chae, one of ordinary skill in the art would have certainly had a reasonable expectation of success in preventing oxidation of Raman’s prelithiating layer by covering the other side of the layer with an additional active layer as taught by Chae.
Applicant argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the dry films of Raman would need to be submerged within and wet with an organic solvent in order to disperse lithium metal powder with the films and so would have destroyed Raman’s intended purpose of a dry fabrication process (pg. 10, para. 1). Thus, Applicant argues, the combination of Raman and Chae would render Raman unsatisfactory for its primary purpose (pg. 10, para. 1).
This argument is not found persuasive because Raman also teaches the option of submersion ([0048-0049]; 0069]-[0070]) of the electrode in an organic solvent ([0034]) and impregnation ([0033]) of the electrode after the electrode has been fabricated by a solvent free process in order to lithiate the electrode. Therefore, by teaching the same process, Chae cannot render Raman unsatisfactory for its primary purpose.
The examiner notes that the limitation “dry” found in the instant claim has been interpreted (see 112(b) rejection below) as meaning that the fabrication of the dry component includes a drying process to remove any liquid from the dry component or is a solvent-free process entirely. The solvated lithiation methods of Chae and Raman are used after the electrode has been fabricated. Therefore, even if these methods were used, the components of Raman may still be considered “dry” because the components have been fabricated with the solvent free process taught by Raman and are only assembled post-fabrication with a solvent.
Applicant argues with regards to unexpected results that the Office has not demonstrated that MPEP 716.02 (e)III only applies to affidavits or declarations not generally to other evidence traversing rejections (pg. 10, para. 3). Applicant argues that a shift of evidentiary burden to overcome obviousness to Applicant in view of an artificial combination is legally improper (pg. 10, para. 3). Applicant argues that evidence of unexpected results must be compared to the disclosure of a single and unmodified reference (pg. 10, para. 3). Applicant argues that the claimed invention produces unexpected and advantageous results (pg. 11, para. 3-4)
These arguments are not found persuasive because the evidence (Fig. 19A-C, 20A-B and 21A-B) submitted by applicant in support of these results is not commensurate in scope with the claims (claim 1 and 23). Independent claims 1 and 23 do not recite even a genus of the active materials and binders of the dry films found in the evidence of unexpected results (Fig. 19A-C, 20A-B and 21A-B). The examiner notes that independent claims 1 and 23 encompass an exceedingly broad range of compositions, and a PHOSITA would not be able to determine a trend in the exemplified data which would allow the artisan to reasonably extend the probative value thereof because there is no adequate basis for reasonably concluding that the great number and variety of compositions included in the claims would behave in the same manner as the tested compositions.
Whether the unexpected results are the result of unexpectedly improved results or a property not taught by the prior art, the "objective evidence of nonobviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support." In re Clemens, 622 F.2d 1029, 1036, 206 USPQ 289, 296 (CCPA 1980) (MPEP 716.02(d)).
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 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 1, 4-5, 10, 12, 15-17, 23-24, 26-27, 29, 32-33, 36-37, 41-46, 48 and 49 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.
In claim 1, it is not clear if the limitations “wherein the dry self-supporting active layer is free of solvent residue” and “wherein the second dry active layer is free of solvent residue” mean solely that the method of initially fabricating the active layers is a solvent free process, a process involving removal of all solvent residues, or that the active layers are fabricated by a solvent free process and are not in and have not ever had any direct contact with a solvent within the claimed energy storage device or elsewhere. For examination, these limitations are interpreted according to the former interpretation. The examiner notes that the latter interpretation precludes the claimed active layers from direct contact with a liquid or gel electrolyte in the energy storage device or elsewhere because liquid and gel electrolytes comprise solvents and the instant claim requires that the active layers are free of solvent residue. The examiner also notes that the latter interpretation precludes the claimed active layers from previous direct contact with a solvent such as during the instantly disclosed prelithiation method wherein a pre-doped electrode is immersed in a liquid electrolyte so that the metal ions of a prelithiating layer are released upon contact with the electrolyte ([0055] of the instant specification teaches an example of such a method; [0124]). Claims 4-5, 10, 12, 15-17, 43, 44, 46, 48 and 49 are rejected because they are dependent on claim 1.
Likewise, in claim 1 it is unclear if the limitation “dry prelithiating layer” means solely that the layer was dried to remove any liquid component, was initially fabricated without the use of any liquid components, or that the layer is not and has never been in direct contact with a liquid component in the energy storage device or elsewhere. For examination the former interpretation is used. Claims 4-5, 10, 12, 15-17, 43, 44, 46, 48 and 49 are rejected because they are dependent on claim 1.
In claim 1 it is unclear if the limitations “first dry active material”, “dry binder” and “second dry active material” mean solely that these materials were dried to remove any liquid component or initially fabricated without the use of any liquid components, or that these materials are not and have never been in direct contact with a liquid component in the energy storage device or elsewhere. For examination the former interpretation is used. Claims 4-5, 10, 12, 15-17, 43, 44, 46, 48 and 49 are rejected because they are dependent on claim 1.
In claim 4, it is unclear if the limitation “second dry binder” means solely that the binder was dried to remove any liquid component, was initially fabricated without the use of any liquid components, or that it is not and has never been in direct contact with a liquid component in the energy storage device or elsewhere. For examination the former interpretation is used.
In claim 23, it is not clear if the limitations “wherein the dry self-supporting active layer is free of solvent residue” and “wherein the second dry active layer is free of solvent residue” mean solely that the method of initially fabricating the active layers is a solvent free process, a process wherein all detectable solvent residue has been removed or that the active layers are fabricated by a solvent free process and are not in and have not ever had any direct contact with a solvent in the claimed energy storage device or elsewhere. For examination, these limitations are interpreted according to the former interpretation. The examiner notes that the latter interpretation precludes the claimed active layers from direct contact with a liquid or gel electrolyte in the energy storage device or elsewhere because liquid and gel electrolytes comprise solvents. The examiner also notes that the latter interpretation precludes the claimed active layers from previous direct contact with a solvent such as during a typical prelithiation method wherein a pre-doped electrode is immersed in a liquid electrolyte so that the metal ions of a prelithiating layer are released upon contact with the electrolyte ([0055] of the instant specification teaches an example of such a method). Claims 24, 26-27, 29, 32, 33, 36, 37, 41, 42 and 45 are rejected because they are dependent on claim 23.
Likewise, in claim 23 it is unclear if the limitation “dry prelithiating layer” means solely that the layer was dried to remove any liquid component, was initially fabricated without the use of any liquid components, or that the layer is not and has never been in direct contact with a liquid component in the energy storage device or elsewhere. For examination the former interpretation is used. Claims 24, 26-27, 29, 32, 33, 36, 37, 41, 42 and 45 are rejected because they are dependent on claim 23.
In claim 23 it is unclear if the limitations “first dry active material”, “dry binder” and “second dry active material” mean solely that these materials were dried to remove any liquid component or initially fabricated without the use of any liquid components, or that these materials are not and have never been in direct contact with a liquid component in the energy storage device or elsewhere. For examination the former interpretation is used. Claims 24, 26-27, 29, 32, 33, 36, 37, 41, 42 and 45 are rejected because they are dependent on claim 23.
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, 4-6, 10, 12, 15, 16, 23-27, 29, 32, 33, 36, 38 and 41-47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raman (US 2017 / 0256782 A1) in view of Duong (US20150303481A1) and Chae (US-20210218016-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]) and a first dry ([0041]) binder (“binder material”; [0039]; [0040]), wherein the dry self-supporting active layer (116) is free of solvent residue (“no…solvents are used”; [0041]);
a dry (“powder”; [0042]; “and/or a solvent”; [0042] indicates a dry process may be used; alternatively, “elemental lithium”; [0067]) prelithiating layer ([0042]; [0067]) comprising lithium ([0042]; [0067]), wherein the dry self-supporting active layer (116) and the dry prelithiating layer ([0042]; [0067]) are laminated to each other (“onto a surface of the anode”; [0042]; “in contact”; [0067]), wherein the dry prelithiating layer ([0042]; [0067]) comprises at least one of lithium foil ([0067]) and stabilized lithium metal powder (SLMP) ([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. Further “elemental lithium, for example , as chunks , foil , sheet , bar , or rod” ([0067]) are solvent free. 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, or 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.
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 and 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.
Regarding claim 4, Raman in view of Duong and Chae discloses wherein the second (Chae) dry (Raman [0041]) active layer (Raman electrode film ([0039]; [0067]), further comprises a second dry (Raman [0041]) binder (Raman “binder material”; [0039]; [0040]).
Regarding claim 5, Raman in view of Duong and Chae 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 further modified Raman in view of Duong and Chae 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 6, Raman in view of Duong and Chae discloses wherein the dry prelithiating layer ([0042]; [0067]) comprises at least one of lithium foil ([0067]) and stabilized lithium metal powder (SLMP) ([0046]).
Regarding claim 10, Raman in view of Duong and Chae 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 and Chae 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 and Chae 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 and Chae discloses wherein the multilayer electrode (104 modified by Chae) is a double sided multilayer electrode (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 and Chae discloses wherein the dry prelithiating layer (lithium powder of [0042] or lithium metal of [0067] on 1S) 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]) and a first dry ([0041]) binder (“binder material”; [0039]; [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 [0067] or [0042]) electrode film (Fig. 1; 116 combined with lithium layer of [0067] or [0042]) by disposing a dry (“powder”; [0042]; “and/or a solvent”; [0042] indicates a dry process may be used; alternatively, “elemental lithium”; [0067]) prelithiating layer ([0042]; [0067]) comprising lithium ([0042]; [0067]), where in the dry prelithiating layer ([0042]; [0067]) comprises at least one of lithium foil ([0067]) and stabilized lithium metal powder (SLMP) ([0046]),
wherein the multilayer electrode film (116 combined with lithium layer of [0042 or 0067]) 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
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. Further “elemental lithium, for example, as chunks, foil, sheet, bar, or rod” ([0067]) is inherently solvent free. 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, or wherein the multilayer electrode film further comprises a second dry active layer on the first side, the second active layer comprises a second dry active material and wherein the dry prelithiating layer is positioned between the dry freestanding active layer and the second dry active layer.
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 and free of solvent residue– 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.
Regarding claim 24, Raman in view of Duong and Chae discloses wherein forming the multilayer electrode film (116 combined with lithium layer of [0042] or [0067] and a second dry active layer) further comprises laminating (Raman “onto a surface of the anode”; [0042]; “in contact”; [0067]) 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]; [0067]).
Regarding claim 26, Raman in view of Duong and Chae discloses compressing (Raman “pressed by a roller”; [0046]) stabilized lithium metal powder (SLMP) (Raman [0046]) to form a 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 and Chae by employing the pressing process and SLMP powder 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 and Chae discloses 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 and Chae 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 and Chae 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 and Chae 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 or 0067], and a second of Raman’s dry active layers).
Regarding claim 33, Raman in view of Duong and Chae 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 and Chae discloses tuning ([0051]) an amount of prelithiation ([0051]) of the multilayer dry film (116 combined with lithium layer of [0042 or 0067]).
Regarding claim 41, Raman in view of Duong and Chae discloses wherein the method of fabricating the multilayer dry film is a solvent free process ([0041-0042]; [0067]).
Regarding claim 42, Raman in view of Duong and Chae discloses fabricating a multilayer dry film (Raman 116 combined with lithium layer of [0042 or 0067]) by laminating the dry prelithiating layer (Raman [0042]; [0067]) 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 and Chae 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 and Chae by substituting any of the solid electrolytes taught by Chae for the electrolyte of Raman. 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 and Chae 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 and Chae by substituting any of the solid electrolytes taught by Chae for the electrolyte of Raman. 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 and Chae discloses disposing an electrolyte ([0033]) into the housing ([0033]).
Regarding claim 46, Raman in view of Duong and Chae discloses wherein at least one of the first dry active material and the second dry active material comprises at least one of carbon material, graphitic material hard carbon and soft carbon ([0008, 0039, 0057]).
Regarding claim 47, Raman in view of Duong and Chae 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 48, Raman in view of Duong and Chae discloses wherein the carbon coated current collector (Duong current collector substituted for 110) comprises a copper foil (Duong [0120]).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raman (US 2017 / 0256782 A1) in view of Duong (US20150303481A1) and Chae (US-20210218016-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 and Chae 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 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 further modified Raman in view of Duong and Chae by making the energy storage device of Raman in view of Duong and Chae 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) and Chae (US-20210218016-A1) as applied to claim 36 above and further in view of Zhang et al. (US 2014/0272567 A1).
Raman in view of Duong and Chae 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 and Chae 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 and Chae.
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 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