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 .
This is a final office action in response to Applicant's remarks and amendments filed on 07/22/2026. Claims 1 and 3 are currently amended. Claim 2 is canceled. Claims 1, 3-4, 11-12, 17-19, and 21 are pending review in this action. The previous 35 U.S.C. 102 rejections are withdrawn in light of Applicant's amendment to Claim 1. New grounds of rejection necessitated by Applicant's amendments are presented below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 (b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 17 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 17 and 21 depend on newly cancelled Claim 2. As such, the full scope of Claims 17 and 21 are undefined. For purposes of examination, Claims 17 and 21 will be considered to depend upon Claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 11-12, 17, 19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown et al. (US 10,741,835 B1), with evidentiary support from Yamamoto et al. (US 2011/0020536 A1).
Regarding Claim 1:
Brown discloses a negative electrode (anode, 200) for lithium secondary batteries (lithium metal battery), the negative electrode (anode, 200) comprising: a negative electrode current collector (102) and a lithiophilic material (seed layer, 204) on at least one surface of the negative electrode current collector (102) (Figure 2, p.8, Col.3, lines 4-8, 29-46). Brown further discloses that the lithiophilic material (seed layer, 204) is configured to promote lithium plating on a surface thereof and that the lithiophilic material (seed layer, 204) is dispersed (i.e., non-uniform coating) over the negative electrode current collector (102) (Figure 2, p.8 Col.3, lines 16-25, 29-31). Brown further discloses that the lithiophilic material (seed layer, 204) may comprise at least one of a metal (Sn, Zn, Cu) or a metal oxide (SnO, ZnO) (Figure 2, p.8, Col.3, lines 39-35). Brown further discloses that the negative electrode current collector (102) may be a copper foil (Figure 2, p.8, Col.3, lines 12-14). Brown further discloses that the negative electrode current collector (102) with the lithiophilic material (seed layer, 204) may be heated to pre-alloy the lithiophilic material (seed layer, 204) with lithium (Figure 2, p.8, Col.3, lines 36-38).
Brown does not explicitly disclose that an oxide layer is on exposed regions of the negative electrode current collector surface between dispersed regions of the lithiophilic material.
However, Yamamoto discloses a negative electrode (40) for lithium secondary batteries (lithium-ion secondary battery, 50), the negative electrode comprising: a negative electrode current collector (current collector, 11, and plurality of bumps, 12) and a lithiophilic material (active material members, 18) on at least one surface of the negative electrode current collector (current collector, 11, and plurality of bumps, 12) (Figures 1C and 9, [0084, 0086, 0090, 0139]). Yamamoto further discloses that the negative electrode current collector (current collector, 11, and plurality of bumps, 12) may be formed of a copper foil, wherein following a heat treatment to form the lithiophilic material (active material members, 18), exposed regions of the negative electrode current collector (current collector, 11, and plurality of bumps, 12) surface are oxidized to form an oxide layer (resistor layer, 90) comprising copper oxide (Figures 1C and 15, [0134, 0192]).
As such, the skilled artisan would appreciate that as the copper foil negative electrode current collector (102) of Brown is heated during pre-alloying of the lithiophilic material (seed layer, 204) with lithium, the exposed regions of the negative electrode current collector (102) of Brown would likewise be expected to form a copper oxide, as taught by Yamamoto. Thus, all of the limitations of Claim 1 are met.
Regarding Claim 4 (Dependent Upon Claim 1):
Brown discloses the negative electrode of Claim 1 as set forth above. As disclosed above in the rejection of Claim 1, Brown further discloses that the lithiophilic material (seed layer, 204) may comprise at least one of a metal which may be Zn, or a metal oxide which may be ZnO (Figure 2, p.8, Col.3, lines 39-35). Thus, all of the limitations of Claim 4 are met.
Regarding Claim 11 (Dependent Upon Claim 1):
Brown discloses the negative electrode of Claim 1 as set forth above. Brown further discloses an electrode assembly (lithium metal battery, 10) comprising the negative electrode (anode, 200) according to Claim 1 (Figure 9, p.9, Col.5, lines 41-51). Thus, all of the limitations of Claim 11 are met.
Regarding Claim 12 (Dependent Upon Claim 11):
Brown discloses the negative electrode of Claim 11 as set forth above. Brown further discloses that the electrode assembly (lithium metal battery, 10) is a mono-cell in which a positive electrode (cathode, 8), a separator (14), and the negative electrode (anode, 200) are sequentially stacked (Figure 9, p.9, Col.5, lines 41-51). Thus, all of the limitations of Claim 12 are met.
Regarding Claim 17 (Dependent Upon CANCELLED Claim 2):
Brown discloses the negative electrode of Claim 1 as set forth above. Brown further discloses an electrode assembly (lithium metal battery, 10) comprising the negative electrode (anode, 200) according to Claim 1 (Figure 9, p.9, Col.5, lines 41-51). Thus, all of the limitations of Claim 17 are met.
Regarding Claim 19 (Dependent Upon Claim 4):
Brown discloses the negative electrode of Claim 4 as set forth above. Brown further discloses an electrode assembly (lithium metal battery, 10) comprising the negative electrode (anode, 200) according to Claim 4 (Figure 9, p.9, Col.5, lines 41-51). Thus, all of the limitations of Claim 19 are met.
Regarding Claim 21 (Dependent Upon CANCELLED Claim 2):
Brown discloses the negative electrode of Claim 1 as set forth above. Brown discloses a lithium secondary battery (lithium metal battery) which one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate operates by the movement of lithium ions from the positive electrode to the negative electrode. Brown further teaches that the lithiophilic material (seed layer, 204) is configured to promote lithium plating on a surface thereof (Figure 2, p.8 Col.3, lines 16-25, 29-31).
As detailed above in the rejection of Claim 1, the skilled artisan would appreciate that when the copper foil negative electrode current collector (102) of Brown is heated during pre-alloying of the lithiophilic material (seed layer, 204) with lithium, the exposed regions of the negative electrode current collector (102) of Brown would likewise be expected to form a copper oxide, as taught by Yamamoto. The instant specification teaches that copper oxide is suitable for use as a lithiophilic material [0055-0056]).
As such, the skilled artisan would further expect the copper oxide formed on the electrode current collector (102) of Brown plate at least some amount of lithium. Thus, all of the limitations of Claim 21 are met.
Claims 3 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown et al. (US 10,741,835 B1), with evidentiary support from Yamamoto et al. (US 2011/0020536 A1), as applied to Claim 1 above, further in view of Liu et al. (J. Mater. Chem. A,2019,7, 20911).
Regarding Claim 3 (Dependent Upon Claim 1):
Brown discloses the negative electrode of Claim 1 as set forth above. As disclosed above in the rejection of Claim 1, Brown discloses that the lithiophilic material (seed layer, 204) may comprise at least one of a metal (Sn, Zn, Cu) or a metal oxide (SnO, ZnO) (Figure 2, p.8, Col.3, lines 39-35). Brown further discloses that the lithiophilic material (seed layer, 204) is not limited to the above species (Figure 2, p.8, Col.3, lines 39-35). Brown further teaches that the lithiophilic material (seed layer, 204) may include a first layer (214) comprising at least one of a metal (Sn, Zn, Cu) or a metal oxide (SnO, ZnO) and a second layer (216) of lithium metal on formed on the first layer (214) (Figure 2, p.8, Col.3, lines 43-45).
Brown is deficient in disclosing that the lithiophilic material is an oxidized product of a coating material coated on the negative electrode current collector, wherein the coating material is a metal salt comprising HAuCl4, H2PtCl6, AgNO3, AuCl, AuCl3, K(AuCl4), AuBr3, PtCl2, PtCl4, AgCl, AgCN, or CuCl2.
Liu discloses a lithiophilic Ag/Li composite anode prepared by plating lithium on AgNO3 (p.20912, left column, para. 2, and p.20914, left column, para. 2). Liu further discloses that the reaction of lithium metal and AgNO3 produces an electrode which achieves uniform and stable lithium deposition (p.20912, left column, para.4- right column, para. 1, and p.20914, left column, para. 2).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to select for the material of the first layer of the lithiophilic material of Brown, AgNO3, as it is known in the art that the combination of AgNO3 and lithium (i.e., in the second layer) result in a composite material which allows an electrode to achieve uniform and stable lithium deposition, as taught by Liu, and as Brown teaches the lithiophilic material is not limited to the species identified in the disclosure. Furthermore, the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination (MPEP 2144.07). Upon the above modification, all of the limitations of Claim 3 are met.
Regarding Claim 18 (Dependent Upon Claim 3):
Brown as modified by Liu discloses the negative electrode of Claim 3 as set forth above. Brown further discloses an electrode assembly (lithium metal battery, 10) comprising the negative electrode (anode, 200) according to Claim 3 (Figure 9, p.9, Col.5, lines 41-51). Thus, all of the limitations of Claim 18 are met.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 07/22/2026, with respect to the rejection of Claims 1-4, 11-12, 17-19, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of Brown et al. (US 10,741,835 B1) and Liu et al. (J. Mater. Chem. A,2019,7, 20911), with evidentiary support from Yamamoto et al. (US 2011/0020536 A1).
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 EMILY E FREEMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1498. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30AM-5:00PM.
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 at (571)-270-5256. 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.
/E.E.F./Examiner, Art Unit 1724
/MIRIAM STAGG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1724
