DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s response, filed 05/21/2025, has been entered.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 recites “An anode… comprising: …an interphase layer coated on the lithium metal layer”. While the specification also states an anode including an interphase layer [0002], the interphase layer is only ever formed on the separator [0017] [0023] [0092] [0096] [0099] and placed adjacent to the anode [0017]. In accordance with the specification, an anode comprising an interphase layer coated on the lithium metal layer is interpreted to include layers within a separator coated on the lithium metal layer.
Claim 8 recites “an anode having…an interphase layer provided on the lithium metal layer” and is interpreted in the same manner as listed above
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, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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, 5-8, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (US-20210028484-A1) in view of Cho (KR20190141392A) (see translation mailed 12/08/2025).
Regarding claim 1,
Park teaches an anode (Fig. 2, 21/23/31; [0033]; [0038], see claim interpretation section above) for a lithium [0038] rechargeable [0038] battery [0038], the anode 21/23/31 comprising:
a lithium metal layer (Fig. 2, 23; [0038]);
and an interphase layer (Fig. 2, 31; [0033]) coated on (see Fig. 2, wherein 31 is on 23 and thus is coated on; the examiner notes the term “coated on” is a product-by-process limitation, and the cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus or product) the lithium metal layer 23.
but fails to teach wherein the interphase layer includes phosphorus-doped graphitic carbon nitride, and wherein the interphase layer is 10 nm to 5 μm thick.
However, Park teaches the interphase layer is has a thickness of 0.1 μm to 20 μm [0055]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have wherein the interphase layer is 10 nm to 5 μm because Park teaches an overlapping range [0055]. Selecting the overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP § 2144.05.I. Park still fails to teach wherein the interphase layer includes phosphorus-doped graphitic carbon nitride.
Cho teaches wherein an interphase layer ([0001], “composition for coating a separator”; [0067], “Pg-CN coated separator”; wherein the coating of Cho is an interphase layer because it is a layer between different phases of an electrochemical cell) includes phosphorus-doped graphitic carbon nitride ([0001], phosphorous-doped graphitic carbon nitride). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to substitute the separator of Park (Fig. 2, solid electrolyte/separators 31 and 32, [0115], which includes the interphase layer 31) with the separator of Cho ([0067], “Pg-CN coated separator”, which includes the Pg-CN interphase layer), wherein the “Pg-CN” coating [0067] replaces 33 of Park, such that it is facing Li layer 23 of Park, as Cho teaches the separator coating composition acts as a second current collector improving active material reuse ([0029]-[0030]), which is property beneficial to both anode and cathode active materials. The examiner notes that functioning as a second current collector further supports how separator-attached layers may be interpreted as part of the anode (see claim interpretation section above).
Regarding claim 5,
Park in view of Cho teaches the anode of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), but fails to teach wherein the phosphorus-doped graphitic carbon has a concentration of phosphorus (P) between 1 at. % to 2 at. %. Cho teaches wherein the graphitic carbon has a concentration of phosphorus (P) between 1 to 50 at% (Cho [0038], 1 to 50 at%). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have wherein a concentration of phosphorus (P) between 1 at. % to 2 at. % because Cho discloses an overlapping range [0038]. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP § 2144.05.I.
Regarding claim 6,
Park in view of Cho teaches the anode of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the interphase layer comprises polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) (Cho [0029], “the composition for coating…may further contain… a binder”, [0033], “PVDF”).
Regarding claim 7,
Park in view of Cho teaches the anode of claim 6 (see rejection of claim 6 above), wherein a mass ratio of the phosphorus-doped graphitic carbon nitride and the at least one binder is 9:1 to 5:5 (Cho; 30 wt% carbon mixture and 10 wt% binder per Cho [0064], wherein a ratio of 3 to 1 (30%:10% = 3:1) falls within, and thus anticipates, the claimed range of 9:1 to 5:5).
Regarding claim 8,
Park teaches a lithium rechargeable battery comprising: a cathode (Fig. 2, 11/13; [0111]); an anode (Fig. 2, 21/23/31; [0033]; [0038], see claim interpretation above) having a lithium metal layer (Fig. 2, , 23; [0038]); a separator (Fig. 2, solid electrolyte/separator 33; [0115]) disposed between (see Fig. 2) the cathode 11/13, and the anode 21/23/31 comprising an interphase layer (Fig. 2, 31; [0033]; [0052], “protective layer”, wherein the protective layer is an interphase layer because it is between different phases of an electrochemical cell as seen in Fig. 2); and an electrolyte (Fig. 2, electrolyte inside 33; see [0062]) with which the separator is impregnated [0062], wherein the interphase layer 31 is disposed between the separator 33, wherein the cathode 11/13 comprises a cathode active material (Fig. 2, 13; [0076-0077], “LiMn2O4”), a binder ([0077], “binder”), and a conductive agent ([0077], “conductor”), wherein the cathode active material 13 is sulfur free ([0076], “lithium transition metal oxide…LiMn2O4”, wherein LiMn2O4does not contain sulfur), but fails to teach wherein the interphase layer is 10 nm to 5pm thick and comprises phosphorus-doped graphitic carbon nitride.
However, Park teaches the interphase layer is has a thickness of 0.1 μm to 20 μm [0055]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have wherein the interphase layer is 10 nm to 5 μm because Park teaches an overlapping range [0055]. Selecting the overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP § 2144.05.I. Park still fails to teach wherein the interphase layer comprises phosphorus-doped graphitic carbon nitride.
Cho teaches wherein an interphase layer ([0001], “composition for coating a separator”; [0067], “Pg-CN coated separator”; wherein the coating of Cho is an interphase layer because it is a layer between different phases of an electrochemical cell) comprises phosphorus-doped graphitic carbon nitride ([0001], phosphorous-doped graphitic carbon nitride). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to substitute the separator of Park (Fig. 2, solid electrolyte/separators 31 and 32, [0115], which includes the interphase layer 31) with the separator of Cho ([0067], “Pg-CN coated separator”, which includes the Pg-CN interphase layer), wherein the “Pg-CN” coating [0067] replaces 33 of Park, such that it is facing Li layer 23 of Park, as Cho teaches the coating composition acts as a second current collector improving active material reuse ([0029]-[0030]), which is property beneficial to both anode and cathode active materials. The examiner notes that functioning as a second current collector further supports how separator-attached layers may be interpreted as part of the anode (see claim interpretation section above).
Regarding claim 18,
Park in view of Cho teaches the lithium rechargeable battery of claim 8 (see rejection of claim 8 above), wherein the cathode active material (Fig. 2, 13; [0076-0077], “LiMn2O4”) includes lithium manganese oxide (Fig. 2, 13; [0076-0077], “LiMn2O4”).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (US-20210028484-A1) in view of Cho (KR20190141392A) (see translation mailed 12/08/2025) and Fina (“Structural investigation of graphitic carbon nitride via XRD and Neutron Diffraction”) (refer to enclosed translations for citations).
Regarding claim 3,
Park in view of Cho teaches the anode of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), but fails to disclose wherein the phosphorus-doped graphitic carbon nitride has a peak intensity ratio I(002)/I(100). However, phosphorus-doped graphitic carbon nitride is known in the art to have a peak intensity ratio I(002)/I(100) of 6 (see Fina, “XRD analysis” section, wherein the reciprocal of the I(100)/I(002) value .18 is approximately 6 which is substantially close to the claimed range of 7 to 8), wherein the peak intensity ratio is a ratio of a peak for a crystal plane (002) to a peak for a crystal plane (100) obtained in an X-ray diffraction (XRD) spectrum (see Fina, “XRD analysis” section).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention that the phosphorus-doped graphitic carbon nitride of Cho has a peak intensity ratio I(002)/I(100) of 7 to 8. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (US-20210028484-A1) in view of Cho (KR20190141392A) (see translation mailed 12/08/2025) and Ma (Phosphorus-Doped Graphitic Carbon Nitrides Grown In Situ on Carbon-Fiber Paper: Flexible and Reversible Oxygen Electrodes) (refer to enclosed translations for citations).
Regarding claim 4,
Park in view of Cho teaches the anode of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), but fails to teach wherein the phosphorus-doped graphitic carbon nitride exhibits P=N peak and P-N peak in Pp X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS). However, the bonding of the phosphorus-doped graphitic carbon nitrides has been shown in Ma (see discussion section, “(P-N bonds confirmed by XPS and FT-IR… π bonds” wherein π bonds implies the presence of P=N bonds).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention that the phosphorus-doped graphitic carbon nitride of Cho would exhibit P=N peak and P-N peak in Pp X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) since these bonds are known to be associated with the material, as taught by Ma.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL WYROUGH whose telephone number is (571)272-4806. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 10am-5pm.
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 can be reached on (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 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/PAUL CHRISTIAN ST WYROUGH/Examiner, Art Unit 1728
/TIFFANY LEGETTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1723