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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed on 12/17/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-9 remain pending in the application. Claims 7-9 are withdrawn.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Xu et al. (Artificial Soft–Rigid Protective Layer for Dendrite-Free Lithium Metal Anode, hereinafter "Xu").
Regarding claim 1, Xu teaches a lithium (Li) metal anode (“negative electrode”) for a lithium metal battery, or LMB (“secondary battery”) [pg. 6, col. 1, “The design of an organic–inorganic hybrid artificial protective layer not only provides a practically feasible approach to enable and improve Li metal anodes but also sheds new light on the understanding of interfacial stabilization, Li protection, materials synergy, and eventual practical applications of high-energy-density LMBs”]. Xu teaches an artificial protective layer, or APL (“coating layer”), consisting of PVDF-HFP (“polyvinylidene fluoride-based polymer) and LiF on the Li metal anode [pg. 2, col. 1, “In this contribution, poly(vinylidene-co-hexafluoropropylene) (PVDF-HFP) and LiF are rationally hybridized into a composite film, which serves as an artificial protective layer (denoted as APL) on Li metal anode”]. Xu does not teach any other components in the APL. The APL is coated on a Cu electrode (“current collector”) which is then cycled to deposit the Li metal [pg. 3., col. 1, “In contrast, after the Cu electrode being coated with an APL”, pg. 3, col. 2, “Despite the slightly larger voltage polarization during initial cycles, the cell with APL-modified Li electrodes displayed highly stable voltage profiles with negligible increase in hysteresis during 200 h cycling, declaring a more stable inter-face and an optimized Li deposition”, Xu Fig. 3e]. While Xu does not explicitly call the Cu electrode a current collector, the Cu electrode/foil is performing the function of a current collector, as seen in Fig. 3e, which displays the Cu layer, Li deposit layer, and APL sequentially.
Further regarding claim 2, Xu teaches that the APL contains PVDF-HFP in a larger amount that LiF [pg. 2, col. 2, “As-obtained APL, with a PVDF-HFP/LiF mass ratio of 2:1”].
Further regarding claim 3, Xu teaches that the APL contains PVDF-HFP and LiF in a mass ratio of 2:1, which is within the recited range of 9:1 to 5:5 [pg. 2, col. 2, “As-obtained APL, with a PVDF-HFP/LiF mass ratio of 2:1”].
Further regarding claim 4, as described in the rejection of claim 1 above, Xu teaches that the APL contains PVDF-HFP [pg. 2, col. 1, “In this contribution, poly(vinylidene-co-hexafluoropropylene) (PVDF-HFP) and LiF are rationally hybridized”].
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu (Artificial Soft–Rigid Protective Layer for Dendrite-Free Lithium Metal Anode) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Xiao et al. (US 2019/0312254, hereinafter "Xiao").
Regarding claim 5, Xu teaches the negative electrode of claim 1, as described in the rejection of instant claim 1. Xu does not specifically teach the LiF having a particle diameter of 5 nm to 1000 nm.
Xiao teaches analogous art of a protective coating for a lithium-containing electrode, the protective coating (“coating layer”) including a fluoropolymeric matrix and LiF compounds [Abstract, “The protective coating has a first layer including a first fluoropolymeric matrix and Li—F compounds”]. Xiao teaches that the protective coating includes a layer of a PTFE-derived coating comprising crystalline LiF, identified as nano-sized LiF particles [0099, “FIGS. 6 and 7A-7C provide structural characterization of the PTFE-derived coatings”, “the nano-sized particles in the fluoropolymeric matrix shown in FIGS. 5A-5C were identified as LiF”]. Xiao also teaches a PVDF-derived coating in the protective coating which comprises the crystalline LiF [0100, “FIGS. 8 and 9A-9C provide the structural characterization of the PVDF-derived coatings”, “the asterisks identify peaks associated with crystalline LiF”]. Xiao teaches that the nano-sized particles in the coatings (found to be crystalline LiF) have a characteristic length of 100 nm, which is within the recited range of 5 nm to 1000 nm [0098, “some nano-sized (˜100 nm characteristic length) particles were embedded in the matrix”].
Both Xiao and Xu teach a protective coating layer that reduces lithium dendrite growth in an electrode. Xiao teaches a protective coating layer including a fluoropolymeric matrix and LiF compounds that can advantageously prevent or reduce lithium dendrite growth in an electrode [0056, “It has been discovered that a multi-layer, for example, a two layer, protective coating including a fluoropolymeric matrix and lithium-fluoride (Li—F) bonds or Li—F compounds on a Li-containing electrode can advantageously prevent and/or reduce lithium dendrite growth and mossy lithium formation on the Li-containing electrode”]. The APL of Xu also suppresses lithium dendrite growth [pg. 6, col. 1, “In summary, an artificial protective layer with favorable synergy of softness and rigidity was demonstrated to achieve high-efficiency, long-life, and dendrite-free Li metal anodes”].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the known particle size of the LiF taught by Xiao in the APL of Xu, and the result, the formation of a protective coating layer, would have been predictable (see MPEP 2143 I B, “The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art”).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu (Artificial Soft–Rigid Protective Layer for Dendrite-Free Lithium Metal Anode) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jung et al. (KR 20190024761, cited in Applicant IDS, referring to US 2021/0336274 as English translation thereof, hereinafter "Jung").
Regarding claim 6, Xu teaches the negative electrode of claim 1, as described in the rejection for instant claim 1. Xu does not specifically teach the thickness of the coating layer being within the recited range of 1 µm to 10 µm.
Jung teaches analogous art of a lithium secondary battery comprising a negative electrode, wherein a negative electrode current collector may comprise a protective film (“coating layer”) [0092, “the lithium secondary battery according to a second embodiment of the present invention may form a protective film (55) on the negative electrode current collector”]. Jung teaches that the protective film may comprise a lithium ion conducting polymer, such as PVDF-HFP, and a lithium salt [0094, “materials used in lithium ion conducting polymers and/or inorganic solid electrolytes may be used, and as necessary, a lithium salt may be further included”, 0095, “Examples of the lithium ion conducting polymer may include any one selected from the group consisting of … polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF), polyvinylidene fluoride-hexafluoropropylene (PVDF-HFP)”]. Jung teaches a specific example of the protective film coated on the current collector being 10 µm, which is within the recited range of 1 µm to 10 µm [0146, “the result was dried for 3 hours at 50° C. to form a protective film (thickness: 10 μm) on the Cu current collector”].
Jung teaches that a protective film having a smaller thickness is advantageous for the output of a battery but also needs to be thick enough to suppress side reactions between with an electrolyte [0106, “The protective film (55) having a smaller thickness is advantageous for output properties of a battery … needs to be formed to a certain thickness or higher in order to suppress side reactions between an electrolyte and lithium formed on the negative electrode current collector”]. Jung teaches that the thickness of the protective film is preferably 10 nm to 50 µm in order to enhance safety and prevent performance decline [0106].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the coating layer taught by Xu to have the thickness taught by Jung, in order to prevent side reactions of the negative electrode with an electrolyte, enhance safety, and prevent performance decline of the battery.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 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.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIA F OROZCO whose telephone number is (571)272-0172. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-6.
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, Ula Ruddock can be reached at (571)272-1481. 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.
/M.F.O./Examiner, Art Unit 1729
/ULA C RUDDOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729