DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. Applicant’s response filed 4/1/2026 was received. 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 Objections
2. The objections to claims 1 and 7 are withdrawn in view of the corrections filed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/ § 103
3. 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 maintained.
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).
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 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%.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. The rejection of claims 3 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiao (US 2019/0312254) as applied to at least claims 1 and 7 above is maintained.
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_image1.png
354
466
media_image1.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 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. The rejection of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiao (US 2019/0312254) as applied to at least claim above, and further in view of Xiao et al. (US 2020/0212446) (hereinafter “Xiao2”) is maintained.
Newly added claim 11 is also rejected under this heading.
Regarding claim 4, Xiao fails to disclose wherein the second layer 5 includes at least one of polydimethylsiloxane, polyacrylonitrile, polypyrrole, polyimide, polyacrylic acid, or polymethyl methacrylate. In the same field of endeavor, Xiao2 teaches a dual-layered protective coating including a polymer organic layer that includes the materials listed (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 of polymer taught in the second layer 5 of Xiao.
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 taught by Xiao2 in combination with the fluoropolymeric materials taught by Xiao given Xiao2 teaches their concomitant use in an 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).
Regarding claim 11, Xiao teaches wherein the active substance layer 3, the first layer (“lithium fluoride inorganic layer”) 4, and second layer 5 (“polymer organic layer”) are disposed sequentially in this order on the copper foil 2 (Fig. 1B; entire disclosure).
6. Rejection B: The rejection of claims 1-10 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 maintained. Newly added claim 11 is also rejected under this heading.
Regarding claim 1, Xiao teaches a lithium metal negative electrode plate, comprising:
a negative current collector 32 (P50);
an active substance layer 22 formed on at least part of a surface of the negative current collector 32 (Figs. 1-2),
wherein the active substance layer comprises a lithium metal alloy (P57); and
a dual-layered protective coating 202 (“composite protection layer”) formed on at least part of a surface of the active substance layer 22 (P8-16; Fig. 2), wherein an entire thickness of the composite protection layer includes examples that anticipate the range (P11-14) (detailed further below), and the composite protection layer comprises a lithium fluoride inorganic layer (P8, 15) and a polymer organic layer (P8, 10, 16, 65-77, Figs. 1-2; entire disclosure relied upon).
Xiao2 teaches that for the ranges taught, the values mentioned may have exactly the value mentioned (P41). Xiao2 teaches that the polymeric layer may have a thickness of 20 nm to 2 µm (P11), and the inorganic layer may have a thickness of 1 nm to 5 µm (P15). Accordingly, selecting 2µm for the polymeric layer and 1 µm for the inorganic layer of LiF, the entire thickness of the composite protection layer is 3 µm, a value anticipating the range claimed of “more than or equal to 0.3 µm and less than or equal to 10 µm” in view of the teaching that the range endpoints can be exactly the value mentioned (P41).
Xiao2 is deficient in teaching that the negative current collector 32 is explicitly copper foil (no specific materials are mentioned for the negative current collector 32). In the same field of endeavor my the same inventor, Xiao teaches analogous art of a lithium metal alloy layer on a current collector having a dual-layer protective coating applied thereto including an inorganic LiF laye and a polymer layer, and teaches that copper foil is a suitable substrate/negative current collector material (see P58, 74, 81; entire disclosure relied upon).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to select as the negative current collector 32 material of Xiao2 that of copper foil given Xiao teaches an analogous construct and that copper foil is a suitable substrate/negative current collector material (see P58, 74, 81; entire disclosure relied upon), the court holding 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) (MPEP 2144.07).
It is noted that Xiao2 also teaches a third layer may be formed on a surface 214 of the second layer that may comprise the organic polymer materials that form the first layer 210 (P76). Accordingly, Xiao2 teaches a construct in which there are organic polymer material layers sandwiching an inorganic LiF layer (P76).
Regarding claim 2, Xiao2 teaches examples that anticipate the range (P11-14). Xiao2 teaches that for the ranges taught, the values mentioned may have exactly the value mentioned (P41). Xiao2 teaches that the polymeric layer may have a thickness of 20 nm to 2 µm (P11), and the inorganic layer may have a thickness of 1 nm to 5 µm (P15). Accordingly, selecting 2µm for the polymeric layer and 1 µm for the inorganic layer of LiF, the entire thickness of the composite protection layer is 3 µm, a value anticipating the range claimed of “more than or equal to 0.3 µm and less than or equal to 10 µm” in view of the teaching that the range endpoints can be exactly the value mentioned (P41).
Regarding claim 3, Xiao2 teaches does not explicitly teach a mass ratio of the inorganic layer to the LiF layer; however, Xiao2 teaches the function and purpose of each layer:
PNG
media_image2.png
245
479
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Xiao2 also teaches the thickness of each layer (P11, 14, 15). Accordingly, determining appropriate amounts of these layers, and thus their mass ratios relative to one another, to apply to the negative electrode 22 to optimize the above effects of interfacial adhesion, volumetric change accommodation, suppression of electrolyte decomposition and growth is considered routine experimentation 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.
Regarding claim 4, Xiao2 teaches wherein the polymer organic layer comprises at least one of polydimethylsiloxane, polyacrylonitrile, polypyrrole, polyimide, polyacrylic acid, or polymethyl methacrylate (P10, 13, 18-19, 66-70).
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).
Regarding claim 6, Xiao2 does not teach examples of the lithium metal alloy; however Xiao teaches the analogous construct and that the lithium metal alloy may be a lithium indium alloy or (LiR, where R is In – P74) such that the selection thereof for the lithium metal alloy of Xiao2 is prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.07).
Regarding claim 7, Xiao2 teaches an 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 (Fig. 1; P47-61).
Regarding claim 8, Xiao2 teaches wherein the electrolyte comprises a solvent and a lithium salt (P60-61), and the lithium salt may be LiPF6 (P60).
Regarding claim 9, Xiao2 fails to disclose the electrolyte may comprise an additive that is fluoroethylene carbonate; however, Xiao teaches an analogous construct and that the additive of fluoroethylene carbonate is a known option to add to the electrolyte (P79) such that applying this known technique to the construct of Xiao2 to provide predictable results (the benefits of FEC) is prima facie obvious.
Regarding claim 10, Xiao2 teaches an electronic device, comprising the electrochemical apparatus according to claim 7 (P52).
Regarding claim 11, Xiao2 teaches the active substance layer, the lithium fluoride inorganic layer, and the polymer organic layer are disposed sequentially in this order on the copper foil (P76 construct in which there is a third layer- note the claim does not require the electrode plate to consist of the layers such that other layers may be present).
Alternatively, Xiao teaches the same layers as Xiao2 and that the reverse order presented by Xiao may be utilized (See Fig. 1B of Xiao). Xiao teaches that the first layer 4 (“the lithium fluoride inorganic layer”) adjacent the active substance layer and having a higher fluoride content allows for increased interfacial adhesion to the Li metal as well as increased mechanical strength which helps prevent dendrite growth, and the second layer 5 (“polymer organic layer”) is able to be more flexible to better accommodate volume change (P66).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to reverse the order of the layers (in the dual-layer construct of Xiao2) to have the same order as the layers of Xiao given Xiao teaches the benefits of the order claimed (P66) in terms of increased interfacial adhesion with active substance layer Li-metal. Furthermore, the courts have also held that the mere reversal of rearrangement of parts is an obvious modification (MPEP 2144.04, Section VI).
7. The alternative rejection of claim 3 is under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over:
Xiao (US 2019/0312254) (“Rejection A”); or
Xiao et al. (US 2020/0212446) (hereinafter “Xiao2”) in view of Xiao (US 2019/0312254) (“Rejection B”)
as applied to at least claim 1 above, and further in view of Park et al. (US 2021/0104748) is maintained.
Regarding claim 3, each of the above respective rejections of claim 4 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 or Xiao2 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.
Response to Arguments
8. Applicant's arguments filed 4/1/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues:
PNG
media_image3.png
487
655
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In response: With respect to the thickness range recited for the entire composite layer, each of the references applied teaches examples that anticipate the range presented. An argument of unexpected results is considered legally moot with respect to an anticipatory reference that discloses all the elements of a claim. Accordingly, an argument to unexpected results is not persuasive for this reason.
Furthermore, in addition to specific examples taught that anticipate the range presented, the entire range is also anticipated by each reference. For example, in Xiao '254, the first layer (“lithium fluoride inorganic layer”) is taught as having a thickness of 1 nm- 5µm, and the second layer has a thickness of 1 nm – 5 µm (P11, 57), such that the cumulative sum of the taught ranges is 2 nm- 10µm for the entire layer, and Xiao explicitly teaches that for all ranges disclosed, all values including the endpoints are taught (P54). Accordingly, within 1 nm - 5µm, the value of 150 nm is taught for each range (P11, 54, 57) such that the entire composite layer may have a range of 300 nm (=0.3 µm) (150 nm + 150 nm) - 10µm (5 µm + 5 µm). The same analysis can be applied to Xiao2 as detailed in the rejection of record.
Arguendo, even if “unexpected results” were 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. It is noted that the order of the layers is not claimed within claim 1 and could have many orders, whereas the evidence offered takes the format presented in dependent claim 11. Specifically, one entity “on” at least part of a given surface of another entity could be directly on or indirectly on said surface as is a standard interpretation within the state of the prior art. Thus, the construct presented could have the composite protection layer intervening between the copper foil and the active substance layer, or it could have the construct presented in dependent claim 11. Furthermore, there is no order to the lithium fluoride inorganic layer and polymer inorganic layer in the claim such that these too could have multiple options in terms of where they exist relative to the copper foil and the active substance layer. This alone is enough to negate the evidence offered from being commensurate in scope with the claims.
Additionally, some additional 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 1-10%; the active substance layer is formed directly on the copper foil
“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) and is intervening between the polymer organic layer and the active substance layer
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]
No further details on composition or form.
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 LiMo3 having the mass percentage of Mo in 1-10% 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).
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. Specifically, in Table 2, comparing at least any of Examples 17, 22, 23, 25, 27, 30, 31, or 34 (all examples within the alleged critical range of 0.3- 10 µm for the thickness of the entire composite layer) to Comparative Example 1 (composite layer thickness is 11 µm outside the upper bound of the range) or Comparative Example 2 (composite layer thickness is 0.1 µm outside the lower bound of the range), the first-cycle columbic efficiency and/or cycles through which 80% of initial capacity was retained are the same or better for Comparative Examples 1 and 2 relative to these examples that are within the range claimed, despite having a thickness of the composite protection layer outside the range claimed (11 µm and 0.1 µm, respectively):
PNG
media_image4.png
438
448
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Accordingly, the evidence offered demonstrates that the range of 0.3-10 µm for the entire composite protection layer 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. The highlighted examples above with their respective features are below:
PNG
media_image5.png
122
798
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
19
790
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
35
777
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
160
777
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
63
778
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Accordingly, the argument for unexpected results is not persuasive on this basis, as well as at least the additional reasons set forth above.
Conclusion
9. 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). Xiao2 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).
10. 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.
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMANDA J BARROW 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 Ruddock 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 BARROW/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 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.
Prosecution Insights