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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Claims 1-15 in the reply filed on 1/16/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 16-20 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 1/16/2026.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
Claim 13 states “the lithium metal of the cathode electrode is one of pure lithium, and a lithium alloy.” The instant specification does not include sufficient support for this limitation. The instant specification states that “[0012] In further features, the cathode electrode includes lithium iron phosphate (LFP). [0013] In further features, (a) Rock salt layered oxides, LiNixMnyCol-x-y02,LiNixMn1-x02, Lil+xMO2 e.g. LiCoO2, LiNiO2, Li MnO2, LiNi0.5Mn0.502, NMC111, NMC523, NMC622, NMC721, NMC811, NCA etc. (b) Spinel cathode, e.g. LiMn2O4,LiNi0.5Mn1.504 (c) Olivine compounds, e.g. LiV2(PO4)3 LiFePO4, LiCoPO4,LiMnPO4 etc (d) Tavorite compounds, e.g. LiVPO4F, (e) Borate compounds, e.g. LiFeBO3, LiCoBO3, LiMnBO3 (f) Silicate compounds, e.g. Li2FeSiO4, Li2MnSiO4,LiMnSiO4F (g) Organic compounds, e.g. Dilithium (2,5-dilithiooxy)terephthalate, polyimide (h) Other types, e.g. 5,02 (i) Coated and/or doped cathode materials mentioned in (a), (b) and (j) Combination components selected from a to d type” Similarly, Paragraphs 0061 and 0066 in instant specification do not provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-12, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Xiao et al (US 2019/0067675 A1).
Regarding Claim 1,
Xiao teaches an electrochemical cell (i.e. battery) that has an anode/negative electrode with a lithium metal (Paragraph 0063), a cathode/positive electrode (Paragraph 0061). Xiao also teaches a fluoropolymer layer deposited on electroactive material of electrode to form a composite surface layer (Paragraph 0072). The fluoropolymer layer is polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), and reacts with lithium (electroactive material) to form LiF (lithium fluoride) as a protective coating (Paragraph 0073). This is akin to the claimed LiF layer on an electrode. Xiao also teaches that the LiF layer is formed in a method of making a negative electrode (Paragraph 0072).
Regarding Claim 2,
Xiao teaches that a fluropolymer layer of PTFE is deposited on the negative electrode, and that in case when the electroactive materials do not contain sufficient levels of lithium then defluorination occurs in the first few cycles in the battery cell where the lithium ions migrate from positive electrode to the fluoropolymer coating on silicon (Paragraph 0081). This shows that the fluropolymer layer remains after initial reaction with lithium in the forming process, and then is able to react in situ in the electrochemical cell. Hence, Xiao teaches that a portion of the PTFE layer remains after the reaction in the formation process.
Regarding Claim 3,
Xiao teaches that there is a reaction between the fluoropolymer layer and the negative electrode (active material lithium) to form a LiF protective coating. Since the fluoropolymer layer is deposited on an electroactive material film (Paragraph 0083), the LiF layer is formed between the PTFE layer and the anode.
Regarding Claim 5,
Xiao teaches the composite layer which contains the LiF particles is formed on atleast one surface of the electrode layer (Paragraph), and the electrode being formed in a negative electrode or anode (Paragraph 0070).
Regarding Claim 6,
Xiao teaches that the negative electrode is made of material such as lithium metal (Paragraph 0072).
Regarding Claim 7 and Claim 8,
Xiao teaches that the positive electrode or cathode includes materials such as Lithium iron phosphate, and lithium nickel manganese cobalt oxide (Paragraph 0061).
Regarding Claims 9, 10, 11,
Xiao teaches the presence of an electrolyte system comprising a non-aqueous liquid electrolyte solution including a lithium salt and an organic solvent mixture (Paragraph 0068). Xiao also provides an exemplary electrolyte comprising 1M LiPF6 in EC:DEC organic solvents (Paragraph 0089). It is well known in the art that EC, DEC are carbonate type solvents commonly used in electrolytes for secondary batteries.
Regarding Claim 12,
Xiao teaches the presence of a separator between the anode and cathode layers in the battery.
Regarding Claim 14,
Xiao teaches that the composite surface layer has a thickness of greater than or equal to about 5 nm to less than or equal to about 50 µm. Xiao also states in Example 1, that the coating thickness of the PTFE material on a Li disk is around 1 micron. This value is within the claimed range.
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.
Claim(s) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiao et al in view of Kobayashi et al (US 20160204476 A1).
Xiao does not teach that the PTFE layer has a porosity between approximately 30 percent and approximately 90 percent.
However, Kobayashi teaches a protective film for an anode that has a polymeric porous film. The polymeric film is made of a tetrafluoroethylene polymer (Paragraph 0021), and has a porosity of 35% to 98%. This range overlaps the claimed range. Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a PTFE layer with the claimed porosity in order to inhibit the growth of dendrites on the anode (Paragraph 0020).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiao et al in view of Roumi et al (US 9379368 B2).
Xiao teaches that the negative electrode comprises lithium metal and lithium-silicon alloy (Paragraph 0063).
Xiao does state that the positive electrode is made of lithium-based active material that can sufficiently undergo lithium intercalation and deintercalation, and further provides non-limiting examples of positive electrode material. Xiao does not specifically teach that the lithium material in cathode electrode is one of pure lithium or a lithium alloy.
However, Roumi teaches an electrochemical cell with a positive electrode comprising an alkali metal, an alkali metal alloy which includes Li (Column 27, Lines 25-35). Roumi teaches a method of dendrite prevention (Column 2, Lines 65-67) that utilizes a coating on the Li anode made of PTFE material (Column 19, Lines 45- 60). Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use lithium metal or lithium alloy in the cathode for Xiao as a suitable positive electrode material.
Claim(s) 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiao et al in view of Schmidt et al (US 20220344669 A1).
Xiao does not teach that the thickness of one side of atleast one of the anode or cathode is between approximately 1 micrometer to 50 micrometers.
However, Schmidt teaches an electrochemical cell with an electroactive material layer (as found in electrodes) adjacent to a precursor layer (made of PTFE material; paragraph 0013-0014). Schmidt also teaches that the precursor materials are able to produce LiF upon reaction with lithium metal found in negative electrode material (Paragraph 0091-0092). Furthermore, Schmidt teaches that the positive electroactive material layer has a thickness greater than 1 and less than 1000 µm (paragraph 0079). This is akin to the claimed electrode thickness. Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the thickness as provided in Schmidt in order to form chemical attachments that control the growth and microstructure of the solid-electrolyte interface layer and help to reduce or prevent premature cracking or degradation of the solid-electrolyte interface layer (Paragraph 0093).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUHANI JITENDRA PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-6278. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 AM - 5:00 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, Maria Veronica D. Ewald can be reached on 571-272-8519. 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.
/SUHANI JITENDRA PATEL/Examiner, Art Unit 1783
/MARIA V EWALD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1783