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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 23 is 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.
Claim 23 still recites the limitation “a second adhesive layer arranged to extend from one end of the second intermediate layer.” It is unclear what the first adhesive layer is intended to be, as the claims do not recite any limitation regarding a first adhesive layer. Thus, claim 23 is rendered indefinite. The examiner suggests that applicant amend claim 23 to recite simply, “an adhesive layer” rather than “a second adhesive layer.”
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 1-19 and 31-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herle (US 20170324073 A1, published 9 Nov 2017) in view of Xiao (US 20190067675 A1, published 28 Feb 2019).
Regarding claim 1, Herle discloses a separator structure for a secondary battery, the separator structure (coated separator 130) comprising: a porous substrate (separator film 131 with pores 132, [0019]; Figs. 1-2); a protective layer (136, [0019]; Fig. 2) which may comprise lithium fluoride ([0022]); and a lithium metal layer (lithium metal film 135, [0019]; Fig. 2). Herle further teaches a barrier layer (134) between the porous substrate (131) and lithium metal layer (135) which may function to block lithium metal dendrite formation, and/or to help increase the ion conductivity of the separator ([0015]). The examiner notes that the ceramic coating (133) is optional, as only one of ceramic coating (133), barrier layer (134), and protective layer (136) needs to be present ([0020]). Herle does not disclose an intermediate layer on the porous substrate which comprises both lithium fluoride and a defluorinated polymer. The protective layer (136) of Herle is on top of the lithium metal layer (135), rather than the porous substrate (131), and does not contain a defluorinated polymer.
Xiao discloses a porous separator (26, [0052, 0060]; Fig. 1) and an intermediate layer (composite surface layer 62) comprising lithium fluoride (72) and a defluorinated polymer (70, [0072, 0077]; Figs. 2-3). Xiao further discloses that the intermediate layer (62) helps to minimize the formation of lithium dendrites during charging and discharging ([0074]), and teaches that the intermediate layer can serve as a solid electrolyte interface, which conducts lithium ions there through, and improves the cycling life and diminishes loss of charge capacity of rechargeable batteries and other electrochemical devices that cycle lithium ions ([0079]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the composite material of Xiao for the barrier layer of Herle to minimize dendrite growth, as taught by both Herle and Xiao, and improve cycling life of the battery as taught by Xiao. While the composite material of Xiao is not listed by Herle as a possible barrier material, both the composite material of Xiao and the barrier layer of Herle serve the purpose of reducing dendrite growth, and therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would expect similar results. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved (see MPEP § 2143, B.). Furthermore, the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP § 2144.07).
Herle further discloses that the pores of the porous separator may be filled with materials such as lithium-ion conducting polymers or block co-polymers, to avoid depositing lithium metal into the pores ([0019]). Modified Herle does not clearly disclose that the pores are filled with defluorinated polymer and lithium fluoride.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the defluorinated polymer and lithium fluoride of the intermediate layer in modified Herle could fill the holes of the porous substrate to avoid depositing lithium metal into the pores as taught by Herle. Furthermore, the composite material taught by Xiao can be considered an ion-conducting polymer, and therefore is easily substituted for the lithium-ion conducting polymers in the pores of Herle. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved (see MPEP § 2143, B.). Therefore, modified Herle meets the limitations of claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, modified Herle meets the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Herle further discloses that the separator may be integrated with the positive and negative electrodes of the battery cell ([0024]), but does not clearly disclose integration of the intermediate layer and the lithium metal layer.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to integrate the intermediate layer and the lithium metal layer of modified Herle into a single structure. The use of a one-piece, integrated construction instead of the structure disclosed or taught in the prior art would have been within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP § 2144.04). Therefore, modified Herle meets the limitations of claim 2.
Regarding claim 4, modified Herle meets the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Xiao further discloses that the lithium fluoride and the defluorinated polymer of the intermediate layer are products of a reaction between a fluorine-containing polymer and lithium ([0073]; Fig. 2). Therefore, modified Herle meets the limitations of claim 4.
Regarding claim 5, modified Herle meets the limitations of claim 4 as discussed above. Xiao further discloses that the fluorine-containing polymer comprises polytetrafluoroethylene ([0012, 0073]), polyvinylidenefluoride, polychlorotrifluoroethylene, polyvinylfluoride, perfluoroalkoxyalkane copolymer, fluorinated ethylene propylene copolymer, perfluoroelastomer, an ethylene chlorotrifluroethylene copolymer, or a combination thereof ([0012]). Therefore, modified Herle meets the limitations of claim 5.
Regarding claim 6, modified Herle meets the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Herle further teaches that the lithium metal layer may have a thickness equal to a thickness sufficient to compensate for the irreversible loss of lithium metal during a first cycle of the lithium-ion battery ([0005]). Thus, Herle teaches a thickness equivalent to variable b in Equation 1 as claimed.
Xiao further teaches a general reaction scheme of a reaction occurring between a fluoropolymer, namely polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), with an electroactive material comprising lithium ([0073]), and notes that the electroactive material may be pre-lithiated to infuse or coat the surface of the electroactive material with lithium in amounts sufficient to react with the fluoropolymer in a desired defluorination reaction to form lithium fluoride particles ([0082]). Thus, Xiao teaches a lithium content equivalent to variable a in Equation 1 as claimed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the total thickness of the lithium metal layer of modified Herle, such that the lithium metal layer both compensates for the irreversible loss of lithium, as taught by Herle, and sufficiently reacts with the fluoropolymer (such as PTFE) to produce the desired lithium fluoride, as taught by Xiao. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.). Therefore, modified Herle meets the limitations of claim 6.
Regarding claim 7, modified Herle meets the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Herle further teaches that the lithium metal layer may have a thickness equal to a thickness sufficient to compensate for the irreversible loss of lithium metal during a first cycle of the lithium-ion battery ([0005]). Thus, Herle teaches a thickness equivalent to variable b1 in Equation 1 as claimed.
Xiao further teaches a general reaction scheme of a reaction occurring between a fluoropolymer, namely polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), with an electroactive material comprising lithium ([0073]), and notes that the electroactive material may be pre-lithiated to infuse or coat the surface of the electroactive material with lithium in amounts sufficient to react with the fluoropolymer in a desired defluorination reaction to form lithium fluoride particles ([0082]). Thus, Xiao teaches a lithium content equivalent to variable a1 in Equation 2 as claimed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the total thickness of the lithium metal layer of modified Herle, such that the lithium metal layer both compensates for the irreversible loss of lithium, as taught by Herle, and sufficiently reacts with the fluoropolymer (such as PTFE) to produce the desired lithium fluoride, as taught by Xiao. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Furthermore, regarding Equations 2-1 and 2-2 as claimed, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.). Therefore, modified Herle meets the limitations of claim 7.
Regarding claim 8, modified Herle meets the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Xiao further discloses that the defluorinated polymer is a copolymer comprising an unsaturated monomer repeating unit (alkyne groups), and may further comprise groups other than alkyne groups ([0080]). In the defluorination reaction shown in Figure 2, complete defluorination is shown, and as such only alkyne groups are present. However, if other groups are present in the defluorinated polymer, complete defluorination has not yet occurred, and a fluorine-containing monomer repeating unit must be present. Therefore, modified Herle meets the limitations of claim 8.
Regarding claim 9, modified Herle meets the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Xiao further discloses that the defluorinated polymer is a copolymer comprising an unsaturated monomer repeating unit (alkyne groups, corresponding to the structure with mole fraction a in Formula 1 as claimed), and may further comprise groups other than alkyne groups ([0080]). In the defluorination reaction shown in Figure 2, complete defluorination is shown, and as such only alkyne groups are present. However, if other groups are present in the defluorinated polymer, complete defluorination has not yet occurred. In the defluorination of PTFE, perfluorinated alkane groups (corresponding to the structure with mole fraction c in Formula 1 as claimed) first become perfluorinated alkene groups (corresponding to the structure with mole fraction b in Formula 1 as claimed) before becoming the alkyne groups of the completely defluorinated polymer.
Since Xiao teaches the full extent of the reaction, from PTFE to a completely defluorinated polymer, and teaches that groups other than alkyne groups may be present, it is within the scope of Xiao for the defluorinated polymer to have a structure which meets that of Formula 1 as claimed, wherein in Formula 1, a, b and c are mole fractions, respectively, from 0.01 to 0.99, and the sum of a+b+c is 1.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the mole fractions a, b and c of the defluorinated polymer based on the desired extent of reaction between the defluorinated polymer and lithium metal. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.). Therefore, modified Herle meets the limitations of claim 9.
Regarding claim 10, modified Herle meets the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Xiao further discloses that the lithium fluoride in the intermediate layer is comprised of nano-sized LiF crystals ([0077]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for a size of the lithium fluoride in the intermediate layer to be from 1 nanometer to 1000 nanometers. While “nano-sized” may indicate a number of different ranges, the claimed 1 nanometer to 1000 nanometers size encompasses nearly the entirety of the nano-scale range. Furthermore, 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). Therefore, modified Herle meets the limitations of claim 10.
Regarding claim 11, modified Herle meets the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Herle teaches that the lithium metal film (135) may be deposited in sheets which correspond to the size of the cell separators (separator structure 130) as used in the battery cells, such that there is no lithium metal on the areas of the separator which will be cut, thus avoiding smearing of the lithium metal and potential shorting of the battery cell when assembled ([0025]). Thus, the size and dimensions of the porous substrate (131) of the separator would be the same as that of the lithium metal layer (135). The examiner notes that the intermediate layer of modified Herle is located between the porous substrate (131) and the lithium metal later (135), as it takes the place of the barrier layer (134).
Xiao further discloses that the intermediate layer (composite layer) is located on greater than or equal to 90% of an exposed surface area of an electroactive material, such as lithium metal ([0074]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the intermediate layer of modified Herle to be located on 90% to 99.5% of an exposed surface area of the porous substrate. In modified Herle as described above, the intermediate layer (which comprises the composite material of Xiao) is located between the porous substrate (Herle, 131) and the lithium metal layer (Herle, 135), and is thus disposed on both a surface area of porous substrate and a surface area of lithium metal (i.e. the surfaces facing each other). When the intermediate layer (composite material) is located on greater than or equal to 90% of an exposed surface area of the lithium metal layer, as taught by Xiao, and the porous substrate (131) and lithium metal layer (135) are the same size, as taught by Herle, the intermediate layer must also be located on 90% to 99.5% of an exposed surface area of the porous substrate. Furthermore, 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). Therefore, modified Herle meets the limitations of claim 11.
Regarding claim 12, modified Herle meets the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. The defluorination reaction of modified Herle occurs throughout the intermediate layer. While the reaction is in progress, the entirety of the intermediate layer will include some amount of defluorinated polymer, fluorine-containing polymer, and lithium fluoride. Therefore, a central region of the intermediate layer will include the defluorinated polymer and lithium fluoride and a peripheral region of the intermediate layer will include the fluorine-containing polymer, and modified Herle meets the limitations of claim 12.
Regarding claim 13, modified Herle meets the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Modified Herle does not clearly disclose that the intermediate layer has ionic conductivity and is insoluble in an electrolytic solution.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the intermediate layer of modified Herle would have ionic conductivity and insolubility in an electrolytic solution. The composition of the intermediate layer of modified Herle comprises defluorinated PTFE and lithium fluoride, which is the same composition indicated in the examples of the instant specification. Regarding composition claims, if the composition is the same, it must have the same properties (see MPEP § 2112.01, II.). Therefore, modified Herle meets the limitations of claim 13.
Regarding claim 14, modified Herle meets the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Herle discloses that a thickness of the lithium metal layer is from 1 micron to 5 microns ([0015]). Xiao further discloses that a thickness of the intermediate layer (composite layer) is from about 5 nm (0.005 micron) to about 50 microns ([0014]). The ratio of a thickness of the lithium metal layer to a thickness of the intermediate layer, when the thicknesses of the materials are in the ranges taught by Herle and Xiao, is from 1,000:1 to 0.02:1.
It would have been to one of ordinary skill in the art for the ratio of a thickness of the lithium metal layer to a thickness of the intermediate layer of modified Herle to be from 1,000:1 to 1.15:1. 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). Therefore, modified Herle meets the limitations of claim 14.
Regarding claim 15, modified Herle meets the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Xiao further discloses that a thickness of the intermediate layer (composite layer) is from about 5 nm (0.005 micron) to about 50 microns ([0014]). Xiao further teaches an example in which the PTFE coating has a thickness of around 1 micron ([0088]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the thickness of the intermediate layer of modified Herle to be from 0.005 micron to 2.5 microns. 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). Furthermore, the example thickness of 1 micron taught be Xiao lies within the claimed range of 0.0005 micron to 2.5 microns. Therefore, modified Herle meets the limitations of claim 15.
Regarding claim 16, modified Herle meets the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Herle further discloses that a thickness of the lithium metal layer is from 1 micron to 5 microns ([0015]). A range in the prior art which is fully within a claimed range anticipates the claimed range (see MPEP § 2131.03). Therefore, modified Herle meets the limitations of claim 16.
Regarding claim 17, modified Herle meets the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Herle further discloses that an area of the intermediate layer is equal to a total area of the porous substrate (see Fig. 2, in which each layer of the separator structure 130 has the same area). Furthermore, the total area of a negative electrode of Herle (140) is smaller than a total area of the intermediate layer (see Fig. 1, which shows that the area of the anode is smaller than the area of the separator). However, the lithium metal layer (135) of Herle is also equal to a total area of the intermediate layer and separator structure.
Xiao teaches an electroactive material comprising lithium ([0073]), and notes that the electroactive material may be pre-lithiated to infuse or coat the surface of the electroactive material with lithium in amounts sufficient to react with the fluoropolymer ([0082]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to coat the surface of the negative electrode of Herle with the lithium metal layer, to ensure sufficient amounts of lithium for the reaction with the polymer of the intermediate layer. Thus, the area of the lithium metal layer will be smaller than a total area of the intermediate layer and equal to a total area of an anode of the secondary battery. Therefore, modified Herle meets the limitations of claim 17.
Regarding claim 18, modified Herle meets the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Herle further teaches a first coating layer (ceramic coating 133, [0019]; Fig. 2) including ceramic particles ([0030]) and a binder (aqueous medium, [0030]) on the porous substrate. Therefore, modified Herle meets the limitations of claim 18.
Regarding claim 19, modified Herle meets the limitations of claim 18 as discussed above. Herle further teaches that the ceramic particles may comprise particles of Al2O3, MgO, or silica (SiO2) ([0030]). Therefore, modified Herle meets the limitations of claim 19.
Regarding claim 31, modified Herle meets the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Herle further discloses secondary battery (100) comprising: an anode (negative electrode 140, [0016]; Fig. 1) comprising an anode current collector (negative electrode current collector 150, [0016]; Fig. 1) and a first anode active material layer (140) on a surface of the anode current collector, and the separator structure (130) as modified by Xiao (see rejection of claim 1 above). Therefore, modified Herle meets the limitations of claim 31.
Regarding claim 32, modified Herle meets the limitations of claim 31 as discussed above. Xiao further discloses that the anode is lithiated by pre-lithiation ([0018, 0082]). Therefore, modified Herle meets the limitations of claim 32.
Regarding claim 33, modified Herle meets the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Herle further discloses depositing a lithium ion conducting polymer on a separator film, followed by depositing a thin film of lithium metal on the resulting structure ([0022]). Xiao further discloses a method of applying a fluorine layer comprising a fluorine-containing polymer via a deposition process ([0072]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the steps of Herle and Xiao, such that the fluorine-containing polymer of Xiao takes the place of the lithium ion conducting polymer of Herle. The resulting method forms the fluorine layer comprising a fluorine-containing polymer of Xiao on the porous substrate of Herle; and forms the lithium metal layer of Herle on the fluorine layer of modified Herle Therefore, modified Herle meets the limitations of claim 33.
Regarding claim 34, modified Herle meets the limitations of claim 33 as discussed above. Herle further discloses that the forming of the lithium metal layer is performed by depositing lithium metal ([0022]), and teaches that a thickness of the lithium metal layer is from 1 micron to 5 microns ([0015]). A range in the prior art which is fully within a claimed range anticipates the claimed range (see MPEP § 2131.03). Therefore, modified Herle meets the limitations of claim 34.
Regarding claim 35, modified Herle meets the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Herle further discloses that the porous substrate is a porous film (separator film 131 with pores 132, [0019]; Figs. 1-2) comprising polyolefin ([0019]). Therefore, modified Herle meets the limitations of claim 35.
Regarding claim 36, Herle discloses a separator structure for a secondary battery, the separator structure (coated separator 130) comprising: a porous substrate (separator film 131 with pores 132, [0019]; Figs. 1-2); a protective layer (136, [0019]; Fig. 2) which may comprise lithium fluoride ([0022]); and a lithium metal layer (lithium metal film 135, [0019]; Fig. 2). Herle further teaches a barrier layer (134) between the porous substrate (131) and lithium metal layer (135) which may function to block lithium metal dendrite formation, and/or to help increase the ion conductivity of the separator ([0015]). The examiner notes that the ceramic coating (133) is optional, as only one of ceramic coating (133), barrier layer (134), and protective layer (136) needs to be present ([0020]). Herle does not disclose an intermediate layer on the porous substrate which comprises both lithium fluoride and a defluorinated polymer. The protective layer (136) of Herle is on top of the lithium metal layer (135), rather than the porous substrate (131), and does not contain a defluorinated polymer.
Xiao discloses a porous separator (26, [0052, 0060]; Fig. 1) and an intermediate layer (composite surface layer 62) comprising lithium fluoride (72) and a defluorinated polymer (70, [0072, 0077]; Figs. 2-3). Xiao further discloses that the intermediate layer (62) helps to minimize the formation of lithium dendrites during charging and discharging ([0074]), and teaches that the intermediate layer can serve as a solid electrolyte interface, which conducts lithium ions there through, and improves the cycling life and diminishes loss of charge capacity of rechargeable batteries and other electrochemical devices that cycle lithium ions ([0079]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the composite material of Xiao for the barrier layer of Herle to minimize dendrite growth, as taught by both Herle and Xiao, and improve cycling life of the battery as taught by Xiao. While the composite material of Xiao is not listed by Herle as a possible barrier material, both the composite material of Xiao and the barrier layer of Herle serve the purpose of reducing dendrite growth, and therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would expect similar results. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved (see MPEP § 2143, B.). Furthermore, the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP § 2144.07).
Herle teaches that the lithium metal film (135) may be deposited in sheets which correspond to the size of the cell separators (separator structure 130) as used in the battery cells, such that there is no lithium metal on the areas of the separator which will be cut, thus avoiding smearing of the lithium metal and potential shorting of the battery cell when assembled ([0025]). Thus, the size and dimensions of the porous substrate (131) of the separator would be the same as that of the lithium metal layer (135). The examiner notes that the intermediate layer of modified Herle is located between the porous substrate (131) and the lithium metal later (135), as it takes the place of the barrier layer (134).
Xiao further discloses that the intermediate layer (composite layer) is located on greater than or equal to 90% of an exposed surface area of an electroactive material, such as lithium metal ([0074]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the intermediate layer of modified Herle to be located on 90% to 99.5% of an exposed surface area of the porous substrate. In modified Herle as described above, the intermediate layer (which comprises the composite material of Xiao) is located between the porous substrate (Herle, 131) and the lithium metal layer (Herle, 135), and is thus disposed on both a surface area of porous substrate and a surface area of lithium metal (i.e. the surfaces facing each other). When the intermediate layer (composite material) is located on greater than or equal to 90% of an exposed surface area of the lithium metal layer, as taught by Xiao, and the porous substrate (131) and lithium metal layer (135) are the same size, as taught by Herle, the intermediate layer must also be located on 90% to 99.5% of an exposed surface area of the porous substrate. Furthermore, 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). Therefore, modified Herle meets the limitations of claim 36.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herle (US 20170324073 A1) in view of Xiao (US 20190067675 A1) as applied to claims 1-19, and 31-36 above, and further in view of Gopalakrishn et al. (US 20170365854 A1, published 21 Dec 2017).
Regarding claim 20, modified Herle meets the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Herle further discloses that the porous substrate comprises polyolefin ([0019]), and the porous substrate has a thickness of about 25 microns ([0019]). A thickness of 25 microns falls within the claimed range of about 1 micron to about 100 microns. Xiao specifically teaches that the porous substrate comprises polyethylene, polypropylene, or a combination thereof ([0059]).
It would have been obvious to select polyethylene, polypropylene, or a combination thereof as taught by Xiao, for the polyolefin substrate of modified Herle. The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP § 2144.07). Modified Herle does not teach the porosity or pore size of the porous substrate.
Gopalakrishn et al. teaches a porous substrate, which may comprise polyethylene or polypropylene, with a porosity of 20% to 80% ([0037]), and further discloses that the porous substrate has an average pore size of 0.02 micron to 5 microns ([0037]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the polyethylene or polypropylene porous substrate of modified Herle to have a porosity of 20% to 80%, and a pore size of 0.02 microns to 5 microns. A range in the prior art which is fully within a claimed range anticipates the claimed range (see MPEP § 2131.03). Therefore, modified Herle meets the limitations of claim 20.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 are allowable.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Gopalakrishn teaches a first separator (130a), and further comprises: a second anode active material layer (150b) on another surface of the anode current collector (160) of the anode-separator assembly; a second intermediate layer (SEI 140b); and a second separator (130b, [0040-0044]; Figs. 1B-1C).
It would have been obvious to add a second anode active material layer on another surface of the anode current collector of the anode-separator assembly of modified Herle; and further ass a second lithium metal layer on the second anode active material layer; a second intermediate layer on the second lithium metal layer, including a second defluorinated polymer and lithium fluoride; and a second separator including a second porous substrate on the second intermediate layer, in the same manner as disclosed by Gopalakrishn. The use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods or products) in the same way is likely to be obvious (see MPEP § 2143, C.). Furthermore, the mere duplication of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP § 2144.04).
However, modified Herle still does not teach that the anode-separator assembly has a structure in which the anode is enclosed by the first separator and the second separator by bonding ends of the first and second separators, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not have a clear motivation to bond the first separator and the second separator in combination with the other limitations required by the instant claims.
Claim 23 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 20 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's arguments directed to the differences in manufacturing process between the cited art and the instant application,. Furthermore, the arguments address specific examples (Example 2 of Xiao and Preparation Examples of the instant application), rather than addressing the disclosure as a whole.
One of ordinary skill in the art still has a clear motivation to substitute the composite material of Xiao for the barrier layer of Herle, which is to minimize dendrite growth, as taught by both Herle and Xiao, and improve cycling life of the battery as taught by Xiao. The examiner reiterates that while the composite material of Xiao is not listed by Herle as a possible barrier material, both the composite material of Xiao and the barrier layer of Herle serve the purpose of reducing dendrite growth, and therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would expect similar results. The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
In response to applicant’s arguments regarding claim 11, the examiner clarifies the structure of the combination of references. Herle teaches that the lithium metal film (135) may be deposited in sheets which correspond to the size of the cell separators (separator structure 130, [0025]). Thus, the size and dimensions of the porous substrate (131) of the separator would be the same as that of the lithium metal layer (135). The examiner notes that the intermediate layer of modified Herle is located between the porous substrate (131) and the lithium metal later (135), as it takes the place of the barrier layer (134).
Applicant is correct that Xiao discloses that the intermediate layer (composite layer) is located on greater than or equal to 90% of an exposed surface area of an electroactive material, such as lithium metal ([0074]), rather than located on the porous substrate.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the intermediate layer of modified Herle to be located on 90% to 99.5% of an exposed surface area of the porous substrate. In modified Herle as described above, the intermediate layer (which comprises the composite material of Xiao) is located between the porous substrate (Herle, 131) and the lithium metal layer (Herle, 135), and is thus disposed on both a surface area of porous substrate and a surface area of lithium metal (i.e. the surfaces facing each other). When the intermediate layer (composite material) is located on greater than or equal to 90% of an exposed surface area of the lithium metal layer, as taught by Xiao, and the porous substrate (131) and lithium metal layer (135) are the same size, as taught by Herle, the intermediate layer must also be located on 90% to 99.5% of an exposed surface area of the porous substrate. 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).
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 ALEXANDRA J SIMMONS whose telephone number is (571)272-3036. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:30a - 6p.
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.
/A.J.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1728
/MATTHEW T MARTIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Prosecution Insights