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
The amendments filed on 2/20/2026 does not put the application in condition for allowance.
Examiner withdraws all rejections in the prior office action due to the amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 1, 3, 4-13, and 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong (KR1020200043097, Machine translation) in view of Chen (Adv. Energy Mater. 2021, 11, 2101339)
Regarding Claim 1, Hong et al. teaches a metal electrode having a protective film formed by coating the metal electrode with a polymer material having an oxygen atom containing free radicals in its molecular structure that undergoes oxidation-reduction reaction by ionic interaction during electrochemical reaction [0059, 0013].
Hong et al. is silent on a sulfonyloxy radical or a polymer of PTNB.
Chen et al. teaches a PTNB polymer coated on a metal electrode used to provide additional protection for the metal electrode [Abstract].
Since Hong et al. teaches the use of a metal electrode with a protective film, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to modify the protective film material of Hong et al. with the PTNB of Chen et al. in order to provide additional protection to the metal electrode [Abstract].
Regarding Claim 3, Hong et al. is relied upon for the reasons give above, Hong et al. teaches all the structural limitations of the claim; therefore, it is the view of the examiner, based on the teaching of Hong et al., has a reasonable basis to believe that the claimed limitation of “the polymer material interacts with lithium ions at a voltage of 2.5 V or less to undergo an oxidation- reduction reaction.” is met.
The determination of patentability is based upon the apparatus structure itself. The patentability of a product or apparatus does not depend on its method of production or formation. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. See In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP § 2113).
Since the PTO does not have proper means to conduct experiments, the burden of proof is now shifted to applicants to show otherwise. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977); In re Fitzgerald, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding Claim 4, within the combination above, modified Hong et al. teaches the monomer of the polymer material has two oxygen atoms containing the free radicals [0041].
Regarding Claim 5, within the combination above, modified Hong et al. teaches the metal is lithium, sodium, aluminum, zinc, or magnesium [0059].
Regarding Claim 6, within the combination above, modified Hong et al. teaches the protective film has a thickness of 10 micrometers to 200 micrometers [40 um, 0059].
Regarding Claim 7, within the combination above, modified Hong et al. teaches the protective film has a thickness of 20 micrometers to 100 micrometers [40 um, 0059].
Regarding Claim 8, within the combination above, modified Hong et al. teaches the solvent for dissolving the polymer material in order to coat the polymer material on the metal electrode is a non-aqueous organic solvent or a non-aqueous organic solvent lithium salt is dissolved therein [0050].
Regarding Claim 9, within the combination above, modified Hong et al. teaches the non-aqueous organic solvent is a carbonate-based solvent, ester-based solvent, ether-based solvent, ketone-based solvent, alcohol-based solvent, aprotic solvent, or a combination thereof [0050].
Regarding Claim 10, within the combination above, modified Hong et al. teaches the lithium salt is LiClO4, LIBF4,LiBF4, (LITFSI), LiFSI, LiBOB, LiAsF6, LiFTFSI or a combination thereof [0051]
Regarding Claim 11, within the combination above, modified Hong et al. teaches the protective film further comprises a carbon-based material, an ion conductive ceramic, or a carbon-based material and an ion conductive ceramic [0016].
Regarding Claim 12, within the combination above, modified Hong et al. teaches the carbon-based material has electrical conductivity [0048].
Regarding Claim 13, within the combination above, modified Hong et al. teaches the carbon-based material is graphite-based material, hard carbon-based material, soft carbon-based material, acetylene black, carbon nanotube, or a combination thereof [0048, 0019].
Regarding Claim 21, within the combination above, modified Hong et al. teaches the content of the polymer material having an oxygen atom containing free radicals in its molecular structure that undergoes oxidation reduction by ionic interaction during electrochemical reaction to the protective film is 20% by weight to 100% by weight [20 wt% to 100 wt%, 0047].
Regarding Claim 22, within the combination above, modified Hong et al. teaches a secondary battery comprising the metal electrode of claim 1 [0001].
Claim(s) 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong (KR1020200043097, Machine translation) in view of Chen (Adv. Energy Mater. 2021, 11, 2101339) as applied above in addressing claim 1, in further view of Lampe-Onnerud (US Pub No. 2018/0241020)
Regarding Claim 14, within the combination above, modified Hong et al. is silent on the ion conductive ceramic is a lithium oxide-based ceramic containing oxygen in its crystal structure, a lithium sulfide- based ceramic containing sulfur in its crystal structure, a lithium phosphate-based ceramic containing phosphorous in its crystal structure, amorphous ion conductive material, sodium sulfide-based material, sodium oxide-based metal, or a combination thereof.
Lampe-Onnerud et al. teaches the formation of Al2O3 during electrode formation used to limit electrode expansion [0154].
Since Hong et al. teaches the use of a ceramic material, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to apply the ceramic of Lampe-Onnerud et al. in place of the ceramic of Hong et al. in order to limit electrode expansion during formation [0154].
Regarding Claim 15, within the combination above, modified Hong et al. teaches wherein the lithium oxide-based ceramic is Al2O3 [see rejection above].
Claim(s) 14 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong (KR1020200043097, Machine translation) in view of Chen (Adv. Energy Mater. 2021, 11, 2101339) as applied above in addressing claim 1, in further view of Liao (US Pub No. 2016/0072132)
Regarding Claim 14 and 16, within the combination above, modified Hong et al. is silent on the ion conductive ceramic is a lithium oxide-based ceramic containing oxygen in its crystal structure, a lithium sulfide- based ceramic containing sulfur in its crystal structure, a lithium phosphate-based ceramic containing phosphorous in its crystal structure, amorphous ion conductive material, sodium sulfide-based material, sodium oxide-based metal, or a combination thereof.
Liao et al. teaches the use of a crystalline ceramic comprising Li.sub.10GeP.sub.2S.sub.12 [0127].
Since Hong et al. teaches the use of a ceramic material, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to apply the ceramic of Liao et al. in place of the ceramic of Hong et al. as it is merely the selection of a conventional ceramic material for batteries in the art and one of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.
The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Claim(s) 14 and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong (KR1020200043097, Machine translation) in view of Chen (Adv. Energy Mater. 2021, 11, 2101339) as applied above in addressing claim 1, in further view of Kumar (US Pub No. 2011/0262836)
Regarding Claim 14 and 17-18, within the combination above, modified Hong et al. is silent on the ion conductive ceramic is a lithium oxide-based ceramic containing oxygen in its crystal structure, a lithium sulfide- based ceramic containing sulfur in its crystal structure, a lithium phosphate-based ceramic containing phosphorous in its crystal structure, amorphous ion conductive material, sodium sulfide-based material, sodium oxide-based metal, or a combination thereof.
Kumar et al. teaches the use of a LAGP glass ceramic powder used to enhance cell capacity and rate capability [0025]
Since Hong et al. teaches the use of a ceramic material, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to apply the ceramic of Kumar et al. in place of the ceramic of Hong et al. in order to enhance cell capacity and rate capability [0025].
Claim(s) 14 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong (KR1020200043097, Machine translation) in view of Chen (Adv. Energy Mater. 2021, 11, 2101339) as applied above in addressing claim 1, in further view of Min (US Pub No. 2020/0227724)
Regarding Claim 14 and 19-20, within the combination above, modified Hong et al. is silent on the ion conductive ceramic is a lithium oxide-based ceramic containing oxygen in its crystal structure, a lithium sulfide- based ceramic containing sulfur in its crystal structure, a lithium phosphate-based ceramic containing phosphorous in its crystal structure, amorphous ion conductive material, sodium sulfide-based material, sodium oxide-based metal, or a combination thereof.
Min et al. teaches the use of NASICON [0025] used to provide increased initial capacity [0088-0089]
Since Hong et al. teaches the use of a ceramic material, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to apply the ceramic of Min et al. in place of the ceramic of Hong et al. in order to provide increased initial capacity [0088-0089].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 3-22 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
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 MICHAEL Y SUN whose telephone number is (571)270-0557. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-7PM.
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 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.
/MICHAEL Y SUN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1728