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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 12/26/2025 is acknowledged.
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.
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Skotheim et al. (US 2002/0012846).
Regarding claim 1, 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
Regarding claim 2, 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 7, 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, 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 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.
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 non-obviousness.
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 3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Skotheim et al. (US 2002/0012846) as applied to claims 1 and 2 above.
Regarding claim 3, 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, 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.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Skotheim et al. (US 2002/0012846) as applied to claim 1- above, and further in view of Gan et al. (US 6,027,827).
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Skotheim et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above but 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).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Skotheim et al. (US 2002/0012846) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Prieto et al. (US 2013/0196235).
Regarding claim 8, 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.
Conclusion
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