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 12/22/2025 has been entered. Claims 1, 3, 5, 14-17, 29-30 are amended, and Claims 1-3,5-18,22-23 and 29-30 are pending.
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.
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 1-3, 5-13 and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (An Electron/Ion Dual-Conductive Alloy Framework for High-Rate and High-Capacity Solid-State Lithium-Metal Batteries, Adv. Mater. 2019, 31, 1804815), hereinafter "Yang" in view of Wan et al. (Mechanical rolling formation of interpenetrated lithium metal/lithium tin alloy foil for ultrahigh-rate battery anode, Nat Com 11, 829, 2020), hereinafter "Wan". Yang and Wan et al. are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely negative electrode materials.
In regard to Claims 1-3, 5-13 and 22-23, Yang et al. discloses a negative electrode composite for an all-solid-state secondary battery comprising a negative electrode active material containing a solid solution in which an element Mg is dissolved into Li as main components (Yang, Abstract, pg 3), wherein the negative electrode active material is an Li0.93Mg0.07 foil which is the identical negative electrode active material comprising element M in the current application which is comprises an element Mg is dissolved into Li as main components and falls within the claimed range of a molar ratio of the Li to the element M (Original Specification, Example 1). While Yang et al. discloses that some successful surface treatment methods, such as thin oxide coatings (e.g., Al2O3), surface alloying (e.g., Li–Si alloy), surface cleaning, and surface chemical treating, have been employed to similar Li metal anodes (Yang, pg 1), it fails to explicitly disclose the negative electrode comprising a substance X having a higher redox potential than the negative electrode active material or having no electrode activity.
Wan et al. discloses a beneficial negative electrode active material wherein two pieces of Li metal foil and one piece of elemental Sn foil were stacked together to form Sn (substance X) nanolayers with a thickness of each layer as low as 5nm (Wan, pg 3), which falls within the claimed range and which is the same substance X provided in the current application that covers the negative electrode or the electrolyte at the interface between the negative electrode and the electrolyte, and is chosen for the specific properties of having a higher redox potential than the negative electrode active material or having no electrode activity and being a metal or semimetal capable of being alloyed with Li but not solid soluble in Li, and/or an alloy of the metal or semimetal and Li as well as having an ionic conductivity of 10-8 S -cm-1 or more (Original Specification [0060-0062], Examples 2-6).
The substance Sn is applied to the Li metal anode of Wan to achieve the benefits of forming a lithium diffusion “pathway” over the entire electrode enabling fast lithium diffusion and leading to good rate capability (Wan, pg 3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide a lithium metal negative electrode composite comprising elemental Sn as taught in Wan et al. to the Li-Mg metal negative electrode disclosed in Yang et al. as doing so would give the skilled artisan the reasonable expectation of achieving the benefits taught in Wan et al. and as doing so would amount to nothing more than the use of known technique to improve similar devices in the same way.
Claims 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (An Electron/Ion Dual-Conductive Alloy Framework for High-Rate and High-Capacity Solid-State Lithium-Metal Batteries, Adv. Mater. 2019, 31, 1804815), hereinafter "Yang" in view of Wan et al. (Mechanical rolling formation of interpenetrated lithium metal/lithium tin alloy foil for ultrahigh-rate battery anode, Nat Com 11, 829, 2020), hereinafter "Wan". Yang and Wan et al. are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely negative electrode materials.
In regard to Claims 14-18, Yang et al. discloses a negative electrode composite for an all-solid-state secondary battery comprising a negative electrode active material containing a solid solution in which an element Mg is dissolved into Li as main components (Yang, Abstract, pg 3), wherein the negative electrode active material is an Li0.93Mg0.07 foil which is the identical negative electrode active material comprising element M in the current application which is comprises an element Mg is dissolved into Li as main components and falls within the claimed range of a molar ratio of the Li to the element M (Original Specification, Example 1). While Yang et al. discloses that some successful surface treatment methods, such as thin oxide coatings (e.g., Al2O3), surface alloying (e.g., Li–Si alloy), surface cleaning, and surface chemical treating, have been employed to similar Li metal anodes (Yang, pg 1), it fails to explicitly disclose the negative electrode comprising a substance X having a higher redox potential than the negative electrode active material or having no electrode activity.
Wan et al. discloses a beneficial negative electrode active material wherein two pieces of Li metal foil and one piece of elemental Sn foil were stacked together to form Sn (substance X) nanolayers with a thickness of each layer as low as 5nm (Wan, pg 3), which falls within the claimed range and which is the same substance X provided in the current application that covers the negative electrode or the electrolyte at the interface between the negative electrode and the electrolyte, and is chosen for the specific properties of having a higher redox potential than the negative electrode active material or having no electrode activity and being a metal or semimetal capable of being alloyed with Li but not solid soluble in Li, and/or an alloy of the metal or semimetal and Li as well as having an ionic conductivity of 10-8 S -cm-1 or more (Original Specification [0060-0062], Examples 2-6).
The substance Sn is applied to the Li metal anode of Wan to achieve the benefits of forming a lithium diffusion “pathway” over the entire electrode enabling fast lithium diffusion and leading to good rate capability (Wan, pg 3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide a lithium metal negative electrode composite comprising elemental Sn as taught in Wan et al. to the Li-Mg metal negative electrode disclosed in Yang et al. as doing so would give the skilled artisan the reasonable expectation of achieving the benefits taught in Wan et al. and as doing so would amount to nothing more than the use of known technique to improve similar devices in the same way.
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (An Electron/Ion Dual-Conductive Alloy Framework for High-Rate and High-Capacity Solid-State Lithium-Metal Batteries, Adv. Mater. 2019, 31, 1804815), hereinafter "Yang" in view of Wan et al. (Mechanical rolling formation of interpenetrated lithium metal/lithium tin alloy foil for ultrahigh-rate battery anode, Nat Com 11, 829, 2020), hereinafter "Wan". Yang and Wan et al. are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely negative electrode materials.
In regard to Claim 29, Yang et al. discloses a negative electrode composite for an all-solid-state secondary battery comprising a negative electrode active material containing a solid solution in which an element Mg is dissolved into Li as main components (Yang, Abstract, pg 3), wherein the negative electrode active material is an Li0.93Mg0.07 foil which is the identical negative electrode active material comprising element M in the current application which is comprises an element Mg is dissolved into Li as main components and falls within the claimed range of a molar ratio of the Li to the element M (Original Specification, Example 1). While Yang et al. discloses that some successful surface treatment methods, such as thin oxide coatings (e.g., Al2O3), surface alloying (e.g., Li–Si alloy), surface cleaning, and surface chemical treating, have been employed to similar Li metal anodes (Yang, pg 1), it fails to explicitly disclose the negative electrode comprising a substance X having a higher redox potential than the negative electrode active material or having no electrode activity.
Wan et al. discloses a beneficial negative electrode active material wherein two pieces of Li metal foil and one piece of elemental Sn foil were stacked together to form Sn (substance X) nanolayers with a thickness of each layer as low as 5nm (Wan, pg 3), which falls within the claimed range and which is the same substance X provided in the current application that covers the negative electrode or the electrolyte at the interface between the negative electrode and the electrolyte, and is chosen for the specific properties of having a higher redox potential than the negative electrode active material or having no electrode activity and being a metal or semimetal capable of being alloyed with Li but not solid soluble in Li, and/or an alloy of the metal or semimetal and Li as well as having an ionic conductivity of 10-8 S -cm-1 or more (Original Specification [0060-0062], Examples 2-6).
The substance Sn is applied to the Li metal anode of Wan to achieve the benefits of forming a lithium diffusion “pathway” over the entire electrode enabling fast lithium diffusion and leading to good rate capability (Wan, pg 3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide a lithium metal negative electrode composite comprising elemental Sn as taught in Wan et al. to the Li-Mg metal negative electrode disclosed in Yang et al. as doing so would give the skilled artisan the reasonable expectation of achieving the benefits taught in Wan et al. and as doing so would amount to nothing more than the use of known technique to improve similar devices in the same way.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (An Electron/Ion Dual-Conductive Alloy Framework for High-Rate and High-Capacity Solid-State Lithium-Metal Batteries, Adv. Mater. 2019, 31, 1804815), hereinafter "Yang" in view of Wan et al. (Mechanical rolling formation of interpenetrated lithium metal/lithium tin alloy foil for ultrahigh-rate battery anode, Nat Com 11, 829, 2020), hereinafter "Wan". Yang and Wan et al. are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely negative electrode materials.
In regard to Claim 30, Yang et al. discloses a negative electrode composite for an all-solid-state secondary battery comprising a negative electrode active material containing a solid solution in which an element Mg is dissolved into Li as main components (Yang, Abstract, pg 3), wherein the negative electrode active material is an Li0.93Mg0.07 foil which is the identical negative electrode active material comprising element M in the current application which is comprises an element Mg is dissolved into Li as main components and falls within the claimed range of a molar ratio of the Li to the element M (Original Specification, Example 1). While Yang et al. discloses that some successful surface treatment methods, such as thin oxide coatings (e.g., Al2O3), surface alloying (e.g., Li–Si alloy), surface cleaning, and surface chemical treating, have been employed to similar Li metal anodes (Yang, pg 1), it fails to explicitly disclose the negative electrode comprising a substance X having a higher redox potential than the negative electrode active material or having no electrode activity.
Wan et al. discloses a beneficial negative electrode active material wherein two pieces of Li metal foil and one piece of elemental Sn foil were stacked together to form Sn (substance X) nanolayers with a thickness of each layer as low as 5nm (Wan, pg 3), which falls within the claimed range and which is the same substance X provided in the current application that covers the negative electrode or the electrolyte at the interface between the negative electrode and the electrolyte, and is chosen for the specific properties of having a higher redox potential than the negative electrode active material or having no electrode activity and being a metal or semimetal capable of being alloyed with Li but not solid soluble in Li, and/or an alloy of the metal or semimetal and Li as well as having an ionic conductivity of 10-8 S -cm-1 or more (Original Specification [0060-0062], Examples 2-6).
The substance Sn is applied to the Li metal anode of Wan to achieve the benefits of forming a lithium diffusion “pathway” over the entire electrode enabling fast lithium diffusion and leading to good rate capability (Wan, pg 3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide a lithium metal negative electrode composite comprising elemental Sn as taught in Wan et al. to the Li-Mg metal negative electrode disclosed in Yang et al. as doing so would give the skilled artisan the reasonable expectation of achieving the benefits taught in Wan et al. and as doing so would amount to nothing more than the use of known technique to improve similar devices in the same way.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-3, 5-18, 22-23 and 29-30 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 KENNETH MAX OTERO whose telephone number is (571)272-2559. The examiner can normally be reached M-F Generally 7:30-430.
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, Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at (571) 270-3879. 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.
/K.M.O./Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/NICOLE M. BUIE-HATCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1725