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 .
This is in response to the Amendment dated November 24, 2025. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office Action.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-2, 4-7 and 21-26 have been 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.
The rejection of claims 1-2, 4-7 and 21-26 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, has been withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
I. Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 6-7, 21-22 and 25 have been rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0178770) in view of KR 20200002235 (‘235) and Suzuki et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0315313 A1), and as evidence by Liang et al. (“Polymer Nanofiber-Guided Uniform Lithium Deposition for
Battery Electrodes,” Nano Letters (2015 May 13), Vol. 15, No. 5, pp. 2910-2916).
The rejection of claims 1-2, 4, 6-7, 21-22 and 25 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al. in view of KR 20200002235 (‘235) and Suzuki et al., and as evidence by Liang et al. has been withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
II. Claim(s) 5 has been rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0178770) in view of KR 20200002235 (‘235) and Suzuki et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0315313 A1), and as evidence by Liang et al. (“Polymer Nanofiber-Guided Uniform Lithium Deposition for Battery Electrodes,” Nano Letters (2015 May 13), Vol. 15, No. 5, pp. 2910-2916) as applied to claims 1-2, 4, 6-7, 21-22 and 25 above, and further in view of Chang et al. (“Morphological and Chemical Mapping of Columnar Lithium Metal,” Chemistry of Materials (2020 Mar 6), Vol. 32, No. 7, pp. 2803-2814).
The rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al. in view of KR 20200002235 (‘235) and Suzuki et al., and as evidence by Liang et al. as applied to claims 1-2, 4, 6-7, 21-22 and 25 above, and further in view of Chang et al. has been withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
III. Claim(s) 23 and 24 have been rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0178770) in view of KR 20200002235 (‘235) and Suzuki et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0315313 A1), and as evidence by Liang et al. (“Polymer Nanofiber-Guided Uniform Lithium Deposition for Battery
Electrodes,” Nano Letters (2015 May 13), Vol. 15, No. 5, pp. 2910-2916) as applied to claims 1-2, 4, 6-7, 21-22 and 25 above, and further in view of Swonger et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0351889 A1).
The rejection of claims 23 and 24 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0178770) in view of KR 20200002235 (‘235) and Suzuki et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0315313 A1), and as evidence by Liang et al. (“Polymer Nanofiber-Guided Uniform Lithium Deposition for Battery Electrodes,” Nano Letters (2015 May 13), Vol. 15, No. 5, pp. 2910-2916) as applied to claims 1-2, 4, 6-7, 21-22 and 25 above, and further in view of Swonger et al. has been withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
IV. Claim(s) 26 has been rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0178770) in view of KR 20200002235 (‘235) and Suzuki et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0315313 A1), and as evidence by Liang et al. (“Polymer Nanofiber-Guided Uniform Lithium Deposition for Battery Electrodes,” Nano Letters (2015 May 13), Vol. 15, No. 5, pp. 2910-2916) as applied to claims 1-2, 4, 6-7, 21-22 and 25 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0348668 A1).
The rejection of claim 26 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al. in view of KR 20200002235 (‘235) and Suzuki et al., and as evidence by Liang et al. as applied to claims 1-2, 4, 6-7, 21-22 and 25 above, and further in view of Kim et al. has been withdrawn in
view of Applicant’s amendment.
Response to Amendment
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
I. Claim(s) 1, 4, 6-7, 21-22 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 3 561 915 (‘915) in view of KR 20200002235 (‘235), Suzuki et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0315313 A1) and CN 107068971 (‘971).
Regarding claim 1, EP ‘915 teaches a method of producing lithium comprising:
• forming an electrolyte solution comprising a lithium salt, a solvent (= the plating solution 30 may be prepared by dissolving a lithium salt in a non-aqueous solvent) [ρ [0093]] comprising dimethoxyethane (= the auxiliary solvent may include, for example, at least one of 1,2-dimethoxyethane) [ρ [0101]], and at least two additives, a first additive of the at least two additives comprising carbonate (= a carbonate-based solvent), and a second additive of the at least two additives comprising lithium nitrate (= lithium nitrate is used as a nitrogen-based compound) [ρ [0074]];
• electroplating lithium on the substrate disposed within the electrolyte solution (= the process of manufacturing the lithium metal thin film layer 12 by an electroplating process); and
• forming, while disposed within the electrolyte solution, by electrochemical break-down of the at least two additives a protective layer on the electroplated lithium (= the coating layer 13 containing the Li-N-C-H-O based ionic compound is formed by controlling the composition and content of the plating solution during the process of manufacturing the
lithium metal thin film layer 12 by an electroplating process) [ρ [0066]];
wherein the protective layer is a polymeric protective layer (= more specifically, for
example, when the lithium metal thin film layer 12 is formed through electrodeposition using a plating solution in which lithium nitrate is used as a nitrogen-based compound and is added in a proper amount to a carbonate-based solvent. The coating layer 13 containing the compound represented by the general formula 2-1 may be formed on the surface of the lithium metal thin film layer 12:
PNG
media_image1.png
69
313
media_image1.png
Greyscale
) [ρ [0074]].
The method of EP ‘915 differs from the instant invention because EP ‘915 does not disclose the following:
a. Rolling a substrate, from a first roller through the electrolyte solution to a second roller.
EP ‘915 teaches forming a lithium metal thin film layer 12 on the surface of the current collector 11 (ρ [0156]) made of a copper foil (ρ [0155]).
Like EP ‘915, KR ‘235 teaches forming a lithium thin film by electrolytic plating (ρ [0001]).
A method that can be used to replace the rolling or vacuum deposition method is the electrodeposition method using a solution process. The electroplating method can form a
lithium thin film directly in the solution, thereby simplifying the process, thereby reducing the cost. In addition, instead of using expensive and high-purity Li ingots, low-cost Li salts (e.g. LiCl) can be used to obtain lithium metal, which is highly commercially available. The electroplating method is a proven process that is already used to produce a variety of metals in a roll-to-roll process has the advantage that the production facilities can be built quickly. However, although the electroplating
method has various advantages as described above, it is not active until now (ρ [0005]).
Like KR ‘235, Suzuki teaches electroplating metallic lithium (page 5, [0071]).
Here, FIG. 5 is a schematic drawing to outline the treatment to form the structure 11 by laminating the conductive material layer 14 on a substrate by electroplating treatment. As shown in FIG. 5, the structure 11 can be formed in a roll-to-roll process wherein a metal substrate made of metallic foil 51, etc. (metal substrate film) is passed through a treating tank containing an electroplating solution while being conveyed in a horizontal direction with conveying rollers to apply the electroplating treatment (page 4, [0056]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method described by EP ‘915 by rolling the substrate, from a first roller through the electrolyte solution to a second roller because in a roll-to-roll process a metal substrate made of a metallic foil (metal substrate film) is passed through a treating tank containing an electroplating solution wherein the electroplating method forms a lithium thin film directly in the solution, thereby simplifying the process, thereby reducing the cost.
MPEP § 2143(I)(A) states that “combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results” may be obvious. The claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would yield nothing more than predictable results.
b. 0.2 M vinylene carbonate.
EP ‘915 teaches that:
More specifically, for example, when the lithium metal thin film layer 12 is formed through electrodeposition using a plating solution in which lithium nitrate is used as a nitrogen-
based compound and is added in a proper amount to a carbonate-based solvent. The coating layer 13 containing the compound represented by the general formula 2-1 may be formed on the surface of the lithium metal thin film layer 12 (ρ [0074]).
The plating solution 30 is prepared by adding a lithium bis (fluorosulfonyl) imide and a lithium nitrate as a nitrogen based compounds to a 1,2-dimethoxyethane solvent, in amounts of 40% by weight and 10% by weight based on 100% by weight of the plating solution, respectively. Then 10% by weight of fluoroethylene carbonate, which is a fluorine based compound, was added based on 100% by weight of the plating solution (ρ [0154]).
Like EP ‘915, CN ‘971 teaches a mixed solution of lithium salt (= lithium nitrate) [ρ [0011]] and organic solvent (= dimethoxyethane) [ρ [0013]] as an electrolyte solution (ρ [0009]).
In the above technical solution, the electrolyte solution also contains additives, which are one or more of lithium nitrate, lithium polysulfide, lithium carbonate, fluoroethylene carbonate, vinylene carbonate, propylene sulfite, vinyl sulfite, lithium halide, sulfur dioxide and carbon dioxide, and the concentration of the additives is 0.001 to 1 mol/L (ρ [0011]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the carbonate described by EP ‘915 with 0.2 M vinylene carbonate because EP ‘915 teaches a carbonate-based solvent where vinylene carbonate is an alternative to fluoroethylene carbonate as an additive which is added in a concentration of 0.001 to 1 mol/L to a mixed solution of lithium nitrate and dimethoxyethane as an electrolyte solution for electroplating.
MPEP § 2143(I)(A) states that “combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results” may be obvious. The claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would yield nothing more than predictable results. Furthermore, MPEP § 2144.07 states “The selection of a known
material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness
determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 US 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).”
MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A) states that “[g]enerally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation in In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105
USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).”
c. 0.3 M lithium nitrate.
EP ‘915 teaches that:
The nitrogen-based compound may be at least one selected from the group consisting of lithium nitrate, lithium bis fluorosulfonyl imide, lithium bis trifluoromethane sulfonimide, e-Caprolactam, N-methyl-e-caprolactam, triethylamine, and tributylamine (ρ [0019]).
The plating solution includes the nitrogen-based compound in an amount of 1 wt% to 100 wt% based on 100 wt% of the plating solution (ρ [0020]).
CN ‘971 teaches that:
In the above technical solution, the electrolyte solution also contains additives, which are one or more of lithium nitrate, lithium polysulfide, lithium carbonate, fluoroethylene carbonate, vinylene carbonate, propylene sulfite, vinyl sulfite, lithium halide, sulfur dioxide and carbon dioxide, and the concentration of the additives is 0.001 to 1 mol/L (ρ [0011]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the lithium nitrate described by EP ‘915 with 0.3 M lithium nitrate because it has been held that changes in temperature, concentration or both, is not a patentable modification; however, such changes may impart patentability to a
process if the ranges claimed produce new and unexpected results which are different in kind and not merely in degree from results of the prior art, such ranges are termed “critical” ranges and Applicant has the burden of proving such criticality; even though Applicant’s modification results in great improvement and utility over the prior art, it may still not be patentable if the modification was within capabilities of one skilled in the art (MPEP § 2144.05).
Does the concentration of lithium nitrate depend on the overall electrolysis conditions and electrolyte composition for the electroplating?
Regarding claim 4, EP ‘915 teaches wherein the lithium salt is selected from the group
consisting of lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide (“LiFSI”), lithium
bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide (“LiTFSI”), lithium bis(pentafluoroethanesulfonyl)imide (“LiBETI”), lithium hexafluorophosphate (“LiPF6”), lithium hexafluoroarsenate (“LiAsF6”), lithium perchlorate (“LiClO4”), lithium tetrafluoroborate (“LiBF4”), lithium bis(oxalate)borate (“LiBOB”), lithium difluoro(oxalate)borate (“LiDFOB”), lithium bis(fluoromalonato)borate (“LiBFMB”), lithium tetracyanoborate (“LiTCB”), lithium dicyanotriazolate (“LiDCTA”), lithium dicyano-trifluoromethyl-imidazole (“LiTDI”), lithium dicyano-pentafluoroethyl-imidazole (“LiPDI”) and combinations thereof (= the nitrogen-based compound includes at least one selected from the group consisting of lithium nitrate, lithium bis fluorosulfonyl imide, lithium bis trifluoromethane sulfonimide, e-Caprolactam, N-methyl-e-caprolactam, triethylamine, and tributylamine) [ρ [0095]].
Regarding claim 6, EP ‘915 teaches wherein the substrate comprises a metallic foil (= as
the cathode collector, for example, an aluminum foil, a nickel foil or a combination thereof may
be used, but the invention is not limited thereto) [ρ [0132]].
The method of EP ‘915 differs from the instant invention because EP ‘915 does not disclose removing a lithium-coated metallic foil from the electrolyte solution.
Suzuki teaches that:
More specifically, the treatment apparatus shown in the schematic drawing of FIG. 5 comprises a pre-treatment tank 60, an electroplating treatment tank 70A and a post-treatment tank 80. Symbol 52 indicates a cathode power supply roller and symbol 53 indicates a nip roller. The metal substrate film 51 made of metallic foil, etc. is conveyed in the horizontal direction and passed through each of the treatment tanks, so that treatments are applied (page 4, [0058]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method described by EP ‘915 by removing a lithium-coated metallic foil from the electrolyte solution because in a roll-to-roll process, the metal substrate film made of metallic foil is conveyed in the horizontal direction and passed through each of the treatment tanks so that treatments are applied.
MPEP § 2143(I)(A) states that “combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results” may be obvious. The claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would yield nothing more than predictable results.
Regarding claim 7, EP ‘915 teaches wherein reducing lithium cations at the substrate and electroplated lithium are at a temperature of 15-80°C (= more specifically, the electrodeposition process is performed in condition of normal temperature and atmospheric pressure (for example, 25°C, 1 atm), so that lithium ions are supplied from a lithium source, and
lithium thin film layer 12 is laminated on the current collector 11 by electrochemically method) [ρ [0116]].
Regarding claim 21, EP ‘915 teaches wherein the electrolyte solution has an anode disposed therein (= the lithium source 20 and the current collector 11 are connected to each other through (+) and (-) electrode) [ρ [0156]]; the substrate, comprising a copper foil (= the current collector 11 was made of a copper foil) [ρ [0155]]; and reducing lithium cations at the copper foil and depositing the lithium on the copper foil as the copper foil passes through an
electroplating region within the electrolyte solution at a temperature of 15-80°C, forming a lithium metal coated copper foil (= more specifically, the electrodeposition process is performed in condition of normal temperature and atmospheric pressure (for example, 25°C, 1 atm), so that lithium ions are supplied from a lithium source, and lithium thin film layer 12 is laminated on the current collector 11 by electrochemically method) [ρ [0116]].
The method of EP ‘915 differs from the instant invention because EP ‘915 does not disclose wherein the electroplating of the lithium comprises: rolling the substrate, comprising a copper foil, from the first roller comprising a copper foil roller through the electrolyte solution to the second roller, comprising a lithium metal coated copper foil roller.
Like EP ‘915, Suzuki teaches electroplating a metallic foil (Fig. 5).
Here, FIG. 5 is a schematic drawing to outline the treatment to form the structure 11 by laminating the conductive material layer 14 on a substrate by electroplating treatment. As shown in FIG. 5, the structure 11 can be formed in a roll-to-roll process wherein a metal substrate made of metallic foil 51, etc. (metal substrate film) is passed through a treating tank containing an electroplating solution while being conveyed in a horizontal direction with conveying rollers to apply the electroplating treatment (page 4, [0056]).
As the metal substrate film 51, a film having a thickness of 5 μm to 5 mm and
comprising metal such as copper, nickel, aluminum, zinc, aluminum, silver, stainless steel, etc. or alloy can be used. For instance, the structure 11 is formed by laminating the conductive material layer 14 on the metal substrate film 51 in the form of sheet which has been spooled in the form of a roll, by means of roll-to-roll (page 4, [0057]).
More specifically, the treatment apparatus shown in the schematic drawing of FIG. 5 comprises a pre-treatment tank 60, an electroplating treatment tank 70A and a post-treatment tank 80. Symbol 52 indicates a cathode power supply roller and symbol 53 indicates a nip roller. The metal substrate film 51 made of metallic foil, etc. is conveyed in the horizontal direction and passed through each of the treatment tanks, so that treatments are applied (page 4, [0058]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electroplating of the lithium described
by EP ‘915 with wherein the electroplating of the lithium comprises: rolling the substrate, comprising a copper foil, from the first roller comprising a copper foil roller through the electrolyte solution to the second roller, comprising a lithium metal coated copper foil roller because a metal substrate made of a metallic foil is electroplated in a roll-to-roll process wherein the metal substrate is passed through a treating tank containing an electroplating solution while being conveyed in a horizontal direction with conveying rollers to apply the electroplating treatment which has been spooled in the form of a roll, by means of roll-to-roll.
MPEP § 2143(I)(A) states that “combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results” may be obvious. The claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would yield nothing more than predictable results.
Regarding claim 22, Suzuki teaches rolling the lithium metal coated copper foil with the
protective layer about the lithium metal coated copper foil roller (= for instance, the structure 11 is formed by laminating the conductive material layer 14 on the metal substrate film 51 in the form of sheet which has been spooled in the form of a roll, by means of roll-to-roll) [page 4, [0057]].
Regarding claim 26, EP ‘915 teaches wherein a current density of 100 mA/cm2 is applied during electroplating lithium and forming the protective layer on the electroplated lithium (= The applied current may range from an average current density of 0.1 mA/cm2 to 100 mA/cm2)
[ρ [0112]].
II. Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 3 561 915 (‘915) in view of KR 20200002235 (‘235), Suzuki et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0315313 A1) and CN 107068971 (‘971) as applied to claims 1, 4, 6-7, 21-22 and 26 above, and further in view of Chang et al. (“Morphological and Chemical Mapping of Columnar Lithium Metal,” Chemistry of Materials (2020 Mar 6), Vol. 32, No. 7, pp. 2803-2814).
EP ‘915, KR ‘235 Suzuki and CN ‘971 are as applied above and incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 5, the method of EP ‘915 differs from the instant invention because EP ‘915 does not disclose removing the electroplated lithium metal with the protective layer from the substrate.
Chang teaches that lastly, the initially plated Li was subsequently stripped at various capacity intervals, followed by a second plating protocol (Figure S9). SEM images were taken at regular intervals in order to determine which portions of the columnar Li were participating in the
plating/stripping behavior (page 2811, right column, lines 3-7).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method described by EP ‘915 by removing the electroplated lithium metal with the protective layer from the substrate because stripping the initially plated Li at various capacity intervals followed by a second plating protocol can determine which portions of the columnar Li were participating in the plating/stripping behavior.
MPEP § 2143(I)(A) states that “combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results” may be obvious. The claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would yield nothing more than predictable results.
III. Claim(s) 23 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 3 561 915 (‘915) in view of KR 20200002235 (‘235), Suzuki et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0315313 A1) and CN 107068971 (‘971) as applied to claims 1, 4, 6-7, 21-22 and 26 above, and further in view of Swonger et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0351889 A1).
EP ‘915, KR ‘235 Suzuki and CN ‘971 are as applied above and incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 23, the method of EP ‘915 differs from the instant invention because EP ‘915 does not disclose wherein a spacing film is co-rolled with the lithium metal coated copper foil
about the lithium metal coated copper foil roller.
Swonger teaches that:
In another embodiment, lithium metal produced from a lithium ion containing electrolyte is directly coated onto a strip of material and is then converted to a lithium compound using a continuous
strip coating system as shown in FIG. 8. The roll of film to be coated is loaded onto payoff reel 46 with tension clutch 9. The film is thread under strip guide 40 and onto takeup reel 96. Polypropylene film 95 can also be threaded onto takeup reel 96 if desired to separate each layer of film. Tension clutch 92 controls the tension. Catholyte 33 is loaded into cavity above lithium ion conductive glass-ceramic (LiC-GC) plates 39. Platform 47 is raised to submerse guide/film 40/46 in catholyte 33. Variable speed drive 2 controls film speed through the bath. DC voltage applied to the conductive housing of cell base 32 and the rotary contactors 71 at payoff and takeup reels. The energized strip is the cathode and cell base 32 is the anode. The film is processed through a bath at a controlled speed and voltage profile in order to coat film with high purity lithium metal at a desired thickness and morphology (page 10, [0118]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method described by EP ‘915 with wherein a spacing film is co-rolled with the lithium metal coated copper foil about the lithium metal coated copper foil roller because threading a polypropylene film onto a take-up reel
separates each layer of film.
MPEP § 2143(I)(A) states that “combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results” may be obvious. The claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would yield nothing more than predictable results.
Regarding claim 24, the method of EP ‘915 differs from the instant invention because EP ‘915 does not disclose wherein prior to rolling about the lithium metal coated copper foil roller
with the protective layer about the lithium metal coated copper foil roller, the lithium metal coated copper foil with the protective layer passes through a washer and a dryer.
Suzuki teaches that:
Incidentally, it is possible to provide a water washing treatment tank to apply water washing treatment or a roller or an air nozzle, etc. for draining off liquid between each of the treatment tanks 60, 70A and 80. Further, it is possible to provide a drying treatment tank to apply drying treatment posterior to the post-treatment tank 80 (page 5, [0065]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method described by EP ‘915 with wherein prior to rolling about the lithium metal coated copper foil roller with the protective layer about the lithium metal coated copper foil roller, the lithium metal coated copper foil with the protective layer passes through a washer and a dryer because a water washing treatment for draining off liquid and a drying treatment are posterior treatments to an electroplating treatment.
MPEP § 2143(I)(A) states that “combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results” may be obvious. The claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would yield nothing more than predictable results.
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 EDNA WONG whose telephone number is (571) 272-1349. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7:00 AM- 3:30 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, Luan Van can be reached at (571) 272-8521. 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.
/EDNA WONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1795