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 .
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.
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.
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.
Claims 1-3,5,7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the machine translation of Kim (KR 20200112427 A) and further in view of Clough (US 20010010880 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kim teaches a negative electrode for a lithium metal battery (para. 0001, [a negative electrode for a lithium secondary battery]) (para. 0040, [lithium metal batteries]), comprising a substrate (para. 0001, [substrate layer]); a carbon coating layer formed on a surface of the substrate (para. 0001, [a defect-bearing carbon structure is coated on an upper portion of the substrate layer]); and a lithium metal layer positioned on the carbon coating layer (para. 0001, [a lithium metal layer is coated on the carbon structure]), wherein the carbon coating layer comprises carbon particles having a plate-like structure (para. 0032, [in the present invention, the defect-containing carbon structure is … selected from the group consisting of graphene]) and (para. 0010, [graphene structure … due to the structural characteristics of the two-dimensional material]).
Kim does not teach that the substrate is porous.
Clough, in the same field of endeavor, batteries, teaches a porous substrate (Clough, para. 0045).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have switched Kim’s substrate with Clough’s porous substrate, in order to provide for improved active material surface area maintenance and active material morphology maintenance particularly at elevated temperatures, as taught by Clough (para. 0045).
Regarding claim 2, modified Kim teaches the negative electrode for the lithium metal battery according to claim 1, wherein the porous substrate comprises one selected from the group consisting of polyethylene, polypropylene, polyethyleneterephthalate, polyethylenenaphthalene, polyvinylidene fluoride, polyvinyl chloride, cellulose, and combinations thereof (Clough, para. 0049, [examples of such organic resilient porous substrates are organic polymers including for example organic polymers selected from the group consisting of polyolefins, polyvinyl polymers, -phenol formaldehyde polymers, polyesters, polyvinylesters, cellulose and mixtures thereof]).
Regarding claim 3, modified Kim teaches the negative electrode for the lithium metal battery according to claim 1, wherein a porosity of the porous substrate is 40% to 90% (Clough, para. 0039, [The percent apparent porosity, i.e., the volume of open pores expressed as a percentage of the external volume can vary over a wide range and in general, can vary from about 20% to about 92%, more preferably, from about 40% to about 90%]).
Regarding claim 5, modified Kim teaches the negative electrode for the lithium metal battery according to claim 1, wherein the carbon coating layer comprises graphene or graphene derivatives having a plate-like structure (Kim, para. 0010, [graphene structure … due to the structural characteristics of the two-dimensional material]).
Regarding claim 7, modified Kim teaches the negative electrode for the lithium metal battery according to claim 1, wherein the negative electrode has a structure in which the carbon coating layer is formed on one surface of the porous substrate (para. 0001, [a defect-bearing carbon structure is coated on an upper portion of the substrate layer]) and the lithium metal layer is stacked on one surface of the carbon coating layer facing the opposite direction to the porous substrate (para. 0001, [a lithium metal layer is coated on the carbon structure]).
Regarding claim 10, modified Kim teaches a lithium metal battery comprising the negative electrode according to claim 1 (para. 0040, [lithium metal batteries]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the machine translation of Kim (KR 20200112427 A) and further in view of Clough (US 20010010880 A1) and Akiike (US 20190148699 A1).
Regarding claim 4, modified Kim teaches the negative electrode for the lithium metal battery according to claim 1.
Modified Kim is silent regarding a thickness of the porous substrate.
Akiike, in the same field of endeavor, batteries, teaches that the negative electrode includes a porous membrane (Akiike, abstract, [at least one of the … negative electrode … includes a porous membrane]) and teaches that a thickness of the porous substrate is 0.5 µm to 30 µm (Akiike, para. 0112, [the porous membrane is preferably 0.01 µm or more … and is preferably 20 µm or less]).
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) [MPEP 2144.05].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have made modified Kim’s porous substrate to have a thickness in the range of 0.01 µm to 20 µm, as taught by Akiike, in order to ensure sufficient strength of the porous membrane, to ensure diffusivity of the electrolyte solution and to further improve low-temperature output characteristics of the secondary battery, as taught by Akiike (Akiike, para. 0112).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the machine translation of Kim (KR 20200112427 A) and further in view of Clough (US 20010010880 A1) and Lu (US 20090246625 A1).
Regarding claim 6, modified Kim teaches the negative electrode for the lithium metal battery according to claim 1.
Modified Kim is silent regarding the weight of the carbon particles coated per unit area of the porous substrate.
Lu, in the same field of endeavor, batteries, teaches wherein the weight of the carbon particles coated per unit area of the porous substrate is 0.1 g/m2 to 5 g/m2 (para. 0035, [the graphene ribbon mass loading on the electrode ranges preferably from about 0.1 to about 4.5 mg/cm2 of the electrode surface]).
Examiner notes that:
0.1 g/m2 is equivalent to 0.01 mg/cm2
5 g/m2 is equivalent to 0.5 mg/cm2
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) [MPEP 2144.05].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have coated modified Kim’s porous substrate in the amount from about 0.1 to about 4.5 mg/cm2, as taught by Lu, in order to ensure sufficiently high rate of lithium ion intercalation and/or de-intercalation and fast charge transport though the electrolyte, as taught by Lu (para. 0250).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable the machine translation of Kim (KR 20200112427 A) and further in view of Clough (US 20010010880 A1)and Affinito (US 20110177398 A1).
Regarding claim 8, modified Kim teaches the negative electrode for the lithium metal battery according to claim 1.
Modified Kim does not teach wherein the negative electrode has a multi-layered structure in which the porous substrate is located in the center, and the carbon coating layer is formed on both surfaces of the porous substrate, respectively, and the lithium metal layer is laminated on each one surface of the carbon coating layer facing in the opposite direction to the porous substrate.
Affinito, in the same field of endeavor, batteries, teaches wherein the electrode has a multi-layered structure (Affinito, para. 0072, [multi-layered structures protect the base electrode material layer]) and (Affinitio, Fig. 7B). Furthermore, Affinito teaches a substrate in the center (Affinito, Fig. 7B, [item 227]), an additional layer formed on both surfaces of said substrate (Affinito, Fig. 7B, [item 226A and 226B]), and a subsequent layer (Affinito, Fig. 7B, [item 228A and 228B]) laminated on each one surface of the identical layer facing in the opposite direction to the substrate.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have added additional layers to the other surface of modified Kim’s porous substrate, as taught by Affinito, in order to protect the base electrode material layer and in order to include layers that can complement each other in an overall improved protective structure, as taught by Affinito (para. 0072).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the machine translation of Kim (KR 20200112427 A) and further in view of Clough (US 20010010880 A1) and LI (US 20220109180 A1).
Regarding claim 9, modified Kim teaches the negative electrode for the lithium metal battery according to claim 1.
Modified Kim does not teach wherein a tensile strength of the negative electrode for the lithium metal battery is 1 MPa to 300 MPa.
LI, in the same field of endeavor, batteries, teaches wherein a tensile strength of the negative electrode for the lithium metal battery is 1 MPa to 300 MPa (LI, para. 0044, [the tensile strength of the negative electrode plate may be from 20 MPa to 500 MPa]).
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) [MPEP 2144.05].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have constructed modified Kim’s negative electrode to have a tensile strength ranging from 20 MPa to 500 MPa, as taught by LI, in order to prevent the electrode from being excessively stretched or deformed, thereby effectively preventing the lithium-based metal layer from breaking, and rendering the battery to have a high cycle performance, as taught by LI (para. 0044).
Other Pertinent Art
US 2017/0133662 A1
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VERITA E GRANNUM whose telephone number is (571)270-1150. The examiner can normally be reached 10-5 EST / 7-2 PST.
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, Allison Bourke can be reached at (303) 297-4684. 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.
/V.G./Examiner, Art Unit 1721
/ALLISON BOURKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1721