Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, regarding the previously cited Liu prior art and the inclusion of aluminum in the lithium alloy, which is precluded by the independent claim, filed 8 July 2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 (previous claim 6) under USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of newly cited prior art. Therefore, this action is NON-FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 13, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1 or 2) as being anticipated by Erfu et al. (“Effects of Adding Cerium to Lithium on Properties of Lithium Anode” newly cited and attached).
In regard to claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 16 and 17, Erfu et al. teach a lithium battery (three electrode glass cell including LiOH electrolyte, working electrode, counter electrode which also functions as current collector and reference electrode, which function as anode and/or cathode during cycling; polymer membrane i.e. separator can be used on lithium surface, page 1323) including a negative (working) electrode for a lithium secondary battery, the negative electrode consisting of (i.e. 100% of the electrode is) a metallic film/foil consisting of lithium and 0.03 to 0.08 wt% cerium (“working electrode was made of pure lithium-cerium alloy” - Li-0.03 to 0.08 wt% Ce alloy - see pages 1323-1324 Introduction and Results and Discussion sections). The Example compositions of the prior art fall within the claimed range in a manner which anticipates the claimed ranges (see MPEP 2131.03).
In regard to claim 13, as the material of the prior art is indistinguishable from the claims, such is reasonably presumed to have an average coulombic efficiency of above 98% (see MPEP 2112.01).
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1 or 2) as being anticipated by Predel et al. (“Phase diagram of La-Li (lanthanum-lithium) system” newly cited and attached).
In regard to claims 1-5, Predel et al. teach a lithium alloy with lanthanum in various contents in forming the phase diagram of the binary alloy, including composition such as 99 mol % Li – 1 mol % La (see phase diagram and pages 1-21).
Under MPEP §2111.02, a claim preamble limits a patent claim only when it provides essential structure, antecedent basis, or is necessary to give “life, meaning, and vitality” to the claim; otherwise, it is generally non‑limiting. In the instant case, the preamble “A negative electrode for a lithium secondary battery” does not impart any essential structure or antecedent basis, and therefore the claim is simply taken to be encompassed by the prior art teaching of lithium-lanthanum alloys, which would be usable as a negative electrode.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Erfu et al. as applied to claim 1, further in view of Simoneu et al. (US Pub 2008/0318128 of record).
Note – this is a backup rejection for some claims in the event applicant disagrees with the Examiner’s assertion of inherency above.
In regard to claims 9-12, Erfu et al. teaches the negative electrode for a lithium secondary battery according to claims above but does not give particulars of the battery. However, Simoneu et al. teach a similar lithium secondary battery with a Li-metal alloy anode, where the alloying metal is present in an amount such as 3 wt% (paragraph [0032]), further comprising a current collector (paragraph [0061]) an electrolyte solution comprising a 1:1 mixture of acyclic ether and cyclic ether (1.3 dioxolane and dimethoxy ethane in Example 1) in which a positive electrode active material contains sulfur (S) or a sulfur (S) compound (paragraph [0064-0066]) which forms a cell with extremely high cycling efficiency (paragraphs [0013-0014]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at or before the effective filing date of the claimed invention filed to form the battery of Erfu et al. with a current collector, cathode, separator and electrolyte as described above as such forms a cell with high efficiency as taught by Simoneu et al.
In regard to claim 13, as the material of the prior art is indistinguishable from the claims, such is reasonably presumed to have an average coulombic efficiency of above 98% (see MPEP 2112.01).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Pub 2023/0146632, teaches similar lithium metal alloys as anodes for solid state batteries.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS P D'ANIELLO whose telephone number is (571)270-3635. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 9am to 5pm EST.
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, Tong Guo can be reached at 571-272-3066. 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.
/NICHOLAS P D'ANIELLO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723
