DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2023, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The Applicant’s amendment filed on 11/19/2025 was received. Claims 15-20 were amended. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S.C. code not included in this action can be found in the prior Office action issued on 8/22/2025.
Claim Objections
The claim objection on claim 20 is withdrawn because Applicant amended claim 20.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) on claims 17-19 are withdrawn because Applicant amended claims 17-19.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (US 20190198865 A1) on claims 1-20 are withdrawn because applicants’ arguments are persuasive.
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.
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 1-6, 8-12, 14-18, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 20190198865 A1) in view of Zhang et al. (CN 105261790 A). The English translation of the CN 10526
Regarding to claim 1: Kim et al. disclose a lithium battery (30) (equivalent to an electrode assembly) (abstract) comprising:
an electrolyte (24) (equivalent to an electrolytic solution) (par. 74, figure 2A), wherein the electrolytic solution comprises fluoroethylene carbonate and/or other solvents (par. 126, 127); and
an anode (20) (equivalent to a negative electrode) (par. 30, figure 2A), wherein the anode (20) comprises a anode layer (11) (equivalent to an active material) (par. 30, figure 1) and an inorganic protection layer (12) (par. 30, figures 1, 2A) covering the anode layer (11) (figure 1), the inorganic protection layer (12) is located between the electrolyte (24) and the anode layer (11) (figure 2A), the inorganic protection layer (12) is in contact with the electrolyte (24) (figure 2A), the anode layer (11) comprises lithium metal (par. 60), and the protection layer comprises silica (SiO2), a silicon sulfur glass (LixSiySz, where 0<x<3, 0<y<2, and 0<z<4), a Li2O—Al2O3—SiO2—P2O5—TiO2—GeO2 ceramic or a combination thereof (par. 66).
Kim et al. fail to explicitly disclose a weight percentage of the fluoroethylene carbonate in a total mass of the solvent and the additive is 10% to 30%. However, Zhang et al. disclose a lithium-ion battery comprising an electrolyte (par. 2). The electrolyte comprises an organic solvent, a lithium salt, and an additive (par. 14). The additive comprises an additive A and fluoroethylene carbonate (par. 14). The content of the fluoroethylene carbonate is 10% to 40% of the total weight of the electrolyte (par. 21). The battery comprises a silicon-based (silicon oxides (par. 25)) negative electrode (par. 21). Zhang et al. teach that when an electrolyte containing additive A and fluoroethylene carbonate is applied to a lithium-ion battery, the cycle performance of the lithium-ion battery, especially the silicon-based negative electrode lithium-ion battery, can be improved (par. 8). Zhang et al. further recognize when the content of fluoroethylene carbonate in the electrolyte is too low, the active interface of the negative electrode, especially the active interface of the silicon-based negative electrode, cannot be effectively protected; and when the content of fluoroethylene carbonate in the electrolyte is too high, the electrolyte and the positive electrode material will have side reactions, causing damage to the positive electrode active material (par. 21). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention can adjust the concentration of fluoroethylene carbonate to yield the desired protection of the negative electrode and avoid the damage of the positive electrode. Discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art. In re Boesch, CCPA 1980, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ215.
Regarding to claim 2: Kim et al. disclose a thickness of the inorganic protection layer (12) may be about 100 nm (equivalent to 0.1 µm) or less (par. 69). 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, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding to claim 3: Kim et al. disclose the anode layer (11) comprises an second anode layer (11b) (equivalent to an active material) (par. 30, figure 1) including lithium metal or a lithium alloy (par. 60).
Regarding to claim 4: Kim et al. disclose a thickness of the second anode layer (11b) may be in a range about 1,000 μm to about 1 μm (par. 62). A thickness of the inorganic protection layer (12) may be about 100 nm or less, about 60 nm or less, about 50 nm or less, about 40 nm or less, about 30 nm or less, about 20 nm or less, or about 10 nm or less (par. 69).
A volume of a deposited layer can be calculated by a formula 1 below:
Formula 1: Volume= (Area of deposition) × (Thickness)
Thus, the volume ratio between lithium and silicon is proportional to the thickness of two layers. For example, the thickness of the second anode layer (11b) (comprising lithium metal (par. 60)) is 1 μm, and the thickness of the inorganic protection layer (12) (comprising silica (SiO2) (par. 66)) is 10 nm. The volume ration be between lithium and silicon is 100:1.
Kim et al. further recognize that the thickness of the second anode layer (11b) may be controlled according to a lithium concentration in a plating solution, a current amount, and/or a plating time (par. 87) and the thickness of the inorganic protection layer (12) may be controlled according to conditions under which the atomic layer deposition (ALD) is performed (par. 88). Therefore, it would have been within the skill of the ordinary artisan to adjust the lithium plating condition and the ALD deposition condition to yield the thicker or thinner layer of the second anode layer (11b) and the inorganic protection layer (12) and obtain the desired volume ratio between lithium and silicon. Discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art. In re Boesch, CCPA 1980, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ215. In addition, it is the position of the examiner that disclosure provides no evidence of criticality with regard to the volume ratio of lithium and silicon in the active material and the protection.
Regarding to claim 5: Kim et al. disclose the inorganic protection layer (12) may include silica (SiO2) (par. 66).
Regarding to claim 6: Kim et al. disclose the organic solvents in the electrolyte (24) may be propylene carbonate, ethylene carbonate, fluoroethylene carbonate, vinylethylene carbonate, diethyl carbonate, methylethyl carbonate, methylpropyl carbonate, butylene carbonate, benzonitrile, acetonitrile, tetrahydrofuran, 2-methyltetrahydrofuran, y-butyrolactone, dioxorane, 4-methyldioxorane, N,N-dimethyl formamide, dimethyl acetamide, dimethylsulfoxide, dioxane, 1,2-dimethoxyethane, sulforane, dichloroethane, chlorobenzene, nitrobenzene, dimethyl carbonate, methylisopropyl carbonate, succinonitrile, diethyl glycol dimethyl ether, tetraethylene glycol dimethyl ether, triethyl glycol dimethyl ether, polyethyl glycol dimethyl ether, ethylpropyl carbonate, dipropyl carbonate, dibutyl carbonate, diethylene glycol, dimethyl ether, or a mixture thereof (par. 127).
Regarding to claim 8: Kim et al. disclose the lithium battery (30) includes a cathode (21) (equivalent to a positive electrode) (par. 74, figure 2A) and a separator (24c) (par. 78, figure 2C).
Regarding to claim 9: Kim et al. disclose the lithium battery (30) as described above. Kim et al. fail to explicitly disclose a weight percentage of the fluoroethylene carbonate in a total mass of the solvent and the additive is 10% to 20%. %. However, Zhang et al. disclose a lithium-ion battery comprising an electrolyte (par. 2). The electrolyte comprises an organic solvent, a lithium salt, and an additive (par. 14). The additive comprises an additive A and fluoroethylene carbonate (par. 14). The content of the fluoroethylene carbonate is 10% to 40% of the total weight of the electrolyte (par. 21). The battery comprises a silicon-based (silicon oxides (par. 25)) negative electrode (par. 21). Zhang et al. teach that when an electrolyte containing additive A and fluoroethylene carbonate is applied to a lithium-ion battery, the cycle performance of the lithium-ion battery, especially the silicon-based negative electrode lithium-ion battery, can be improved (par. 8). Zhang et al. further recognize when the content of fluoroethylene carbonate in the electrolyte is too low, the active interface of the negative electrode, especially the active interface of the silicon-based negative electrode, cannot be effectively protected; and when the content of fluoroethylene carbonate in the electrolyte is too high, the electrolyte and the positive electrode material will have side reactions, causing damage to the positive electrode active material (par. 21). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention can adjust the concentration of fluoroethylene carbonate to yield the desired protection of the negative electrode and avoid the damage of the positive electrode. Discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art. In re Boesch, CCPA 1980, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ215.
Regarding to claim 10: Kim et al. disclose the lithium battery (30) as described above. Kim et al. fail to explicitly disclose a weight percentage of the fluoroethylene carbonate in a total mass of the solvent and the additive is 15% to 30%. However, Zhang et al. disclose a lithium-ion battery comprising an electrolyte (par. 2). The electrolyte comprises an organic solvent, a lithium salt, and an additive (par. 14). The additive comprises an additive A and fluoroethylene carbonate (par. 14). The content of the fluoroethylene carbonate is 10% to 40% of the total weight of the electrolyte (par. 21). The battery comprises a silicon-based (silicon oxides (par. 25)) negative electrode (par. 21). Zhang et al. teach that when an electrolyte containing additive A and fluoroethylene carbonate is applied to a lithium-ion battery, the cycle performance of the lithium-ion battery, especially the silicon-based negative electrode lithium-ion battery, can be improved (par. 8). Zhang et al. further recognize when the content of fluoroethylene carbonate in the electrolyte is too low, the active interface of the negative electrode, especially the active interface of the silicon-based negative electrode, cannot be effectively protected; and when the content of fluoroethylene carbonate in the electrolyte is too high, the electrolyte and the positive electrode material will have side reactions, causing damage to the positive electrode active material (par. 21). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention can adjust the concentration of fluoroethylene carbonate to yield the desired protection of the negative electrode and avoid the damage of the positive electrode. Discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art. In re Boesch, CCPA 1980, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ215.
Regarding to claim 11: Kim et al. disclose the thickness of the inorganic protection layer (12) may be about 100 nm (equivalent to 0.1 µm) or less (par. 69). 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, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding to claim 12: Kim et al. disclose the thickness of the inorganic protection layer 12 may be about 100 nm (equivalent to 0.1 µm) or less (par. 69). 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, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding to claim 14: Kim et al. disclose a battery pack (equivalent to an electrochemical device) that is formed by a plurality of lithium batteries (30) (equivalent to an electrode assembly) (par. 132). The lithium battery (30) comprising:
an electrolyte (24) (equivalent to an electrolytic solution) (par. 74, figure 2A), wherein the electrolytic solution comprises fluoroethylene carbonate and/or other solvents (par. 126, 127); and
an anode (20) (equivalent to a negative electrode) (par. 30, figure 2A), wherein the anode (20) comprises a anode layer (11) (equivalent to an active material) (par. 30, figure 1) and an inorganic protection layer (12) (par. 30, figures 1, 2A) covering the anode layer (11) (figure 1), the inorganic protection layer (12) is located between the electrolyte (24) and the anode layer (11) (figure 2A), the inorganic protection layer (12) is in contact with the electrolyte (24) (figure 2A), the anode layer (11) comprises lithium metal (par. 60), and the protection layer comprises silica (SiO2), a silicon sulfur glass (LixSiySz, where 0<x<3, 0<y<2, and 0<z<4), a Li2O—Al2O3—SiO2—P2O5—TiO2—GeO2 ceramic or a combination thereof (par. 66).
Kim et al. fail to explicitly disclose a weight percentage of the fluoroethylene carbonate in a total mass of the solvent and the additive is 10% to 30%. However, Zhang et al. disclose a lithium-ion battery comprising an electrolyte (par. 2). The electrolyte comprises an organic solvent, a lithium salt, and an additive (par. 14). The additive comprises an additive A and fluoroethylene carbonate (par. 14). The content of the fluoroethylene carbonate is 10% to 40% of the total weight of the electrolyte (par. 21). The battery comprises a silicon-based (silicon oxides (par. 25)) negative electrode (par. 21). Zhang et al. teach that when an electrolyte containing additive A and fluoroethylene carbonate is applied to a lithium-ion battery, the cycle performance of the lithium-ion battery, especially the silicon-based negative electrode lithium-ion battery, can be improved (par. 8). Zhang et al. further recognize when the content of fluoroethylene carbonate in the electrolyte is too low, the active interface of the negative electrode, especially the active interface of the silicon-based negative electrode, cannot be effectively protected; and when the content of fluoroethylene carbonate in the electrolyte is too high, the electrolyte and the positive electrode material will have side reactions, causing damage to the positive electrode active material (par. 21). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention can adjust the concentration of fluoroethylene carbonate to yield the desired protection of the negative electrode and avoid the damage of the positive electrode. Discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art. In re Boesch, CCPA 1980, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ215.
Regarding to claim 15: Kim et al. disclose the lithium battery (30) as described above. Kim et al. fail to explicitly disclose a weight percentage of the fluoroethylene carbonate in a total mass of the solvent and the additive is 10% to 20%. %. However, Zhang et al. disclose a lithium-ion battery comprising an electrolyte (par. 2). The electrolyte comprises an organic solvent, a lithium salt, and an additive (par. 14). The additive comprises an additive A and fluoroethylene carbonate (par. 14). The content of the fluoroethylene carbonate is 10% to 40% of the total weight of the electrolyte (par. 21). The battery comprises a silicon-based (silicon oxides (par. 25)) negative electrode (par. 21). Zhang et al. teach that when an electrolyte containing additive A and fluoroethylene carbonate is applied to a lithium-ion battery, the cycle performance of the lithium-ion battery, especially the silicon-based negative electrode lithium-ion battery, can be improved (par. 8). Zhang et al. further recognize when the content of fluoroethylene carbonate in the electrolyte is too low, the active interface of the negative electrode, especially the active interface of the silicon-based negative electrode, cannot be effectively protected; and when the content of fluoroethylene carbonate in the electrolyte is too high, the electrolyte and the positive electrode material will have side reactions, causing damage to the positive electrode active material (par. 21). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention can adjust the concentration of fluoroethylene carbonate to yield the desired protection of the negative electrode and avoid the damage of the positive electrode. Discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art. In re Boesch, CCPA 1980, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ215.
Regarding to claim 16: Kim et al. disclose the lithium battery (30) as described above. Kim et al. fail to explicitly disclose a weight percentage of the fluoroethylene carbonate in a total mass of the solvent and the additive is 15% to 30%. %. However, Zhang et al. disclose a lithium-ion battery comprising an electrolyte (par. 2). The electrolyte comprises an organic solvent, a lithium salt, and an additive (par. 14). The additive comprises an additive A and fluoroethylene carbonate (par. 14). The content of the fluoroethylene carbonate is 10% to 40% of the total weight of the electrolyte (par. 21). The battery comprises a silicon-based (silicon oxides (par. 25)) negative electrode (par. 21). Zhang et al. teach that when an electrolyte containing additive A and fluoroethylene carbonate is applied to a lithium-ion battery, the cycle performance of the lithium-ion battery, especially the silicon-based negative electrode lithium-ion battery, can be improved (par. 8). Zhang et al. further recognize when the content of fluoroethylene carbonate in the electrolyte is too low, the active interface of the negative electrode, especially the active interface of the silicon-based negative electrode, cannot be effectively protected; and when the content of fluoroethylene carbonate in the electrolyte is too high, the electrolyte and the positive electrode material will have side reactions, causing damage to the positive electrode active material (par. 21). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention can adjust the concentration of fluoroethylene carbonate to yield the desired protection of the negative electrode and avoid the damage of the positive electrode. Discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art. In re Boesch, CCPA 1980, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ215.
Regarding to claim 17: Kim et al. disclose the thickness of the inorganic protection layer (12) may be about 100 nm (equivalent to 0.1 µm) or less (par. 69). ). 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, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding to claim 18: Kim et al. disclose the thickness of the inorganic protection layer (12) may be about 100 nm (equivalent to 0.1 µm) or less (par. 69). ). 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, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding to claim 20: Kim et al. disclose any suitable device (equivalent to an electronic device), for example, a laptop computer, a smart phone, or an electric vehicle, can use a battery pack (equivalent to an electrochemical device) that is formed by a plurality of the lithium batteries (30) (par. 132).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 20190198865 A1) and Zhang et al. (CN 105261790 A) as applied in claim 1, and further in view of Morinaka et al. (US 20200313236 A1).
Regarding to claim 7: Kim et al. disclose the lithium battery (30) as described in paragraph 5 above. Kim et al. fail to explicitly disclose the electrolytic solution further comprises vinylene carbonate. However, Morinak et al. disclose an additive for a non-aqueous electrolyte solution (abstract). The electrolyte solution can comprise additives of vinylene carbonate and fluoroethylene carbonate (par. 81). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add vinylene carbonate of Morinak et al. in the electrolyte (24) of Kim et al. because Morinak et al. teach that vinylene carbonate can have overcharge prevention effect, negative electrode film-forming effect, and positive electrode protection effect (par. 81).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 20190198865 A1) and Zhang et al. (CN 105261790 A) as applied in claim 1, and further in view of Guo et al. (CN104617259 A).
Regarding to claim 13: Kim et al. disclose the lithium battery (30) as described in paragraph 5 above. Kim et al. fail to explicitly disclose a thickness of the protection layer is 1 µm to 50 µm. However, Guo et al. disclose a method of growing an in-situ protective layer of silicon dioxide on metallic lithium to inhibit the growth of lithium dendrites, and effectively controls the thickness of the protective layer by controlling the reaction time, the amount of reactants, etc. (par. 7). The thickness of the protective layer in Guo et al. ranges from 50nm to 2µm in Example 1-10. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the thickness of the in-situ protective layer of Guo et al. as the thickness of the inorganic protection layer (12) of Kim et al. because Guo et al. teach that the in-situ grown protective layer can effectively inhibit the growth of lithium dendrites, thereby improving the cycle performance of lithium secondary batteries (par. 7). 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, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP 2144.05.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 20190198865 A1) and Zhang et al. (CN 105261790 A) as applied in claim 14, and further in view of Guo et al. (CN104617259 A).
Regarding to claim 19: Kim et al. disclose the lithium battery (30) as described in paragraph 5 above. Kim et al. fail to explicitly disclose a thickness of the protection layer is 1 µm to 50 µm. However, Guo et al. disclose a method of growing an in-situ protective layer of silicon dioxide on metallic lithium to inhibit the growth of lithium dendrites, and effectively controls the thickness of the protective layer by controlling the reaction time, the amount of reactants, etc. (par. 7). The thickness of the protective layer in Guo et al. ranges from 50nm to 2µm in Example 1-10. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the thickness of the in-situ protective layer of Guo et al. as the thickness of the inorganic protection layer (12) of Kim et al. because Guo et al. teach that the in-situ grown protective layer can effectively inhibit the growth of lithium dendrites, thereby improving the cycle performance of lithium secondary batteries (par. 7). 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, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP 2144.05.
Claim 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 20190198865 A1) and Zhang et al. (CN 105261790 A) as applied in claim 1, and further in view of Wang et al. (US 20130177808 A1).
Regarding to claim 13: Kim et al. disclose the lithium battery (30) as described in paragraph 5 above. Kim et al. fail to explicitly disclose an anode protector of a lithium-ion battery thickness of the protection layer is 1 µm to 50 µm. However, Wang et al. disclose an anode protector of a lithium-ion battery (abstract). The battery comprises an anode (102) (equivalent to a negative electrode) (par. 31). A passivation protector (110) (equivalent to a protection layer) is disposed on the surface of the anode (102) and in contact with a electrolyte solution (108) (par. 31, fig. 1B). The passivation protector (110) includes a silicon oxide (SiO2) (par. 37). The anode (102) includes an anode active material (102b). The anode active material (102b) can be LiAl (par. 32). The thickness of the passivation protector (110) is about 1 nm to 1 µm (par. 31). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the thickness of the passivation protector (110) of Wang et al. as the thickness of the inorganic protection layer (12) of Kim et al. because Wang et al. teach that the passivation protector, formed on the surface of the anode, can make the lithium-ion battery operate at high temperature and have a good battery efficiency (par. 19). 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, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP 2144.05.
In addition, Wang et al. recognize it is important to control the thickness of the passivation protector (110) to both extend the lifetime of the battery at high temperature and promote the electrochemistry reaction of charge and discharge of the battery. The anode (102) cannot be effectively protected if the passivation protector (110) is too thin. On the other hand, the transfer of electrons and lithium ions between the anode (102) and the cathode (104) is impeded if the passivation protector (110) is too thick (par. 38). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention can adjust the thickness of the passivation protector (110) to yield the optimum balance between the protection of the anode (102) and the electrochemistry reaction. Discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art. In re Boesch, CCPA 1980, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ215.
Claim 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 20190198865 A1) and Zhang et al. (CN 105261790 A) as applied in claim 14, and further in view of Wang et al. (US 20130177808 A1).
Regarding to claim 19: Kim et al. disclose the lithium battery (30) as described in paragraph 5 above. Kim et al. fail to explicitly disclose an anode protector of a lithium-ion battery thickness of the protection layer is 1 µm to 50 µm. However, Wang et al. disclose an anode protector of a lithium-ion battery (abstract). The battery comprises an anode (102) (equivalent to a negative electrode) (par. 31). A passivation protector (110) (equivalent to a protection layer) is disposed on the surface of the anode (102) and in contact with a electrolyte solution (108) (par. 31, fig. 1B). The passivation protector (110) includes a silicon oxide (SiO2) (par. 37). The anode (102) includes an anode active material (102b). The anode active material (102b) can be LiAl (par. 32). The thickness of the passivation protector (110) is about 1 nm to 1 µm (par. 31). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the thickness of the passivation protector (110) of Wang et al. as the thickness of the inorganic protection layer (12) of Kim et al. because Wang et al. teach that the passivation protector, formed on the surface of the anode, can make the lithium-ion battery operate at high temperature and have a good battery efficiency (par. 19). 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, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP 2144.05.
In addition, Wang et al. recognize it is important to control the thickness of the passivation protector (110) to both extend the lifetime of the battery at high temperature and promote the electrochemistry reaction of charge and discharge of the battery. The anode (102) cannot be effectively protected if the passivation protector (110) is too thin. On the other hand, the transfer of electrons and lithium ions between the anode (102) and the cathode (104) is impeded if the passivation protector (110) is too thick (par. 38). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention can adjust the thickness of the passivation protector (110) to yield the optimum balance between the protection of the anode (102) and the electrochemistry reaction. Discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art. In re Boesch, CCPA 1980, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ215.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s arguments filed on 11/19/2025 have been fully considered. Applicant primarily argues:
Kim et al. are silent on a weight percentage of the fluoroethylene carbonate in a total mass of the solvent and the additive (10% to 30%).
The unexpected results of the claimed combination of FEC concentration in the electrolyte and the silicon-containing protection layer are shown in Table 1 in the instant application.
Kim fails to teach the electrolytic solution further comprises vinylene carbonate.
Kim not only fails to teach but actually teaches away from the claimed thickness range of 1-50 µm.
There is no motivation for modifying Kim by incorporating Guo’s teaching to arrive at the claimed invention.
In response:
Applicant’s argument is moot. The newly cited Zhang reference teaches the effect of the concentration of fluoroethylene carbonate as described in paragraph 5 above.
Applicant’s argument is not persuasive as the results presented in table 1 in the instant specification do not show the results above 30% of FEC with the silicon-containing protection layer and do not show the results with many other silicon-containing compounds/alloys as the protection layer. Therefore, the evidence of nonobviousness as presented in the instant disclosure is not commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support. To establish unexpected results over a claimed range, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range. In re Hill, 284 F.2d 955, 128 USPQ 197 (CCPA 1960). See MPEP 716.02(d).
Applicant’s argument is moot because the newly cited Morinaka reference teaches vinylene carbonate in the electrolyte solution.
Kim teaches the benefit of the thin inorganic protection layer (12). However, Kim does not criticize a thicker protection layer (12). In order to teach away, the reference must criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed (In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201, 73 USPQ2d 1141, 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2004); See MPEP 2145. In addition, the newly cited Wang reference teaches the effect of the thickness of the passivation protector, one of ordinary skill in the art can adjust the thickness based on the application of the batteries.
Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. Guo et al. teach that the in-situ grown protective layer can effectively inhibit the growth of lithium dendrites, thereby improving the cycle performance of lithium secondary batteries (par. 7). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would use the in-situ grown protective layer of Guo to improve the cycle performance of lithium secondary batteries of Kim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PIN JAN WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-7057. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached on 571-272-1295. 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.
/PIN JAN WANG/Examiner, Art Unit 1717
/Dah-Wei D. Yuan/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1717