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, claims 1 and 3-12 in the reply filed on July 7th, 2026 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed on December 9th, 2025, fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 because a copy of document #4 (a non-final office action in response to this application) has not been supplied. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits. Applicant is advised that the date of any re-submission of any item of information contained in this information disclosure statement or the submission of any missing element(s) will be the date of submission for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements based on the time of filing the statement, including all certification requirements for statements under 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because it refers to silicon as a metal when it is a metalloid.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 includes a recitation of “a lithium-containing compound causing an oxidation reaction and not substantially causing a reduction reaction in a charge/discharge potential range of the positive-electrode active material.” Normally a recitation of the term “substantially” incurs a rejection under 112(b), but paragraph [0041] of the specification as filed sufficiently defines the terms. The paragraph reads: “it is impossible or substantially impossible for the positive-electrode sacrificial agent to cause a reduction reaction and receive a lithium ion and an electron or to generate themselves by a reduction reaction under the ordinary reaction conditions for those skilled in the art.” Therefore, this claim will be interpreted such it requires the presence of a lithium-containing compound that undergoes an irreversible oxidation reaction and does not return to it’s pre-oxidated state via a reduction reaction.
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 and 3-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (US 2020/0075990 A1) and further in view of Kato (US 2011/0081579) and Roumi (US 2013/0224632 A1). The combination of the three will be referred to as modified Park.
Regarding claims 1, 3, 8, and 9, Park discloses a secondary battery comprising a liquid electrolyte [0101], a positive electrode, a negative electrode, and a separator [0010]. Park’s negative electrode does not have negative active material [0024]. Park continues to teach that lithium ions flow towards the negative current collector to deposit themselves as a lithium metal layer [0029] during charging. Discharging the battery would require some of the lithium from that layer to dissolve into the electrolyte towards the cathode, as required by claim 9.
Park teaches the usage of a sacrificial positive electrode active material (the claimed lithium-containing compound) as an additive capable of providing a lithium source [0047] to be deposited on a negative electrode not having active material [0029]. Park continues to teach that this material irreversibly provides lithium ions in excess during the first charge/discharge cycle [0048]. This irreversibility aligns with the claimed material because at least a portion of this positive electrode active material cannot return to its former state via a reduction reaction.
Park fails to teach a buffering function layer. Roumi is analogous art to Park because both discuss electrochemical devices (Park, title; Roumi, title). Roumi to teach an electronically and ionically conductive layer formed on the separator between the negative electrode and the separator (i.e., the claimed buffering function layer; [0065] and [0068]). This conductive layer is porous [0067]. Using this conductive layer helps to provide uniform ion deposition onto the negative electrode [0072]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to use Roumi’s electronically and ionic conductive layer in Park’s battery to ensure that lithium ions are uniformly deposited onto the negative electrode.
Park fails to teach a metal layer formed on the surface of the negative electrode facing the separator. Kato is analogous art to Park because both discuss batteries (Kato, title; Park, title). Kato teaches the usage of a protective layer atop a current collector comprising indium, tin, and/or bismuth (as required by claim 8) to inhibit the corrosion of the current collector [0059]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to coat Park’s negative electrode current collector with a layer of indium, tin, and/or bismuth to inhibit corrosion.
Therefore, as set forth above, modified Park’s satisfies the limitations of claim 3 which require that the battery comprise both the metal layer and buffering function layer.
Regarding claim 4, Park teaches that the irreversible capacity of the lithium-containing compound may be 30% or greater [0048], which overlaps with the claimed range of 1% - 30%. 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).
Regarding claim 5, Roumi teaches that the electronically and ionically conductive layer (the claimed buffering function layer) may have a porosity greater than or equal to 50% [0067], identical to the claimed range. 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).
Regarding claim 6, Roumi teaches many different potential combinations that could ultimately be the electronically and ionically conductive layer. Roumi teaches that the layer could comprise an alloy mesh, a partial coating of a conductive material, or a combination of them [0066]. This allows for a structure that is a lithium-alloy mesh (ionically conductive) that is coated by a layer of gold or silver (which is electronically conductive; [0066]). Therefore, Roumi teaches a porous ionically conductive layer that is covered by an electronically conductive layer.
Regarding claim 7, Kato teaches that the thickness of the metal layer should be in the range of 0.03 µm – 2 µm [0060], corresponding to 30 nm – 2000 nm. This range overlaps with the claimed range of 5 nm – 5000 nm. 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).
Regarding claim 10, Park teaches that the current collector may be copper, nickel, titanium, or stainless steel [0039].
Regarding claim 11, Park teaches that there is no lithium foil on the negative current collector, since such a foil may function as active material [0024].
Regarding claim 12, modified Park does not discuss the energy density of their batteries. However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to optimize a battery so it has as great an energy density as possible. Doing so would minimize the size of the batteries needed to store any given amount of energy. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to optimize modified Park’s battery such that it has an energy density greater than 350 Wh/kg.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Liang (US 2019/0173090) teaches a current collector covered by a metal protective layer (abstract) to enhance mechanical strength of the current collector [0091].
Park (KR 20200076076 A) discloses a metal layer (magnesium) that provides mechanical support to a negative electrode layer with a thickness between 2 nm – 5000 nm [0056].
Holme (US 2017/0338465 A1) teaches the usage of a metal layer comprised of indium or aluminum atop a current collector to ensure the uniform plating of lithium metal [0022].
Kim (US 2021/0399336 A1) teaches the usage of a solid electrolyte with voids adjacent to the negative current collector (abstract). The recesses are coated with an electronically conductive layer atop an ionically conductive layer and lithium precipitates in these recesses ([0065]-[0072]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN K BLACKWELL-RUDASILL whose telephone number is (571)270-0563. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.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, Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at 571-272-3433. 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.
/R.B.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1722
/ANCA EOFF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722
