DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1, 16, 22-23, 36, 39-40, and 42-54 are presented for examination, wherein claim 1 is currently amended; claims 16 and 23 are withdrawn; plus, claims 45-54 are newly added. Claims 2-15, 17-21, 24-35, 37-38, and 41 are cancelled.
The objection to claim 16 is withdrawn, as a result of the change in the status identifier.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 August 29, 2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 45 is 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.
Regarding newly added claim 45, there does not appear to be support for the limitation “fractal structures” in “the passivation layer comprises fractal structures.”
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 22, 36, 39-40, and 42-44 plus newly added claims 45-51 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laramie et al (US 2017/0338475).
Regarding newly amended independent claim 1, Laramie teaches an electrode structure (e.g. item 10) for use in electrochemical cells, wherein said article includes a first layer (e.g. item 20), a second layer (e.g. item 30), and a current collector (not illustrated),
(i) said first layer may be an anode with lithium metal or lithium-alloy active material, wherein said first layer may have a mean peak-to-valley roughness (Rz) of e.g. less than or equal to about 10 µm and may further be greater than or equal to about 1 µm; and,
(ii) said second layer deposited directly on said first layer; and, said second layer may be a protective layer that includes a plurality of particles,
wherein said protective layer prevents or reduces the occurrence of chemical reactions between species in the electrolyte and said anode active material;
wherein said particles of said protective layer may be composed of a combination of a material including one or more of lithium borates (e.g., lithium bis(oxalate)borate, lithium difluoro(oxalate)borate), lithium phosphates (e.g., LiPO3, Li3PO4), lithium phosphorus oxynitrides, lithium fluorides (e.g., LIF, LiBF4, LiAlF4, LiPF6, LiAsF6, LiSbF6, Li2SiF6, LiSO3F, LiN(SO2F)2, LiN(SO2CF3)2), lithium borosulfides, and lithium phosphosulfides; and, a polymeric material, such as polyamines, such as poly(ethylene imine) and polypropylene imine,
wherein said protective layer may have a porosity of e.g. at least about 25%, wherein said porosity may be determined, for example, by mercury porosimetry (e.g., Brunauer-Emmett-Teller porosity;
wherein said protective layer may include pores on a surface adjacent to electrolyte and further includes a “porous network” that provides some exposure of said anode to electrolyte, to allow for ion conduction across said protective layer, while the bulk of said protective layer limits exposure of said anode to direct contact with said electrolyte;
wherein said protective layer has an average thickness of between about 0.1 microns to about 0.5 microns; and,
(iii) said current collector composed of copper deposited on said first layer
(e.g. ¶¶ 0002, 04-09, 48, 50, 53, 58-60, 75-77, 81, 85-86, 91-92, 124, 125-126, 132-134, 142, and 171-172), reading on “article for inclusion in an electrochemical cell;” alternatively, the preamble limitation “for inclusion in an electrochemical cell” is interpreted as merely intended use and does not patentably distinguish the instant invention, see also e.g. MPEP § 2111.01, said electrode structure comprising:
(1) said first layer may be said anode with lithium metal or lithium-alloy active material (e.g. supra), reading on “a layer comprising lithium metal,”
wherein said first layer active material may be lithium metal or lithium-alloy (e.g. supra), the two options—lithium metal and lithium-alloy—indicates said lithium metal is not alloyed, i.e. excluding other components other than unavoidable impurities, establishing a prima facie case of obviousness of the claimed range, see also e.g. MPEP § 2144.05(I), reading on the previously added limitation “the layer comprising lithium metal comprises at least 95 wt% lithium;”
wherein said first layer may have a mean peak-to-valley roughness (Rz) of e.g. less than or equal to about 10 µm and may further be greater than or equal to about 1 µm (e.g. supra), establishing a prima facie case of obviousness of the claimed range (noting the taught modifier “about”), see also e.g. MPEP § 2144.05(I), reading on previously added limitation “the layer comprising lithium metal has an Rz value of between 1 micron and 10 microns;” and,
(2) said second layer deposited directly on said first layer; and, said second layer may be said protective layer that includes said plurality of particles,
wherein said particles of said protective layer may be composed of said combination of
(2a) said material including one or more of lithium borates (e.g., lithium bis(oxalate)borate, lithium difluoro(oxalate)borate), lithium phosphates (e.g., LiPO3, Li3PO4), lithium phosphorus oxynitrides, lithium fluorides (e.g., LIF, LiBF4, LiAlF4, LiPF6, LiAsF6, LiSbF6, Li2SiF6, LiSO3F, LiN(SO2F)2, LiN(SO2CF3)2), lithium borosulfides, and lithium phosphosulfides; and,
(2b) said polymeric material, such as polyamines, such as poly(ethylene imine) and polypropylene imine
(e.g. supra), noting a film that is provided to protect is “passivating,” see also instant specification, at e.g. ¶0053, reading on the previously amended limitation reading on “a passivating layer disposed directly on the layer comprising lithium metal” and the limitation “the passivating layer comprises boron, phosphorus, antimony, selenium, tellurium, hydrogen, and/or a halogen;” alternatively, regarding the limitation “passivating” in “a passivating layer…,” Laramie teaches a substantially identical layer disposed on a lithium metal layer (see supra, compared with e.g. instant specification, at e.g. ¶¶ 0005-09, 87-96, 109-112, 119, 166, 174, 230, and 271), establishing a prima facie case of obviousness of said limitation, see also e.g. MPEP § 2112.01,
wherein said protective layer may have said porosity of e.g. at least about 25% (e.g. supra), establishing a prima facie case of obviousness of the claimed range, see also e.g. MPEP § 2144.05(I), reading on the previously added limitation incorporating the subject matter of former claim 41, “the passivating layer has a porosity of greater than or equal to 5%;” and,
wherein said porosity may be determined, for example, by mercury porosimetry (e.g., Brunauer-Emmett-Teller porosity); plus, said protective layer may include pores on said surface adjacent to electrolyte and further includes said “porous network” that provides some exposure of said anode to electrolyte, to allow for ion conduction across said protective layer, while the bulk of said protective layer limits exposure of said anode to direct contact with said electrolyte (e.g. supra), noting that mercury porosimetry measures open pore porosity; alternatively, the pores on the protective layer reads on “open pore,” said teachings reading on “the passivating layer comprises open pores.”
The previously added product-by-process limitation “the passivating layer comprises a reaction product of lithium metal from the layer comprising lithium metal and a gas reactive therewith” does not patentably distinguish the instant product invention (preamble limitation “article”) from the art, see also e.g. MPEP § 2113; further noting, said protective layer may be composed of said material including one or more of lithium borates (e.g., lithium bis(oxalate)borate, lithium difluoro(oxalate)borate), lithium phosphates (e.g., LiPO3, Li3PO4), lithium phosphorus oxynitrides, lithium fluorides (e.g., LIF, LiBF4, LiAlF4, LiPF6, LiAsF6, LiSbF6, Li2SiF6, LiSO3F, LiN(SO2F)2, LiN(SO2CF3)2), lithium borosulfides, and lithium phosphosulfides; and, said polymeric material, such as polyamines, such as poly(ethylene imine) and polypropylene imine.
Regarding the newly added limitation “the passivating layer comprises irregular structures that anisotropically extend away from the layer comprising lithium metal,” the applicant states that the support is e.g. in Figures 23-28, 38-49, and 56 (e.g. August 29, 2025 Remarks, at 7:1), wherein Laramie teaches examples of a topmost surface of said protective layer (also said second layer) with irregular structures that extend upward, away from said first lithium layer, wherein at least some of said irregular structures anisotropically extend away from said first lithium layer, see severably e.g. Figures 3A-B, 4A-B, 5A-B, 6A-B, 7A-B, 8, 13A-D, and 14A-D; and/or, differences in shape does not patentably distinguish the instant invention from the art, see e.g. MPEP § 2144.04(B), see e.g. instant specification, at entire disclosure, noting that there does not appear to be patentable significance provided in the initial disclosure.
Regarding claim 22, Laramie teaches the electrode structure of claim 1, wherein said particles of said protective layer may be composed of said polymeric material, such as polyamines, such as poly(ethylene imine) and polypropylene imine (e.g. supra), reading on the previously amended limitation “wherein the passivating layer comprises hydrogen,” as claimed.
Regarding claim 36, Laramie teaches the electrode structure of claim 1, wherein said first layer may be said anode with said lithium metal active material, wherein said example provides said lithium anode may be 15 microns thick (e.g. supra), but does not expressly teach the limitation “an elastic modulus of the layer comprising lithium metal is less than 4.9 GPa.”
However, Laramie teaches a substantially identical lithium metal film (see supra, compared with e.g. instant specification, at e.g. ¶¶ 0095, 123, and 176-179), establishing a prima facie case of obviousness of said limitation, see also e.g. MPEP § 2112.01; alternatively, Laramie teaches said anode with said lithium metal active material, wherein said example provides said lithium anode may be 15 microns thick and said copper current collector deposited on said lithium metal active material, compared with e.g. instant specification, at e.g. ¶¶ 0095, 123, and 176-179), establishing a prima facie case of obviousness of said limitation, see also e.g. MPEP § 2112.01.
Regarding claim 39, Laramie teaches the electrode structure of claim 1, wherein said first layer may be said anode with said lithium metal active material, wherein said example provides said lithium anode may be 15 microns thick (e.g. supra), establishing a prima facie case of obviousness of the claimed range, see also e.g. MPEP § 2144.05(I), reading on the limitation “the layer comprising lithium metal has a thickness of greater than or equal to 1 micron and less than or equal to 50 microns.”
Regarding previously added claim 40 and previously added claim 44, Laramie teaches the electrode structure of claim 1, wherein said protective layer has said average thickness of between about 0.1 microns to about 0.5 microns (e.g. supra), severably establishing a prima facie case of obviousness of the claimed ranges, see also e.g. MPEP § 2144.05(I), reading on the limitations “the passivating layer has a thickness of less than or equal to 0.5 microns” (claim 40) and “the passivating layer has a thickness of greater than or equal to 0.01 micron and less than or equal to 5 microns” (claim 44).
Regarding previously added claims 42-43, Laramie teaches the electrode structure of claim 1, wherein said protective layer may have said porosity of e.g. at least about 25%, wherein said porosity may be determined, for example, by mercury porosimetry (e.g., Brunauer-Emmett-Teller porosity; and, said protective layer may include pores on said surface adjacent to electrolyte and further includes said “porous network” that provides some exposure of said anode to electrolyte, to allow for ion conduction across said protective layer, while the bulk of said protective layer limits exposure of said anode to direct contact with said electrolyte (e.g. supra), indicating said porous network extends all the way from said electrolyte to said anode; alternatively, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to extend an open pore network from said electrolyte all the way through said protective layer bulk to said anode, since doing so would provide a controlled method of allowing for ion conduction to said anode while limiting extensive exposure of said anode to said electrolyte, reading on the limitations “the open pores extend at least partially through the passivating layer” (claim 42) and “the open pores extend fully through the passivating layer” (claim 43);
Alternatively, the pores on said surface adjacent to electrolyte read on the open pores extend at least partially through the passivating layer” (claim 42), as claimed.
Regarding newly added claims 45-51, Laramie teaches the electrode structure of claim 1, wherein said examples of said topmost surface of said protective layer (also said second layer) with irregular structures that extend upwards, away from said first lithium layer, wherein at least some of said irregular structures anisotropically extend away from said first lithium layer (e.g. supra), but does not expressly teach the limitations of said newly added claims.
However, differences in size and/or shape severably do not patentably distinguish the instant invention from the art, see e.g. MPEP § 2144.04(A)/(B), see e.g. instant specification, at e.g. ¶¶ 0206, 227-208, 221-22, 225-226, 227-228, and 231-232, noting that there does not appear to be patentable significance provided in the initial disclosure.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 52-54 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: none of the timely art of record teaches or suggests the limitations of the newly added dependent claims 52-54, which include all of the limitations of newly amended independent claim 1. See further instant specification, at e.g. ¶¶ 0192-202.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed August 29, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant alleges the art does not teach the limitations of claims 1, 22, 36, 40, and 42-44.
In response, the examiner respectfully refers supra.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Brewer et al (US 2021/0050591);
Song et al (US 2020/0381688);
Gopalakrishnan Nair et al (US 2019/0140267);
Liao et al (US 2018/0358651);
Mikhaylik et al (US 2019/0229323);
Laramie et al (US 2016/0344067);
Fanous et al (US 2016/0315314);
Kovalev et al (US 2016/0118651);
Liao et al (US 2016/0072132);
Yang et al (US 2016/0020462);
Mikhaylik et al (US 2015/0044517); and,
Visco et al (US 2007/0172739).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YOSHITOSHI TAKEUCHI whose telephone number is (571)270-5828. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8-4.
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.
/YOSHITOSHI TAKEUCHI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723