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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are currently pending;
Claims 7-20 are currently withdrawn;
Claims 1-4, 7, 12, 15-17, and 20 are amended.
Status of Objections and Rejections Pending since the Office Action of 08/26/2025
The drawing objections are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment;
The 103 rejection of claims 1-6 is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment and argument; a new rejection has been raised.
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.
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 2-3 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.
Regarding claim 2, claim 2 includes the limitation “the adhesive layer disposed between the lithium foil and the current collector, the adhesive layer” in lines 3-4. Claim 1, upon which claim 2 depends, introduces the limitation of “or an adhesive layer that joins together the lithium foil and the electroactive material layer” in lines 8-9. It is unclear if “the adhesive layer” of claim 2 is the same adhesive layer introduced in claim 1 or a separate, second adhesive layer. In other words, it is unclear if the pre-lithiated, precursor electrode includes both an adhesive layer between the lithium foil and the electroactive material layer (claim 1) and a second, separate adhesive layer disposed between the lithium foil and the current collector (claim 2), or if the pre-lithiated, precursor electrode includes the adhesive layer disposed between the lithium foil and the current collector (claim 2) in lieu of the adhesive layer between the lithium foil and the active material layer (claim 1).
Regarding claim 3, claim 3 includes the limitation “the adhesive layer disposed between the lithium foil and the current collector, the adhesive layer” in lines 3-4. For the same reasons as claim 2 above, this limitation is considered indefinite.
Further, the Examiner notes that “the adhesive layer” of claims 2 and 3 relies on the antecedent of “an adhesive layer” of claim 1. Since the adhesive layer of claim 1 is optional, by having the entire length of the first surface of the lithium foil directly contacting the electroactive material layer (claim 1, lines 7-8), “the adhesive layer” limitations of claims 2-3 are rendered moot. For the sake of examination, the Examiner is interpreting “the adhesive layer” in both claims 2 and 3 to be separate than the adhesive layer introduced in claim 1. In addition, the Examiner is interpreting that “the adhesive layer” in both claim 2 and 3 to apply to both optional embodiments of claim 1 for the sake of compact prosecution.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (CN-113690400-A), as cited and translated in the IDS.
Regarding claim 1, Wang teaches a pre-lithiated, precursor electrode to be used in preparation of an electrochemical cell that cycles lithium ions ([0007]), the pre-lithiated, precursor electrode comprising: an electroactive material layer (fig. 2; [0033]; [0041] main material sheet 400), a current collector parallel with the electroactive material layer (fig. 2; [0033]; [0039]; negative electrode current collector 100), and a lithium foil disposed between the electroactive material layer and the current collector (fig. 2; [0033]; [0040]; first pre-lithiated body 300), the lithium foil having a first surface and an opposing second surface (fig. 2 first pre-lithiated body 300), an entire length of the first surface of the lithium foil directly contacting the electroactive material layer (fig. 2) or an adhesive layer that joins together the lithium foil and the electroactive material layer.
Wang does not explicitly teach that the lithium foil having a thickness greater than or equal to about 1 micrometer to less than or equal to about 200 micrometers. However, this value is optimizable. Wang does disclose that the pre-lithiated body is set to a preset thickness such that the pre-lithiation can be precisely controlled ([0028]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have optimized the thickness of the lithium foil in Wang. Doing so allows for the amount of pre-lithiation to be precisely controlled ([0028]; [0004]). "[W]here 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." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yadav (US-20190267628-A1).
Regarding claim 2, Wang teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Wang also teaches the adhesive layer disposed between the lithium foil and the current collector, the adhesive layer being an electrically conductive adhesive layer (fig. 2; [0033]; [0039]; conductive adhesive layer 200) and comprising one or more electronic conductive fillers ([0016]; [0047])
Wang does not explicitly teach that the electrically conductive adhesive layer comprises one or more polymers. Wang does teach that the electrically conductive adhesive layer includes adhesive ([0016];[0047]). Polymers are a common adhesive known in the art.
For example, Yadav is considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of electrodes for electrochemical devices ([0004]). Yadav teaches that the electrically conductive adhesive layer comprises one or more polymers (sub-layer 24 is between the current collector and the active mid-layer 26; [0005] the second sub-layer has an ionically conducting polymer binder; [0022] conductive agent can be used in the second sub-layer if desired).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Wang and replace the adhesive layer of Wang with the adhesive sub-layer of Yadav. Doing so assists in lithium ion transport and reduces the ohmic resistance (Yadav [0023]).
Regarding claim 3, Wang teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Wang also teaches the adhesive layer disposed between the lithium foil and the current collector(fig. 2; [0033]; [0039]; conductive adhesive layer 200), the adhesive layer comprises one or more electronic conductive fillers.
Wang fails to explicitly teach the adhesive layer being an ionically conductive adhesive layer and comprises one or more polymers and one or more ionic conductive fillers and having an ionic conductivity greater than or equal to about 0.1 mS/cm to less than or equal to about 10 mS/cm.
Yadav is considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of electrodes for electrochemical devices ([0004]). Yadav teaches an ionically conductive adhesive layer disposed between the lithium foil and the current collector, wherein the ionically conductive adhesive layer comprises one or more polymers, one or more electronic conductive fillers, and one or more ionic conductive fillers (sub-layer 24 is between the current collector and the active mid-layer 26; [0005] the second sub-layer has an ionically conducting polymer binder and ionically conductive tubing; [0022] conductive agent can be used in the second sub-layer if desired), and has an ionic conductivity greater than or equal to about 0.1 mS/cm to less than or equal to about 10 mS/cm ([0025] uniform ionic conductivity from 1 to 50 mS/cm). 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, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Wang and replace the adhesive layer of Wang with the adhesive sub-layer of Yadav. Doing so assists in lithium ion transport and reduces the ohmic resistance (Yadav [0023]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chae et al. (US-20210159491-A1), hereinafter Chae.
Regarding claim 4, Wang teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Wang also teaches that the lithium foil covers greater than or equal to about 20 percent to less than or equal to about 100 percent of a surface of the current collector (fig. 2).
Wang fails to teach that the lithium foil has a predetermined pattern.
Chae is considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of pre-lithiated electrodes for lithium-ion batteries ([0008]-[0009]). Chae teaches that the lithium foil has a predetermined pattern ([0038]-[0039]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the lithium foil of Wang to have a predetermined pattern such as in Chae. Doing so prevents waste of expensive lithium metal (Chae [0040]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Chae, as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Affinito et al. (US-20130017441-A1), hereinafter Affinito.
Regarding claim 5, modified Wang teaches all of the limitations of claim 4. Wang fails to teach wherein the surface of the current collector has sub-micro-scale surface roughening and a root mean square roughness greater than or equal to about 0.04 micrometer to less than or equal to about 2 micrometers.
Affinito is considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of electrodes for rechargeable lithium batteries ([0002]). Affinito teaches that the surface of the current collector has sub-micro-scale surface roughening and a root mean square roughness greater than or equal to about 0.04 micrometer to less than or equal to about 2 micrometers ([0045] root mean square (RMS) surface roughness of the current collector may be less than 1 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, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Therefore, it would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Wang such that the root mean square surface roughness of the current collector is less than 1 μm as in Affinito. Doing so allows for minimization of the corrosion rate of the electrode (Affinito [0023]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ding (CN-107039633-A), as cited and translated in the IDS.
Regarding claim 6, Wang teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Wang fails to teach wherein the current collector is a mesh current collector having a porosity greater than or equal to about 20 percent to less than or equal to about 80 percent.
Ding is considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of lithium-ion negative electrodes ([0002]). Ding teaches wherein the current collector is a mesh current collector ([0008]) having a porosity greater than or equal to about 20 percent to less than or equal to about 80 percent ([0008] 40%-60%). 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, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Wang such that the current collector is a mesh current collector having a porosity greater than or equal to about 20 percent to less than or equal to about 80 percent such as in Ding. Doing so allows for a high specific energy lithium-ion battery negative electrode (Ding [0008])
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 11/25/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-6 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Wang, Wang in view of Yadav, Wang in view of Chae, Wang in view of Chae and Affinito, and Wang in view of Ding.
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 MADISON L KYLE whose telephone number is (571)272-0164. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9 AM - 5 PM ET.
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, Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at (571) 272-3433. 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.L.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1722
/ANCA EOFF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722
Prosecution Insights