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 .
Claim Status
This office action is in response to amendments/arguments filed 01/01/2026. Claim(s) 15 are currently amended, and claim(s) 23 are new. The amendments are supported by the specification and the original claims, and no new matter has been entered. Claim(s) 1-14, 16-18, and 20 are canceled. Claim(s) 19 and 21-22 stand as originally or as previously presented. Claims 15, 19, and 21-23 are examined in this office action.
Claim Rejections
The amendments to the instant claim 15 has overcome the 35 USC 103 rejection of Roumi in view of Ose laid out in the prior office action, which is withdrawn, but necessitated a new rejection of Roumi in view of Ose and Cao, as further set forth below, as well as a 35 USC 112 rejection, as below set forth.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 23 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. This is because claim 23 depends from claim 15 includes only the limitation that during the charging, a current density is 0.01-7mA/cm2, a limitation that already appears in amended claim 15. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claim(s) 15, 19, and 21-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roumi (US 20150171398 A1) in view of Ose (US 20150134172 A1), and further in view of Cao (US 20190245178 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Roumi discloses a lithium metal secondary battery (0063 discloses a secondary lithium battery) comprising:
an electrode assembly comprising a negative electrode, a positive electrode, and a separator between the two [0085];
a non-aqueous electrolyte [0069] with which the electrode assembly is impregnated ([0069] discloses a non-aqueous electrolyte, [0037] discloses an electrolyte located between the positive and negative electrode, and claim 31 discloses that the electronically conducting layer (separator) of the electrode assembly may have electrolyte provided in the pores thereof, reading on the electrode assembly being impregnated); and
wherein the negative electrode comprises a negative electrode current collector [0065] and a lithium metal layer disposed on at least one surface of the negative electrode current collector ([0065], [0298] discloses that the active material used in the negative electrode that comes into contact with the negative collector may be lithium metal).
Roumi does not disclose the claimed limitations regarding pressure during charge, however Ose discloses these imitations, as Ose discloses that;
a charge/discharge condition of the lithium metal secondary battery is controlled in such a manner that the lithium metal secondary battery is charged under a pressurized state with a constant pressure of 3-300 psi and discharged under a pressurized state with a constant pressure lower than the constant pressure during charging ([0055] discloses that the battery is put under pressure while charging, and that the pressure during charging may be 1-40 MPa or more greater than it is put under while discharging. [0054] discloses that the pressure during discharging may range from for example 0.01 MPa to preferably 10 MPa. Taking into account that the pressure during charging may range from 1-40 MPa greater than the pressure during discharge, the range of possible pressures during charging would range from 1.01 MPa, or approximately 146.5 psi, to greater than 300 psi, overlapping with the claimed pressure of 3-300 psi. As a result, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to routinely select a pressure during charging from amongst the overlapping portions of the disclosed range because selection of overlapping portions of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05)).
Ose discloses that when pressurized as such, the charging capacity of the battery can be increased while also reducing the negative effects of confining pressure on the battery [0028]. As a result, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the pressures during charge and discharge disclosed by Ose in the battery of Roumi. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do this in order to increase charging capacity while minimizing the effects of confining pressure on the battery.
Ose also discloses that the first constant pressure applied during the charging is 50-300 psi (as discussed above, Ose discloses a pressure ranging from 146.5 psi to greater than 300 psi, overlapping the claimed range. Selection of overlapping portions of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05)), and that the second constant pressure applied during the discharging is 1-50 psi (as discussed above, Ose discloses that the pressure applied during discharge may range from 0.01 MPa (less than 1 Psi) to 10 or more (greater than 50 psi) [0054], overlapping the claimed range. Selection of overlapping portions of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05)).
Roumi also does not disclose a battery casing, however Ose discloses a battery casing in which the electrode assembly and the non-aqueous electrolyte are contained ([0105] discloses a battery casing, including a laminate film or other known types of battery casings). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have known that battery casings are commonly used in the art and would have known that despite Roumi not explicitly disclosing a battery case, battery cases known in the art could be utilized. Particularly after implementing the charge/discharge pressures disclosed by Ose, one would have been motivated to use the battery case disclosed by Ose in order to obtain a case compatible with the invention.
Roumi in view of Ose does not disclose the current density during charge, however, Cao discloses several criteria for separators in order to prevent lithium dendrite formation. For example, Cao discloses that for separators of a specific pore size, dendrite formation can be prevented when the separator is used in an electrochemical cell which is cycled at 2 mA/cm2 or greater, at a pressure of 300 psi or lower, or at a temperature of 50°C or lower ([0250]-[0251]). As a result, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to recreate the separator conditions of Cao according to the disclosed conditions in order to achieve the disclosed benefit of preventing dendrite formation, and doing so would result in a secondary battery wherein a current density during charge is 2 mA/cm2 or greater according to a specific embodiment [0250]-[0251], or according to other embodiments is 2 mA/cm2 (see claim 48 of Cao), falling within the claimed range.
Regarding claim 19, modified Roumi discloses the lithium metal secondary battery according to claim 15. Roumi does not disclose the temperature during charge, However, Cao discloses several criteria for separators in order to prevent lithium dendrite formation. For example, Cao discloses that for separators of a specific pore size, dendrite formation can be prevented when the separator is used in an electrochemical cell which is cycled at 2 mA/cm2 or greater, at a pressure of 300 psi or lower, or at a temperature of 50°C or lower ([0250]-[0251]). As a result, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to recreate the separator conditions of Cao according to the disclosed conditions in order to achieve the disclosed benefit of preventing dendrite formation, and doing so would result in a secondary battery wherein a temperature during charge is 50°C or lower according to a specific embodiment [0250]-[0251], or according to a more specific embodiment is 22°C or (see claim 48 of Cao), falling within the claimed range.
Regarding claim 21, modified Roumi discloses the method according to claim 15, wherein during charging, a current density is 0.05-3.5 mA/cm2. (Cao discloses an electrochemical cell which is cycled at 2 mA/cm2 or greater to prevent dendrite formation ([0250]-[0251]), including in one embodiment at 2 mA/cm2 (see claim 48 of Cao), falling within the claimed range, see claim 15 rejection above).
Regarding claim 22, modified Roumi discloses the method according to claim 15, wherein constant pressure applied during the charge and discharge is carried out by jig pressurization ([0041] of Ose).
Regarding claim 23, modified Roumi discloses the method according to claim 15, wherein during charging, a current density is 0.01-7mA/cm2 (see 35 USC 112 rejection of claim 23 and rejection of claim 15 above).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues (see pg. 5 of remarks) that Cao is directed at a solid-state electrolyte system. Applicant then makes several remarks that seem to be intended to apply to the Cao reference, but cites Ose. For example, applicant remarks on pg. 5 that “the 2 mA/cm2 in Ose measures a solid interface’s ability to withstand extreme localized stress”, when it is the Cao reference that discloses a 2 mA/cm2 value, not Ose, and citing Ose in this context does not make sense. It is therefore examiner’s interpretation that these citations are in error, and Cao is the reference that was intended to be referenced by applicant, and therefore examiner will respond to applicant’s arguments under the understanding that applicant intends them to pertain to the Cao reference. If this understanding is in error, examiner invites applicant to clarify their intent.
Regarding applicant’s specific arguments, most of applicant’s arguments relate to and depend on the claim that the Cao reference pertains to a solid-electrolyte system, including arguments made that solid electrolyte of Cao would have a non-uniform current distribution than a liquid electrolyte, and as a result would not be comparable. However, examiner notes that in addition to the solid electrolyte, Cao also discloses that a gel electrolyte is used [0255], the gel electrolyte including for example a solvent, a lithium salt, and a polymer [0256], and in some embodiments including a liquid-based electrolyte [0261]. Further, Cao does not disclose a different pressure during charge based on what type of electrolyte is used, or based on if the electrolyte includes a gel or liquid electrolyte. Cao even directly states that in some examples, including “any of the foregoing” examples, the electrochemical cell is cycled at 2mA/cm2, indicating that the disclosed current density is just as valid for examples including gel/liquid electrolytes as it is for examples including only solid electrolytes. Further, a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would understand based off this and the lack of a disclosure of different current densities during cycling based on the electrolyte, despite the disclosure of and inclusions of different types of electrolytes (including at least solid, liquid, and gel electrolytes), that the beneficial effect disclosed by Cao would reasonably be expected to be exhibited, even in cases where the electrolyte includes a liquid and/or gel electrolyte, and would therefore not find it incompatible/nonobvious to modify Roumi to include the charging current density of Cao, considering Roumi’s lack of disclosure relating to charging density, and indeed would still expect to obtain the beneficial effects disclosed by Cao in doing so.
Applicant argues on pg. 5-6 that the electrolyte system of Cao would be expected to exhibit a transference number closer to 1, whereas the liquid electrolyte system of the instant application exhibits a transference number around 0.3-0.4, which applicant argues further renders the reference of Cao incomparable. Examiner disagrees for reasons outlined above, including the fact that a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would still reasonably expect to obtain the benefits disclosed by Cao, given Cao’s disclosure of the inclusion of a gel/liquid electrolyte. Even if the transference number referenced by applicant is different as applicant claims, the fact that Cao discloses the current density during cycling that it does, not offering differing values based on what electrolyte is used, suggests the benefits are obtained regardless. For these reasons, applicant’s arguments are not found to be persuasive.
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 ZACKARY R COCHENOUR whose telephone number is (703)756-1480. The examiner can normally be reached 1-9:00PM 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, Nicholas Smith can be reached at (571) 272-8760. 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.
/ZACKARY RICHARD COCHENOUR/Examiner, Art Unit 1752
/NICHOLAS A SMITH/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752