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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/9/25 has been entered.
The amendment filed 12/9/25 has been considered and entered. Claims 13-20 have been canceled. Claims 9 and 10 have been withdrawn from consideration as being directed toward a non-elected invention as detailed in paper filed 2/26/24. Claims 1-8,11 and 12 remain the only active claims for prosecution thereof.
Considering the amendment filed 12/9/25, the 35 USC 103 rejections have been withdrawn. However, the following rejection is necessitated by the amendment.
It is noted that Applicant requested non-elected claims 9-10 be rejoined as they include all the limitations believed to be allowable for the reasons argued in paper filed 12/9/25.
The Examiner disagrees. While the claims may include the limitation of the pending claims, the claims are not allowed as detailed below. Furthermore, while including similar subject matter, the claims still include an anode film which renders the claims independent and distinct as noted in paper filed 12/26/23 and would encompass searches not overlapping but distinct from one another as detailed in paper filed 4/16/24. Therefore, the claims are not considered for rejoinder.
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.
Claims 1,2,4,5,6,8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nashiki et al. (2013/0029162) in combination with Hoffmann et al. (2016/0045934) further in combination with Woo et al. (2019/0386315) or Kim et al. (2012/0040233) still further in combination with WO 2017/131997 still further in combination with Ohta (4,526,132) still further in combination with either De Jonghe et al. (6,911,280) or Jang (11,658,290) still in combination with Herle (9,508,976).
Nashiki et al. (2013/0029162) teaches a method of vacuum film formation by unrolling and feeding an elongated substrate (10) wound in a roll chamber (W1) in a first direction from a first roll chamber (W1) toward a second roll chamber (W2) in a first direction and passing through a first film formation chamber (41) and a second film formation chamber (42) each film formation chambers (41,42) having cathode electrodes (61,62) for holding coating material and vaporizing the coating material to form the films on the elongated substrate (10). The film forming chambers are processes such as CVD, and sputtering (PVD) (abstract, Fig. 1 [0028]-[0040]).
Nashiki et al. (2013/0029162) fails to teach the second film (protective film) is formed using a crucible.
Hoffmann et al. (2016/0045934) teaches a similar vapor process whereby a crucible (140) is heated to supply gaseous coating material (135) to a flexible substrate (112) wrapped around a drum (105) (Fig. 1 and abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nashiki et al. (2013/0029162) vapor deposition process to include the second coating being formed using a crucible as evidence by Hoffmann et al. (2016/0045934) with the expectation of producing the vapor coated flexible substrate.
Nashiki et al. (2013/0029162) in combination with Hoffmann et al. (2016/0045934) fails to teach the claimed formation of lithium film and then a protective layer thereon in the process.
Woo et al. (2019/0386315) or Kim et al. (2012/0040233) both teach forming a lithium metal layer and then a protective layer thereon using vapor deposition processes.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nashiki et al. (2013/0029162) in combination with Hoffmann et al. (2016/0045934) process to produce lithium metal and protective coating layers as evidenced by Woo et al. (2019/0386315) or Kim et al. (2012/0040233) with the expectation of producing similar success as these teach similar PVD, CVD and sputtering methods of forming the lithium and protective films.
Nashiki et al. (2013/0029162) in combination with Hoffmann et al. (2016/0045934) further in combination with Woo et al. (2019/0386315) or Kim et al. (2012/0040233) fail to teach the claimed ceramic protective film to comprise one or more nanopores comprising an average pore size diameter of 1nm to 10 nm.
WO 2017/131997 teaches lithium deposition with protective layer whereby the protective film (170) may be porous and have nano-pores having a pore size of 1-10 nm (abstract and [0033]-[0037])
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nashiki et al. (2013/0029162) in combination with Hoffmann et al. (2016/0045934) further in combination with Woo et al. (2019/0386315) or Kim et al. (2012/0040233) process to include nanopores of the size claimed in the ceramic protective film as evidenced by WO 2017/131997 with the expectation of achieving similar success.
Nashiki et al. (2013/0029162) in combination with Hoffmann et al. (2016/0045934) further in combination with Woo et al. (2019/0386315) or Kim et al. (2012/0040233) still further in combination with WO 2017/131997 fails to teach the claimed flexible substrate to be guided past the evaporation crucible at a rate of 20 cm/min to 200 cm/min.
Ohta (4,526,132) teaches an evaporator process whereby a supply roll and take up roll supply a substrate pass a crucible with coating material therein to be vaporized in forming a coating on the substrate at a transport speed of the substrate being 50-200 cm/min (abstract, Fig. 8-9 and col. 7, lines 22-26).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nashiki et al. (2013/0029162) in combination with Hoffmann et al. (2016/0045934) further in combination with Woo et al. (2019/0386315) or Kim et al. (2012/0040233) still further in combination with WO 2017/131997 process to include the transport speed of the substrate passing the crucible/vaporization material at a rate of 50-200 cm/min as evidenced by Ohta (4,526,132) with the expectation of producing an improved coating thereon the moving substrate.
Nashiki et al. (2013/0029162) in combination with Hoffmann et al. (2016/0045934) further in combination with Woo et al. (2019/0386315) or Kim et al. (2012/0040233) still further in combination with WO 2017/131997 still further in combination with Ohta (4,526,132) fail to teach the claimed protection layer thickness and the protection layer directly contacting the lithium metal film.
De Jonghe et al. (6,911,280) teaches a chemical protection of lithium surface whereby the thickness is 1nm-10 microns and can include ceramics while being directly contacting the lithium metal film (abstract, col. 5, lines 45-48, col. 8, lines 10-15 and Fig. 2).
Jang (11,658,290) teaches a polymer network protecting layer form 10nm-500nm whereby the anode protection layer is in physical contacting with the anode layer and can includes ceramics (abstract, col. 9, lines 55-67 and claim 6)
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art to have modified Nashiki et al. (2013/0029162) in combination with Hoffmann et al. (2016/0045934) further in combination with Woo et al. (2019/0386315) or Kim et al. (2012/0040233) still further in combination with WO 2017/131997 still further in combination with Ohta (4,526,132) process to include the claimed protection thickness and being in direct contact with the anode lithium metal layer as evidenced by De Jonghe et al. (6,911,280) or Jang (11,658,290) with the expectation of providing protection of the anode lithium metal layer.
Nashiki et al. (2013/0029162) in combination with Hoffmann et al. (2016/0045934) further in combination with Woo et al. (2019/0386315) or Kim et al. (2012/0040233) still further in combination with WO 2017/131997 still further in combination with Ohta (4,526,132) still further in combination with either De Jonghe et al. (6,911,280) or Jang (11,658,290) fails to teach plasma post treatment of the ceramic layer to densify the layer
Herle (9,508,976) teaches a battery structure whereby a ceramic dielectric layer is applied to a substrate and the ceramic dielectric layer is plasma post treated to produce a densified ceramic layer to improve the ceramic layer by enhancing punction resistance (abstract, col. 8, line 29-49 and col. 13, lines 45-52).
Therefore it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nashiki et al. (2013/0029162) in combination with Hoffmann et al. (2016/0045934) further in combination with Woo et al. (2019/0386315) or Kim et al. (2012/0040233) still further in combination with WO 2017/131997 still further in combination with Ohta (4,526,132) still further in combination with either De Jonghe et al. (6,911,280) or Jang (11,658,290) process to include a plasma post-treatment step of the ceramic material as evidenced by Herle (9,508,976) with the expectation of improving the protection layer by densification with a plasma.
Regarding claim 2, Nashiki et al. (2013/0029162) teaches transferring the flexible substrate from the second deposition chamber to the second spool chamber and winding the flexible substrate on a second spool chamber (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 4, Nashiki et al. (2013/0029162) teaches multiple deposition units while Woo et al. (2019/0386315) or Kim et al. (2012/0040233) both teach forming lithium metal.
Regarding claim 5, Nashiki et al. (2013/0029162) teaches coating elements 61,62 which are targets that are vaporized to form the coating.
Regarding claim 6, Hoffmann et al. (2016/0045934) teaches evaporation crucibles while Nashiki et al. (2013/0029162) teaches cathode elements having a target which are similar to crucibles which hold coating material to be vaporized for coating substrates.
Regarding claim 8, Woo et al. (2019/0386315) teaches sputtering [0014].
Regarding claim 11, Nashiki et al. (2013/0029162) teaches substrate (10) to be a metal film such as aluminum [0031].
Regarding claim 12, Woo et al. (2019/0386315) (abstract) or Kim et al. (2012/0040233) [0030]-[0057] both teach the claimed ceramic protective layers
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nashiki et al. (2013/0029162) in combination with Hoffmann et al. (2016/0045934) further in combination with Woo et al. (2019/0386315) or Kim et al. (2012/0040233) still further in combination with WO 2017/131997 still further in combination with Ohta (4,526,132) still further in combination with either De Jonghe et al. (6,911,280) or Jang (11,658,290) still in combination with Herle (9,508,976) further in combination with Sauer et al. (2008/0202418) or Yagi et al. (2003/0038024).
Features detailed above concerning the teachings of Nashiki et al. (2013/0029162) in combination with Hoffmann et al. (2016/0045934) further in combination with Woo et al. (2019/0386315) or Kim et al. (2012/0040233) still further in combination with WO 2017/131997 still further in combination with Ohta (4,526,132) still further in combination with either De Jonghe et al. (6,911,280) or Jang (11,658,290) still in combination with Herle (9,508,976) are incorporated here.
Nashiki et al. (2013/0029162) in combination with Hoffmann et al. (2016/0045934) further in combination with Woo et al. (2019/0386315) or Kim et al. (2012/0040233) still further in combination with WO 2017/131997 still further in combination with Ohta (4,526,132) still further in combination with either De Jonghe et al. (6,911,280) or Jang (11,658,290) still in combination with Herle (9,508,976) fails to teach a connection chamber situated between the first and second chambers.
Sauer et al. (2008/0202418) (Figs. 1A-1C reference numeral (205 – seal chamber) or 300 chamber) or Yagi et al. (2003/0038024) (12 – preparatory chamber [0052]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nashiki et al. (2013/0029162) in combination with Hoffmann et al. (2016/0045934) further in combination with Woo et al. (2019/0386315) or Kim et al. (2012/0040233) still further in combination with WO 2017/131997 still further in combination with Ohta (4,526,132) still further in combination with either De Jonghe et al. (6,911,280) or Jang (11,658,290) still in combination with Herle (9,508,976) vapor deposition apparatus to include the claimed “connection chamber” as evidenced by Sauer et al. (2008/0202418) or Yagi et al. (2003/0038024) with the expectation of producing similar results while avoiding contamination between the first and second coating chambers by using a “connection chamber” therebetween.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nashiki et al. (2013/0029162) in combination with Hoffmann et al. (2016/0045934) further in combination with Woo et al. (2019/0386315) or Kim et al. (2012/0040233) still further in combination with WO 2017/131997 still further in combination with Ohta (4,526,132) still further in combination with either De Jonghe et al. (6,911,280) or Jang (11,658,290) still in combination with Herle (9,508,976) further in combination with Trassl (2019/0246504).
Features detailed above concerning the teachings of Nashiki et al. (2013/0029162) in combination with Hoffmann et al. (2016/0045934) further in combination with Woo et al. (2019/0386315) or Kim et al. (2012/0040233) still further in combination with WO 2017/131997 still further in combination with Ohta (4,526,132) still further in combination with either De Jonghe et al. (6,911,280) or Jang (11,658,290) still in combination with Herle (9,508,976) are incorporated here.
Nashiki et al. (2013/0029162) in combination with Hoffmann et al. (2016/0045934) further in combination with Woo et al. (2019/0386315) or Kim et al. (2012/0040233) still further in combination with WO 2017/131997 still further in combination with Ohta (4,526,132) still further in combination with either De Jonghe et al. (6,911,280) or Jang (11,658,290) still in combination with Herle (9,508,976) fails to teach supplying a gas directed into the cloud of evaporated material and positioned between the crucibles and the drum.
Trassl (2019/0246504) teaches an evaporation process for depositing material on a flexible substrate whereby a gas supply is used to supply gas to the evaporated coating material to assist in applying the coating material to the flexible web wrapped around a drum (abstract and Fig. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nashiki et al. (2013/0029162) in combination with Hoffmann et al. (2016/0045934) further in combination with Woo et al. (2019/0386315) or Kim et al. (2012/0040233) still further in combination with WO 2017/131997 still further in combination with Ohta (4,526,132) still further in combination with either De Jonghe et al. (6,911,280) or Jang (11,658,290) still in combination with Herle (9,508,976) vapor deposition apparatus to include a plurality of crucibles and a gas supply to supply gas to the evaporated material as evidenced by Trassl (2019/0246504) with the expectation of producing an improved coating thereon.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-8 and 11-12 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.
Applicant argued prior art fails to teach the post deposition plasma treatment to densify the ceramic protective coating.
Herle (9,508,976) teach this as detailed above.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN K TALBOT whose telephone number is (571)272-1428. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday 7-4PM.
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, MICHAEL CLEVELAND can be reached on 571-272-1418. 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.
/BRIAN K TALBOT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712