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
In response to the amendment received June 11, 2026:
Claims 1-4, 6-18, 20 and 22-27 are pending. Claims 5, 19 and 21 have been cancelled as per applicant’s request. Claims 7-15 are withdrawn.
The core of the previous rejection is maintained with slight changes made in light of the amendment in view of the new references cited below. All changes to the rejection are necessitated by the amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 27 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 27, the present disclosure recites “pressing the lithium buffer layer onto at least one surface of the lithium metal” in Para. [0011] of the instant specification. However, there is no recitation of “two buffer layers respectively disposed on two opposite surfaces of the lithium metal”. Thus, this added limitation is considered new matter because the new matter is not described in the application as originally filed.
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 1-4, 16 and 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Zhang et al. (“Lithiophilic-lithiophobic gradient interfacial layer for a highly stable lithium metal anode”, 2018), provided in the Information Disclosure Statement received December 17, 2022, in view of He et al. (US 2019/0393510).
Regarding Claim 1, Zhang et al. teaches a GZCNT-coated Li foil anode (Fig. 9), wherein GZCNT are carbon nanotubes (CNT) with various ZnO loading layer by layer (pg. 2, col. 2, lines 3-5) (i.e. a composite lithium metal negative electrode comprising lithium metal and a lithium buffer layer on at least one surface of the lithium metal) wherein the GZCNT (i.e. lithium buffer layer) comprises lithiophobic CNT with a porous morphology (i.e. a porous framework) and lithophilic zinc oxide (i.e. a lithiophilic material) wherein there is Li ion conductivity (i.e. wherein the porous framework is a conductive porous framework) wherein there is a lithiophilic-lithiophobic gradient strategy by dripping CNT with various ZnO loadings (i.e. the lithiophilic material is distributed in the porous framework) (pg. 2, col. 2, lines 3-23) and the GZCNT or ZnO-coated CNT has a upper middle and lower/under part (Fig. 5c) wherein the respective Zn weight percentages are 0.39 wt%, 6.87 wt%, and 14.53 wt% (Fig. 5g-5i) (i.e. and a distribution density of the lithiophilic material in the porous framework decreases in a continuous gradient in a direction of the lithium buffer layer away from the lithium metal) (see also pg. 5, col. 1, lines 25 – pg. 5, col. 2 line 7).
Zhang et al. does not teach the lithiophilic material comprises one or more selected from metal sulfide, non-metal sulfide, metal phosphide non-metal phosphide, metal nitride, or non-metal nitride, the metal sulfide is one or more selected from zinc sulfide and magnesium sulfide, the metal nitride aluminum nitride, the metal phosphide is zinc phosphide.
However, He et al. teaches an anode comprising an anode active material layer comprising layer of lithium in the form of a foil (Para. [0019]) (i.e. a composite lithium metal negative electrode) comprising an anode-protecting layer disposed between the anode active material and the separator (Para. [0018]) (i.e. a lithium buffer layer on at least one surface of the lithium metal) wherein the anode-protecting layer comprises a sulfonated elastomeric matrix material (i.e. a porous conductive framework) (Para. [0023]) and containing inorganic filler (Para. [0018]) such as a phosphide of a transition metal such as Zn (Para. [0030]) (i.e. and a lithiophilic material comprising a metal phosphide which is zinc phosphide).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the ZnO loading of Zhang et al. to incorporate the teaching of zinc phosphide as taught by He et al., as such a material provides significantly more electrochemical stability to the layer (Para. [0029]).
Regarding Claim 2, Zhang et al. as modified by He et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Zhang et al. as modified by He et al. teaches the composition as claimed in claim 1. Thus, as a contact angle of molten lithium on a cross section of the lithium buffer layer is a material property of the lithium buffer layer, and a smaller contact angle of molten lithium on the cross section indicates better lithiophilicity, the Zn-coated CNT (i.e. lithium buffer layer) of Zhang et al. as modified above would be expected to satisfy the claimed contact angle of molten lithium on a cross section of the lithium buffer layer increasing in a continuous gradient. The reasons regarding expectedness are that the composition and structure is substantially identical to that of the instant claim, therefore it is expected that the lithium buffer layer of modified Zhang et al. would satisfy this conditions. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." See MPEP 2112.01.
Regarding Claim 3, Zhang et al. as modified by He et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 2 as explained above.
Zhang et al. as modified by He et al. teaches the composition as claimed in claim 1. Thus, as a contact angle of molten lithium on a cross section of the lithium buffer layer is a material property of the lithium buffer layer, and a smaller contact angle of molten lithium on the cross section indicates better lithiophilicity, the Zn-coated CNT (i.e. lithium buffer layer) of modified Zhang et al. would be expected to satisfy the claimed contact angle of molten lithium on the inner surface of the lithium buffer layer is 0-90º and contact angle of molten lithium on the outer surface of the lithium buffer layer is 90-180º. The reasons regarding expectedness are that the composition and structure is substantially identical to that of the instant claim, therefore it is expected that the lithium buffer layer of modified Zhang et al. would satisfy these conditions Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." See MPEP 2112.01.
Regarding Claim 4, Zhang et al. as modified by He et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 3 as explained above.
Zhang et al. as modified by He et al. teaches the composition as claimed in claim 1. Thus, as a contact angle of molten lithium on a cross section if the lithium buffer layer is a material property of the lithium buffer layer, and a smaller contact angle of molten lithium on the cross section indicates better lithiophilicity, the Zn-coated CNT (i.e. lithium buffer layer) of modified Zhang et al. would be expected to satisfy the claimed angle difference between the contact angle of molten lithium on the outer surface of the lithium buffer layer and the contact angle of molten lithium on the inner surface of the lithium buffer layer is 10-180º. The reasons regarding expectedness are that the composition and structure is substantially identical to that of the instant claim, therefore it is expected that the lithium buffer layer of modified Zhang et al. would satisfy these conditions Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." See MPEP 2112.01.
Regarding Claim 16, Zhang et al. as modified by He et al. teaches all of the elements of the composite lithium metal negative electrode in claim 1 as explained above.
Zhang et al. further teaches the GZCNT-coated Li anode in a Li—S battery (Fig. 9c) (i.e. a lithium secondary battery characterized by comprising the composite lithium metal negative electrode according to claim 1).
Regarding Claim 24, Zhang et al. as modified by He et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Zhang et al. further teaches a lithophilic zinc oxide (i.e. the lithiophilic material is a metal oxide) (pg. 2, col. 2, line 9).
Regarding Claim 25, Zhang et al. as modified by He et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 24 as explained above.
Zhang et al. further teaches a lithophilic zinc oxide (i.e. the lithiophilic material is a zinc oxide) (pg. 2, col. 2, line 9).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (“Lithiophilic-lithiophobic gradient interfacial layer for a highly stable lithium metal anode”, 2018) in view of He et al. (US 2019/0393510) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jin et al. (CN110890530A). The English machine translation of Jin et al. is attached and is referenced below.
Regarding Claim 6, Zhang et al. as modified by He et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Zhang et al. further teaches the CNT layer has a thickness of 20 µm (pg. 5, col. 1, lines 19-20 and pg. 5, col. 2, lines 5-6) (i.e. the porous framework satisfies at least a thickness of the porous framework is 1-10,000 µm).
Zhang et al. does not teach a porosity or pore size.
However, Jin et al. teaches a lithium metal anode (i.e. composite lithium metal negative electrode) (Para. [0008]) comprising a porous framework having a porosity of 40-80% (within the claimed range of a porosity of 30-95%) and a pore size of 1-20 micrometers (i.e. overlapping with the claimed pore size range of 0.01-10 micrometers) (Para. [0012]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the porous framework of Zhang et al. to incorporate the teaching of Jin et al., as such a porosity and pore size provide sufficient storage space for lithium, structural stability of the lithium metal anode, an alleviation of lithium dendrite growth (Para. [0027]). 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).” See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Claims 17 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (“Lithiophilic-lithiophobic gradient interfacial layer for a highly stable lithium metal anode”, 2018) in view of He et al. (US 2019/0393510) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Zhang et al. (CN110931712B), referred to hereinafter as “Zhang (‘712)”. The English machine translation of Zhang (‘712) is attached in a prior Office action and is referenced below.
Regarding Claim 17, Zhang et al. as modified by He et al. teaches all of the elements of the lithium secondary battery in claim 16 as explained above.
Zhang et al. does not explicitly teach an apparatus comprising the lithium secondary battery.
However, Zhang (‘712) teaches a composite lithium negative electrode secondary battery (Para. [0002]) applicable to electric vehicles and portable electronic devices as power sources (Para. [0004]) (i.e. wherein the lithium secondary battery is used as a power source of the apparatus).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the high-energy density secondary battery of Zhang et al. to incorporate the teaching of using the secondary as a power source for an electric vehicle or portable electronic device, to provide additional functionality to the battery and meet a high-energy density demand for the respective apparatus (Para. [0004]).
Regarding Claim 26, Zhang et al. as modified by He et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Zhang et al. does not teach the porous framework is formed from a porous substrate selected from one or more of melamine foam, polyurethane, polyethylene, polystyrene, polyvinyl chloride, polypropylene, polyacetylene, polythiophene, polypyrrole, and polyaniline.
However, Zhang (‘712) teaches a skeleton material is includes a carbon skeleton obtained by carbonizing organic polymer material (Para. [0012]) such as polyethylene, polyvinyl chloride, polypropylene, polystyrene and polyurethane (Para. [0013]) (i.e. a porous framework is formed from a porous framework substrate selected from one or more of polyethylene, polyvinyl chloride, polypropylene, polystyrene and polyurethane).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the porous framework of Zhang et al. to incorporate the teaching of polyethylene, polypropylene, polyvinyl chloride and/or polyaniline as taught by Zhang (‘712), as such a skeleton (i.e. porous framework) can effectively inhibit the growth of lithium dendrites by inhibiting volume expansion of the lithium metal negative electrode (Para. [0005]).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (“Lithiophilic-lithiophobic gradient interfacial layer for a highly stable lithium metal anode”, 2018) in view of He et al. (US 2019/0393510) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yu et al. (CN106531995A). The English machine translation of Yu et al. is attached and is referenced below.
Regarding Claim 18, Zhang et al. as modified by He et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Zhang et al. does not teach the lithiophilic material comprises at least one selected from metal sulfide and non-metal sulfide.
However, Yu et al. teaches an anode comprising magnesium sulfide (Para. [0007]) (i.e. a negative electrode comprises lithiophilic material comprises metal sulfide, the metal sulfide is magnesium sulfide).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the buffer layer Zhang et al. to incorporate the teaching of magnesium sulfide, as this material helps improve the transport and conduction rate of lithium ions and elections (Para. [0008]).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (“Lithiophilic-lithiophobic gradient interfacial layer for a highly stable lithium metal anode”, 2018) in view of He et al. (US 2019/0393510) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yuan et al. (CN111333041A). The English machine translation of Yuan et al. is attached and is referenced below.
Regarding Claim 20, Zhang et al. as modified by He et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Zhang et al. does not teach the lithiophilic metal comprises a metal nitride, the metal nitride is aluminum nitride.
However, Yuan et al. teaches a framework-supported aluminum nitride amorphous modified lithium anode material (i.e. a lithiophilic metal is a metal nitride, the metal nitride is aluminum nitride) (Para. [0002]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the buffer layer of Zhang et al. to incorporate the teaching of aluminum nitride, as such a material would enhance cycle stability of the battery (Para. [0015]).
Claim 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (“Lithiophilic-lithiophobic gradient interfacial layer for a highly stable lithium metal anode”, 2018) in view of He et al. (US 2019/0393510) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sada (US 2022/0102703).
Regarding Claim 27, Zhang et al. as modified by He et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Zhang et al. does not teach wherein the lithium buffer layer comprises two lithium buffer layers respectively disposed on two opposite surfaces of the lithium metal.
However, Sada teaches forming a lithium metal electrode with a dendrite generation buffer polymer interlayer on both side surfaces of a lithium metal foil (Para. [0015] and Fig. 7) (i.e. wherein the lithium buffer layer comprises two lithium buffer layers respectively disposed on two opposite surfaces of the lithium metal).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the lithium metal negative electrode of Zhang et al. to incorporate the teaching of the lithium buffer layer comprises two lithium buffer layers respectively disposed on two opposite surfaces of the lithium metal as taught by Sada, as such a layer would restrain generation of dendrite on both surfaces of the lithium metal foil (Para. [0127]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 22-23 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: none of the prior art of record, alone or in combination appears to teach suggest or render obvious the invention of at least claim 22.
Claim 22 teaches a composite lithium metal negative electrode requiring the elements therein. Notably, the claim requires a lithium buffer layer on at least one surface of the lithium metal, the lithium buffer layer comprises a lithiophilic material, and the lithiophilic material comprises a non-metal phosphide. He et al. teaches an anode comprising an anode active material layer comprising layer of lithium in the form of a foil (Para. [0019]) (i.e. a composite lithium metal negative electrode) comprising an anode-protecting layer disposed between the anode active material and the separator (Para. [0018]) (i.e. a lithium buffer layer on at least one surface of the lithium metal) wherein the anode-protecting layer comprises inorganic filler (Para. [0018]) such as a phosphide of a transition metal such as Zn (Para. [0030]) (i.e. and a lithiophilic material comprising a metal phosphide which is zinc phosphide). However, there is no teaching of a non-metal phosphide lithiophilic material forming a lithium buffer layer on at least a surface of a lithium metal. There is no teaching, suggestion or motivation to arrive at the claimed invention of claim 22 (a composite lithium metal negative electrode comprising a lithium buffer layer on at least one surface of a lithium metal, the lithium buffer layer comprises a lithiophilic material, and the lithiophilic material comprises a non-metal phosphide) in the prior art. Thus, none of the prior art alone or in combination renders obvious the claimed invention of claim 22. Since claim 23 is dependent upon claim 22, it is allowable for the same reason.
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 ARMINDO CARVALHO JR. whose telephone number is (571)272-5292. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30a.m.-5p.m..
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, Ula Ruddock can be reached at 571 272-1481. 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.
/ARMINDO CARVALHO JR./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights