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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/20/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 02/20/2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 3, and 4 have been amended and Claims 1, 3-5, 7-14 and 16-21 are pending.
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.
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.
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, 7-10 and 16-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (KR 20200076076 A - Machine Translation), hereinafter "Kim" in view of Chen et al. (CN109449511 B - Machine Translation), hereinafter "Chen". Kim and Chen et al. are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely coating of electrodes.
In regard to Claim 1, Kim et al. discloses a method of forming a protective layer on an electrode (Kim, Abstract), in an electrochemical cell comprising a first electrode comprising a lithium intercalation compound having a nickel content of greater than or equal to 70 at% relative to other transition metals in the lithium intercalation compound by disclosing LiNi1-xMxO2 wherein x=0.01 to 0.3 which using the molar ratio and atomic weights of the materials would provide a nickel content of 70 at% to 99 at% (Kim, [49]), which substantially overlaps the claimed range. Kim et al. also discloses wherein the second electrode comprises a current collector (Kim, [20]).
Further, Kim et al. discloses forming a protective layer comprising magnesium on at least a portion of a surface of the second electrode (Kim, [27]). While Kim et al. discloses an embodiment that uses a formation cycle to form a layer on the electrode and discloses that the method of forming the layer is not particularly limited, i.e. at the discretion of the skilled artisan (Kim, [17]), Kim is silent as to the voltage of the formation cycle.
Chen et al. discloses forming a protective layer during the one or more formation cycles on a second electrode (anode) by performing the steps of: applying one or more formation cycles to a second electrode, (Chen, Paragraph [7]), the one or more formation cycles comprising charging the second electrode at a first current to a voltage of greater than or equal to 1-5 V (Chen, [16]), which overlaps the claimed range and discharging the second electrode at a second current to a voltage of 0.1-3.5 V (Chen, [17]) which is within the claimed range and forms a beneficial uniform and stable protective layer on at least a portion of a surface of the second electrode (Chen, Abstract, [5]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide a magnesium protective layer as disclosed in Kim, formed by a formation cycle which is a known method of providing a protective coating to the skilled artisan of Kim (Kim, [17]), and applying the voltage and current parameters disclosed in Chen et al. as doing so would give the skilled artisan the reasonable expectation of achieving the beneficial protective layer taught in Chen and as doing so would amount to nothing more selecting the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference, as overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obvious. 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). See MPEP § 2144.05.
In regard to Claims 7-10, Kim et al. in view of Chen et al. discloses the method of Claim 1. Kim et al. also discloses charging occurs at 0.1C and discharging occurs at 0.1C initially and then after 3 cycles charging/discharging is at 0.2C/0.2C followed by 0.3C/0.5C (Kim, [106]), which are rates less than 3C for charging, less than 10C for discharging, and different between charging and discharging wherein discharging occurs at a faster rate than charging.
In regard to Claims 16-18, Kim et al. in view of Chen et al. discloses the method of Claim 1. Kim et al. also discloses an embodiment wherein the anode is free of any lithium during assembly and comprises only a current collector (Kim, [17]) and the protective layer comprises magnesium at a thickness of 2-5µm (Kim, [27, 31]), which falls within the claimed range.
In regard to Claims 19-21, Kim et al. in view of Chen et al. discloses the method of Claim 1. Kim et al. also discloses wherein the electrochemical cell further comprises a source of lithium contained within the first electrode by disclosing an embodiment wherein the anode is free of any lithium during assembly and comprises only a current collector, an active material in the first electrode, and a liquid electrolyte (Kim, [17, 63]).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (KR 20200076076 A - Machine Translation), hereinafter "Kim" in view of Hoshina et al. (US 20170271663 A1), hereinafter “Hoshina”. Kim and Hoshina are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely coating of electrodes.
In regard to Claim 3, Kim et al. discloses an electrochemical cell comprising a first electrode comprising a lithium intercalation compound having a nickel content of greater than or equal to 70 at% relative to other transition metals in the lithium intercalation compound by disclosing LiNi1-xMxO2 wherein x=0.01 to 0.3 which using the molar ratio and atomic weights of the materials would provide a nickel content of 70 at% to 99 at% (Kim, [49]), which anticipates the claimed range.
Kim et al. also discloses wherein the second electrode comprises a current collector (Kim, [20]) and a separator between the first electrode and the second electrode (Kim, [45]). Further, Kim et al. discloses forming a layer comprising magnesium on at least a portion of a surface of the second electrode (Kim, [27]). The original specification discloses a source of lithium between the cathode (first electrode) and separator may be provided from within the first electrode itself (Original Specification [0040]), because the first electrode comprises lithium in the active material in Kim, it by definition provides a source of lithium within, and because the separator contacts the first electrode in Kim the source is provided between the first electrode and separator which is substantially similar with the structure of the original specification. Further, an average thickness of lithium between the second electrode and the separator is provided at less than or equal to 30 µm in Kim, as a thickness of lithium = 0µm in Kim which is by definition less than 30 µm and is consistent with the lithium source being provided by the LiNi1-xMxO2 first electrode itself. While Kim et al. discloses a magnesium coating layer, it is silent as to the current collector also comprising magnesium.
Hoshina et al. discloses a second electrode wherein the current collector is alloyed with Mg which by definition is a current collector comprising magnesium (Hoshina, [0060-0061]). Hoshina et al. also discloses the benefits of a current collector comprising magnesium as providing a reduced weight and improving contact resistance (Hoshina, [0093, 0097]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide a current collector comprising magnesium as taught in Hoshina et al. with the electrode coated with magnesium as disclosed in Kim et al. as doing so would give the skilled artisan the reasonable expectation of achieving the benefits taught in Hoshina and as doing so would amount to nothing more than a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (KR 20200076076 A - Machine Translation), hereinafter "Kim" in view of Wang et al. (US 20200243824 A1), hereinafter "Wang" and Hoshina et al. (US 20170271663 A1), hereinafter “Hoshina”. Kim, Wang and Hoshina et al. are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely coating of electrodes.
In regard to Claim 4, Kim et al. discloses an electrochemical cell comprising a first electrode comprising a lithium intercalation compound having a nickel content of greater than or equal to 70 at% relative to other transition metals in the lithium intercalation compound by disclosing LiNi1-xMxO2 wherein x=0.01 to 0.3 which using the molar ratio and atomic weights of the materials would provide a nickel content of 70 at% to 99 at% (Kim, [49]), which anticipates the claimed range.
Kim et al. also discloses wherein the second electrode comprises a current collector (Kim, [20]) and a separator between the first electrode and the second electrode (Kim, [45]). Further, Kim et al. discloses forming a layer comprising magnesium on at least a portion of a surface of the second electrode in a thickness of 2-5µm (Kim, [27,31]), which falls within the claimed range. However, Kim fails to explicitly disclose a protective layer comprising lithium and is silent as to the current collector also comprising magnesium.
Wang et al. discloses a protective layer formed on the second electrode (anode) comprising lithium, while teaching a benefit of protecting the lithium anode against dendrite formation (Wang, [0089-0090]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide a protective layer comprising lithium as taught in Wang in a thickness of protective layer disclosed in Kim et al. as doing so would give the skilled artisan the reasonable expectation taught in Wang and as doing so would amount to nothing more than applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Hoshina et al. discloses a second electrode wherein the current collector is alloyed with Mg which by definition is a current collector comprising magnesium (Hoshina, [0060-0061]). Hoshina et al. also discloses the benefits of a current collector comprising magnesium as providing a reduced weight and improving contact resistance (Hoshina, [0093, 0097]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide a current collector comprising magnesium as taught in Hoshina et al. with the electrode coated with magnesium as disclosed in Kim et al. as doing so would give the skilled artisan the reasonable expectation of achieving the benefits taught in Hoshina and as doing so would amount to nothing more than a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
Claims 5, and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (KR 20200076076 A - Machine Translation), hereinafter "Kim" in view of Chen et al. (CN109449511 B - Machine Translation), hereinafter "Chen" as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wang et al. (US 20200243824 A1), hereinafter "Wang". Kim, Chen and Wang et al. are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely coating of electrodes.
In regard to Claim 5, Kim et al. in view of Chen et al. discloses the method of Claim 1. While Kim discloses a magnesium protective layer and Chen discloses a protective layer comprising fluorinated lithium, they both fail to explicitly disclose wherein the protective layer comprises a lithium compound comprising LiO2, Li2CO3, and/or LiF. Wang et al. discloses a protective layer comprising LiF formed by cycling which has the benefit of effectively protecting the lithium anode against dendrite formation (Wang, [0089-0090]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide a protective layer comprising LiF as taught in Wang et al. as doing so would give the skilled artisans the reasonable expectation of achieving the benefits taught in Wang and as doing so would amount to nothing more than the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way.
In regard to Claims 11-13, Kim et al. in view of Chen et al. discloses the method of Claim 1. Kim et al. also discloses 3 formation cycles (initial), which occur within the first 10 charge/discharge cycles and then apply one or more subsequent cycles, different from the formation cycles (Kim, [106]), however Kim is silent as to the voltages of these cycles.
Chen et al. discloses applying one or more subsequent cycles, different from the formation cycles, wherein a voltage of the first electrode and/or the second electrode does not exceed 4.4 V (Chen, Paragraph [0058-0059]). Chen discloses a range of 3-4.5v which is the voltage range of the battery, thus disclosing the option of performing the cycles at a voltage less than 4.5V. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to perform the cycles different than the formation cycles at a voltage different than the voltage of the formation cycle as taught in Chen as doing so would be obvious to try for the skilled artisan and as doing so would amount to nothing more than choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (KR 20200076076 A - Machine Translation), hereinafter "Kim" in view of Chen et al. (CN109449511 B - Machine Translation), hereinafter "Chen" as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yakovleva et al. (US 20210273220 A1), hereinafter "Yakovleva". Kim, Chen and Yakovleva et al. are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely coating of electrodes.
In regard to Claim 14, Kim et al. in view of Chen et al. discloses the method of Claim 1. While Kim is silent as to the temperature during formation cycles and Chen discloses a temperature of 25°C during formation both are silent as to a temperature of greater than or equal to 40 °C during the one or more formation cycles.
Yakovleva et al. discloses forming a protective layer on the anode and discloses two specific examples of a temperature of 45°C and 60°C during formation cycles, which are both greater than or equal to 40 °C and teaches the benefit of producing a SEI layer within a shorter period of time compared to baseline cells. (Yakovleva, [0080-0081]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide a temperature above 40°C during the formation cycle as taught in Yakovleva as doing so would give the skilled artisan the reasonable expectation of achieving the benefits taught in Yakovleva and as doing so would amount to nothing more than a variation of temperature for use in the same field based on design incentives or other market forces, as the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Double Patenting
Applicants request to hold the provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection of record regarding Claims 1, 3-15, and 18-20 over Claims 1-12, 15-16, and 18-20 of copending Application No.17/942,489 in abeyance is acknowledged. However, the double patenting rejection will be withdrawn if and when the requirements are met.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claim 1 have been considered but they are not persuasive. Kim et al. or a combination of Kim addresses all of the newly amended claim limitations as well as the arguments against the previous references alone or in combination. While Kim et al. discloses providing a protective coating comprising magnesium formed ex situ in some embodiments the skilled artisan of Kim also provides a coating of a lithium thin film formed by an initial charging after assembling the battery (Kim, [17]), which demonstrates the skilled artisan is aware of forming a protective coating on at least a portion of a surface of the second electrode during the one or more formation cycles. Thus, the method used to provide the magnesium coating can also reasonably be formed by the formation cycles already known to the skilled artisan of Kim. Therefore, Kim does not rely on Chen for knowledge that a protective layer can be formed by formation cycles but instead relies on Chen for appropriate voltage of the formation cycles to optimize the coating. Further, the magnesium protective layer of Kim formed ex situ or by formation cycles in view of the voltages of Chen is equivalent structurally to at least a portion of a surface of the second electrode comprising a magnesium protective layer in the original specification.
Applicants’ arguments with respect to Claims 3-4 are addressed with the section above regarding claim 1 as well as by a new reference not previously relied upon in the rejection of record (Hoshina et al.) which in combination with Kim and Chen teaches all of the limitations of amended claims 3-4 as discussed in the 35 U.S.C. rejection of record above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH MAX OTERO whose telephone number is (571)272-2559. The examiner can normally be reached M-F Generally 7:30-430.
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, Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at (571) 270-3879. 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.
/K.M.O./Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/NICOLE M. BUIE-HATCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1725