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 .
Examiner’s Comments
Applicants’ response filed on 3/11/2026 has been fully considered. Claims 4, 8 and 14 are cancelled and claims 1-3, 5-7, 9-13 and 15-20 are pending.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 3/11/2026 has been entered.
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.
Claims 1, 5-7, 9, 11, 13, 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al (KR 20210015103 A) in view of Cui et al (CN 105702919 A) in further view of Tokuda (WO 2020/261742 A1).
Machine translations are being used as the English translation for Lee et al (KR 20210015103 A) and Cui et al (CN 105702919 A). Tokuda (US 2022/0359877 A1) is being used as the English translation for Tokuda (WO 2020/261742 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Lee disclose a battery (lithium metal battery; paragraph [0049]) comprising:
a negative electrode (lithium metal composite electrode being used as an anode; paragraph [0049]), wherein the negative electrode (lithium metal composite electrode; paragraph [0049]) comprises:
a current collector containing a conductive material (support comprising metal; paragraph [0046]),
an anode active material positioned on a surface of the current collector and containing metallic lithium (a lithium metal layer disposed on the support and comprising lithium metal; paragraphs [0045]-[0046]), and
a protection layer covering an exposed surface of the anode active material (a polymer-based protective layer formed on a surface of the lithium metal layer; paragraph [0033]), the protection layer including a polymer-ceramic composite material containing an ultraviolet cured resin or an electron-beam cured resin and a ceramic (the polymer-based protective layer comprises a cross-linked product of a photocurable monomer and inorganic particles comprising alumina; paragraphs [0034], [0036] and [0040]).
Lee does not disclose the battery comprising the ultraviolet cured resin or the electron-beam cured resin includes vinylene carbonate as a copolymer.
However, Cui discloses a battery (lithium battery; paragraph [0007]) comprising a negative electrode (lithium battery electrode; paragraph [0007]) having disposed thereon a protection layer including an ultraviolet cured resin or the electron-beam cured resin includes vinylene carbonate as a copolymer (a solid-state polymer material forming a layer on the surface of a lithium battery electrode and comprising a copolymer of vinylene carbonate; paragraph [0016]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the battery of Lee to include the copolymer of vinylene carbonate in the polymer-based protection layer of Lee because having a protective film comprising copolymer of vinylene carbonate inhibits generation of lithium dendrite providing excellent cycle performance (paragraphs [0005]-[0008] of Cui).
Lee does not disclose the battery comprising the ceramic of the protective layer including magnesium hydroxide.
However, Tokuda discloses a battery (secondary battery; paragraph [0015]) comprising ceramic of the protective layer including magnesium hydroxide (protective layer provided on the surface of the negative electrode, wherein the protective layer includes a resin component and inorganic particles and wherein the inorganic particles comprise a metal hydroxide where metal includes Mg or alumina; paragraphs [0032] and [0035]-[0036]).
Tokuda discloses magnesium hydroxide and alumina as suitable alternatives for the inorganic particles of the protective layer.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the battery of Lee to substitute the alumina in the polymer-based protection layer of Lee for the magnesium hydroxide of Tokuda because having the required inorganic particles provides improved cycle characteristics of the battery (paragraph [0034] of Tokuda).
Regarding claim 5, Lee, Cui and Tokuda disclose the battery of claim 1 as noted above and Lee discloses the battery (lithium metal battery; paragraph [0049]) comprising a particle size of the ceramic of the protection layer being from 1 nm to 1 µm (inorganic particles having a particle size from 1 nm to 1 µm; paragraph [0041]).
The particle size of the inorganic particles overlaps the claimed range for the particle size of the ceramic.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference in order to provide the desired shape of the inorganic particles. It has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” Please see MPEP 2144.05, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); and In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 6, Lee, Cui and Tokuda disclose the battery of claim 1 as noted above and Lee discloses the battery (lithium metal battery; paragraph [0049]) comprising a thickness of the protection layer being from 0.1 µm to 3 µm (thickness of the polymer-based protective layer being from 0.1 µm to 3 µm; paragraph [0044]).
The thickness of the polymer-based protective layer overlaps the claimed range for the thickness of the protection layer.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference in order to secure an electrode having excellent energy density and high lithium conductivity by forming a thin and uniform film as well as a protective function for the lithium metal electrode by the protective layer (paragraph [0044]). It has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” Please see MPEP 2144.05, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); and In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 7, Lee, Cui and Tokuda disclose the battery of claim 1 as noted above Lee discloses the battery (lithium metal battery; paragraph [0049]) comprising a content of the ceramic in the polymer-ceramic composite material specifically being 1 wt.% to 50 wt.% (paragraph [0042]).
The amount of inorganic particles in the polymer-based protective layer overlaps the claimed range for the content of ceramic in the polymer-based ceramic composite material.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference in order to have improved electrochemical performance and storage life (paragraph [0042]). It has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” Please see MPEP 2144.05, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); and In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 9, Lee discloses a method for manufacturing a negative electrode of a battery (method for manufacturing a lithium metal composite electrode for a lithium metal battery; paragraphs [0049] and [0051]), the method comprising: preparing a slurry by mixing ultraviolet cured resin or electron-beam cured resin with a ceramic (preparing a protective film paste by mixing a functional cross-linked polymer and inorganic particles; paragraphs [0052], [0054], [0060] and [0066]), applying the slurry for a protection layer on a current collector containing a conductive material and an exposed surface of a metallic anode active material (applying the protective film paste onto a lithium metal layer where the lithium metal layer disposed on a support comprising metal and comprises lithium metal; paragraphs [0045]-[0046] and [0052]), the metallic anode active material being positioned on a surface of the current collector and containing metallic lithium (the lithium metal layer disposed on a support comprising metal and comprises lithium metal; paragraphs [0045]-[0046] and [0052]); adjusting a thickness of the slurry (uniformly applying the protective film paste through doctor blade coating; paragraph [0062]); and forming the protection layer by curing the ultraviolet cured resin of the slurry by irradiating ultraviolet rays (crosslinking the protective film paste by photocuring with ultraviolet rays or an electron beam; paragraph [0063]).
Lee does not disclose the method comprising mixing vinylene carbonate in the slurry and curing vinylene carbonate.
However, Cui discloses a battery (lithium battery; pg. 3 of Cui translation) comprising a negative electrode (lithium battery electrode; pg. 3 of Cui translation) having disposed there on a protection layer including an ultraviolet cured resin or the electron-beam cured resin includes vinylene carbonate as a copolymer (a solid-state polymer material forming a layer on the surface of a lithium battery electrode and comprising a copolymer of vinylene carbonate; pg. 3 of Cui translation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the battery of Lee to include the copolymer of vinylene carbonate in the polymer-based protection layer of Lee because having a protective film comprising copolymer of vinylene carbonate inhibits generation of lithium dendrite providing excellent cycle performance (pg. 3 of translation of Cui).
Lee does not disclose the method comprising the ceramic of the protective layer including magnesium hydroxide.
However, Tokuda discloses a battery (secondary battery; paragraph [0015]) comprising ceramic of the protective layer including magnesium hydroxide (protective layer provided on the surface of the negative electrode, wherein the protective layer includes a resin component and inorganic particles and wherein the inorganic particles comprise a metal hydroxide where metal includes Mg or alumina; paragraphs [0032] and [0035]-[0036]).
Tokuda discloses magnesium hydroxide and alumina as suitable alternatives for the inorganic particles of the protective layer.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Lee to substitute the alumina in the polymer-based protection layer of Lee for the magnesium hydroxide of Tokuda because having the required inorganic particles provides improved cycle characteristics of the battery (paragraph [0034] of Tokuda).
Regarding claim 11, Lee, Cui and Tokuda disclose the method of claim 9 as noted above and Lee discloses the method comprising 30 wt.% to 99 wt.% of the cured polymer (the protective film paste comprising functional cross-linked polymer in an amount from 30 wt.% to 99 wt.%; paragraph [0054]-[0055]), initiator in an amount from 1 wt.% to 10 wt.% (paragraph [0058]) and ceramic in an amount from 1 wt.% to 100 wt.% (inorganic particles; paragraph [0060]).
The amounts of functional cross-linked polymer, initiator and inorganic particles overlap the claimed range for the amount of cured polymer, initiator and ceramic.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference in order to control the structure of the protective film and improve its function by controlling the chemical structure by controlling the curing process conditions, film thickness and functional cross-linked polymer components (paragraph [0054]), have the functional cross-linked polymer cross-linked through a sufficient cross-linking reaction minimizing damage to the lithium metal surface to form a protective film and facilitate structural control of the protective film (paragraph [0058]) and improve electrochemical performance and storage life (paragraph [0042]). It has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” Please see MPEP 2144.05, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); and In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 13, Lee, Cui and Tokuda disclose the method of claim 9 as noted above and Lee discloses the method comprising slurry includes 30 to 99 weight percent of the cured polymer (the protective film paste comprising functional cross-linked polymer in an amount from 30 wt.% to 99 wt.%; paragraph [0054]-[0055]) and 1 to 100 weight percent of the ceramic (the protective film paste comprising inorganic particles in an amount from 1 wt.% to 100 wt.%; paragraph [0060]).
The amounts of functional cross-linked polymer and inorganic particles overlap the claimed range for the amount of cured polymer and ceramic.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference in order to control the structure of the protective film and improve its function by controlling the chemical structure by controlling the curing process conditions, film thickness and functional cross-linked polymer components (paragraph [0054]) and improve electrochemical performance and storage life (paragraph [0042]). It has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” Please see MPEP 2144.05, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); and In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 15, Lee, Cui and Tokuda disclose the method of claim 9 as noted above Lee discloses the method comprising a thickness of the protection layer being from 0.1 µm to 3 µm (thickness of the polymer-based protective layer being from 0.1 µm to 3 µm; paragraph [0044]).
The thickness of the polymer-based protective layer overlaps the claimed range for the thickness of the protection layer.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference in order to secure an electrode having excellent energy density and high lithium conductivity by forming a thin and uniform film as well as a protective function for the lithium metal electrode by the protective layer (paragraph [0044]). It has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” Please see MPEP 2144.05, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); and In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 16, Lee, Cui and Tokuda disclose the method of claim 9 as noted above and Lee discloses the method comprising adjusting the thickness of the slurry comprises adjusting the thickness of the slurry through a doctor blade (uniformly applying the protective film paste through doctor blade coating; paragraph [0062]).
Regarding claim 17, Lee, Cui and Tokuda disclose the method of claim 9 as noted above and Lee discloses the method comprising adjusting the thickness of the slurry by pressing the slurry with a roll (incorporation of a roll-to-roll process; paragraph [0062]).
Regarding claim 18, Lee, Cui and Tokuda disclose the method of claim 9 as noted above and Lee discloses the method comprising a curing time of curing the ultraviolet cured resin or electron-beam cured resin is within 1 minute (light irradiation being performed for 1 minute or longer; paragraph [0063]).
Regarding claim 19, Lee, Cui and Tokuda disclose the method of claim 16 as noted above Lee discloses the method comprising an irradiation intensity of ultraviolet rays at curing the ultraviolet cured resin is 500 to 5000 mJ/cm2 (irradiation does being 1000 mJ or lower; paragraph [0063]).
Regarding claim 20, Lee, Cui and Tokuda disclose the method of claim 16 as noted above and Lee discloses the method comprising an electron's kinetic energy of electron beams at curing (irradiating the protective film paste with electron beams; paragraph [0063]).
Lee does not disclose the method comprising the electron’s kinetic energy of electron beams for curing the resin being 50 to 500 keV.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the electron’s kinetic energy of electron beams for curing the resin to be 50 to 500 keV because doing so would provide the desired crosslinked product for the protective film.
Claims 2-3, 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al (KR 20210015103 A) in view of Cui et al (CN 105702919 A) in further view of Tokuda (WO 2020/261742 A1) in further view of Choi et al (US 2017/0373320 A1).
Machine translations are being used as the English translation for Lee et al (KR 20210015103 A) and Cui et al (CN 105702919 A). Tokuda (US 2022/0359877 A1) is being used as the English translation for Tokuda (WO 2020/261742 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Lee, Cui and Tokuda discloses the battery of claim 1 as noted above and Lee discloses the battery (lithium metal battery; paragraph [0049]) comprising the ultraviolet cured resin comprising benzophenone as an initiator (an initiator in the protective film paste and wherein the initiator comprises benzophenone; paragraph [0057]-[0058]).
Lee, Cui and Tokuda do not disclose the battery comprising the ultraviolet cured resin including urethane acrylate.
However, Choi discloses a negative electrode (anode architecture) comprising a protection layer disposed thereon (protection film; paragraph [0043]) and wherein the protection layer comprises an ultraviolet cured resin including urethane acrylate (a protection film comprising a multi-functional monomer including diurethane diacrylate; paragraphs [0047]-[0048]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the battery of Lee, Cui and Tokuda to include the multi-functional monomer including diurethane diacrylate of Choi for the monomer of Lee because doing so provides a polymer that blocks oxygen and water vapor (paragraph [0043] of Choi).
Regarding claim 3, Lee, Cui and Tokuda discloses the battery of claim 1 as noted above.
Lee, Cui and Tokuda do not disclose the battery comprising the electron beam cured resin including urethane acrylate.
However, Choi discloses a negative electrode (anode architecture) comprising the electron beam cured resin including urethane acrylate (protection film comprising a multi-functional monomer including diurethane diacrylate; paragraphs [0047]-[0048]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the battery of Lee, Cui and Tokuda to include the multi-functional monomer including diurethane diacrylate of Choi for the monomer of Lee because doing so provides a polymer that blocks oxygen and water vapor (paragraph [0043] of Choi).
Regarding claim 10, Lee, Cui and Tokuda discloses the method of claim 9 as noted above and Lee discloses the method comprising the ultraviolet cured resin comprising benzophenone as an initiator (an initiator in the protective film paste and wherein the initiator comprises benzophenone; paragraph [0057]-[0058]).
Lee, Cui and Tokuda do not disclose the method comprising the ultraviolet cured resin including urethane acrylate.
However, Choi discloses a negative electrode (anode architecture) comprising the ultraviolet cured resin including urethane acrylate (a protection film comprising a multi-functional monomer including diurethane diacrylate; paragraphs [0047]-[0048]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the battery of Lee, Cui and Tokuda to include the multi-functional monomer including diurethane diacrylate of Choi for the monomer of Lee because doing so provides a polymer that blocks oxygen and water vapor (paragraph [0043] of Choi).
Regarding claim 12, Lee, Cui and Tokuda discloses the method of claim 9 as noted above.
Lee, Cui and Tokuda do not disclose the battery comprising the electron beam cured resin including urethane acrylate.
However, Choi discloses a negative electrode (anode architecture) comprising the electron beam cured resin including urethane acrylate (protection film comprising a multi-functional monomer including diurethane diacrylate; paragraphs [0047]-[0048]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the battery of Lee, Cui and Tokuda to include the multi-functional monomer including diurethane diacrylate of Choi for the monomer of Lee because doing so provides a polymer that blocks oxygen and water vapor (paragraph [0043] of Choi).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 9 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.
Applicants argue that Lee and Cui do not disclose the ceramic of the protection layer including at least one of aluminum oxide hydroxide or magnesium hydroxide.
This argument is moot as Lee and Cui do not disclose the ceramic of the protection layer including at least one of aluminum oxide hydroxide or magnesium hydroxide. Therefore, the previous rejections have been withdrawn. However, new grounds of rejection have been noted above.
Applicants argue that Choi fails to cure the deficiencies of Lee and Cui.
This argument is not persuasive as Choi is a teaching reference used to teach an ultraviolet cured resin comprising urethane acrylate.
However, note that while Choi does not disclose all the features of the present claimed invention, Choi is a teaching reference, and therefore, it is not necessary for this secondary reference to contain all the features of the presently claimed invention, In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 179 USPQ 224, 226 (CCPA 1973), In re Keller 624 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). Rather this reference teaches certain concepts, namely an ultraviolet cured resin comprising urethane acrylate, and in combination with the primary reference, discloses the presently claimed invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SATHAVARAM I REDDY whose telephone number is (571)270-7061. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 AM-6:00 PM EST.
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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at (571)-272-1291. 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.
/SATHAVARAM I REDDY/Examiner, Art Unit 1785
Prosecution Insights