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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species 1 in the reply filed on 12/1/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that independent claims 1, 10, and 15, as well as dependent claims 2, 12-14, and 17-20 are generic to both of the species. This is not found persuasive because, while claims 1 and 2 are indeed generic to both species, Species 1 requires an alloyed interface including an intermediate layer comprising indium, gallium or an alloy of indium and gallium (claims 3-7 and 10-14) and the alloyed interface of Species 2 comprises an alloy of lithium and the current collector or Cu (claims 8, 9, and 15-20). The embodiments are independent and distinct.
Accordingly, claims 1-7 and 10-14 are under examination and claims 8, 9, and 15-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2019/0319259 to Balogh et al.
Regarding claim 1, Balogh et al. teaches a lithium-based electrode assembly 50 of an electrochemical cell that cycles lithium ions or a lithium-ion battery, the electrode assembly comprising:
a current collector 52;
a lithium metal foil 60; and
an alloyed interface including an intermediate layer 54 of an intermetallic compound chemically binding the current collector and the lithium metal foil (Fig. 1; abstract; [0008]; [0046]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2-4 and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Balogh et al. as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 2, Balogh et al. teaches that the current collector comprises, for example, copper ([0013]; [0048]).
Although Balogh et al. does not expressly teach the claimed list, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have arrived at the claimed invention, because Balogh et al. suggests a copper current collector ([0013]; [0048]) and the skilled artisan would have obtained expected results using a known material for the current collector.
Regarding claim 3, Balogh et al. teaches that the intermediate layer includes, for example, gallium ([0024]; [0048]).
Although Balogh et al. does not expressly teach the claimed list, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have arrived at the claimed invention, because Balogh et al. suggests a lithium-gallium compound, e.g. Li2Ga ([0048]).
Regarding claim 4, Balogh et al. teaches that the alloyed interface comprises: an intermediate layer disposed between the current collector and the lithium foil; and a portion and the lithium metal foil adjacent to the intermediate layer and alloyed with the metal in the intermediate layer such as gallium ([0008]; [0048]).
Balogh et al. does not expressly teach that a portion of the current collector adjacent to the intermediate layer and alloyed with the metal in the intermediate layer such as gallium.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have arrived at the claimed invention because Balogh et al. teaches heating the electrode, the intermediate layer, and the metal current collector to form the lithium intermetallic compound, wherein the applied heat may range from about 100° C. to about 300° C or about 140° C. to about 180° C (abstract; [0056]), at which temperature gallium (melting point about 30° C) of the intermediate layer is melted and alloyed with a portion of the copper current collector adjacent to the intermediate layer.
Regarding claim 10, Balogh et al. teaches a method of preparing lithium-based electrode assembly 50 for an electrochemical cell that cycles lithium ions or a lithium-ion battery, the method comprising:
heating a precursor electrode assembly, the precursor electrode comprising a current collector 52, a lithium metal foil 60, and an intermediate layer 54 disposed between the current collector and the lithium metal foil, the heating comprising raising a temperature of the current collector to a temperature above a melting temperature of the intermediate layer such that a surface of the intermediate layer adjacent to the lithium metal foil forms an alloy (intermetallic compound) with a portion of the lithium metal foil opposing the intermediate layer, as Balogh et al. teaches that the applied heat may range from about 100° C. to about 300° C or about 140° C. to about 180° C and an intermetallic compound comprising lithium from the electrode and the metal from the intermediate layer is formed (abstract; Fig. 1; abstract; [0008]; [0046]; [0048]; [0055]; [0056]).
Balogh et al. does not expressly teach using a one-sided heating method or that a first surface of the intermediate layer adjacent to the current collector forms an alloy with a portion of the current collector opposing the intermediate layer.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have arrived at the claimed invention because Balogh et al. teaches heating the electrode, the intermediate layer, and the metal current collector to form the lithium intermetallic compound, wherein the applied heat may range from about 100° C. to about 300° C or about 140° C. to about 180° C (abstract; [0056]), at which temperature gallium (melting point about 30° C) of the intermediate layer is melted and alloyed with a portion of the copper current collector adjacent to the intermediate layer. The skilled artisan would have used a one-sided heating method because gallium has a low melting point and one-sided heating would have provided local heat to the most heat tolerant current collector side of the assembly for best control of the heating and alloying reactions. As a result, the intermediate layer together with the portion of the current collector and the portion of the lithium metal foil would have formed an alloyed interface that chemically binds the current collector and the lithium metal foil, the alloyed interface together with the current collector and the lithium metal foil defining the electrode assembly as claimed.
Regarding claim 11, Balogh et al. teaches that the intermediate layer includes, for example, gallium ([0024]; [0048]) and that the current collector comprises, for example, copper ([0013]; [0048]).
Although Balogh et al. does not expressly teach the claimed lists, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have arrived at the claimed invention, because Balogh et al. suggests a copper current collector ([0013]; [0048]) and a lithium-gallium compound, e.g. Li2Ga ([0048]). The skilled artisan would have obtained expected results using known materials.
Regarding claim 12, Balogh et al. teaches that the applied heat may range from about 100° C. to about 300° C or about 140° C. to about 180° C (abstract; [0056]), overlapping with the claimed range.
Regarding claim 13, although Balogh et al. does not expressly teach a cooling step, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cooled the electrode assembly to a temperature that is greater than or equal to about 20 °C to less than or equal to about 25 °C because the skilled artisan would have cooled the assembly to or near room temperature for subsequent handling and processing so that the electrode can be utilized in a battery.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-7 and 14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Regarding claim 5, Balogh et al. teaches that the portion of the lithium metal of the electrode consumed to form the lithium intermetallic compound (alloy) is, for example, 0.5 µm in thickness ([0055]) and that the electrode (the lithium foil) may have a thickness ranging from about 1 μm to about 20 μm ([0016]; [0025]). That means, the portion of the lithium metal foil adjacent to the intermediate layer and alloyed with the metal of the intermediate layer is up to 50% of an average thickness of the lithium metal foil. However, Balogh et al. does not disclose the ratio of the portion of the current collector adjacent to the intermediate layer and alloyed with the metal of the intermediate layer. No other prior art was found to address this limitation. Accordingly, claim 5 and dependent claims 6 and 7 contain allowable subject matter.
Finally, while claim 14 recites that the current collector is held at the first temperature for a period greater than or equal to about 0.5 second to less than or equal to about 5 seconds, Balogh et al. teaches that heat may be applied for a time ranging from about 1 minute to about 15 minutes ([0056]), which is outside the claimed range. No other prior art was found to teach that heating for less than the disclosed time would form the claimed alloyed interface.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HENG M CHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5859. The examiner can normally be reached 9 am - 5:30 pm on Monday, 9 am - 3 pm on Tuesday, and 9 am to 1 pm on Wednesday and Thursday.
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, Basia Ridley can be reached at 571-272-1453. 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.
/Heng M. Chan/Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/BASIA A RIDLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1725