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 .
Status of Application
Claim 1-20 are pending. Claims 1-9, 16-17, 19-20 are withdrawn. Claims 13-15 are canceled. Claim 10 is currently amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are not found persuasive because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 11-12,18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (WO2021212428A1, US equivalent US20220109180A1 was used for citation/translation).
Regarding claim 1, Li discloses a method for forming a metal battery comprising an anode, a cathode, and an electrolyte ([0085]), the method comprising:
selecting a cathode (“positive electrode plate” [0086]);
selecting an electrolyte comprising a solid-state electrolyte ([0069-0074]);
selecting an anode (“negative electrode plate” [0085-0088]; see Fig 1)
Li further discloses that the negative electrode plate comprises a lithium-based metal layer comprising a lithium alloy, preferably a lithium silver alloy [0040], wherein the mass ratio of lithium element to silver element in the lithium-silver alloy is preferably from 90-99.9:0.1-10 [0040] to promote uniform deposition of lithium ions, improve safety performance of the battery, and also improve cycle performance of the battery [0040]. Such Li-Ag mass ratio of 90-99.9:0.1-10 [0040] overlaps with the claimed range of “about 90% lithium and 10% silver by weight of the lithium-silver alloy”.
Thus, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to have selected Li-Ag alloy with the overlapping Li-Ag mass ratio, with a reasonable expectation to promote uniform deposition of lithium ions, improve safety and cycle performance of the battery [0040].
Li further discloses:
stacking the electrolyte between the anode and the cathode to form the metal battery [0107].
Regarding claim 11, Li discloses the method of claim 10, wherein the anode further comprises an anode active (i.e., the upper lithium-based metal layer 20 that serves as a negative electrode active layer [0026], comprising Li-Ag alloy), an anode interlayer (i.e., polymer base layer 10), and an anode coating (i.e., the lower lithium-based metal layer 20 that serves as a current collector [0026], comprising Li-Ag alloy).
Regarding claim 12, Li discloses the method of claim 11, wherein the anode active and the anode coating comprise the metal alloy (i.e., the lithium-based metal layers 20 comprising Li-Ag alloys in Fig 1; [0040]).
However, Li does not disclose wherein the anode interlayer (i.e., polymer base layer 10) comprises the metal alloy. However, Li recognizes that the lithium-silver alloy in the anode promotes uniform deposition of lithium ions, thereby improving safety and cycle performance of the battery [0040-0041]. Thus, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to have added the lithium-silver alloy in the anode interlayer with a reasonable expectation to promote lithium ions throughout the entire negative electrode plate while also improving safety and cycle performance of the battery [0040-0041].
Regarding claim 18, Li discloses the method of claim 10, but does not disclose a homologue temperature of the Li-Ag alloy. However, a person having ordinary skill in the art would use the phase diagram of Li-Ag alloy provided in Fig 2A of the instant application and recognize that the Li-Ag alloy having a mass ratio of 90:10 has a eutectic temperature of about 90°C (i.e., 363.15K), and further recognize that TH is 0.82 using the following formula: TH=298K/Teutectic (provided in PG Pub [0060] of the instant application), which falls within the claimed range of “greater than 0.65”.
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 TAEYOUNG SON whose telephone number is (703)756-1427. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5pm.
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, Jonathan Leong can be reached at (571) 270-1292. 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.
/T.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/Haroon S. Sheikh/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1751