DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Claims 1, 3 and 5-12 are pending in the application, with claims 10-12 withdrawn. New grounds of rejection have been added under 35 USC 103, utilizing the previous references, as a result of the amendment to the claims submitted 5/29/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 3, 5-7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Skotheim et al. (US 2002/0012846 in view of Gan et al. (US 6,027,827).
Regarding claims 1 and 5, Skotheim et al. discloses in Figs 1-8, a negative electrode ([0025]) for a lithium secondary battery ([0002]), the negative electrode ([0025]) comprising: a plurality of lithium thin films (refs 10, 11, 12, Fig 7 below); and a salt ([0067], [0100], [0108]) coating layer (ref 90, [0045], [0046], [0067] – layer 90 may include lithium salts, polymers, etc.) formed between (Fig 7, below) the plurality of lithium thin films (refs 10, 11, 12, Fig 7).
PNG
media_image1.png
157
350
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Skotheim et al. does not explicitly disclose the additive comprises at least one of LiNO3, LiNO2, CH3NO2, CH3NO3, and the salt coating layer comprises 40 – 80 wt% of the lithium salt and 20 – 60 wt% of the additive.
Gan et al. discloses in Figs 1-3, a lithium battery (Abstract) including a negative electrode comprising lithium nitrate additive on a surface thereof (C2/L60-67 – C3/L1-5). This configuration enhances the performance of the battery (C2/L59-67 – C3/L1-8).
Gan et al. and Skotheim et al. are analogous since both deal in the same field of endeavor, namely, lithium batteries.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the lithium nitrate disclosed by Skotheim et al. onto the negative electrode of Gan et al. to enhance electrical performance of the battery.
Further, Gan et al. discloses an amount of lithium nitrate additive utilized (C7/L5-15), but does not explicitly disclose the salt coating layer comprises 40 – 80 wt% of the lithium salt and 20 – 60 wt% of the additive. However, the mix of salt to additive is not considered to confer patentability to the claims. Gan et al. (see C2/L59-67 – C3/L1-8 and C7/L5-15) teaches that it was known in the art at the time of the invention that varying the amount of salt additive will vary the electrical performance of said electrode. Therefore the electrical performance is a variable that can be modified, among others, by varying the amount of said salt additive. For that reason, the amount of salt additive, would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed. As such, without showing unexpected results, the relative amount of salt additive cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the relative amount of salt additive in the electrode of Skotheim et al. as taught by Gan et al. to obtain the desired electrical performance (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding claim 2, modified Skotheim et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the salt coating layer comprises a lithium salt and an additive ([0045], [0046], [0067], [0100], [0108]).
Regarding claim 3, modified Skotheim et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Further, the reference discloses lithium salts included in the salt coating layer above ([0067], [0100], [0108]), but does not explicitly disclose one of the lithium salts of the instant claim as part of the salt coating layer. However, the reference discloses a number of lithium salts, including LiPF6, increases ionic conductivity and thus enhances battery performance ([0182], [0183]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the lithium salt as LiPF6 to increase ionic conductivity and overall battery performance.
Regarding claim 6, modified Skotheim et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Further, the reference discloses the salt coating layer has a thickness overlapping that of the instant claimed range of 100 nm to 3 microns ([0040], [0047], [0061], [0062]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549.
Regarding claim 7, modified Skotheim et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the lithium thin film has a thickness of 10 – 50 microns ([0034]).
Regarding claim 9, modified Skotheim et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses a number of the plurality of lithium thin films is 2 to 4 (3 in Fig 7, above).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Skotheim et al. (US 2002/0012846) in view of Gan et al. (US 6,027,827) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Prieto et al. (US 2013/0196235).
Regarding claim 8, modified Skotheim et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above but does not explicitly disclose the lithium film is porous.
Prieto et al. discloses in Figs 1-13, a lithium battery ([0035]) including a negative electrode comprising a porous lithium coated structure ([0035]). This porous lithium coating structure enhances battery performance ([0035]).
Prieto et al. and Skotheim et al. are analogous since both deal in the same field of endeavor, namely, batteries.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the porous structure disclosed by Prieto et al. into the lithium structure of Skotheim et al. to enhance overall battery performance.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants argue Skotheim in view of Gan does not disclose or render obvious all of the limitations of amended instant independent claim 1 (previous dependent claim 4). Namely, Applicants argue Gan discloses organic nitrite additive in the electrolyte forming an ionically conductive surface protection layer on an electrode, with the organic nitrite compounds chemically distinct from those of amended instant independent claim 1.
The Office does not dispute Gan disclosing a nitrite layer forming a conductive surface layer on an electrode as stated by the Applicants on P4-5 of the 5/29/2029 amendment. However, it is noted that Gan’s negative electrode comprises a lithium metal foil sheet (C3/L55-60) in which the aforementioned nitrite layer is in contact with (C2/L60-67 – C3/L1-5). Thus, Gan’s structure has lithium metal in contact with a solid nitrite layer. It is noted that the electrolyte of Gan is a liquid (C6/L1-30). Thus, the electrolyte of Gan is in liquid form while the nitrite surface layer is a solid, in contact with / on the surface of the lithium metal and is essentially a part (physically) of the electrode.
Further, the Office agrees with Applicant’s characterization of Gan with respect to the organic nitrite additives disclosed including compounds chemically distinct from the organic nitrites of amended instant independent claim 1. However, it is noted that Gan also includes lithium nitrite itself (C3/L1-2, C6/L57-59) as an option for the nitrite material. Lithium nitrite is an option in amended instant independent claim 1. As such, these arguments have not been found persuasive.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 KENNETH J DOUYETTE whose telephone number is (571)270-1212. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8A - 4P EST.
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.
/KENNETH J DOUYETTE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights