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 .
LITHIUM METAL ANODE ASSEMBLIES AND AN APPARATUS AND METHOD OF MAKING SAME
Examiner: Adam Arciero S.N. 17/604,009 Art Unit: 1727 May 2, 2026
DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 December 16, 2025 has been entered. Claims 65 and 78 and 82-100 are currently pending. Claims 78, 82-585, 87 and 90-92 have been amended. Claims 65 and 93-100 remain withdrawn from consideration.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The claim rejections under 35 USC 103(a) as being unpatentable over Olsen and Li on claims 78 and 82-92 are withdrawn because Applicant has amended the independent claim.
Claim(s) 78 and 82-92 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olsen (US 5,518,839; as found in IDS dated 01/11/2022) in view of Li et al. (US 2006/0019168 A1).
As to Claims 78 and 87, it is noted that claims 79-81 are product-by-process claims. The courts have held that "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." See MPEP 2113, I.
Olsen discloses a lithium metal anode, comprising: an aluminum current collector; a protective layer comprising nickel with a thickness of 0.5-3 microns (reads on claimed ionic diffusion barrier) on said current collector; and a lithium metal layer with a thickness of 50 microns provided on said protective layer (Abstract and col. 4, lines 58-62; col. 6, lines 48-51; col. 13, lines 8-15; col. 14, lines 6-10). Olsen discloses wherein the battery cell layers are laminated together with pressure, which reads on the claimed bonding of the lithium metal layer with the protective layer (col. 14, lines 15-19). It is the position of the Office that the lithium metal anode and the nickel barrier of Olsen is intrinsically configured to perform the claimed functions given that the structure and materials used in the prior art and the present invention are the same, see MPEP 2112. Olsen does not specifically disclose the amended claimed thickness for the protective layer.
However, Li teaches of a battery, having an anode comprising: an aluminum foil current collector 10; a protective layer 24 comprising an aluminum alloy comprising a transition metal and having a thickness of 0.5 nm to 1 micron; and an anode layer 12 formed on said protective layer (Fig. 1, paragraphs [0010, 0017, 0027, and 0044]). Li further teaches wherein the layers can be applied with a physical vapor deposition method (paragraph [0058 and 0067]). At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the anode of Olsen to comprise the claimed thickness because Li teaches that a battery with improved performance can be provided (paragraph [0053]).
As to Claim 86, Olsen is silent to the presence of a lithium metal foil, and discloses wherein the anode is a lithium metal, therefore the lithium metal is free of lithium foil (col. 4, lines 58-62).
As to Claims 88 and 91, Olsen discloses a lithium-metal battery, comprising: the anode of claim 78 as discussed above; a cathode comprising a current collector and cathode material; and an electrolyte disposed between said anode and said cathode (Abstract).
As to Claim 89, Olsen discloses wherein the current collector is a layer of aluminum foil (reads on continuous aluminum foil) with a thickness of 10-50 microns (Abstract and col. 6, lines 48-55).
As to Claim 90, the aluminum foil layer of Olsen intrinsically provides some degree of physical support to the first protective layer given that the materials and structure of the prior art and the claims are the same, see MPEP 2112.
As to Claim 92, it is noted that claim 92 is a product-by-process claims. The courts have held that "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." See MPEP 2113, I. Olsen discloses wherein the protective layer is deposited onto the aluminum foil layer, which reads on the claimed bonding in the absence of a separate bonding material (col. 6, lines 48-55).
As to Claims 82-84, Olsen discloses an aluminum foil current collector and a nickel protective layer with a thickness of 0.5-3 microns is provided on said current collector; and a lithium metal layer with a thickness of 50 microns provided on said protective layer (Abstract and col. 6, lines 48-51; col. 13, lines 8-15; col. 14, lines 6-10). Olsen does not specifically disclose wherein the protective layer is provided on both or just one surface of the current collector. However, the courts have held that a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options (applying the metal layer to one; both sides; or all sides of the current collector) within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to duplicate the metal layer on both sides of the current collector because Olsen teaches that corrosion between the anode and the current collector can be inhibited (Abstract).
As to Claim 85, Olsen discloses a lithium metal layer with a thickness of 50 microns provided on said protective layer (Abstract and col. 6, lines 48-51; col. 13, lines 8-15; col. 14, lines 6-10). Olsen does not specifically disclose wherein the lithium metal layer is provided on both or just one surface of the current collector. However, the courts have held that a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options (applying the lithium metal layer to one or both sides of the current collector) within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to duplicate the metal layer on both sides of the current collector because Olsen teaches that corrosion between the anode and the current collector can be inhibited (Abstract).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 16, 2025, with respect to the rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s principle arguments are:
a) Olsen teaches away from the claimed thickness of the barrier layer because one of ordinary skill in the art would know that the method of Olsen would only partially cover the substrate in a discontinuous and porous manner a (claim 78).
b) Olsen provides the nickel layer to prevent corrosion and not for the reasons the present invention has discovered (claim 78).
c) Li teaches of a molten salt battery than cannot be used to modify the battery of Olsen and Li does not teach an ionic diffusion barrier (claim 78).
In response to Applicant’s arguments, please consider the following comments:
Olsen teaches of “about 0.5 microns” which is very close to the claimed upper limit. The courts have held that similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985), see MPEP 2144.05, I. Olsen does not explicitly teach away from the claimed thickness. Applicant has not provided evidence to support the statement of the layer of Olsen being discontinuous and porous. In addition, the claims do not structurally differentiate the layer of the claimed invention from the combination of the prior arts. Furthermore, Li teaches of using PVD to apply a thin metal layer between the aluminum current collector and a lithium metal anode, as discussed in the rejection above. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
b) In response to applicant's argument that Olsen has a different reason for using a protective nickel layer, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
c) First, Olsen and the courts render the upper limit of the claimed range as obvious as discussed above. In addition, in response to applicant's argument that Li is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, the teachings relied upon in Li are to teach that a smaller thickness of a protection layer can be formed, such as by using PVD, to prevent corrosion of an aluminum current collector and is therefore analogous art to a person having ordinary skill in the art. Furthermore, modified Olsen teaches the same claimed structure and therefore intrinsically reads on an “ionic diffusion barrier”.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM ARCIERO whose telephone number is (571)270-5116. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5 ET.
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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at (571)272-1330. 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.
/ADAM A ARCIERO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1727
Prosecution Insights