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 Status
Applicant’s arguments submitted on February 2nd, 2026 have been entered into the file.
Currently claim 1 is amended, claim 5 is cancelled, and claims 9-18 are non-elected, resulting in claims 1-4, 6-8, 19 pending for examination.
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed February 2nd, 202 have been received.
The claim amendments have overcome the 35 USC § 102 rejection of claims 1-4, 6-7 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being clearly anticipated by Frieberg.
The claim amendments have overcome the 35 USC § 103 rejection of claims 1-4, 6, 8, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2019051925 A1) in view of Park (Korean Patent Publication No. 20190143822 A1).
The claim amendments and arguments have overcome the 35 USC § 103 rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li and Park in view of Matsubara (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2022081296 A1).
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.
Claims 1-4, 6, 8, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2019051925 A1) in view of
Park (Korean Patent Publication No. 20190143822 A1)
Frieberg (U.S. Patent Publication No. 20220320489 A1)
Kim (U.S. Patent No. 10930921).
Regarding claim 1, Li teaches a lithium secondary battery comprising: an anode current collector (Figures 1A-B, Element 5); a composite layer (porous layer) disposed on the anode current collector (Figures 1A-B, Element 6); an intermediate layer (solid electrolyte layer) disposed on the composite layer (Figures 1A-B, Element 3); a cathode active material layer disposed on the intermediate layer (Figures 1A-B, Element 1); and a cathode current collector disposed on the cathode active material layer (Figures 1A-B, Element 4) (Paragraphs 0006-0008).
Li teaches the composite layer (porous layer) comprising a resin (polymer binder) and an additional material, such as an electron conductive material such as carbon material and metal material (Paragraph 0040), meeting the instant claimed limitations.
Li is silent as to the metal particles of the composite layer being capable of alloying with lithium and the polymer binder being capable of binding to the metal particles.
However, Park discloses a lithium secondary battery having an anode-free structure (Paragraph 0001) wherein the negative electrode free composition contains a metal and a binder (Paragraph 0043). As shown in Figures 2-3, Park teachings lithium metal plated on the layer comprising the negative electrode free composition during charging (Paragraph 0023). Park teaches the metal in the composition may be one or more Al, Zn, Au, Ag, or alloys thereof (Paragraph 0031) and the binder may be polyvinylpyrrolidone (Paragraph 0035). Park teaches the inclusion of the metal and binder in the negative-electrode free composition in order to improve electrical conductivity and ensure mechanical properties (Paragraphs 0032-0034).
The negative electrode free composition of Park is comparable to the composite layer of Li, as both are layers of an anodeless battery and form a surface onto which lithium metal is plated during charging. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the composite layer of Li to incorporate the teachings of Park in which one or more of Al, Zn, Au, Ag metal particles and a polymer binder that is polyvinylpyrrolidone are contained in the composite layer. Doing so would advantageously result in improved electrical conductivity and mechanical properties, as recognized by Park.
The metal particles that are capable of alloying with lithium defines the particles by what they do, rather than what they are. This is a functional limitation, and therefore was not evaluated on its own, but in conjunction with the remainder of claim. See MPEP 2173.05(g). Therefore, as discussed above, Park in view of Li teaches the metal particles being Al, Zn, Au, or Ag, which overlap with the examples of the metal particles capable of alloying with lithium in the instant disclosure (Page 8, Lines 15-17). Li in view of Park thus teaches same identity of the metal particles as the instant disclosure, and therefore would be capable of performing in the manner claimed, namely alloying with lithium.
The polymer binder being capable of binding to the metal particles defines the binder by what the binder does, rather than what it is. This is a functional limitation, and therefore was not evaluated on its own, but in conjunction with the remainder of claim. See MPEP 2173.05(g). Therefore, as discussed above, Park in view of Li teaches the binder being polyvinylpyrrolidone which overlaps with the examples of the binder in the instant disclosure (Page 8, Lines 18-20). Li in view of Park thus teaches same identity of the binder as the instant disclosure, and therefore would be capable of performing in the manner claimed, namely binding to the metal particles.
Li is silent as to a solid electrolyte interfacial layer being coated on the metal particles.
However, Frieberg discloses an electrochemical cell for a secondary lithium battery comprising electrochemically active Li-Si alloy particles (Abstract). Frieberg teaches the metal alloy particles are composite particles comprising a shell (Figure 2, Element 142) which is a single homogenous layer which surrounds the outer surface of the metal alloy core (Figure 2, Element 140), the coating being comprised of solid electrolyte material (Paragraphs 0055-0056). Frieberg teaches the solid electrolyte interfacial layer to function as a passivation layer which helps prevent the Li-Si alloy of the core from participating in undesirable chemical reactions with other chemical compounds in the electrochemical cell (Paragraph 0056).
Therefore, it would have also been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the metal particles of Li to incorporate the teachings of Frieberg in which a solid electrolyte interfacial layer is coated on each metal particle. Doing so would advantageously result in a passivation layer on the metal particles to help combat undesirable side reactions between the particles and other components of the cell, as recognized by Frieberg.
Li teaches the solid electrolyte may be a sulfide solid electrolyte comprising an Li element and an O element (Paragraph 0045). Modified Li is silent as to the solid electrolyte interfacial layer comprising Li3N, LiO2, Li2O2, or combinations thereof.
However, Kim discloses a negative electrode active material comprising a silicon alloy core and a shell including a metal oxide on the silicon alloy core (Paragraph 0004). Kim teaches the metal oxide including at least one metal selected from Ti, Zr, Al, Co, and Li.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to select exclusively lithium from the finite lists of possible combinations for the metal oxide to arrive at the lithium oxide (LiO2) shell coating the metal alloy particles of the instant claim since the combination of components would have yielded predictable results as an interfacial layer, absent a showing of unexpected results commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
Kim teaches the metal oxide layer coating the silicon alloy core to control volumetric expansion of the core, thus resulting in a lithium secondary battery having enhanced lifespan characteristics (Paragraph 0034).
Therefore, Kim teaches it is known in the art to provide an LiO2 coating layer on the exterior of a metal alloy such as silicon lithium alloy. As previously discussed, Frieberg teaches a metal alloy core such as silicon lithium alloy surrounded by a coating of solid electrolyte. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the solid electrolyte interfacial coating of the metal particles of Li in view of Park and Frieberg to incorporate the teachings of Kim in which the coating is comprised of lithium oxide (LiO2). Doing so would advantageously result in enhanced lifespan characteristics of the lithium secondary battery, as recognized by Kim.
Regarding claim 2, modified Li teaches the lithium secondary battery according to claim 1, wherein the carbon component comprises carbon black or acetylene black (Paragraph 0040).
Regarding claim 3, modified Li teaches the lithium secondary battery according to claim 1, wherein as discussed above in the modification, the metal particles comprise one or more selected from the group consisting of gold (Au), silver (Ag), aluminum (Al), and zinc (Zn) (Park, Paragraph 0031).
Regarding claim 4, modified Li teaches the lithium secondary battery according to claim 1, wherein as discussed above, the polymer binder comprises polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVP).
Regarding claim 6, modified Li teaches the lithium secondary battery according to claim 1, wherein the intermediate layer comprises a solid electrolyte layer (Paragraph 0044) (Figure 1A, Element 3).
Regarding claim 8, modified Li teaches the lithium secondary battery according to claim 1.
Li teaches that by charging the battery, an anode active material layer (Figure 1B, Element 2) is formed from the deposition of Li between the composite layer (solid electrolyte layer) and the intermediate layer (porous layer) (Paragraph 0027), meeting the instant claimed limitation.
Regarding claim 19, modified Li teaches a vehicle comprising a lithium secondary battery according to claim 1 (Paragraph 0060).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Park, Frieberg, and Kim as applied to claims 1-4, 6, 8, and 19 above, and further in view of Lee (U.S. Patent Publication No. 20220181687 A1).
Regarding claim 7, modified Li teaches the lithium secondary battery according to claim 1.
Li is silent as to the lithium secondary battery further comprising an electrolyte impregnated in at least one of the intermediate layer and the cathode active material layer, and the electrolyte comprises a lithium salt and a carbonate-based organic solvent.
However, Lee discloses a solid-liquid hybrid electrolyte and a lithium secondary battery including the hybrid electrolyte (Paragraph 0001). Lee teaches the solid-liquid hybrid electrolyte having a small amount of liquid electrolyte to impregnate the solid electrolyte with liquid electrolyte while retaining the ability to transport lithium ions therethrough (Paragraphs 0074 and 0076). Lee teaches the liquid electrolyte of the invention being a salt including a lithium metal cation and a carbonate-based solvent (Paragraph 0078).
Lee teaches the solid-liquid hybrid electrolyte membrane having improved mechanical strength compared to commercially solid electrolyte membranes (Paragraph 0008) while also ensuring ion conductivity (Paragraph 0007).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the intermediate (solid electrolyte) layer of Li to incorporate the teachings of Lee in which an electrolyte containing a lithium salt and a carbonate-based solvent impregnate the layer. Doing so would result in improved mechanical strength compared to conventional solid electrolytes, as recognized by Lee.
Response to Arguments
In the remarks submitted February 2nd, 2026, applicant argues that Li in view of Park fail to teach or suggest the limitation of “a solid electrolyte interfacial layer coated on the metal particles” as recited in claim 1. Applicant argues Li deposits Li metal between the solid electrolyte layer 3 and the porous layer 6 and Park deposits Li metal on the surface of the cathode 20, thus the modification of Li by Park would result in lithium metal on the surface of the porous layer 6 of Li which contains resin and metal, which is different from coating the metal within the resin with the lithium metal.
These arguments have been fully considered by are not found persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments, the Examiner submits that a proper obviousness rejection with respect to “a solid electrolyte interfacial layer coated on the metal particles” limitation of claim 1 was set forth in the Non-Final Rejection mailed October 31st, 2025. As described in the rejection of claim 1 in that rejection and further included above, Li teaches the composite layer (porous layer) including a polymer binder and metal particles formed on the anode current collector. The anode-free structure of Park includes a negative electrode free composition comprising metal particles and a binder, which was comparable to the composite layer of Li, as both are layers of an anodeless battery and form a surface onto which lithium metal is plated during charging.
Also previously mentioned, Li teaches the solid electrolyte layer disposed on the composite layer comprising the metal particles that, as taught by Park, are capable of alloying with lithium. This is considered to meet the instant claimed limitations of a solid electrolyte interfacial layer coated on the metal particles.
Further, Li teaches that the composite layer comprising the metal particles is a porous layer, where the solid electrolyte layer is arranged on top of the composite layer and then pressed at a pressure to form the solid electrolyte layer, as described in the method of manufacturing of Li (Paragraph 0066). The pressing of the solid electrolyte into the porous composite layer would result in at least some of the solid electrolyte in contact with metal particles of the porous composite layer, which is considered coating the metal particles.
Applicant argues that the resulting modification of Li in view of Park does not teach coating the metal within the resin with lithium metal. However, as originally filed, the claim requires a solid electrolyte interfacial layer coated on the metal particles. The modification of Li in view of Park explained above results in the solid electrolyte in contact with at least a portion of the metal particles, which reads on the instant claimed limitation.
In the remarks submitted February 2nd, 2026, applicant argues Li, Park, and Matsubara fail to teach or suggest any specific composition of such interfacial coating. Applicant further argues, Li, Park, and Matsubara also fail to teach or suggest "wherein the solid electrolyte interfacial layer comprises Li3N, LiO2, Li2O2, or any combination thereof, as Matsubara discusses producing a sulfide-based solid electrolyte having a chemical composition of Li10P3S12 by chemically reacting lithium nitride (Li3N) with lithium sulfide and phosphorous sulfide. Matsubara, [0094], [0222]. That is, Matsubara does not discuss the Li3N itself constituting a sulfide-based solid electrolyte.
These arguments have been fully considered and are found persuasive.
Thus, as it pertains to the teaches of paragraphs 0001, 0008, and 0010 of Matsubara, the rejection of claim 5 as set forth in the Non-Final Rejection mailed October 31st, 2025 is withdrawn. As the claimed limitations of claim 5 were incorporated into the independent claim 1 in the filed rejections, the rejection of claims 1-4, 6, 8, and 19 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Park is withdrawn.
In the remarks submitted February 2nd, 2026, applicant argues claim 1 distinguishes over Li, Park, and Lee, alone or in any combination, as Li and Park do not teach the deficiencies of claim 1, as discussed above. Applicant further argues claim 1 also distinguishes over the combination of Li, Park, and Frieberg, alone or in any combination, as Li and Park do not teach the deficiencies of claim 1, as discussed above.
These arguments have been fully considered by are not found persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments, the Examiner submits the rejection of claim 1 in view of Li, Park, Frieberg, and Kim as disclosed above.
In the remarks submitted February 2nd, 2026, applicant argues the metal oxide shell of Kim is formed from discrete oxide particles distributed with spacing therebetween, which is different from a continuous coating. Thus, applicant argues the resulting system would fail to provide “a solid electrolyte interfacial layer coated on the metal particles”
These arguments have been fully considered by are not found persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments, the Examiner submits that the instant claim as written requires a solid electrolyte interfacial layer coating on the metal particles, not a continuous coating as argued by applicant. Therefore, the metal oxide particles in contact with the exterior of the metal alloy, as taught by Kim, is considered to coat the metal particles. Further Paragraph 9 of Kim recites:
“…the metal oxide in a particulate form forms the shell that entirely covers a surface of the silicon alloy core”
Thus, the modification of Li in view of Park and Frieberg to incorporate the teachings of Kim results in a lithium oxide coating on the metal particles , meeting the instant claimed limitation.
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 OLIVIA A JONES whose telephone number is (571)272-1718. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30 AM - 4:30 PM.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached at (571) 270-7692. 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.
/O.A.J./Examiner, Art Unit 1789
/MARLA D MCCONNELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1789