DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
1. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 9/22/2026 has been entered.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/ § 103
2. Rejection A: The rejection of claims 1-2 and 5-9 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Xiao (US 2019/0312254) is withdrawn in view of the incorporation of the subject matter of claim 4 and newly added subject matter to the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. Rejection B: The rejection of claims 1-11 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiao et al. (US 2020/0212446) (hereinafter “Xiao2”) in view of Xiao (US 2019/0312254) is withdrawn in view of the amendments filed. Any rejections pending from this are also withdrawn.
Xiao2 fails to disclsoe the lithium fluoride inorganic layer is directly on a surface of the active subtance layer oppostie from the copper foil; instead, Xiao2 teaches the construct of Fig. 2, wherein any attempt to modify the Fig. 2 construct without first layer 210 (organic polymer layer) that is directly on the surface of the negative active substance layer 22 (such that the second layer 220 is directly on the surface of the negative active substance layer 22) would be counter to what the reference teaches and would thus modify the electrode plate of Xiao2 counter to what is explitly taught and requried.
4. Claims 1-3 and 5-10 are rejected under under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiao (US 2019/0312254) in view of of Xiao et al. (US 2020/0212446) (hereinafter “Xiao2”).
Regarding claim 1, Xiao teaches a lithium metal negative electrode plate (Fig. 1B), comprising:
a substrate 2 that may be a copper foil (P58, 81);
a lithium-containing layer 3 (“an active substance layer”) formed on1 at least part of a surface of the copper foil,
wherein the lithium-containing layer 3 (“an active substance layer”) comprises a lithium metal alloy (P74); and
a multi-layer protective coating (“a composite protection layer”) formed on2 at least part of a surface 6 of the lithium-containing layer 3 (“an active substance layer”), wherein a thickness of the entire multi-layer protective coating (“a composite protection layer”) includes the examples of 400 nm (=0.4 µm), 2 µm, 5µm, and 10 µm (P54, 57), each example anticipating the range presented of “more than or equal to 0.3 µm and less than or equal to 10 µm,” given:
"[W]hen, as by a recitation of ranges or otherwise, a claim covers several compositions, the claim is 'anticipated' if one of them is in the prior art." Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citing In re Petering, 301 F.2d 676, 682, 133 USPQ 275, 280 (CCPA 1962)) (emphasis in original); see MPEP § 2131.03,
and the multi-layer protective coating (“composite protection layer”) comprises a first layer 4 including lithium fluoride (Li-F) (i.e., “a lithium fluoride inorganic layer”) and a second layer 5 including a fluoropolymer (“a polymer organic layer”).
With respect to the thickness of the entire composite layer, Xiao teaches each layer (4, 5) may have a thickness of at least about 200 nm, at least about 1 µm, at least about 2.5 µm, at least about 5µm (P57), etc. with further teachings of ranges for each layer being about 1 nm to 10 µm, 1 nm to about 5 µm, 1 nm to about 1 µm, etc. (P20, 57). Xiao teaches that for all ranges disclosed, all values including the endpoints are taught (P54). Thus, in the instance each layer (4 , 5) is 2.5 µm (an endpoint of a range), then individually (2.5 µm) or cumulatively (2.5 µm + 2.5 µm = 5 µm) the taught values of the layer(s) (4, 5) are considered to anticipate the range of “less than or equal to 10 µm” as claimed. The same is true for the other values quoted above (i.e., 200 nm + 200 nm = 400 nm, equivalent to 0.4 µm; 1 µm + 1 µm = 2µm; etc.). Alternatively, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP § 2144.05).
Xiao teaches wherein the first layer 4 including lithium fluoride (Li-F) (“the lithium fluoride inorganic layer”) is directly on a surface of the lithium-containing layer 3 (“the active substance layer”) opposite from the copper foil 2, the second layer 5 including a fluoropolymer (“the polymer organic layer”) is directly on a surface of the first layer 4 including lithium fluoride (Li-F) (“the lithium fluoride inorganic layer”) opposite from the lithium-containing layer 3 (“active substance layer”) (see Fig. 1B, reproduced below):
PNG
media_image1.png
305
505
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Xiao teaches the second layer 5 (“polymer organic layer”) can be more flexible to better accommodate volume change of the Li-containing electrode during use (P66). Xiao fails to disclose wherein the second layer 5 (“polymer organic layer”) includes at least one of polydimethylsiloxane, polyacrylonitrile, polypyrrole, polyimide, polyacrylic acid, or polymethyl methacrylate.
In the same field of endeavor, Xiao2 teaches a layered protective coating including a polymer organic layer that includes the materials listed (e.g., at least polyacrylic acid (PAA) and polymethyl methaycrylate (PMMA)) (P8, 10, 16, 65-77, Figs. 1-2; entire disclosure relied upon) in combination with a fluoropolymer based material (e.g., Nafion) (P10) which is the type/genus of polymer taught in the second layer 5 of Xiao. Xiao2 teaches that the layered protective coating may be such that there is an organic polymeric material layer (i.e., what is a third layer) formed on a surface 214 of the second layer 220 formed of LiF (P76-77). In other words, the organic polymer layer of Xiao2 may be in the same location as taught by Xiao in terms of the the polymer organic layer may be directly on a surface of the LiF layer (P76-77). Xiao2 teaches the organic polymer layer has the exact same functionality as the the second layer 5 (“polymer organic layer”) of Xiao: it may serve as a buffer layer that accommodates volumetric changes of the electroactive layer (P77). Compare P66 of Xiao to P77 of Xiao2:
PNG
media_image2.png
357
467
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Xiao
PNG
media_image3.png
239
460
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Xiao2
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to use one of the above named polymers (e.g., PAA or PMMA) taught by Xiao2 in combination with the fluoropolymeric materials taught by Xiao given Xiao2 teaches their concomitant use is taught in Xiao2’s analogous construct, the courts holding the following (MPEP 2144.07):
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) ("…selecting a known compound to meet known requirements is no more ingenious than selecting the last piece to put in the last opening in a jig-saw puzzle." 325 U.S. at 335, 65 USPQ at 301.); and
See also In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (selection of a known plastic to make a container of a type made of plastics prior to the invention was held to be obvious).
Furthermore, with respect to the selection of the above organic polymers, there is further teaching, suggestion, and motivation to select and utilize one of the named organic polymer materials of Xiao2 given they are further taught as having the functionality of ionic conductivity and ion exchange, thereby providing a polymer organic layer having higher ionic conductivity (P10-13, 19, 67-71).
Therefore, it is further considered obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to select and utilize at least one of the claimed polymers (e.g., PAA or PMMA) taught by Xiao2 within the the second layer 5 (“polymer organic layer”) of Xiao in order to provide the taught, predictable result of imbibing the second layer 5 (“polymer organic layer”) of Xiao with ionic conductivity, thereby providing enhanced electrode and battery characterstics and capability of lithium ion movement/conductivity.
Regarding claim 2, Xiao teaches wherein the thickness of the entire composite protection layer includes the examples of 2 µm, 5µm, and 10 µm (P54, 57), each example anticipating the range presented of “1 µm to 7 µm,” given:
"[W]hen, as by a recitation of ranges or otherwise, a claim covers several compositions, the claim is 'anticipated' if one of them is in the prior art." Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citing In re Petering, 301 F.2d 676, 682, 133 USPQ 275, 280 (CCPA 1962)) (emphasis in original); see MPEP § 2131.03,
Specifically, Xiao teaches each layer (4, 5) may have a thickness of at least about 1 µm, at least about 2.5 µm, (P57), etc. with further teachings of ranges for each layer being about 1 nm to 10 µm, 1 nm to about 5 µm, 1 nm to about 1 µm, etc. (P20, 57). Xiao teaches that for all ranges disclosed, all values including the endpoints are taught (P54). Thus, in the instance each layer (4 , 5) is 2.5 µm (an endpoint of a range), then individually (2.5 µm) or cumulatively (2.5 µm + 2.5 µm = 5 µm) the taught values of the layer(s) (4, 5) are considered to anticipate the range of “1 µm to 7 µm” as claimed. The same is true for the other values quoted above (i.e., 1 µm + 1 µm = 2µm; etc.).
Alternatively, for either scenario (individual thickness ranges of each layer or the cumulative sum thereof), in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP § 2144.05).
Regarding claim 3, Xiao does not teach the mass ratio of the first layer 4 including lithium fluoride (Li-F) (i.e., “a lithium fluoride inorganic layer”) and a second layer 5 including a fluoropolymer (“a polymer organic layer”) as claimed; however, Xiao explicitly teaches the different beneficial functions of each layer in the construct (P66):
PNG
media_image4.png
354
466
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Xiao also teaches thickness ranges for each layer (P20, 54, 57). Accordingly, determining appropriate amounts of these layers, and thus their mass ratios relative to one another, to apply to the active material layer to optimize the above desired effects of increased interfacial adhesion to the Li metal, increased mechanical strength, flexibility to accommodate volume change, etc. (P66) is considered routine experimentation in the absence of new or unexpected results for which objective evidence exists that is fully commensurate in scope with the claim presented.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to determine the masses of each layer (4, 5) applied, and thus the relative mass ratio of one to the other, in order to optimize the desired effect(s) that each, respective layer achieves as taught by Xiao (P66). In other words, if interfacial adhesion and increased mechanical strength to reduce detrimental lithium dendrite growth and mossy lithium formation is considered the highest priority (over flexibility and volume change accommodation), a person having ordinary skill would be motivated to provide a thicker/higher mass ratio of first layer 4, while preserving energy density of the overall battery as best as possible. Alternatively, if volume change accommodation is considered higher priority over interfacial adhesion/mechanical strength/dendrite formation, then a person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide a thicker/higher mass ratio of second layer 5, while preserving energy density of the overall battery as best as possible.
Regarding claim 5, the claim is entirely product-by-process language and adds no further implicit or explicit structure to the product claim (see MPEP 2113). It is noted that Xiao does teach the product-by-process language of “…wherein the lithium fluoride inorganic layer (the first layer 4) is formed through in-situ reaction between polyvinylidene fluoride and the lithium metal alloy” (P59-61).
Regarding claim 6, Xiao teaches the negative electrode plate satisfying at least one of the following conditions (Xiao at least teaches that the lithium metal alloy may be a lithium indium alloy or (LiR, where R is In – P74):
a chemical formula of the lithium metal alloy is LiR, wherein metal R is selected from at least one of Ag, Mo, In, Ge, Bi, or Zn;
a chemical formula of the lithium metal alloy is LiR, wherein a mass percentage of element R in the lithium metal alloy is 1% to 10%; or
the lithium metal alloy is a solid solution alloy.
Regarding claim 7, Xiao teaches an electrochemical cell (“electrochemical apparatus”) comprising: a positive electrode plate, a negative electrode plate, a separator, and an electrolyte, wherein the negative electrode plate is the negative electrode plate according to claim 1 (P23, 67-85).
Regarding claim 8, Xiao teaches wherein the electrolyte comprises a solvent and a lithium salt (P78-79), and satisfies at least one of the following conditions (Xiao teaches at least that the lithium salt can be LiPF6 = lithium hexafluorophosphate):
the lithium salt comprises at least one of lithium hexafluorophosphate, lithium tetrafluoroborate, lithium difluorophosphate, lithium bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide, lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide, lithium bis(oxalato)borate, or lithium difluoro(oxalato)borate;
the solvent comprises ethylene glycol dimethyl ether and 1,3-dioxolane;
the solvent comprises ethylene glycol dimethyl ether and 1,3-dioxolane, wherein a volume ratio of the dimethyl ether and the 1,3-dioxolane is (0.5-10):1; or
a concentration of the electrolyte is 0.5 mol/L to 7 mol/L.
Regarding claim 9, Xiao teaches wherein the electrolyte satisfies at least one of the following conditions (Xiao at least teaches the electrolyte comprises an additive that may be fluoroethylene carbonate – P79):
the electrolyte further comprises an additive, wherein the additive comprises at least one of trioxymethylene, lithium nitrate, dioxane, lithium fluorosulfonate, or fluoroethylene carbonate; or
the electrolyte further comprises an additive, wherein a mass percentage of the additive in the electrolyte is 0.1% to 10%.
Regarding claim 10, Xiao teaches the electrochemical cell (“electrochemical apparatus”) electrochemical apparatus according to claim 7 that comprises the negative electrode plate of claim 1, and teaches in the background section the purpose of electrochemical cells is to be used in consumer products and vehicles such vehicles (“an electronic device”) (P4). Xiao does not explicitly teach the electrochemical cell comprised within a consumer product or vehicle (“electronic device”); however, the entire purpose and intended use of an electrochemical cell is to provide power to an electronic device such that its explicit incorporation therein is considered prima facie obvious.
5. Claim 3 is alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiao (US 2019/0312254) in view of Xiao et al. (US 2020/0212446) (hereinafter “Xiao2”) as applied to at least claim 1 above, and further in view of Park et al. (US 2021/0104748).
Regarding claim 3, the above rejections of claim 3 is incorporated in its entirety and not repeated here. Park is further cited to teach that it a known technique to optimize the mass/weight ratio of an analogous construct in which a negative electrode has a series of protective layers applied thereon including analogous materials to those recited for each of the layers of Xiao (and/or Xiao2), and the second protective layer and the third protective layer are provided in a specific weight ratio of 3: 7 to 7:3 to balance and optimize the respective features thereof (P62).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to apply the known technique of optimizing the mass ratio of protective layers on an negative electrode as taught by Park relative to one another to the construct of Xiao in order to optimize the desired features achieved by the respective layers (P62), each of Xiao and Xiao2 describing the aforementioned results and functionalities of the applied layers.
6. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiao (US 2019/0312254) in view of Xiao et al. (US 2020/0212446) (hereinafter “Xiao2”) as applied to at least claims 1 and 5 above, and further in view of Sago et al. (US 2017/0279101).
Regarding claim 12, Xiao teaches the use of a lithium metal alloy with the specific example of lithium indium alloy (i.e,. LiIn where “In” is element R) (P74), but does not explicitly teach the use of Li-R where R is Ag, Mo, Ge, Bi, or Zn as claimed.
In the same field of endeavor, Sago teaches analogous art of a negative electrode for a secondary battery including a lithium alloy negative electrode active material, wherein the alloys listed include lithium-indium (LiIn) and lithium-bismuth (LiBi) (P79). Accordingly, Sago establishes the funtional equivalency of these options as known, suitable lithium metal alloy options for a negative electrode material of a negative electrode for a secondary battery.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to substitute lithium-bismuth for the lithium-indium taught by Xiao given Sago establishes the funtional equivalency of these options as known, suitable lithium metal alloy options (P79), or to alternatively select lithium-bismuth as the species of the taught genus of a lithum metal alloy of Xiao given the courts have held the following (MPEP 2144.07):
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) ("…selecting a known compound to meet known requirements is no more ingenious than selecting the last piece to put in the last opening in a jig-saw puzzle." 325 U.S. at 335, 65 USPQ at 301.); and
See also In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (selection of a known plastic to make a container of a type made of plastics prior to the invention was held to be obvious).
Sago further teaches that within the lithium-alloy the content of lithium is about 90 mass% or more. Accordingly, the amount of the alloy (“R”) component would thus be a positive integer value that is 10 mass% or less (P79).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to look to known, suitable ranges for the alloy composition amounts and to provide the substituted/selected lithium-bismuth alloy such that the amount of lithium is 90 mass% or more and the amount of bismith is some positive integer value that is 10 mass% or less. given Sago teaches this is a suitable compositonal ratio for a lithium metal alloy within a negative electrode of a secondary battery.
Response to Arguments
7. Applicant's arguments filed 8/21/2026 have been fully considered; Rejection B has been withdrawn. With respect to the maintained rejection of Xiao in view of Xiao2, Applicant argues:
PNG
media_image5.png
365
660
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
181
633
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
65
648
media_image7.png
Greyscale
In response: Xiao2 teaches that there may also be an organic polymer layer, made of the same materials that form the first organic polymer layer 210, on the surface 214 of the second layer (Li-F) layer (P76-77). Accordingly, the location of the organic polymer layer of Xiao2 is identical to that of Xiao and that claimed.
The purpose or functionality of the second layer 5 (“polymer organic layer”) of Xiao and the polymer organic layer of Xiao2, that may be in the exact same location (P76-77) are moreover not “substantially different” as argued but rather identical.
Xiao teaches the second layer 5 (“polymer organic layer”) can be more flexible to better accommodate volume change of the Li-containing electrode during use (P66). Xiao2 teaches the organic polymer layer has the exact same functionality as the the second layer 5 (“polymer organic layer”) of Xiao: it may serve as a buffer layer that accommodates volumetric changes of the electroactive layer (P77). Compare P66 of Xiao to P77 of Xiao2:
PNG
media_image2.png
357
467
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Xiao
PNG
media_image3.png
239
460
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Xiao2
Accordingly, the above arugment is not persuasive and the rejection is maintained.
Applicant argues:
PNG
media_image8.png
264
635
media_image8.png
Greyscale
In response: The rejection of record from the prior Office Action did not contend to “replace” the fluoropolymeric material within Xiao, but rather modified Xiao by way of the concomitant use of both the fluoropolymeric mateiral of Xiao in conjunction with PAA, PMMA, etc. as taught by Xiao2 (emphasis mine):
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to use one of the above named polymers (e.g., PAA or PMMA) taught by Xiao2 in combination with the fluoropolymeric materials taught by Xiao given Xiao2 teaches their concomitant use is taught in Xiao2’s analogous construct, the courts holding the following (MPEP 2144.07):
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) ("…selecting a known compound to meet known requirements is no more ingenious than selecting the last piece to put in the last opening in a jig-saw puzzle." 325 U.S. at 335, 65 USPQ at 301.); and
See also In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (selection of a known plastic to make a container of a type made of plastics prior to the invention was held to be obvious).
Accordingly, the argument is not persuasive as it does not address the actual rejection of record and finding of obviousness.
Arguendo and for compact prosecution purposes, even if the claim was amended to recite the polymer oganic layer consists of the materials listed in the claim, the court has held that the simple substitution of one known element (i.e., PMMA, PAA polymer options) of Xiao2 for another (fluoropolymer material options) of Xiao within the second layer 5 (“polymer organic layer”) to obtain the taught, predictable results of increasing the ionic conductivity and ion exchange of the layer by way of the ionic conductivity of the polymers, while maintaining the desired taught feature of the layer which is accommdating volume exchange of the active material (see P66 of Xiao, P67 of Xiao2) supports a conclusion of obviousness (MPEP 2143, Exemplary Rationale B).
To this end, there is further teaching, suggestion, and motivation to select and utilize one of the named organic polymer materials of Xiao2 (PAA, PMMA) given they are further taught as having the functionality of ionic conductivity and ion exchange, thereby providing a polymer organic layer having higher ionic conductivity (P10-13, 19, 67-71) and also achieve the desired result of accommodating volume exchange of the active material (see P66 of Xiao, P67 of Xiao2).
Applicant argues:
PNG
media_image9.png
261
654
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
405
646
media_image10.png
Greyscale
In response: First, in order for unexpected results to be established, the result obtained has to be an unexpected result. Xiao explicitly teaches the different beneficial functions of each layer in the construct (P66) and that when used in combination as a dual-protective laye results in “a Li-containing electrode having improved performance charactersitics, such as increased cycle effienciency, when used in an electrochemical cell”:
PNG
media_image4.png
354
466
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect improved performance characteristics including increased cycle effiency (i.e., number of cycles at a given percentage of initial capacity), when utilizing the dual-layer construct of Xiao. Accordingly, the alleged result of excellent cycles is not an “unexpected result” such that the argument is not persuasive.
Second, if “unexpected results” are to be considered, the "objective evidence of nonobviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support." (MPEP 7160.02(d)) (Examiner emphasis). See also the following case law (MPEP 716.02(d)):
In re Grasselli, 713 F.2d 731, 741, 218 USPQ 769, 777 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (Claims were directed to certain catalysts containing an alkali metal. Evidence presented to rebut an obviousness rejection compared catalysts containing sodium with the prior art. The court held this evidence insufficient to rebut the prima facie case because experiments limited to sodium were not commensurate in scope with the claims.); and
In re Lindner, 457 F.2d 506, 509, 173 USPQ 356, 359 (CCPA 1972) (Evidence of nonobviousness consisted of comparing a single composition within the broad scope of the claims with the prior art. The court did not find the evidence sufficient to rebut the prima facie case of obviousness because there was "no adequate basis for reasonably concluding that the great number and variety of compositions included in the claims would behave in the same manner as the tested composition.")
The objective evidence offered to support the allegation of unexpected results are the experiments as summarized in Table 1. Some non-limiting differences in terms of the scope of the claim versus the evidence offered is summarized by the Examiner below:
Entity
Evidence (Table 1)
Claim
Copper foil
Copper foil
Copper foil
Active substance layer
Lithium Metal alloy is LiR, where R is Mo and the mass percentage of Mo is [some percentage]3
“an active substance layer formed on at least part of a surface of the copper foil, wherein the active substance layer comprises a lithium metal alloy…”
Lithium fluoride inorganic layer
The lithium fluoride inorganic layer is formed through in-situ reaction between PVDF and the lithium metal alloy (P87; claim 5)
No further details on composition or form.
Polymer organic layer
An organic layer of polymer was sprayed onto the surface of the LiF inorganic layer [note that the material is not taught]
Comprises at least one of polydimethylsiloxane, polyacrylontrile, polypyrrole, polyimide, PAA, or PMMA
Mass ratio of the layers
The specific mass ratios taught in the table that appear to mostly be 1:1
Not claimed.
Thus, as summarized above, the evidenced offered to support the allegation of unexpected results is not commensurate in scope with the claim in terms of above components with the exception of the copper foil.
For example, in the case law of In re Grasselli cited above, the evidence of experiments limited to sodium were considered insufficient to rebut the prima facie case of obviousness because the claims were directed to catalysts containing an alkali metal (sodium being a species of the genus alkali metal of which there are only six alkali metals).
Likewise, in terms of rebutting a prima facie case of obviousness on the basis of unexpected results, the single example of LiMo4 having the mass percentage of Mo in some percentage range/amount (unclear what this is from thedata) as the lithium metal alloy does not provide sufficient evidence for the claimed genus within the claims of “a lithium metal alloy” that could be any known lithium metal alloy in any format, and with any amount of the alloy component(s). The evidence offered clearly demonstrates that both the type and mass% of the element R has a direct effect on the cycle number. For example, Examples 17-21 vary the amount of Mo from 1% to 10% and keep everything else the same, and as shown in Table 2, this has direct effects on both first-cycle coulombic effiency and cycles. Accordingly, the mass percentage of the alloy appears to be a critical feature with respect to the evidence offered in terms of cycle effienciency, but it is not reflected in the claims. Moreover, the type of metal element also apperas to be critical (compare Examples 3 (Mo) to Examples 12-16 (Ag, Ge, IN, Zn, Bi) in which everything remains the same excpet the type of alloy component and note the dfiference in results on both first-cycle coulombic effiency and cycles.
The evidence offered is also completely silent on the polymer organic layer material which is highly problematic and considered a fatal flaw. All of the evidence would thus appear flawed because there is no disclosure of what material is being utilized in the polymer organic layer in any examples or if it is changing. The disclosure simply states states “an organic slurry containing a polymer was sprayed onto a surface of the lithium fluoride inorganic layer…” (P87) with no further details regarding the composition utilized. Accordingly, given the fatal flaw in the evidence offered, it does not appear that the evidence provided could be utilized to ever establish any kind of unexpected results for any feature claimed because it would never be clear if the claim was or was not commensurate in scope with the evidence offered.
Another failing in the evidence offered is that to establish unexpected results over a claimed range, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range. In re Hill, 284 F.2d 955, 128 USPQ 197 (CCPA 1960). There is only one comparative example on each side of the range, which is not a “sufficient number of tests” outside the range.
Furthermore, these comparative examples demonstrate the opposite of what is alleged as the examples outside the range perform the same or better than examples inside the range.
Comparative Examples 3 and 4 from Table 1 are reproduced below with the results from table 2 also reproduced below:
PNG
media_image11.png
66
809
media_image11.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image12.png
83
593
media_image12.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image13.png
42
548
media_image13.png
Greyscale
There are many examples that are in the range claimed for the mass ratio of the layers that perform worse than Comparative Examples 3 and 4. For example, Example 17 with a 1:1 weight ratio for the layers (i..e. within the alleged critical range) has a first-cycle columobic effiency of 89 (well below 92 and 93 for the Comparative Examples outside the range), and a cycle number of 54 (well below 588 and 569 for Comparative Examples outside the range):
PNG
media_image12.png
83
593
media_image12.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image14.png
23
478
media_image14.png
Greyscale
See also at least Examples 22, 23, 25, 29, 34, etc. that all demonstrate the same thing: examples having a mass ratio in the range claimed perform worse than examples outside the claimed range (i.e., Comparative Examples 3 and 4).
Accordingly, the evidence offered demonstrates that the feature of claim 3 does not create any new or unexpected results, wherein values outside this alleged critical range perform the same or better than examples inside the range. Accordingly, on this basis, any allegation of new or unexpected results is entirely moot.
It is noted that an additional teaching refernece (Park) was also applied in an alternative rejection that is not mentioned or argued by Applicant; this rejection has been maintained.
Applicant argues:
PNG
media_image15.png
186
667
media_image15.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image16.png
140
645
media_image16.png
Greyscale
In response: In the udpated rejection above, a teaching reference to address the deletion of indium (In) from the options originally named and the mass percentage range is provided above. In general, it is respectfully noted that each of these R options would be immediately known options to one having ordinary skill in the art as lithium alloy options for a lithium alloy of a negative active material, as well as the optimization of the compositional ratio of said alloy elements relative to lithium (i.e., the mass percentage of the alloy consitituent). An additional teachings with respect to the optimization of lithium-alloy composition is cited below as evidence:
Jiang et al. (US 2017/0250447) teaches a lithium-based anode for a secondary battery is taught, wherein the lithium-based anode includes a lithium-alloy that may specifically be a Li-In alloy (P64), wherein, “In view of improving the negative electrode capacity, the content of elements other than Li in the lithium alloy is preferably 0.1 to 10 mass%, and the content of lithium in the alloy is preferably 90 to 99.9 mass% (P64).
Conclusion
8. The prior art previously made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The provision of a dual-layer protective construct applied to a lithium-containing anode is well-explored in the state of the prior art; each of the references below individually renders claim 1 as anticipated or obvious:
Xiao et al. (US 2020/0321603) (“Xiao3”) teaches a negative electrode plate including a copper current collector 12 (P21), a lithium metal alloy active material layer 13 including at least lithium-aluminum, lithium-tin, lithium-zinc, or lithium-geranium alloys (P21), and one or more fluoropolymer film layers 111 that are heated to achieve a film comprising a polymer matrix imbedded with LiF (P28, 30), wherein the thickness of the SEI layer(s) are taught as a known-result effective variable in terms of as the thickness of the layer(s) increases, the ionic conductivity of the SEI layer(s) and the volumetric energy density of the battery cell decreases, and the mechanical strength (e.g., impact resistance) of the battery cell increases (P33). Xiao3 teaches that the thickness of the SEI layer(s) can be tuned to the capacity (in Mh/cm2) of the battery cell) and teaches ranges for different capacities including 200 nm to 5 µm, and 100 nm to about 500 nm, and 100 nm to 500 nm for batteries of different capacities (P33).
Cho et al. (US 2002/0182488) teaches forming a LiF protective layer on a surface of the lithium metal anode (P9-12), wherein it may be in the format of a composite layer construct in which the LiF layer is applied to a common separator layer that may be any insulating resin sheet (i.e., “a polymer organic layer”), the total thickness of the composite layer being taught as 1-100 µm (P35), the lithium metal layer being applied to a copper foil (P45).
Zhang (CN 111293283) (cited in CN Office Action of the instant application Chinese family member and cited in IDS) teaches a double layer interface film applied to a lithium metal electrode; the inner layer is a lithium fluoride inorganic layer, the outer layer is an ether polymer layer. The inner-layer compact film of the interface film can inhibit dendrite growth on the surface of lithium metal, the outer-layer flexible film of the interface film can effectively relieve the breakage of the lithium fluoride layer caused by the volume expansion of a negative electrode, and therefore, interface stability is improved, continuous reaction and consumption of the lithium negative electrode and an electrolyte are inhibited, and the cycle life of the battery is prolonged. In addition, due to the introduction of organic lithium salt into the interface film, interface lithium ion transmission is greatly accelerated, and lithium deposition uniformity is improved (abstract).
Qiu (CN 111725486) (“D1” of EP search report of the instant application EP family member and cited in the IDS) teaches a lithium metal electrode that includes an inert protective layer of LiF and a polymer conductive layer, the order of layers is the lithium metal, LiF, and then the polymer conductive layer; the inert protective layer has a thickness of 10- 100 nm, the polymer conductive layer is 0.1-2 µm and the functionality of each layer is described in detail.
Xiao et al. (US 2016/0172706); and Li et al. (US 2022/0223871).
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMANDA J BILLIET whose telephone number is (571)270-7867. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am - 6pm CST.
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, Ula C Tavares-Crockett can be reached at (571) 272-1481. 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.
/AMANDA J BILLIET/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729
1 The use of “formed on” transitions the claim to a product-by-process claim, the product-by-process language being evaluated solely for its implicit or explicit structural characteristics provided to the product claim (see MPEP 2113). Given the lithium-containing layer 3 (“active substance layer”) is disposed on the copper foil substrate 3, all structural limitations are considered met (P58).
2 The of “formed on” transitions the claim the claim to a product-by-process claim, the product-by-process language being evaluated solely for its implicit or explicit structural characteristics provided to the product claim (see MPEP 2113). Given the multi-layer protective coating layer is disposed on at least part of a surface 6 of the lithium-containing layer 3 (“active substance layer”), all structural limitations are considered met (Fig. 1B).
3 It is not clear what the critical range is considered to be from the data
4 It is noted that there are singular examples of each of Ag, Ge, In, Zn, Bi (“R”- see claim 6); however, the data is only presented for the 4% of the “R” amount of these components; and the specific 1:1 mass ratio of lithium fluoride inorganic layer and polymer organic layer. There is no reasonable basis to conclude that these R options in an amount relative to Li, and in other mass ratio constructs would achieve the same results. This is especially true in view of the changing results of Examples 12-16 relative to Example 3 in which everything remains the same except the type of “R” of the alloy.
