DETAILED ACTION
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 amendments filed May 26, 2026 have been entered. Claims 1-10 have been amended; support for the amendments can be found at least in paragraphs [0004]-[0006] of the Instant Specification. Claims 1-10 remain pending with claims 7-10 being withdrawn. Claims 1-6 have been examined on their merits in this office action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed May 26, 2026 regarding the claim limitation of “a lithium secondary battery” have been fully considered but are considered moot in view of the new grounds of rejection below in view of Applicant’s amendments to the independent claim 1.
Applicant argues that the claimed numerical limitations produce unexpected results because weight ratios within the claimed range achieved significantly improved electrodeposition densities as compared to weight ratios outside of the claimed range, and the prior art of Johnson includes configurations that fall outside the scope of the present invention. Applicant argues the effects are more superior when the alloy weight ratio of lithium and metal is closer to 1:1 and the metal is Si or Sn as claimed in dependent claims 3 and 6.
Regarding Applicant’s unexpected results argument, the provided Examples in the Instant Specification are not commensurate in scope with the claims as the alloy ratio of the Examples are 1:1, 2:1, 3:1, which does not show unexpected results occurring over the entire claimed range of 1:4 to 4:1.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 1-3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang et al. (Published U.S. Patent Application US 2017/0346137 A1), hereinafter referred to as Chang, in view of Li et al. (Published U.S. Patent Application US 20210091408 A1 with a foreign priority date of 09/24/2019), hereinafter referred to as Li.
Regarding claim 1, Chang teaches a battery (“a lithium secondary battery”) (see e.g., Abstract). Chang teaches the battery comprises
a positive electrode (“a positive electrode”) and a negative electrode including a lithium metal alloy (“a negative electrode”) (see e.g., paragraph [0065]);
a separator is disposed between the positive electrode and the lithium negative electrode (“a separator”) (see e.g., paragraph [0117]);
an electrolyte comprised on a glyme solvent and a lithium salt (“a lithium non-aqueous electrolyte”) (see e.g., paragraph [0078])
the negative electrode comprises a lithium alloy substrate (“a lithium-metal alloy substrate”) (see e.g., paragraph [0101]) and a lithium deposition layer (“a lithium plate layer”) formed on a surface of the lithium alloy substrate after cycles of charging and discharging (“wherein the negative electrode comprises a lithium-metal alloy substrate, and a lithium plate layer on the lithium-metal alloy substrate”) (see e.g., paragraph [0104]);
the electrolyte is injected into the battery case in which the positive electrode, negative electrode, and separator are wound (see e.g., paragraph [0153]); therefore, the deposition of the lithium deposition layer on an upper surface of the lithium negative electrode will face the electrolyte as it surrounds both surfaces of the negative electrode (“wherein the lithium plate layer is facing the lithium non-aqueous electrolyte”) (see e.g., Figure 1);
the lithium alloy includes lithium and a metal and/or metalloid alloyable with lithium such as at least one selected from Si, Sn, Al, Ge, Pb, Bi, Sb, a Si—Z alloy (wherein Z may be an alkaline metal, an alkaline earth metal, a Group 13 element, a Group 14 element, a transition metal, and a rare earth element, except for Si), or a Sn—X alloy (wherein X may comprise at least one selected from an alkaline metal, an alkaline earth metal, a Group 13 element, a Group 14 element, a transition metal, and a rare earth element, except for Sn) (““wherein the lithium-metal alloy substrate comprises an alloy of lithium and at least one metal selected from the group consisting Al, Si, Sn”) (see e.g., paragraph [0102]);
the lithium deposition layer on an upper surface of the lithium negative electrode may have a lithium deposition density of about 0.2 grams per milliliter (g/cc) to about 0.53 g/cc (“wherein the lithium plate layer on the lithium-metal alloy substrate has an electrodeposition density of 0.15 g/cm3 to 0.53 g/cm3”) (see e.g., paragraph [0095]).
Chang does not explicitly teach wherein an alloy ratio of the lithium to the metal is in a range of 4:1 to 1:4 on a weight basis.
However, Li teaches a lithium metal secondary battery (see e.g., paragraph [0023]). Li teaches the negative electrode of the lithium secondary battery comprises a negative electrode current collector and a Li-M alloy layer containing an alloy of lithium and a metal M (see e.g., paragraph [0022]). Li teaches examples of the metal M capable of alloyed with Li includes at least one kind of metal selected from the group consisting of Mg, Au, Al, and Sn (see e.g., paragraph [0039]). Li teaches the proportion of the lithium element in the Li-M alloy may be 30.0 atomic % or higher and 99.8% atomic % or lower (see e.g., paragraph [0044]). The weight percentage of Li in the alloy ranges from 11.1% to 99.9% (alloy with Mg), 1.5% to 99.4% (alloy with Au), 10% to 99.9% (alloy with Al), and 2.4% to 99.7% (alloy with Sn); therefore, Li teaches a range of an alloy ratio of lithium to the metal, wherein the metal is Sn, is 2.4:97.6 to 99.7:0.3, meeting the claim limitation of “wherein an alloy ratio of the lithium to the metal is in a range of 4:1 to 1:4 on a weight basis.” Li teaches the proportion of the lithium element in the Li-M alloy layer allows for Li ions to move easily and improve the charge-discharge efficiency of the battery (see e.g., paragraph [0136]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill would modify the lithium metal alloy that includes lithium and a metal and/or metalloid alloyable with lithium of Chang to have the lithium element in the Li-M alloy may be 30.0 atomic % or higher and 99.8% atomic % or lower, as taught by Li, in order to allow for Li ions to move easily and improve the charge-discharge efficiency of the battery (see e.g., paragraph [0136]).
It has been held in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” and because alloy ratio of 1.5:98.5 to 99.9:0.1overlaps with the recited range, a “prima facie” case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05(l)).
Regarding claim 2, Chang, as modified by Li, teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 1, as previously described.
Chang teaches the lithium deposition layer is formed on a surface of the lithium alloy substrate after cycles of charging and discharging (“wherein the lithium plate layer is formed by charging the battery”) (see e.g., paragraph [0104]).
Regarding claim 3, Chang, as modified by Li, teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 1, as previously described.
Chang teaches the lithium alloy includes lithium and a metal and/or metalloid alloyable with lithium such as at least one selected from Si, Sn, Al, Ge, Pb, Bi, Sb, a Si—Z alloy (wherein Z may be an alkaline metal, an alkaline earth metal, a Group 13 element, a Group 14 element, a transition metal, and a rare earth element, except for Si), or a Sn—X alloy (wherein X may comprise at least one selected from an alkaline metal, an alkaline earth metal, a Group 13 element, a Group 14 element, a transition metal, and a rare earth element, except for Sn) (““wherein the lithium-metal alloy substrate comprises an alloy of lithium and at least one metal selected from the group consisting Si, Ge, Sn, Sb, Mg, Bi, As, Pb, P, and Zn”) (see e.g., paragraph [0102]).
Regarding claim 6, Chang, as modified by Li, teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 1, as previously described.
Chang does not explicitly teach wherein an alloy ratio of the lithium to the metal is in a range of 2:1 to 1:2 on a weight basis.
Li teaches the proportion of the lithium element in the Li-M alloy may be 30.0 atomic % or higher and 99.8% atomic % or lower (see e.g., paragraph [0044]). The weight percentage of Li in the alloy ranges from 11.1% to 99.9% (alloy with Mg), 1.5% to 99.4% (alloy with Au), 10% to 99.9% (alloy with Al), and 2.4% to 99.7% (alloy with Sn); therefore, Li teaches a range of an alloy ratio of lithium to the metal of 1.5:98.5 to 99.9:0.1, meeting the claim limitation of “wherein an alloy ratio of the lithium to the metal is in a range of 2:1 to 1:2 on a weight basis.” Li teaches the proportion of the lithium element in the Li-M alloy layer allows for Li ions to move easily and improve the charge-discharge efficiency of the battery (see e.g., paragraph [0136]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill would modify the lithium metal alloy that includes lithium and a metal and/or metalloid alloyable with lithium of Chang to have the lithium element in the Li-M alloy may be 30.0 atomic % or higher and 99.8% atomic % or lower, as taught by Li, in order to allow for Li ions to move easily and improve the charge-discharge efficiency of the battery (see e.g., paragraph [0136]).
It has been held in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” and because alloy ratio of 1.5:98.5 to 99.9:0.1overlaps with the recited range, a “prima facie” case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05(l)).
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang et al. (Published U.S. Patent Application US 2017/0346137 A1) in view of Li et al. (Published U.S. Patent Application US 20210091408 A1), and further in view of Cheng et al. (WO 2020224382 A1, citations from corresponding Published Patent Application US 20220069355 A1), hereinafter referred to as Cheng.
Regarding claim 4, Chang, as modified by Li, teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 1, as previously described.
Chang, as modified by Li, does not explicitly teach wherein the lithium-metal alloy substrate has a thickness of 3 µm to 100 µm.
However, Cheng teaches a negative electrode including a lithium-aluminum alloy layer (see e.g., Abstract). Cheng teaches the thickness of the lithium-aluminum alloy layer is 10 μm to 40 μm (see e.g., paragraph [0014]) to ensure that the lithium-aluminum alloy layer has a strong anti-pulverization ability, but also maintain a relatively high energy density of the battery cell as a whole (see e.g., paragraph [0072]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill would modify the lithium metal alloy that includes lithium and a metal and/or metalloid alloyable with lithium of Chang, as modified by Li, to have a thickness of the lithium-aluminum alloy layer is 10 μm to 40 μm, as taught by Cheng, in order to ensure that the lithium-aluminum alloy layer has a strong anti-pulverization ability, but also maintain a relatively high energy density of the battery cell as a whole (see e.g., paragraph [0072]).
It has been held in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” and because the thickness of the metal lithium negative electrode is 10 μm to 40 μm overlaps with the recited range, a “prima facie” case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05(l)).
Regarding claim 5, Chang, as modified by Li and Cheng, teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 4, as previously described.
As previously described in claim 4, the lithium metal alloy as taught by Chang, as modified by Li and Cheng, has a thickness of the lithium-aluminum alloy layer is 10 μm to 40 μm (see e.g., paragraph [0014]) to ensure that the lithium-aluminum alloy layer has a strong anti-pulverization ability, but also maintain a relatively high energy density of the battery cell as a whole (see e.g., paragraph [0072]).
It has been held in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” and because the thickness of the metal lithium negative electrode is 10 μm to 40 μm overlaps with the recited range, a “prima facie” case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05(l)).
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 Katherine N Higgins whose telephone number is (703)756-1196. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays - Thursdays 7:30-4:30 EST, Fridays 7:30 - 11:30 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, Matthew T Martin can be reached at (571) 270-7871. 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.
/KATHERINE N HIGGINS/Examiner, Art Unit 1728
/MATTHEW T MARTIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Prosecution Insights