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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-5, 8-10, and 12-15 are pending.
Claims 6, 7, and 11 are cancelled.
Status of Amendment
The amendment filed on August 25th, 2025 has been received and considered, but does not place the application into condition for allowance.
Status of Objections and Rejections Pending since the Office Action Dated July 10th, 2025
The 103 rejection of claims 1-5, 8-10, and 12-15 are withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-5, 8-10, and 12-15 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.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 includes a limitation that requires that “the intermediate layer and the lithium-supplementing layer are provided on a surface of the active material layer”. This could be interpreted such that both the intermediate layer and the lithium-supplementing layer both have direct contact with the active material layer. With this interpretation, an active material layer that has the intermediate layer on one side and a lithium-supplementing layer on its other side would read on said limitation. However, the present specification states that the electrode sheet “includes an intermediate layer and a lithium-supplementing layer that are stacked in sequence” [0013]. It continues to describe a preferred embodiment in which “an intermediate layer and a lithium-supplementing layer are sequentially stacked on both sides of the positive active layer” (Example 3, [0047]). This example yields an interpretation where the lithium-supplementing layer is still on the surface of the active material layer, but does so indirectly through the intermediate layer. Prior art that reads on either of these interpretations will suffice for a prior art rejection.
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.
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 1-5, 8-10, and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dudney (US 2014/0106186 A1) and further in view of Li (CN 111952517 A).
Regarding claims 1 and 2, in their abstract, Dudney teaches a cathode with a positive active material layer that is coated with a protective layer (corresponding to the applicant’s intermediate layer) that is comprised of lithium phosphorus oxynitride (LiPON, a solid electrolyte, also required by claim 2). Dudney continues to disclose that the protective layer has a thickness of 0.5 µm – 1 µm [0008] which is close to the claimed range of 1.1 µm – 2 µm. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. The proportions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
However, Dudney fails to teach a lithium-supplementing layer. Li is analogous art to Dudney since both teach materials used in lithium batteries. Li teaches a technique of using vacuum evaporation and deposition to deposit a lithium nitride layer onto a substrate (Li, [0011] and [0021]). Li continues to teach that the lithium nitride layer “can release lithium ions after being decomposed and act as a supplementary lithium source inside the battery” [0022]. Although Li’s disclosure prefers the usage of a non-woven fabric separator as a substrate [0013], it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to apply Li’s technique of vacuum evaporation and deposition to a positive electrode in order to deposit a thin film of lithium nitride. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to use the evaporation and deposition technique of Li with Dudney’s positive electrode to yield the predictable result of applying a thin lithium nitride film to act as a supplementary lithium source for the positive electrode. See MPEP 2143 (I) (D).
Regarding claim 3, modified Dudney teaches that the protective layer can be doped with titanium, iron, nickel, vanadium, chromium, copper, and cobalt, all of which are transition metals (Dudney, abstract and [0014]).
Regarding claims 4 and 5, modified Dudney’s lithium-supplementing film is comprised of lithium nitride (Li, [0022]).
Regarding claims 8 and 9, modified Dudney teaches that the lithium nitride layer has a thickness of 0.1 µm – 5 µm (Li, [0017]), which overlaps with the claimed range of 1 µm – 5 µm. 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, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding claims 10, 12, and 13, all of the limitations contained within are product-by process limitations. “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2113. In the instant case, since modified Dudney teaches the electrode sheet of claim 1, it reads on the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 14, modified Dudney teaches an electrode sheet which has an active material layer that comprises a positive active material (Dudney, [0007]).
Regarding claim 15, modified Dudney teaches a lithium ion battery (Dudney, abstract), corresponding to the claimed “electrochemical device”, comprising the electrode sheet according to claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Zhu (WO 2021184768 A1) teaches a solid-state battery (title) with an LATP coating on the positive active material that has “excellent chemical and thermodynamic stability” and also “ensures rapid migration of lithium ions” [0015] with a thickness between 0.001 µm – 5 µm [0072], similar to the instant application’s intermediate layer. Zhu’s battery also has a solid lithium-sulfide electrolyte layer [0122] with an undisclosed thickness that may be similar in composition to the applicant’s lithium-supplementing layer.
Cheng (CN 114665063 A) teaches a lithium-supplementing composite membrane preferably comprised of a lithium oxide or lithium peroxide ([0018] – [0021]). Cheng continues to teach that the thickness of the lithium-supplementing layer is between 5 µm and 10 µm [0024], a range overlapping with the present application’s lithium-supplementing layer’s thickness. However, Cheng’s membrane seems to require an adhesive of some sort [0073], with preferred embodiments including a PVDF adhesive layer ([0032] and [0127]). Including such an adhesive layer precludes Cheng’s disclosure from being used as prior art in view of the closed language of claim 1 wherein the electrode is “consisting of a current collector, an active material layer, an intermediate layer, and a lithium-supplementing layer…”.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN K BLACKWELL-RUDASILL whose telephone number is (571)270-0563. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m.
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, Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at 571-272-3433. 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.
/R.B.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1722
/NIKI BAKHTIARI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1722