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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 March 6th, 2026 has been entered.
Claim Status
Applicant’s arguments and claim amendments submitted on March 6th, 2026 have been entered into the file.
Currently claims 1, 4, and 6 are amended and claim 7 is new, resulting in claims 1-7 pending for examination.
Response to Amendments
The amendments filed on have been received.
The amendments to claim 6 have overcome the 35 USC § 112(b) rejection set forth in the Final Rejection mailed January 27th, 2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-7 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, the instant amended claim recites “the lithium nitrate holder separated from the positive electrode and the negative electrode.” In the remarks submitted March 6th, 2026, applicant provides that support for amended claim 1 may be found in Figure 1 and Page 8, Lines 10-17. However, the support in the instant disclosure does not support the scope of the amendment as filed with respect to the lithium nitrate holder being separated from the positive electrode and the negative electrode. Therefore, the amendment as filed lacks appropriate support and is considered new matter. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claims 2-7, they are rejected based on their dependance on a previously rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the instant amended claim recites “the lithium nitrate holder separated from the positive electrode and the negative electrode.” It is unclear what is meant by being “separated” from the positive electrode and the negative electrode. As the specification does not provide support for the instant claim as amended, the specification does not elucidate what is meant by the instant claimed limitations. It is further unclear if the lithium nitrate holder being separated from the positive electrode and the negative electrode excludes the positioning of the lithium nitrate holder, positive electrode, and negative electrode in one device, or if intervening layers may be preset between the lithium nitrate holder and the positive electrode and negative electrode, or if the lithium nitrate holder may be positioned on a surface of the positive electrode or negative electrode in order to be considered separated from the electrodes, for example. For the purposes of examination, the instant claimed limitation with respect to separated refers to any of the aforementioned interpretations. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claims 2-7, they are rejected based on their dependance on a previously rejected claim.
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.
Claim 1-5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Peebles (W.O. 2022217067 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Peebles teaches a lithium secondary battery comprising (Paragraph 0019) an electrolyte solution (Paragraph 0022) and a cell stack having one or more unit cells, each of the one or more unit cells including a positive electrode (Paragraph 0021), a negative electrode (Paragraph 0023), and a separator between the positive electrode and the negative electrode (Paragraphs 0009, 0019); .
Peebles teaches a passivation layer formed on a lithium metal core material, wherein the passivation layer comprises a first material that is lithium nitrate (Paragraph 0007), which is equated with the instant lithium nitrate holder.
Peebles teaches an embodiment in the disclosure in which the anode active material of lithium batteries was lithium metal. Peebles teaches a passivation layer surrounding the lithium metal anode (Paragraph 0032). Thus, the passivation layer (lithium nitrate holder) of Peebles is taught to be a coating of the anode active material, the lithium metal core material. Because the lithium nitrate holder of Peebles is disclosed as a coating on the anode active material layer, it is interpreted by the Examiner to be separated from the positive electrode and negative electrode, meeting the instant claimed limitations.
Further, in additional embodiments, Peebles teaches the passivation layer may be comprised of multiple layers, where the composition and ordering of the layers can be controlled to fine tune the nature of the passivation layers and therefore better control the subsequent cell cycle life (Paragraph 0029). Peebles teaches an inner passivation layer applied directly on the surface of the lithium metal (Paragraph 0045) and an outer passivation layer formed on the inner passivation layer (Paragraph 0047). Further, Peebles teaches in the examples that the best battery performance occurs when the outer passivation layer comprised lithium nitrate, likely due to the enhancement of the mechanical robustness of the anode and limited dendrite formation (Paragraph 0042). Thus, Peebles teaches a preferred embodiment in which intervening layers are present between the lithium nitrate holder (outer passivation layer comprising lithium nitrate) and the anode active material (lithium metal core material). Therefore, Peebles is further considered to teach the lithium nitrate holder separated from the positive electrode and the negative electrode, as intervening layers are suitably taught by Peebles to exist between the holder and the lithium metal core material.
Peebles teaches the lithium metal anode is coated by the passivation additive solution including lithium nitrate and is then dried to remove the solvent and form a passivation layer on the surface of the anode (Paragraph 0051). As the layer is dried in order to remove the organic solvent as taught by Peebles, the lithium nitrate holder (passivation layer) is considered to be in a solid state, meeting the instant claimed limitation.
Peebles teaches that the cathode, anode (comprising the lithium nitrate holder, as discussed above), separator, and electrolyte are assembled into a cell package (battery case) and then sealed (Paragraph 0037), meeting the instant claimed limitation of the battery case in which the cell stack, the lithium nitrate holder in the solid state, and the electrolyte solution are included.
In the process of forming the lithium metal battery, Peebles discloses a solution is formed which includes a first additive being lithium nitrate (Paragraph 0049). Peebles teaches that the lithium metal anode may be dipped into the additive solution containing lithium nitrate and that the additive solution may coat the anode along an entire surface area (Paragraph 0050). Therefore, in the process of dipping the anode into the lithium nitrate material Peebles teaches lithium nitrate present as a layer on both sides of the anode. The coated anode resulting from the process taught by Peebles has the structure in which the lithium nitrate layer is on its outermost surface.
Peebles teaches the assembly of the cathode, anode (comprising the lithium nitrate holder, as discussed above), and separator into the battery case with the separator disposed between the cathode and the anode (Paragraph 0019). Thus, the anode forms the outer surface of an outermost cell of the cell stack. When the anode is coated on both sides with the passivation layer comprising lithium nitrate according to the teachings of Peebles above, it follows that this layer it is present on top of the outer surface of an outermost cell of the cell stack. Therefore, the lithium nitrate passivation layer (lithium nitrate holder) of Peebles is positioned between an inner surface of the battery case and an outer surface of an outermost cell in the cell stack, meeting the instant claimed limitations.
In the event that Peebles is found to not explicitly teach the positioning of the lithium nitrate holder between the outer surface and the inner surface in accordance with the claimed limitations as stated above, it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan to position the lithium nitrate holder of Peebles between the outer surface of the outermost cell of the cell stack and the inner surface of the battery case in order to reduce capacity fade and electrolyte decomposition on the lithium metal anode, as recognized by Peebles (Paragraph 0024). This is further supported by Peebles, who teaches the number, arrangement, and composition of the one or more passivation layers are selected based on application-specific parameters (Paragraph 0025).
Regarding claim 2, Peebles teaches the lithium secondary battery according to claim 1.
Peebles discloses in forming a lithium metal battery, a solution is formed which includes a first additive being lithium nitrate (Paragraph 0049). Peebles teaches that the lithium metal anode may be dipped into the additive solution containing lithium nitrate and that the additive solution may coat the anode along an entire surface area (Paragraph 0050).
Therefore, according to the teachings of Peebles, if the additive solution coats the anode along an entire surface area, it follows that lithium nitrate would be present on both sides of the anode or it would be obvious to the ordinary artisan to performing the dipping so that lithium nitrate would be present on both sides of the anode.
As discussed above, when the anode comprises a lithium nitrate passivation layer (lithium nitrate holder) which coats the entire surface of the anode, it is present on the first surface and second surface of the cell stack, meeting the instant claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 3, Peebles teaches the lithium secondary battery according to claim 1.
Peebles teaches a first solution is prepared to coat the surface of the lithium metal anode which comprises a dissolved material (lithium nitrate) and an organic solvent (Paragraph 0043). Peebles teaches the first solution may be deposited by any method known to form a film on a lithium metal anode (Paragraph 0044). Thus, Peebles discloses in the process of forming the anode according to the present invention the desire to deposit lithium nitrate as a film on the anode, meeting the instant claimed limitations of the lithium nitrate being a lithium nitrate-containing film.
Further, as described above, Peebles teaches the lithium metal anode is coated by the passivation additive solution including lithium nitrate and is then dried to remove the solvent and form a passivation film on the surface of the anode (Paragraph 0051). As the layer is dried in order to remove the organic solvent as taught by Peebles, the lithium nitrate holder (passivation layer) is considered to be in the solid state, meeting the instant claimed limitation.
Regarding claim 4, Peebles teaches the lithium secondary battery according to claim 3.
Peebles teaches the lithium nitrate-containing film (passivation layer) including a first material comprising lithium nitrate and a second material comprised of polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) (Paragraph 0007), which overlap with example of a binder including PVDF provided in the instant disclosure (Page 10, Paragraph 2). Therefore the instant claimed limitation of the lithium nitrate-containing film including lithium nitrate and a binder is met.
Park teaches a second passivation layer may be formed on top of the inner passivation layer (Paragraph 0028). If the first and the second passivation layer are equated with the instant lithium nitrate-containing film, the lithium nitrate-containing film may include a coating layer (inner passivation layer). As discussed above, Park teaches the first passivation layer includes a polymer such as polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) which overlap with examples of binders provided in the instant disclosure (Page 10, Paragraph 2), meeting the instant claimed limitations of the coating layer including lithium nitrate and a binder.
Further, Peebles teaches the passivation layer coated on the lithium metal core material of the anode (Paragraph 0007), which is considered equivalent to a film having a coating layer of the instant claim. As described above in the rejection of claim 2, Peebles teaches the additive solution containing lithium nitrate and PVDF may coat the anode along an entire surface area to establish a passivation layer (Paragraphs 0049-0050), which was considered equivalent to a coating layer being formed on the first surface and a second surface of the substrate film (anode layer), meeting the instant claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 5, Peebles teaches the lithium secondary battery according to claim 4.
As discussed above in the rejection of claim 4, Peebles teaches the coating layer of the lithium nitrate-containing film formed on the first and second surfaces of the substrate film.
Peebles is silent as to the lithium nitrate-containing film comprising the lithium nitrate and the binder in a solid content weight ratio of 80:20 to 98:2, or the coating layer of the lithium nitrate-containing film comprising the lithium nitrate and the binder having a solid content weight ratio of 80:20 to 98:2 is formed on the first surface or the first and second surfaces of the substrate film.
However, Peebles discloses the composition of the passivation layer(s) may be selected based on the specific parameters of the application. Peebles teaches that inorganic materials (lithium nitrate) enhance mechanical robustness of the passivation layer, which may inhibit or prohibit dendrite formation. Peebles teaches that polymer materials (binder) may enhance elasticity of the passivation layer, which may suppress volumetric expansion and enhance mechanical integrity of the anode (Paragraph 0025).
Absent unexpected results, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the amount of lithium nitrate and binder in the passivation layer(s) of Peebles since it has been held that where general conditions of a claim are discloses in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05.
In the present invention, one would have been motivated to optimize the amount of lithium nitrate and binder to be within the claimed ratio of instant claim 5 in order to obtain the desired suppression of dendrite formation while also improving mechanical integrity of the anode. For example, the ordinary artisan would recognize the amount of lithium nitrate and binder may be tuned according to the specific application in order to balance mechanical robustness of the passivation layer and the prevention of its volumetric expansion.
Regarding claim 7, Peebles teaches the lithium secondary battery according to claim 4.
As discussed above in the rejection of claim 4, Peebles teaches the passivation layer coated on the lithium metal core material of the anode (Paragraph 0007) which was considered equivalent to a coating layer being formed on the first surface and a second surface of the substrate film (metal core material anode layer).
Peebles teaches the lithium metal core material may be an alloy of lithium with at least one other metal, including lithium-aluminum alloy (Paragraph 0019). Peebles teaches an embodiment in which the lithium metal of the core material is a sheet (Paragraph 0044).
Therefore, Peebles teaches a sheet (foil) of lithium metal core material which comprising aluminum, and is thus considered to meet the instant claimed limitations of the substrate film comprising aluminum foil.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Peebles as applied to claims 1-5, and 7 above, further in view of Manthiram (Non-Patent Literature “Rechargeable Lithium-Sulfur Batteries”).
Regarding claim 6, Peebles teaches the lithium secondary battery according to claim 1, wherein the positive electrode comprises elemental sulfur (Paragraph 0021).
Peebles is silent as to the element sulfur being an S8 elemental sulfur.
Manthiram discloses lithium sulfur batteries as electrochemical storage devices comprising a lithium metal anode, an organic electrolyte, and a sulfur composite cathode. (Page 11752, Column 2). Manthiram teaches that octasulfur (cyclo-S8) is the most stable allotrope of sulfur at room temperature (Page 11753, Column 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the sulfur in the positive electrode of Peebles to incorporate the teachings of Manthiram in which the sulfur is the S8 allotrope. Manthiram teaches that it is known in the art to include S8 elemental sulfur in the positive electrode material of batteries, and further provides the structural benefits of this allotrope. Thus, the modification above would advantageously result in large stability of sulfur in the positive electrode at room temperature, as recognized by Mathiram.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 5 of the Remarks, filed March 6th, 2026, provide that Peebles fails to disclose or suggest that the lithium nitrate holder is separated from the positive electrode and the negative electrode, as recited in the newly amended limitation of claim 1.
These arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
As stated in the above rejection of claim 1 in view of Peebles, Peebles teaches all of the instant claimed limitations, including the amendments to claim 1 introduced into the claim filed March 6th, 2026.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 5 of the Remarks, filed March 6th, 2026, provide that Peebles fails to disclose or suggest a substrate film that comprises at least one of an aluminum foil, copper foil, polyethylene, polyethylene terephthalate, and polyimide, as recited in the newly added claim 7.
These arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
As stated in the above rejection of claim 7 in view of Peebles, Peebles teaches all of the instant claimed limitations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLIVIA A JONES whose telephone number is (571)272-1718. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30 AM - 4:30 PM.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached at (571) 270-7692. 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.
/O.A.J./Examiner, Art Unit 1789
/MARLA D MCCONNELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1789