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 .
Remarks
Claim 1 has been amended. Claims 2-3, 6-15, and 17-20. Claims 1-3, 6-15, and 17-20 are presently examined.
Status of objections and rejections
The rejection below has been modified as necessitated by the applicant’s amendments.
Claim Interpretation
Applicant uses the claim language “lithium free battery” while referring to a lithium ion battery. In light of the specification, the examiner is interpreting “lithium free battery” to be a battery whose negative electrode is made of a current collector and a lithium layer is formed by electrodeposition due to charging.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 7-8, and 12-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ku (US20200144575A1) and in view of Choi (KR20140032624A) and Lee (US20170317352A1).
Regarding claim 1, 17, and 19, Ku discloses a lithium free battery comprising a positive electrode (10) [0033, fig. 1, Ku], a negative electrode (20) [0033, fig. 1, Ku], a separator [0100, Ku], and a lithium non-aqueous electrolyte (4) [0047, Ku], wherein the negative electrode comprises: a negative electrode current collector (6) [0033, fig. 1, Ku], and a lithium layer formed on the negative electrode current collector [0084, 0093, figs. 1c and 1d, Ku], wherein the negative electrode current collector comprising: a metal current collecting substrate (6) [0033, fig. 1, Ku]; a conductive layer (5b) formed on at least one surface of the metal current collecting substrate [0089-0092, fig. 1D, Ku discloses a thin film comprised of semimetals, metals, and carbon all of which are known to be electrically conductive], the conductive layer comprising a conductive material [0091, Ku]; and the conductive material comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of carbon and aluminum [0091, Ku]; a layer of metal, silicon or calcined carbon (5) formed on the conductive layer [0074, 0076, 0089, fig. 1d, Ku], the layer of metal, silicon or calcined carbon comprising a grain boundary [fig. 1e, Ku depicts the anode active material layer comprising both carbon and silicon active materials the lack of a uniform structure will form grain boundaries at different materials], wherein the layer of metal, silicon or calcined carbon comprises a mixture of at least one powder of metal, silicon or calcined carbon [0077, 0114, 0125]; and wherein the lithium layer is formed by charging the lithium free battery [0083-0084, 0093], wherein the layer of metal, silicon or calcined carbon comprises a first surface and a second surface [fig. 1d, Ku], the first surface is further away from the conductive layer (5b) than the second surface [fig. 1d, Ku], and the lithium layer (2b) is formed on the first surface of the layer of metal, silicon or calcined carbon [fig. 1d, Ku].
Ku is silent to the conductive layer comprising an adhesive material.
In regards to, Choi discloses a primer comprised of a conductive material and a binder (“adhesive material”) used to improve adhesion between an active material layer and a metal current collector [abstract, 0002, 0007, Choi]
Prior to the effective filing date, one of ordinary skill within the arts would find it obvious to modify the thin film (“conductive layer”) of Ku such that it comprised both a conductive material and a binder (“conductive adhesive”). Doing so would allow for the conductive agent to impart electrical conductivity while the binder assists in adhering the electrode active material to the current collector [0007, Choi]
Regarding claim 2, Ku as modified above, discloses the lithium free battery, wherein the metal current collecting substrate comprises at least one material selected from the group consisting of copper, stainless steel, aluminum, nickel, titanium, calcined carbon, and an aluminum-cadmium alloy [0075, Ku].
Regarding claim 3, Ku as modified above, discloses the lithium free battery, wherein the metal current collecting substrate comprises copper [0075, Ku].
Regarding claim 7, Ku as modified above is silent to a conductive additive in the conductive layer [0091, Ku].
Ku’s description of the composition of the thin film 5b reads on a “conductive filler”.
Regarding claim 8, Ku as modified above, discloses a lithium free battery, wherein a metal powder of the metal powder layer or a metal wire of the metal wire layer has a diameter of 0.01 µm to 4 µm [0077, Ku’s disclosed range overlaps with that of the applicant’s claimed range of 0.01-30 µm]. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim (see MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 12, Ku as modified above, discloses a lithium free battery, wherein a total thickness of the conductive layer (5b) and the layer of metal, silicon or calcined carbon (5) is in a range of 1-20.5 µm [0081, 0092, Ku’s disclosed range overlaps with the applicant’s claimed range of 0.1 µm to 60 µm.]. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim (see MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 13, Ku as modified above, discloses a lithium free battery, wherein the conductive layer has a thickness in a range of 0.001-0.5 µm [0092, Ku’s disclosed range overlaps with the applicant’s claimed range of 0.1 µm to 20 µm.] In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim (see MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 14, modified Ku is discloses a lithium free battery, wherein the layer of metal, silicon or calcined carbon has a thickness in a range of 1-20 µm [0081, Ku’s disclosed range overlaps with the applicant’s claimed range of 0.1 µm to 40 µm.] In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (see MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 15, Ku as modified above, discloses a lithium free battery wherein the positive electrode comprising a positive electrode mixture including an active material and a positive electrode current collector [0033, fig. 1, Ku], the positive electrode mixture being applied to at least one surface of the positive electrode current collector [0033, fig. 1, Ku]; and wherein the separator is located between the negative electrode current collector and the positive electrode [0100, Ku].
Regarding claim 18 and 20, Ku discloses the battery, wherein the lithium layer is formed by ionizing lithium from the positive electrode [0064-0067, 0094-0095, Ku].
Ku discloses that the cathode is the only active material layer prior to charging containing lithium, in the form of a lithium transition metal oxide. Upon charging a lithium layer is formed on the anode. One of ordinary skill within the arts would appreciate that this is possible because the upon charging the lithium in the lithium transition metal would be ionized and migrate to the anode.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Ku as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee’599 (US2020144599A1).
Regarding claim 6, modified Ku is silent to the conductive polymer layer comprising at least one conductive polymer selected from the group consisting of poly(3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene)/poly(4-styrene sulfonate) (PEDOT/PSS), polyaniline (PANI), polypyrrole (PPy), polythiophene (PT), polyacetylene (PA), and poly para-phenylene vinylene (PPV).
However, Lee discloses an anode less coating layer being ion-conductive, electronic-conductive or both [0029, Lee’599]. Wherein the binder matrix may include polyaniline (PANI), polypyrrole (PPy), and poly(3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene):poly(styrene sulfonate) (PEDOT:PSS) [0061, Lee’599].
Prior to the effective filing date, one of ordinary skill within the art would find it obvious to modify Ku such that its conductive layer (5b) additionally contains one of the electrically conductive polymers disclosed by Lee as this would produce a polymer layer with electrical conductivity (electron-conductive repeating units).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Ku as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Loveness (US 20170098819 A9).
Regarding claim 9, modified Ku is silent to the negative electrode current collector, wherein a metal wire is present and has an aspect ratio between a wire length and a wire diameter of 3 or more.
Loveness however, discloses a negative electrode current collector, wherein the metal wire has an aspect ratio between a wire length and a wire diameter of 3 or more [0050, Loveness discloses an aspect ratio of at least two or more and more frequently four or more].
Prior to the effective filing date it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the arts to use the nanowires disclosed by Loveness in modified Ku’s negative electrode current collector as, there is an adjacent void volume available for expansion, the internal stress built up in the nanowires during lithiation (e.g., through expansion of the nano-shells positioned over the silicide templates) is also small and does not break apart the nanowires (as happens with larger structures) [0050, Loveness].
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Ku as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Guichard (US 20200014032 A1).
Regarding claim 10 and 11, modified Ku discloses various types of conductive materials to be used in a negative electrode current collector [([0076, 0091], Ku)].
However, modified Ku is silent to the negative electrode current collector, wherein the layer of metal, silicon or calcined carbon comprises a mixture of at least one metal powder and at least one metal wire.
Guichard however, discloses the negative electrode current collector, wherein a mixed layer comprises at least one metal powder [0012-0033, Guichard] and at least one metal wire [0012-0033, Guichard]. And notes a variety of metal materials [0088, Guichard].
Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the arts to combine the conductive materials disclosed by modified Ku, as one of the conductive metal powders and fibers (wires) found in the coating layer of Guichard to construct the mixed layer described by the applicant as a mere combining prior art elements according to known methods. Furthermore, by utilizing conductive powders and wires on the lithium-free anode described by the applicant it would be predictable that lithium ions would be able to intercalate onto the negative electrodes current collector surface (see MPEP 2143.I.A.).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/12/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. See below for details.
Applicant argues allowability for the following reasons:
In regards to 1) applicant argues features found within the specification but not claimed.
"Though understanding the claim language may be aided by explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into a claim limitations that are not part of the claim. For example, a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment.", see MPEP 2111.01.II
"Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims.", see MPEP 2145.VI.
This argument was not persuasive.
In regards to 2) The features argued here, i.e. current density, high-density lithium layer, specific surface area, are not claimed in claim 1. As such these arguments are not persuasive.
In regards to 3) The applicant argues the intended use of the conductive layer.
A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
As the conductive layer is present in modified Ku then it is able to serve the same function. As such these arguments are not persuasive.
In regards to 4) applicant argues the preparation method of a metal thin film. The examiner notes that in the rejection of claim 1 above the alleged metal thin film of Ku is the “conductive layer” of the present application. Which is then modified to be a conductive material and a binder as disclosed by Choi. As such, the feature argued by the applicant, “sputtered metal film”, is not present in modified Ku as presented in claim 1 above.
One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
As such these arguments are not persuasive.
In response to 5) applicant argues that the prior art does not recognize the teachings of the present application. The examiner notes that the prior art is not required to provide the same teachings as the present application.
There is no requirement that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the inherent disclosure at the relevant time, but only that the subject matter is in fact inherent in the prior art reference. Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharm. Inc., 339 F.3d 1373, 1377, 67 USPQ2d 1664, 1668 (Fed. Cir. 2003), see MPEP 2112.II.
As such these arguments are not persuasive.
In regards to 6) as noted in the rejection of claim 1 above, Ku teaches of the lithium layer being deposited on to the active material layer (5, “layer of metal, silicon or calcined carbon) [fig. 1D, Ku]. Applicant’s arguments center around lithium being deposited on the “thin metal film” layer (5b, “a conductive layer”). Because the lithium layer is deposited on (5) and not (5b) as alleged by the applicant this argument was found to not be persuasive.
Furthermore, "[T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer." Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999), see MPEP 2112.I.
Finally, the final page of arguments presented by the applicant they allege that “certain cited reference” do not target lithium metal batteries. Or that “a prior reference” discloses a carbon-based anode active material.
However, applicant fails to point out which of the references this is in reference to and as such is mere allegation. As such, the applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
The examiner maintains their rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Ryu (US20170062829 A1 and US20190326579 A1) and Chang (US20170346137A1) each discloses negative electrode current collectors wherein a lithium deposition layer is formed on the current collector and the deposition density ranges from 0.2-0.4 g/cc.
Kim (US20150125756A1) and Oku (US20150318555A1) disclose a current collector as a metal substrate with an conductive adhesive layer and metal layer.
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 QUINTIN DALE ELLIOTT whose telephone number is (703)756-5423. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-6pm (MST).
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, Miriam Stagg can be reached on 5712705256. 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.
/Q.D.E./
Examiner, Art Unit 1724
/STEWART A FRASER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1724
Prosecution Insights