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
This Office Action is responsive to the Amendment filed November 17, 2025.
The following rejections are overcome:
Claim(s) 1-5, 7 & 9-15, 17-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CI et al. CN 109378491in view of CAO et al. CN 107394113 and further in view of KIM et al. WO 2019078526A2.
Claim(s) 6 & 16 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CI et al. CN 109378491in view of CAO et al. CN 107394113 and further in view of KIM et al. WO 2019078526A2 and even further in view of Thomas-Alyea et al. U.S. Pub. 2019/0273258.
Claims 1-7, 9-20 & 21 are rejected as follows:
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed June 19, 2024 has/have been received and complies with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner, and an initialed copied is attached herewith.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7 & 9-15, 17-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CI et al. CN 109378491in view of WANG et al. CN-107394113-A and further in view of KIM et al. WO 2019078526A2.
With respect to claim 1, CI teaches a method of fabricating a lithium-containing electrode (Example 1), the method comprising: forming a lithium metal film (lithium metal, Summary of Invention, paragraph 24) on a current collector (anode material on a current collector; Summary of Invention, paragraph 10), second protective film comprising at least one selected from the group of a lithium fluoride film (lithium metal anode is coated with a passivation film comprising lithium fluoride; Summary of Invention, paragraph 12), an aluminum oxide film, or both the lithium fluoride film and the aluminum oxide film (lithium metal anode is coated with a passivation film comprising aluminum oxide; Summary of Invention, paragraph 12), wherein forming the second protective film comprises performing at least one of a sputtering process, a thermal evaporation process, an e-beam evaporation process, and a chemical vapor deposition (CVD) process (magnetron sputtering is used to form the passivation film; Summary of Invention, paragraph 14). With respect to claim 2, the second protective film further comprises the lithium fluoride film (lithium metal anode is coated with a passivation film comprising lithium fluoride; Summary of Invention, paragraph 12). With respect to claim 4, the second protective film further comprises the aluminum oxide film (lithium metal anode is coated with a passivation film comprising aluminum oxide; Summary of Invention, paragraph 12). With respect to claim 7, forming the first protective film comprises performing at least one of a sputtering process, a thermal evaporation process, an e-beam evaporation process, and a chemical vapor deposition (CVD) process (magnetron sputtering is used to form the passivation film, thus any of the films; Summary of Invention, paragraph 14). With respect to claims 9 & 17, an anode electrode structure, comprising : a lithium metal film (lithium metal, Summary of Invention, paragraph 24) formed on the current collector (anode material on a current collector; Summary of Invention, paragraph 10); second protective film comprising at least one selected from the group of a lithium fluoride film (lithium metal anode is coated with a passivation film comprising lithium fluoride; Summary of Invention, paragraph 12), an aluminum oxide film, or both the lithium fluoride film and the aluminum oxide film (lithium metal anode is coated with a passivation film comprising aluminum oxide; Summary of Invention, paragraph 12), wherein forming the second protective film comprises performing at least one of a sputtering process, a thermal evaporation process, an e-beam evaporation process, and a chemical vapor deposition (CVD) process (magnetron sputtering is used to form the passivation film; Summary of Invention, paragraph 14). With respect to claims 10 & 18, the second protective film further comprises the lithium fluoride film (lithium metal anode is coated with a passivation film comprising lithium fluoride; Summary of Invention, paragraph 12). With respect to claims 12 & 20, the second protective film further comprises the aluminum oxide film (lithium metal anode is coated with a passivation film comprising aluminum oxide; Summary of Invention, paragraph 12). With respect to claim 7, forming the first protective film comprises performing at least one of a sputtering process, a thermal evaporation process, an e-beam evaporation process, and a chemical vapor deposition (CVD) process (magnetron sputtering is used to form the passivation film, thus any of the films; Summary of Invention, paragraph 14). With respect to claim 15, an energy storage device, comprising: the anode electrode structure (Example 20); a cathode electrode structure (Example 20); and a solid electrolyte film formed between the anode electrode structure and the cathode electrode structure (solid electrolyte membrane; Summary of Invention).
Although CI teaches that the anode may include a lithium alloy layer including tin (Summary of Invention, paragraph 11), the reference does not expressly disclose: and forming a protective film stack on the lithium metal film comprising: forming a first protective film on the lithium metal film, the first protective film comprising bismuth, silver, tin, a bismuth chalcogenide, a tin chalcogenide, a silver chalcogenide, or combinations thereof (claims 1 & 9, 17); and forming a second protective film and in contact on the first protective film, the second protective film comprising an aluminum oxyhydroxide (AIO(OH)) film (claims 1 & 9); the first protective film is selected from the group consisting of bismuth, silver, tin, and combinations thereof (claims 3 & 11, 13, 17); the current collector comprising copper, stainless steel, or combinations thereof (claims 1 & 9, 17, 19); the first protective film has a thickness of 100 nanometers or less (claims 5 & 14, 17); the first protective film comprises nanopores (claim 21).
WANG teaches that it is well known in the art to employ an outer protective film comprising an aluminum oxyhydroxide (AIO(OH)) film on anodes of lithium batteries (See Invention contents paragraph 1; claims 1 & 9); the coating ensures improved battery energy density and electrochemical performance, and the safety performance of the battery; increase electrode surface of the electrode sheet resistance and improve thermal stability, so it has the function of safety protection and flame retardant when local overheat or short circuit of battery. See the Invention contents, paragraph 1.
KIM teaches that it is well known in the art to employ current collectors comprising copper, stainless steel, or combinations thereof (lithium metal anodes with copper or stainless steel current collectors; BEST-MODE; paragraph 67-69; claims 1 & 9, 17, 19).
CI, WANG and KIM are analogous art from the same field of endeavor, namely fabricating lithium anodes in lithium batteries.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ a protective film on the first comprising an aluminum oxyhydroxide (AIO(OH)) taught by WANG, in the lithium metal anode of CI, in order to improve battery energy density and electrochemical performance, the safety performance of the battery; increase electrode surface of the electrode sheet resistance and improve thermal stability, so it has the function of safety protection and flame retardant when local overheat or short circuit of battery. With respect to the AlOOH second protective film being in contact with the first protective film, the AlOOH film is the outer most layer. Furthermore, rearrangement of essential working parts of a device is prima facie obvious. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
With respect to the current collectors comprising copper, stainless steel, or combinations thereof; it would have been obvious to employ the copper, stainless steel current collectors of KIM, to support the lithium, metal anode of CI in view of WANG, as the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
With respect to forming a protective film stack on the lithium metal film comprising: forming a first protective film on the lithium metal film, the first protective film comprising bismuth, silver, tin, a bismuth chalcogenide, a tin chalcogenide, a silver chalcogenide, or combinations thereof (claims 1 & 9, 17); the first protective film is selected from the group consisting of bismuth, silver, tin, and combinations thereof (claims 3 & 11, 13, 17); it would have been obvious to employ in the lithium metal anode of CI in view of WANG & KIM, as CI teaches that the anode may include a lithium alloy layer including tin (Summary of Invention, paragraph 11), and duplication of essential working parts of a device is prima facie obvious. See n reHarza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). More specifically, CI teaches that the anode may be lithium metal or a lithium alloy including tin. It is well within the artisan’s skill to employ both layers of active material as anode active materials are essential working parts of the electrochemical cell. With respect to the AlOOH second protective film being in contact with the first protective film, the AlOOH film is the outer most layer, and thus would contact the first protective film of CI. Furthermore, rearrangement of essential working parts of a device is prima facie obvious. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
With respect to the first protective film has a thickness of 100 nanometers or less (claims 5 & 14, 17); it would have been obvious to employ in the lithium metal anode of CI in view of WANG & KIM, as CI teaches that the passivation layers is 0.07 microns. See example 2. CI teaches the passivation layers is 0.01-1.0 microns; overlapping with the claimed range.. Summary of Invention. 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). Furthermore, "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
With respect to the first protective film comprising nanopores (claim 21); it would have been obvious to employ in the lithium metal anode of CI in view of WANG & KIM, to improve ion conductivity. Regarding the size of the pores: it would have been obvious, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in size of the pores component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
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.
Claim(s) 6 & 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CI et al. CN 109378491in view of WANG et al. CN-107394113-A and further in view of KIM et al. WO 2019078526A2 and even further in view of Thomas-Alyea et al. U.S. Pub. 2019/0273258.
CI in view of WANG & KIM teach a method of fabricating a lithium-containing electrode (Example 1), described in the rejection recited hereinabove.
However, CI is silent to: the solid electrolyte film is comprised LiPON, doped variants of either crystalline or amorphous phases of Li7La3Zr2O12, doped anti-perovskite compositions, argyrodite compositions, lithium-sulfur-phosphorous materials, Li2S—P2S5, Li10GeP2S12 , and Li3PS4, lithium phosphate glasses, (1-x)LiI-(x)Li4 SnS4, xLiI-(1-x)Li4SnS4, mixed sulfide and oxide electrolytes (crystalline LLZO, amorphous (1-x)LiI-(x)Li4 SnS4 mixture, amorphous xLiI-(1-x)Li4 SnS4), Li3S(BF4)0.5Cl0.5, Li4Ti5O12, lithium doped lanthanum titanate (LATP), Li2+2xZn1-xGeO4, LiTi2 (PO4)3, LiHf2(PO4)3, LiGe2(PO4)3, or combinations thereof (LATP; claim 16); exposing the current collector to a plasma treatment or corona discharge process to remove organic materials from exposed surfaces of the current collector prior to forming the lithium metal film on the current collector (claim 6).
Thomas-Alyea teaches that it is well known in the art to employ LiPON, doped variants of either crystalline or amorphous phases of Li7La3Zr2O12, doped anti-perovskite compositions, argyrodite compositions, lithium-sulfur-phosphorous materials, Li2S—P2S5, Li10GeP2S12 , and Li3PS4, lithium phosphate glasses, (1-x)LiI-(x)Li4 SnS4, xLiI-(1-x)Li4SnS4, mixed sulfide and oxide electrolytes (crystalline LLZO, amorphous (1-x)LiI-(x)Li4 SnS4 mixture, amorphous xLiI-(1-x)Li4 SnS4), Li3S(BF4)0.5Cl0.5, Li4Ti5O12, lithium doped lanthanum titanate (LATP), Li2+2xZn1-xGeO4, LiTi2 (PO4)3, LiHf2(PO4)3, LiGe2(PO4)3, or combinations thereof (LATP; claim 16); and cleaning battery elements with plasma etching ([0071]; claim 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ LATP of Thomas-Alyea, in the lithium metal anode of CI in view of WANG & KIM, as the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
With respect to exposing the current collector to a plasma treatment or corona discharge process to remove organic materials from exposed surfaces of the current collector prior to forming the lithium metal film on the current collector (claim 6); it would have been obvious to treat the current collector of CI in view of WANG & KIM
, Thomas-Alyea, as Thomas-Alyea teacher cleaning battery elements with plasma etching [0071].
Response to Arguments
Applicant asserts that CAO et al. CN 107394113, is silent on a second protective film comprising an aluminum oxyhydroxide (AIO(OH)) film, and film being in contact with the first protective film, because said AlOOH layer is directly coated in the current collector. This assertion is correct, and all previously pending rejections are overcome.
Applicant asserts that the rejections of independent claims 9, 15 and 17 and dependent claims 2-5, 7, 10-14 and 18-21 are overcome because CAO et al. CN 107394113, is silent on a second protective film comprising an aluminum oxyhydroxide (AIO(OH)) film, and film being in contact with the first protective film, because said AlOOH layer is directly coated in the current collector. This assertion is correct, and all previously pending rejections are overcome.
Applicant asserts that the rejections of claims 6 and 16 and dependent claims 2-5, 7, 10-14 and 18-21 are overcome because CAO et al. CN 107394113, is silent on a second protective film comprising an aluminum oxyhydroxide (AIO(OH)) film, and film being in contact with the first protective film, because said AlOOH layer is directly coated in the current collector. Thomas-Alyea et al. U.S. Pub. 2019/0273258 does not cure the deficiencies of CAO. This assertion is correct, and all previously pending rejections are overcome.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MONIQUE M WILLS whose telephone number is (571)272-1309. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:30am to 5:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner's supervisor, Tiffany Legette, may be reached at 571-270-7078. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/Monique M Wills/
Examiner, Art Unit 1722
/NICOLE M. BUIE-HATCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights