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 July 6, 2026 have been entered. Claim 1, 3, and 9 have been amended and claims 14-23 are new. Support for the amendments and added claims can be found at, for example, page 11, line 1 to page 12, line 17, Examples 1-3, and the claims as originally filed. Claims 1, 3-4, 6-11, and 13-23 remain pending and have been examined on their merits in this office action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s argument has 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 claims 1 and 9.
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, 3-4, 6-11, 13-15, and 18-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Affinito et al. (Published U.S. Patent Application US 2013/0017441 A1), hereinafter referred to as Affinito, in view of Son et al. (KR 20180057513 A, citations from corresponding Published U.S. Patent Application US 2019/0229380 A1), hereinafter referred to as Son.
Regarding claim 1, Affinito teaches an anode for a rechargeable lithium batteries (“a negative electrode for a lithium secondary battery”) (see e.g., paragraph [0002]). Affinito teaches the anode comprises a current collector 34 (“a negative electrode current collector”) (see e.g., paragraph [0034]). Affinito teaches an electroactive layer 46 disposed on the current collector 34 (“a negative electrode active material layer on at least one surface of the negative electrode current collector”) (see e.g., paragraph [0034]). Affinito teaches a protective structure 30 disposed on the electroactive layer 46, wherein the protective structure comprises a polymer layer 40 (“a lithiation retardation layer on the negative electrode active material layer”) and a single-ion conductive layer 44 (see e.g., paragraph [0036]). Affinito teaches the polymer layer includes polycarbonate (“wherein the lithiation retardation layer comprises a polymer having a carbonate repeating unit”) (see e.g., paragraph [0107]). Affinito teaches the polymer layer is used to separate an electroactive material from an electrolyte to be used with the electrode or electrochemical cell (“wherein the lithiation retardation layer is a prelithiation retardation layer”) in order to prevent dendrite formation during recharging, prevent reaction of lithium with electrolyte, and increase the cycle life (see e.g., paragraph [0030]). Affinito teaches the RMS surface roughness of the single-ion conductive layer is between 0.5 nm and 1 µm (“wherein in the lithium layer, an average surface roughness of an opposite surface of a surface contacting the lithiation retardation layer is 0.4 µm or less”) (see e.g., paragraph [0045]). Affinito teaches the thickness of the single-ion conductive layer is in a range from 1 nm to 100 microns (“wherein an average thickness of the lithium layer is in a range of 5 µm to 30 µm”) (see e.g., paragraph [0117]).
It has been held in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” and because ranges taught by Affinito overlap with the recited range, a “prima facie” case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05(l)).
Affinito teaches the single-ion conductive layer comprises a ceramic conductive to lithium ions or a lithium oxide layer (see e.g., paragraph [0016]); however, Affinito does not explicitly teach the single-ion conductive layer is lithium.
However, Son teaches an electrode and a lithium secondary battery comprising the same, in particularly an electrode comprising an electrode layer, a pre-lithiation prevention layer formed on the electrode layer, and a lithium layer formed on the pre-lithiation prevention layer (see e.g., Abstract). Son teaches the lithium layer comprised of lithium metal solves the problem of irreversible capacity reduction by moving lithium in the lithium layer to the electrode through activation, thereby increasing the lithium content in the electrode (see e.g., paragraph [0009]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill would modify the single-ion conductive layer of Affinito to be comprised of a lithium metal, as taught by Son, in order to solve the problem of irreversible capacity reduction by moving lithium in the lithium layer to the electrode through activation, thereby increasing the lithium content in the electrode (see e.g., paragraph [0009]).
Regarding claim 3, Affinito, as modified by Son, teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 1, as previously described.
Affinito teaches the RMS surface roughness of the single-ion conductive layer is between 0.5 nm and 1 µm (“wherein in the lithium layer, an average surface roughness of an opposite surface of a surface contacting the lithiation retardation layer is 0.05 µm to 0.5 µm”) (see e.g., paragraph [0045]).
It has been held in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” and because range taught by Affinito overlaps with the recited range, a “prima facie” case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05(l)).
Regarding claim 4, Affinito, as modified by Son, teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 1, as previously described.
Affinito teaches the thickness of the polymer layer is in the range from 10 nm to 10 µm (“wherein an average thickness of the lithiation retardation layer is in a range of 0.1 µm to 5 µm”) (see e.g., paragraph [0103]).
It has been held in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” and because range taught by Affinito overlaps with the recited range, a “prima facie” case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05(l)).
Regarding claim 6, Affinito, as modified by Son, teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 1, as previously described.
Affinito teaches the thickness of the polymer layer is in the range from 10 nm to 10 µm (“wherein an average thickness of the lithiation retardation layer is in a range of 0.5 µm to 1.5 µm”) (see e.g., paragraph [0103]). Affinito teaches the thickness of the single-ion conductive layer is in a range from 1 nm to 100 microns (see e.g., paragraph [0117]); therefore, a ratio of an average thickness of the single-ion conductive layer to an average thickness of the polymer layer is in the range of 0.1 to 10,000 (“wherein a ratio (B/A) of an average thickness (B) of the lithium layer to an average thickness (A) of the lithiation retardation layer is in a range of 3 to 7”).
Regarding claim 7, Affinito, as modified by Son, teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 1, as previously described.
Affinito, as modified by Son, does not explicitly teach wherein a negative electrode active material present in the negative electrode active material layer is a silicon-containing negative electrode active material.
However, Son teaches silicon as the negative electrode active material (“wherein a negative electrode active material present in the negative electrode active material layer is a silicon-containing negative electrode active material”) (see e.g., paragraph [0060]) in order to benefit from silicon’s high capacity (see e.g., paragraph [0006]) and ensure long cycle life (see e.g., paragraph [0060]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill would modify the electroactive layer of Affinito, as modified by Son, to comprise silicon, as taught by Son, in order to benefit from silicon’s high capacity (see e.g., paragraph [0006]) and ensure long cycle life (see e.g., paragraph [0060]).
Regarding claim 8, Affinito, as modified by Son, teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 1, as previously described.
Affinito teaches the polymer layer comprises polycarbonate (see e.g., paragraph [0107]). Affinito teaches examples of useful non-aqueous liquid electrolyte solvents include carbonates (see e.g., paragraph [0156]). Polycarbonate and the solvent capable of sufficiently dissolving monomers or polymers and an initiator can be used as the solvent such as a carbonate-based solvent such as polycarbonate (see e.g., paragraph [0070]) of the pre-lithiation layer as taught by Affinito are known to be well dissolved in a carbonate-containing electrolyte solution (see e.g., Instant Specification page 10, lines 5-11); therefore, the pre-lithiation layer of Son would be soluble in the electrolytic solution of Affinito (“wherein the lithiation retardation layer is soluble in a carbonate-containing electrolyte solution”).
Regarding claim 9, Affinito teaches a method for producing an anode for a rechargeable lithium batteries (“a method of manufacturing a negative electrode for a lithium secondary battery”) (see e.g., paragraph [0002]). Affinito teaches an electrode precursor comprising a current collector and electroactive layer are deposited by any of methods generally known in the art, such as physical or chemical vapor deposition methods, extrusion, and electroplating (see e.g., paragraph [0147]). Affinito teaches the polymer layer is applied to the electrode precursor by spin-coating techniques or flash evaporation methods (“immersing a negative electrode precursor in a solution comprising an amorphous polymer, wherein the negative electrode precursor comprises a negative electrode current collector, a negative electrode active material layer on at least one surface of the negative electrode current collector, and a lithiation retardation layer on the negative electrode active material layer”) (see e.g., paragraph [0109]). Affinito teaches a single-ion conductive layer is deposited by any suitable method such as sputtering, electron beam evaporation, vacuum thermal evaporation, laser ablation, chemical vapor deposition (CVD), thermal evaporation, plasma enhanced chemical vacuum deposition (PECVD), laser enhanced chemical vapor deposition, and jet vapor deposition (“forming a lithium layer by depositing” the layer” on the lithiation retardation layer, wherein during the forming of the lithiation retardation layer”) (see e.g., paragraph [0118]). Affinito teaches the polymer layer includes polycarbonate (“wherein the lithiation retardation layer comprises a polymer having a carbonate repeating unit”) (see e.g., paragraph [0107]). Affinito teaches the polymer layer is used to separate an electroactive material from an electrolyte to be used with the electrode or electrochemical cell (“wherein the lithiation retardation layer is a prelithiation retardation layer”) in order to prevent dendrite formation during recharging, prevent reaction of lithium with electrolyte, and increase the cycle life (see e.g., paragraph [0030]). Affinito teaches the RMS surface roughness of the single-ion conductive layer is between 0.5 nm and 1 µm (“wherein in the lithium layer, an average surface roughness of an opposite surface of a surface contacting the lithiation retardation layer is 0.4 µm or less”) (see e.g., paragraph [0045]). Affinito teaches the thickness of the single-ion conductive layer is in a range from 1 nm to 100 microns (“wherein an average thickness of the lithium layer is in a range of 5 µm to 30 µm”) (see e.g., paragraph [0117]).
It has been held in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” and because ranges taught by Affinito overlap with the recited range, a “prima facie” case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05(l)).
Affinito teaches the single-ion conductive layer comprises a ceramic conductive to lithium ions or a lithium oxide layer (see e.g., paragraph [0016]); however, Affinito does not explicitly teach the single-ion conductive layer is lithium.
However, Son teaches an electrode and a lithium secondary battery comprising the same, in particularly an electrode comprising an electrode layer, a pre-lithiation prevention layer formed on the electrode layer, and a lithium layer formed on the pre-lithiation prevention layer (see e.g., Abstract). Son teaches the lithium layer comprised of lithium metal solves the problem of irreversible capacity reduction by moving lithium in the lithium layer to the electrode through activation, thereby increasing the lithium content in the electrode (see e.g., paragraph [0009]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill would modify the single-ion conductive layer of Affinito to be comprised of a lithium metal, as taught by Son, in order to solve the problem of irreversible capacity reduction by moving lithium in the lithium layer to the electrode through activation, thereby increasing the lithium content in the electrode (see e.g., paragraph [0009]).
Regarding claim 10, Affinito, as modified by Son, teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 9, as previously described.
Affinito teaches the single-ion conductive layer may be deposited by thermal evaporation (“wherein the forming of the lithium layer is performed by thermal evaporation”) (see e.g., paragraph [0118]).
Regarding claim 11, Affinito, as modified by Son, teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 10, as previously described.
Affinito, as modified by Son, does not explicitly teach wherein the thermal evaporation is performed in a temperature range of from 460 °C to 850 °C, based on a temperature of supplied lithium.
Son teaches the lithium layer is deposited on the surface of the electrode by passing the surface of the electrode coated with the active material, while continuously supplying lithium gas generated by heating metal lithium 600° C (“wherein the thermal evaporation is performed in a temperature range of from 460 °C to 850 °C, based on a temperature of supplied lithium”) under a vacuum condition on the order of 10 ton (see e.g., paragraph [0058]) in order to reduce the thickness of the layer in order to increase the capacity (see e.g., paragraph [0059]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill would modify the thermal evaporation step of Affinito, as modified by Son, to be performed at a temperature of 600° C, as taught by Son, in order to reduce the thickness of the layer in order to increase the capacity (see e.g., paragraph [0059]).
Regarding claim 13, Affinito, as modified by Son, teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 9, as previously described.
Affinito, as modified by Son, does not explicitly teach wherein a negative electrode active material present in the negative electrode active material layer is a silicon-containing negative electrode active material.
However, Son teaches silicon as the negative electrode active material (“wherein a negative electrode active material present in the negative electrode active material layer is a silicon-containing negative electrode active material”) (see e.g., paragraph [0060]) in order to benefit from silicon’s high capacity (see e.g., paragraph [0006]) and ensure long cycle life (see e.g., paragraph [0060]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill would modify the electroactive layer of Affinito, as modified by Son, to comprise silicon, as taught by Son, in order to benefit from silicon’s high capacity (see e.g., paragraph [0006]) and ensure long cycle life (see e.g., paragraph [0060]).
Regarding claim 14, Affinito, as modified by Son, teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 1, as previously described.
Affinito teaches the thickness of the single-ion conductive layer is in a range from 1 nm to 100 microns (“wherein the average thickness of the lithium layer is in a range of 6 µm to 15 µm”) (see e.g., paragraph [0117]).
It has been held in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” and because range taught by Affinito overlaps with the recited range, a “prima facie” case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05(l)).
Regarding claim 15, Affinito, as modified by Son, teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 9, as previously described.
Affinito teaches the thickness of the single-ion conductive layer is in a range from 1 nm to 100 microns (“wherein the average thickness of the lithium layer is in a range of 6 µm to 15 µm”) (see e.g., paragraph [0117]).
It has been held in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” and because range taught by Affinito overlaps with the recited range, a “prima facie” case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05(l)).
Regarding claim 18, Affinito, as modified by Son, teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 1, as previously described.
Affinito teaches the polymer is polycarbonate (see e.g., paragraph [0107]), which according to Applicant’s Published Specification, has generally a Tg of 120° C. or higher (“wherein the polymer has a Tg of 120 °C or higher”) (see e.g., Instant Specification paragraph [0044]).
Regarding claim 19, Affinito, as modified by Son, teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 9, as previously described.
Affinito teaches the polymer is polycarbonate (see e.g., paragraph [0107]), which according to Applicant’s Published Specification, has generally a Tg of 120° C. or higher (“wherein the polymer has a Tg of 120 °C or higher”) (see e.g., Instant Specification paragraph [0044]).
Regarding claim 20, Affinito, as modified by Son, teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 9, as previously described.
Affinito teaches the RMS surface roughness of the single-ion conductive layer is between 0.5 nm and 1 µm (“wherein in the lithium layer, an average surface roughness of an opposite surface of a surface contacting the lithiation retardation layer is 0.4 µm or less”) (see e.g., paragraph [0045]).
It has been held in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” and because range taught by Affinito overlaps with the recited range, a “prima facie” case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05(l)).
Regarding claim 21, Affinito, as modified by Son, teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 9, as previously described.
Affinito teaches the RMS surface roughness of the single-ion conductive layer is between 0.5 nm and 1 µm (“wherein in the lithium layer, an average surface roughness of an opposite surface of a surface contacting the lithiation retardation layer is 0.4 µm or less”) (see e.g., paragraph [0045]).
It has been held in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” and because range taught by Affinito overlaps with the recited range, a “prima facie” case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05(l)).
Regarding claim 22, Affinito, as modified by Son, teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 14, as previously described.
Affinito teaches the RMS surface roughness of the single-ion conductive layer is between 0.5 nm and 1 µm (“wherein in the lithium layer, an average surface roughness of an opposite surface of a surface contacting the lithiation retardation layer is 0.4 µm or less”) (see e.g., paragraph [0045]).
It has been held in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” and because range taught by Affinito overlaps with the recited range, a “prima facie” case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05(l)).
Regarding claim 23, Affinito, as modified by Son, teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 15, as previously described.
Affinito teaches the RMS surface roughness of the single-ion conductive layer is between 0.5 nm and 1 µm (“wherein in the lithium layer, an average surface roughness of an opposite surface of a surface contacting the lithiation retardation layer is 0.4 µm or less”) (see e.g., paragraph [0045]).
It has been held in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” and because range taught by Affinito overlaps with the recited range, a “prima facie” case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05(l)).
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Affinito et al. (Published U.S. Patent Application US 2013/0017441 A1) in view of Son et al. (KR 20180057513 A, citations from corresponding Published U.S. Patent Application US 2019/0229380 A1), and further in view Yamaguchi et al. (JP 2007258065 A, cited in Applicant’s IDS).
Regarding claim 16, Affinito, as modified by Son, teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 1, as previously described.
Affinito, as modified by Son, does not explicitly teach a negative electrode active material present in the negative electrode active material layer is a pure silicon negative electrode active material.
However, Yamaguchi teaches a battery using silicon as a negative electrode active material because silicon has a large ability to occlude and release lithium and obtain a high energy density (see e.g., paragraph [0021]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill would modify the electroactive layer of Affinito, as modified by Son, to comprise pure silicon, as taught by Yamaguchi, in order to obtain a high energy density because of pure silicon ability occlude and release lithium ions (see e.g., paragraph [0021]).
Regarding claim 17, Affinito, as modified by Son, teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 9, as previously described.
Affinito, as modified by Son, does not explicitly teach a negative electrode active material present in the negative electrode active material layer is a pure silicon negative electrode active material.
However, Yamaguchi teaches a battery using silicon as a negative electrode active material because silicon has a large ability to occlude and release lithium and obtain a high energy density (see e.g., paragraph [0021]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill would modify the electroactive layer of Affinito, as modified by Son, to comprise pure silicon, as taught by Yamaguchi, in order to obtain a high energy density because of pure silicon ability occlude and release lithium ions (see e.g., paragraph [0021]).
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