DETAILED ACTION
Application 17/281159, “METHODS OF MAKING AND USING AN ELECTROCHEMICAL CELL COMPRISING AN INTERLAYER”, is the national stage entry of a PCT application filed on 10/1/19 and claims priority from a provisional application filed on 10/2/18.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Office Action on the merits is in response to communication filed on 8/27/25.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 8/27/25 have been fully considered. The rejections based on the combination of Visco (US 2017/0229731) and Horie (US 2021/0376331) have been withdrawn because Visco does not suggest an embodiment wherein the interlayer is adjacent but not bonded to the NECC, a configuration which facilitates allows plating of Li between the interlayer and the separator, as argued by applicant.
A new ground(s) of rejection necessitated by amendment is presented below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1, 4, 20-21, 23-24, 40, 42 and 47-48 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Roumi (US 2013/0224632).
Regarding claim 1, 47 and 48, Roumi teaches a electrochemical stack (e.g. Figure 47) comprising the following components in the stated order:
a negative electrode current collector [NECC] (“anode current collector”, Fig. 47);
a Li metal negative electrode (“Li-metal”, Fig. 47);
a metal interlayer (“conductive layer… Ni”, Fig. 47) and
a solid-state electrolyte separator (“separator… solid electrolyte”, Fig. 47).
Alternatively, consider Figures 10M and 10P which suggest the claimed structure with “thin electronic coating” and “ionic/electronic conductive layer” of the respective figures being readable on the interlayer. Current collectors are omitted from these schematic diagrams, but are obvious to include, as in Fig. 47, in order to facilitate electron transfer from the electrodes to an external load.
Regarding the 8/27/25 amendment, Roumi further teaches wherein the interlayer is laminated to the solid-state separator (Fig. 47; paragraph [0071] where the “electronically and ionically conductive layer” corresponds to an interlayer).
The Figure 47 embodiment is a lithium battery which includes a lithium metal layer between the interlayer and a NECC [negative electrode current collector], but is silent as to the technique used to form the Figure 47 structure and the structure is not expressly disclosed to include the interlayer adjacent to but not bonded to the NECC.
However, it was known in the art that lithium metal batteries may be constructed by adding a lithium metal layer during the construction, or may be constructed by assembling the battery in a state without a lithium metal layer, then forming the lithium metal layer on a negative electrode current collector in a first charging step. For example, see Roumi at paragraph which describes a battery formed using LiCoO2 cathode and depositing a lithium metal layer on a copper wire current collector during a first charging step to form the lithium metal anode (paragraph [0316]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to form the electrochemical stack with the interlayer adjacent, but not bonded to the NECC, so that lithium metal layer could be formed during an initial charge, such as in the paragraph [0316] embodiment. Such an embodiment is found to be obvious at least because it merely combines teachings of Roumi that are separately disclosed but combinable together in a single embodiment to yield predictable results.
It is noted that Roumi teaches the a conductive layer disposed on a separator my facilitate more uniform lithium deposition during charging (paragraph [0312]), suggesting that the interlayer is compatible and/or useful for embodiments which form lithium layer during charging.
Regarding claim 4, Roumi remains as applied to claim 1. Roumi further teaches wherein the electrolyte separator may be a thin film or pellet separator (paragraph [0077]; alternatively, see “thin film battery” at paragraph [0060]).
Regarding claim 20, Roumi remains as applied to claim 1. Roumi further teaches wherein the interlayer further comprises a constituent such as Au (Fig. 47; paragraph [0066]).
Regarding claim 21, Roumi remains as applied to claim 1. Roumi further teaches wherein the thickness of the interlayer may be 50 nm to 5 μm (paragraph [0070]). The requirement that the interlayer thickness is one of the values recited in claim is found to be obvious over the cited art at least because considered together, the limitations of claim 21 imply a range which overlaps the claimed range at least at about 3 to 5 μm.
Regarding claim 23, Roumi remains as applied to claim 1. The Fig. 47 embodiment is silent as to the material of the anode current collector.
However, Roumi does teach a different embodiment using a lithium metal electrode and a copper current collector wire (paragraph [0316]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to utilize copper for the material of the current collector since Roumi generally teaches this feature, though in a separate embodiment from the Figure 7 embodiment.
Regarding claim 24, Roumi remains as applied to claim 1. Roumi further teaches wherein the electrolyte separator is a thin film having a total thickness within the range of 0.01 to 200 μm (paragraph [0077]). The claimed range of 0.1 to 200 μm is found to be obvious for substantially overlapping the Roumi range.
Regarding claim 40, Roumi remains as applied to claim 1. Roumi further teaches wherein the device is formed by various technique with use of pressure being only one of a plurality of options (paragraph [0030, 0103]), and the normal operation of an electrochemical stack may be operation without additional pressure.
The claimed range of “lower than 300 psi” includes 0 psi, or at least positive values very close to 0 psi. Such values are implicitly taught by or at least obvious over the disclosure of Sun which does not appear to teach a pressurized stack, with a non-pressurized stack being substantially the same as a stack pressurized at or close to 0 psi.
Regarding claim 42, Roumi remains as applied to claim 40. Roumi does not expressly teach wherein the electrochemical stack has an ASR at the surface of the separator of between 0.01 and 10 and [Symbol font/0x57]/cm2 at 10 ⁰C.
However, Roumi does teach that “the separator system provides a net ionic resistance from the positive electrode to the negative electrode selected over the range of 0.5 [Symbol font/0x57]/cm2 to 25 [Symbol font/0x57]/cm2, and preferably for some applications less than 5 [Symbol font/0x57]/cm2”, paragraph [0050].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to configure the electrochemical stack of Roumi to have an ASR at the surface of the separator of between 0.01 and 10 and [Symbol font/0x57]/cm2 at 10 ⁰C since the surface ASR would contribute to the overall resistance which should be made similarly small in view of the range suggested by Roumi and the resistance values of the separator system is a result-effective variable that influences the electrochemical efficiency of the stack.
Claims 15-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over the combination of Roumi (US 2013/0224632) and Wachsman (US 2021/0083320).
Regarding claim 15-18, Roumi remains as applied to claim 1. Roumi does not appear to teach wherein the electrolyte separator comprises lithium-stuffed garnet such as Li7La3Zr2O12 [LLZ].
In the battery art, Wachsman teaches a separator comprising Li7La3Zr2O12 (paragraph [0053]), which is configured to provide high ionic conductivity associated with LLZ and to block dendrite propagation (paragraph [0115]). Wachsman further teaches that LLZ type garnet materials have various advantages such as safety high conductivity (paragraph [0004]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to utilize a lithium-stuffed garnet such as Li7La3Zr2O12 since this material is desirable for use as an electrolyte separator material due to its high ionic conductivity and other desirable properties taught by Wachsman.
Claims 20 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over the combination of Roumi (US 2013/0224632) and Kajitani (US 2014/0079984) or Ryu (US 2017/0214093).
Regarding claim 20 and 22, the cited art remains as applied to claim 1. The cited art teaches the use of structure comprising a copper foil with interlayer comprising nickel, but does not explicitly teach wherein the interlayer comprises Ni and one of the named metals such as Au or decreases the contact angle of liquid lithium metal as claimed.
In the battery art, Katajini teaches that corrosion can be avoided by coating a copper current collector with nickel or with nickel and gold (paragraph [0077]).
In the battery art, Ryu teaches that a positive or negative current collector may be coated on the surface thereof with gold or silver for the benefit of increasing electron conductivity and reducing interfacial resistance (paragraphs [0069-0071]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further include Au in the interlayer for the benefit of protecting from corrosion, increasing conductivity and/or reducing interfacial resistance as taught by Katajini or Ryu.
Moreover, Applicant’s Figure 6 suggests that at least evaporated Au comprising interlayers are functional to reduce the contact angle; therefore, absent any evidence to the contrary, the provision of Au implicitly suggests an interlayer material which would be functional to decrease the contact area of liquid lithium.
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 JEREMIAH R SMITH whose telephone number is (571)270-7005. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri: 9 AM-5 PM (EST).
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, Milton Cano can be reached on 313-446-4937. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JEREMIAH R SMITH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights