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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 05/04/2026 has been entered.
Claim Status
This office action is in response to amendments/arguments filed 05/04/2026. Claim(s) 15 and 23 are currently amended, and claim(s) 24 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, 21-22 stand as originally or as previously presented. claim(s) 15, 19, and 21-24 are examined in this office action.
Claim Rejections
The 35 USC 112 and 103 rejections of the prior office action have been withdrawn due to the amendments to the claims. The amendments have necessitated new grounds of rejections as below set forth.
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 Cao (US 20190245178 A1), and further in view of Murata (US 20100178553 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.
Modified Roumi does not disclose that the casing comprises a rubber material at a portion where it is in contact with a surface of the lithium metal secondary battery, however battery casings comprising rubber were known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use for the casing of modified Roumi.
For example, Murata discloses a battery case formed from elastic rubber, which enables the case to elastically deform to accommodate battery during charge/discharge. As a result, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an elastic rubber battery case for the secondary battery of modified Roumi for this reason, and would result in a casing comprising a rubber material at a portion where it is in contact with a surface of the lithium metal secondary battery.
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 0.01-3.5 mA/cm2 (see rejection of claim 15 above).
Claim(s) 24 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 Cao (US 20190245178 A1), and further in view of Murata (US 20100178553 A1), as evidenced by Jansen (US 20190280265 A1).
Regarding claim 24, modified Roumi discloses the method according to claim 15m wherein the casing alleviates an increase or decrease in volume during charge and/or discharge of the lithium metal secondary battery ([0059] of Murata discloses that the rubber material enables the case to be elastically deformed according to thermal deformation of the battery that occurs during charging/discharging. Murata is directed at a bipolar battery, rather than a lithium battery, however similar techniques are known to be used for lithium batteries as well and evidence that the rubber casing of modified Roumi would have the claimed alleviating effect for an increase or decrease in volume during charge/discharge.
For example, Jansen discloses a lithium-ion battery, and a pair of end plates on opposite sides of a cell assembly to compress the battery cells (abstract). Abstract further discloses a plurality of foam sheets interleaved with the battery cells. The foam sheets allow swelling of the pouch battery cells while enabling a substantially constant level of compression of the pouch battery cells by the pair of end plates (abstract). To this end, a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would reasonably understand based off the disclosure of Jansen, that the rubber case of modified Roumi would have the same effect of alleviating swelling/volume change while enabling substantially constant levels of compression, as both are deformation mitigating techniques that rely on an elastic or easily deforming material that is formed between a battery cell and a pressure-applying mechanism).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 15 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 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 /Maria Laios/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1727
Prosecution Insights