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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2/17/2026 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS’ filed 10/10/2025 and 2/17/2026 have been considered by examiner.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed on 1/13/2026 has been entered. Claim 2 is cancelled. Claims 1 and 3-11 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every objection and 112(a) rejection previously set forth in the Final Office Action mailed 10/14/2025.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 4, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niu et al. ("An effectively inhibiting lithium dendrite growth in-situ-polymerized gel polymer electrolyte", hereinafter referred to as "Niu") in view of Wu et al. ("The role of the solid electrolyte interphase layer in preventing Li dendrite growth in solid-state batteries", hereinafter referred to as "Wu").
Regarding claim 1, Niu teaches a method of preparing a lithium battery, comprising: providing a first electrode (anode); forming a solid polymer electrolyte (gel polymer electrolyte, or GPE) on the first electrode; and placing a second electrode (cathode) against the solid polymer electrolyte, thereby forming the battery [page 350, paragraphs 4-5, “The precursor solutions (150 mL) were cast onto the anode materials”, “cathodes were suspended above the precursor solution”, “the polymerization was initiated”, “Finally, the coin cells (CR 2025) were assembled”]. Niu further teaches that during operation, the solid polymer electrolyte is capable of growing a passivating layer, or solid electrolyte interface (SEI), at an interface between the first electrode and the solid polymer electrolyte [page 353, paragraph 1, “When the SEI film formed during the initial charge-discharge cycle, a polymer enhanced SEI formed”]. Niu further teaches that the solid polymer electrolyte (or gel polymer electrolyte, or GPE) comprises a portion of solvent, or liquid electrolyte, swollen within the solid polymer electrolyte, or polymer matrix [page 349, paragraph 1, “Gel polymer electrolytes (GPEs), containing polymer matrices and liquid electrolytes”]. Niu further discloses that lithium dendrites which form during operation of the battery are suppressed because of the continuous inhibition of polymer-enhanced SEI [page 353, paragraph 1, “the lithium dendrite is effectively suppressed because of continuous inhibition of polymer-enhanced SEI”]. While Niu does not specifically state that a portion of swollen solvent reacts with a growing dendrite to form polymers on the dendrite, it is well-established in the art that when lithium dendrites begin to grow during battery operation, they react with the liquid electrolyte or solvent within a solid electrolyte, which forms an SEI on top of the dendrite, as seen in Wu [page 1808, paragraph 3, “The liquid electrolyte can quickly react with Li dendrites to form an SEI”, “the improvement in the cycling of the liquid electrolyte containing Li/LLZO/Li cell is due to the formation of a ‘protective’ SEI layer derived from the liquid electrolyte on Li metal”, “Considering the fact that the gel electrolyte used is actually polymers swelled by absorbing liquid electrolyte within the polymeric framework, the underlying enabling mechanism of this gel electrolyte is likely the same as the liquid electrolyte added to our cell”]. Wu also teaches that when Li dendrites meet with the liquid electrolyte, or solvent, in a solid electrolyte the Li dendrites quickly react to form an SEI, which prevents them from growing through the solid electrolyte, thus implying that dendrites are formed but are prevented from growing as soon as they form [page 1808, paragraph 3, “The liquid electrolyte can quickly react with Li dendrites to form an SEI, thus preventing them from growing through the solid electrolyte pellet”]. As described previously, Wu teaches that this is the same mechanism through which gel electrolytes operate [page 1808, paragraph 3, “the underlying enabling mechanism of this gel electrolyte is likely the same as the liquid electrolyte added to our cell”]. Wu teaches that when adding a liquid electrolyte to a solid electrolyte material, the resistance of the cell, or battery is reduced, and shorting of the cell due to dendrites is also alleviated.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the known method of preparing a lithium battery which forms polymers on Li dendrites in the form of a polymer-enhanced SEI as taught by Niu, with the know method of reacting a liquid electrolyte swollen in a gel electrolyte with the Li dendrites to form an SEI on the dendrite to stop the dendrite growth as soon as it is formed as taught by Wu. It would have been obvious to do so in order to obtain the predictable result of the suppression of dendrite formation in the anode [see MPEP 2143(I)(A)]. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine Niu and Wu in order to reduce battery resistance and alleviate the occurrence of shorting due to dendrites, as taught by Wu.
Further regarding claim 4, Niu teaches that the solid polymer electrolyte is polymerized to a surface of the first or second electrode [page 353, paragraph 2, “a fusion layer, containing electrode materials and PEGPEA-GPEs, formed after in situ polymerization. This fusion layer could tightly connect the PEGPEA-GPE phase and the electrode material phase”].
Further regarding claim 11, Niu teaches that the second electrode, or cathode, comprises a lithiated metal oxide, Li(Ni0.5Co0.2Mn0.3)O2, KB (ketjen black carbon, which is a conductive carbon), and PVDF [page 350, paragraph 5].
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niu ("An effectively inhibiting lithium dendrite growth in-situ-polymerized gel polymer electrolyte") in view of Wu ("The role of the solid electrolyte interphase layer in preventing Li dendrite growth in solid-state batteries") as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee at al. (Cycling performance of lithium-ion polymer batteries assembled using in-situ chemical cross-linking without a free radical initiator, hereinafter referred to as "Lee").
Regarding claim 3, modified Niu teaches the method of claim 1, as described in the rejection for instant claim 1. Niu also teaches that fluorinated ethylene carbonate, or fluoroethylene carbonate (FEC) as an additive in polymer electrolytes can suppress dendrite formation, but is silent to its function as a crosslinking agent.
Lee teaches analogous art of a method of preparing a gel polymer electrolyte [page 6, paragraph 2, “a cross-linked gel polymer electrolyte was synthesised without any initiators”]. Lee teaches that FEC is added to the gel electrolyte precursor and reacted with PEI to form fluorinated carbamate, which is then reacted with PEGDE, thereby forming a cross-linked polymer [page 7, paragraph 2].
Lee teaches that the battery assembled with the cross-linked gel polymer electrolyte had strong interfacial adhesion with the electrodes, as well as improved capacity retention and good rate capability. Lee also discloses that the fluorinated carbamate formed by FEC and PEI is important in stabilizing the lithium salt (LiPF6) in the electrolyte and promoting stable interfacial characteristics [page 11, paragraphs 1-2].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add fluorinated ethylene carbonate as taught by Lee to the solid polymer electrolyte in the method taught by modified Niu, in order to promote strong interfacial adhesion with the electrodes, improve capacity retention and rate capability, and stabilize the lithium salt.
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niu ("An effectively inhibiting lithium dendrite growth in-situ-polymerized gel polymer electrolyte") in view of Wu ("The role of the solid electrolyte interphase layer in preventing Li dendrite growth in solid-state batteries") as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhang et al. ("A High-Performance Lithium Metal Battery with Ion-Selective Nanofluidic Transport in a Conjugated Microporous Polymer Protective Layer" hereinafter referred to as "Zhang").
Regarding claim 5, modified Niu teaches the method of claim 1, as described in the rejection for instant claim 1. Niu further teaches that the passivating polymer layer is self-healing due to the mixture of dissociable lithium salt, carbonate solvent, and lithium metal surface [page 353, paragraph 1, “The solvent molecule, oligomer of EGPEA and PEGPEA segment was tightly connected to the lithium metal surface”, “the lithium dendrite is effectively suppressed because of continuous inhibition of polymer-enhanced SEI”]. The solvent disclosed by Niu is a 1 M solution of LiPF6 (lithium salt) in EC-DMC-EMC (ethylene carbonate/dimethyl carbonate/ ethyl methyl carbonate) [page 350, paragraph 2]. It is well established in the art that SEI films form from the reaction between lithium metal and liquid electrolyte/solvent containing lithium salt and film forming additives such as carbonate. Therefore, the continuous SEI inhibition is a self-healing process. Niu also teaches that the close adherence of the solid polymer electrolyte and the electrode, which forms a passivation layer, or fusion layer, provides continuous ionic channels. However, Niu is silent as to whether the passivating polymer layer is microporous.
Zhang teaches analogous art of a method for passivating an electrode to suppress dendrite formation [page 1, paragraph 1, “developing a stable interface that supports rapid Li-ion diffusion and passivates the lithium anode from dendrite formation is crucial”. Zhang teaches a passivating polymer layer formed from a conjugated microporous polymer (CMP) [page 2, paragraph 2, “CMP can be used to form a passivating layer on large-area lithium”].
Zhang teaches that the microporous nature of the passivating layer facilitates ion transport and separation [page 2, paragraph 4, “The ability of the CMP layer to facilitate ion transport and separation originates from the intrinsic sub-nanometer pores in the CMP nanosheets”]. Zhang further teaches that the microporous layer blocks larger anions, suppressing dendrite formation [page 2, paragraph 4, “the negatively charged, sub-nanosized channels block anions by size limitation and charge repulsion to reduce the interfacial parasitic reaction of the lithium anode with the electrolyte, forming a strong SEI to suppress dendrite formation”].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the passivating polymer layer taught by modified Niu to be microporous, as taught by Zhang, in order to suppress dendrite formation and facilitate ion transport and separation.
Further regarding claim 6, Niu teaches that the passivating polymer layer is adherent to the first electrode and prevents dendrite growth due to its self-healing properties [page 353, paragraph 1, “The solvent molecule, oligomer of EGPEA and PEGPEA segment was tightly connected to the lithium metal surface”, “the lithium dendrite is effectively suppressed because of continuous inhibition of polymer-enhanced SEI”].
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niu ("An effectively inhibiting lithium dendrite growth in-situ-polymerized gel polymer electrolyte") in view of Wu ("The role of the solid electrolyte interphase layer in preventing Li dendrite growth in solid-state batteries") as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gruar et al. (WO 2022112735, using US 20230411701 as translation thereof, hereinafter referred to as "Gruar").
Regarding claim 7, modified Niu teaches the method of claim 1, as described in the rejection for instant claim 1. Niu is silent regarding forming a layer of solid polymer electrolyte on the second electrode.
Gruar teaches analogous art of a method of making a battery comprising a ceramic layer and a polymer electrolyte layer. Gruar teaches that the ceramic layer coats the cathode [0023], and can be porous, allowing the polymer electrolyte to extend through the ceramic layer [0024]. Gruar teaches that the polymer electrolyte can be deposited on both the cathode-ceramic laminate and the anode [0073]. Gruar discloses that the deposition may be carried out via electrophoretic depositing, in which colloidal particles in a solution are deposited on a substrate (in this case the electrode) under the influence of an electric field, or electrochemical potential. The solution for the polymer electrolyte comprises a lithium salt [0037] and a carbonate solvent [0038].
Gruar teaches that solid polymer electrolytes have improved electrochemical and thermal stability [0035]. Forming a layer of solid polymer electrolyte on the cathode as well as the anode could improve the overall stability of the battery.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method taught by modified Niu to include immersing the second electrode in a solution of dissociable salt and carbonate solvent, and applying an electrochemical potential to form a layer of solid polymer electrolyte on the second electrode prior to placing it against the first electrode and solid polymer electrolyte as taught by Gruar, in order to improve the electrochemical and thermal stability of the battery.
Regarding claim 8, modified Niu teaches the method of claim 7, as described in the rejection for instant claim 7. Modified Niu is silent regarding concurrently forming solid polymer electrolyte layers on the first and second electrodes concurrently. Having those steps occur simultaneously would be obvious in order to reduce the amount of time needed to make a battery, and selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results (see MPEP 2144.04 IV C).
Regarding claim 9, modified Niu teaches the method of claim 1, as described in the rejection for instant claim 1. Niu is silent regarding the solid polymer electrolyte comprising a polymer ceramic composite material or one or more ionic conducting ceramic or inorganic materials.
Gruar teaches that the ceramic layer provided in the battery may be a porous ceramic mesh through which the polymer electrolyte extends [0024].
Gruar teaches that by including both polymer and ceramic, the risk of thermal runaway is reduced [0010]. Furthermore, the ceramic can function as a separator, preventing the anode and cathode from coming into direct contact and short-circuiting the battery cell [0017].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method taught by modified Niu to include a polymer ceramic composite material in the solid polymer electrolyte, as taught by Gruar, in order to reduce the risk of thermal runaway and prevent short-circuiting.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niu ("An effectively inhibiting lithium dendrite growth in-situ-polymerized gel polymer electrolyte") in view of Wu ("The role of the solid electrolyte interphase layer in preventing Li dendrite growth in solid-state batteries") as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Niu in view of Choi et al. (US 20130260257, hereinafter referred to as "Choi").
Regarding claim 10, modified Niu teaches the method of claim 1, as described in the rejection for instant claim 1. Niu is silent regarding solid polymer electrolyte comprising one or materials from the list of materials recited in instant claim 10.
Choi teaches analogous art of a lithium battery comprising a multi-layered structure electrolyte including a ceramic and polymer electrolyte [Abstract]. Choi teaches that the ceramic solid electrolyte may be an inorganic ceramic sulfide, such as Li2S—P2S5 or an inorganic ceramic oxide such as lithium lanthanum titanium oxide (LLTO) [0031].
Choi teaches that adding a ceramic solid electrolyte can prevent explosion or fire due to an electrical short circuit. Choi also teaches that the sulfide based ceramic has high ion conductivity and reactivity with moisture, while LLTO is stabilizing [0031].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method taught by modified Niu to include a ceramic material such as Li2S—P2S5 or lithium lanthanum titanium oxide as taught by Choi, in order to prevent fire or explosion in the battery, improve ionic conductivity or improve the stability of the battery.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to applicant’s argument that Wu does not teach the stopping of a dendrite growth as soon as the dendrite is formed [Remarks, page 8], it is noted that the claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification [see MPEP 2111]. The limitation “thereby stopping a dendrite growth as soon as the dendrite is formed” (examiner emphasis added) is interpreted to mean that if a dendrite is “formed” then “growth” of the dendrite has already been established to some degree. The claim does not specify how large the dendrite has to be formed to be stopped. As described in the rejection of instant claim 1, Wu also teaches that when Li dendrites meet with the liquid electrolyte, or solvent, in a solid electrolyte the Li dendrites quickly react to form an SEI, which prevents them from growing through the solid electrolyte [page 1808, paragraph 3], which would mean that the dendrite growth is stopped very soon after the formation of the dendrite. Thus, this argument is not considered persuasive.
Regarding the combination of Niu with Wu, in response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). As described in the rejection of instant claim 1, both Niu and Wu teach that dendrites in batteries are undesirable and teach methods to suppress dendrite growth, and it would have been obvious to combine them to obtain the predictable result of suppressing dendrite growth [see MPEP 2143(I)(A)]. Furthermore, simply because Niu teaches suppressing dendrite formation, that does not mean that the method of Niu fully eradicates the possibility of dendrites, nor that the method of Niu cannot be further improved. Thus, this argument is not considered persuasive.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIA F OROZCO whose telephone number is (571)272-0172. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-6.
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, Ula Ruddock can be reached at (571)272-1481. 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.
/M.F.O./Examiner, Art Unit 1729
/ULA C RUDDOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729