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 Claims
Claims 3 and 28 are amended. Claims 23-25 stand withdrawn. Claims 3-19 and 26-28, as filed 16 8 September 2026, are examined herein. No new matter is included.
Response to Arguments
The rejections under 35 USC 112(a) and 35 USC 112(b) are withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendment.
Regarding the rejection of claim 3 under 35 USC 102, Applicant argues that Cho’s dispersed particulates have the purpose of reducing dendrite formation and do not form a continuous ion-conducting network. This is not persuasive. At [0032-0033] Cho contemplates that the addition of the particulate material may cause a change in ion conductivity after activating and/or may cause a change in the lithium ion diffusion coefficient after activating. At [0017], the particles are dispersed … randomly or intentionally … throughout the layer of lithium metal and on the surface of the lithium layer. In light of Cho’s teaching that the addition of particulate material may cause a change in ion conductivity, a person of ordinary skill would expect the ion-conducting materials to from a continuous ion-conducting network. (Examiner notes that the addition of ion-conducting particles is expected to increase the ion conductivity of a material.)
Regarding the rejection of claim 8 under Cho, Applicant argues that Cho’s foil current collector is nonporous and therefore does not teach a porous, 3D support structure. This is not persuasive in light of the porous current collector of Zhamu ‘484, as set forth with respect to claim 8, below.
The rejection under nonstatutory obviousness type double patenting is withdrawn in light of the abandonment of application 18/241688.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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(s) 3, 5-7, 10-12, 15-16, 26 and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cho (US 20210126260 A1).
Regarding claims 3 and 15, Cho teaches an anode, comprising:
a three-dimensional (3D) monolith comprising at least one anode active material ([0017]-[0018], lithium anode including elemental lithium or alloy thereof), and a continuous ion-conducting network formed on at least surface(s)of the 3D monolith, wherein the continuous ion-conducting network comprises one or more ion- conducting materials, ([0017] and FIGS. 1-3, the one or more anodes of the invention include at least a portion of lithium metal as the at least one anode active material and one or more particulate materials, [0035] Li7La3Zr2O12 (LLZO))
wherein the one or more ion-conducting materials can be ([0035]) Li7La3Zr2O12 (LLZO), which is a candidate within the scope of the claimed list of alternatives
wherein the ion-conducting network further comprises a plurality of particles of the one or more ion-conducting materials homogenously distributed throughout a bulk of the 3D monolith anode. (Although Cho does not use the term “three-dimensional (3D) monolith” to describe the anode, an ordinary skilled artisan in the art would recognize that the lithium metal layer including the particulate materials embedded therein, as described by Cho, is an integral component having a 3D configuration that can be used with or without a current collector ([0020] ”need not include the current collector”), and thus, is necessarily a 3D monolith. Also, the particulate material being dispersed throughout the lithium metal ([0017]) reads on the network limitation and homogeneous distribution throughout the bulk of the anode.)
Regarding claim 15, the use of Cho’s anode in a battery is disclosed at [0039].
Regarding claim 5, Cho teaches all of the limitations as set forth above, and further teaches the wherein the anode is characterized by a physical form factor of a thin foil having a thickness ([0043]) of 45 µm, which falls within the claimed range of 20 - 500 µm.
Regarding claim 6, Cho teaches all of the limitations as set forth above, and further teaches the wherein the three- dimensional (3D) monolith is a free-standing structure. ([0020] “Once the desired anode structure is obtained, the lithium layer may be laminated to a copper foil or other material suitable for use as a current collector. Alternatively, the resulting anode structure may be mounted to a transfer layer and need not include the current collector as may be desired”.)
Regarding claim 7, Cho teaches all of the limitations as set forth above, and further teaches the anode 10 comprising a current collector disposed within a bulk of the 3D monolith and electrically coupled to the 3D monolith. (FIG. 1 – FIG. 3 and [0017] “the lithium anode 10 has a layer of a current collector, such as copper foil 12 and a layer of lithium metal 14 overlying the layer of copper foil 12, but it should be understood that embodiments of the instant invention are satisfactory without the current collector layer.”)
Regarding claim 10, Cho teaches an anode 10, comprising:
a three-dimensional (3D) monolith, ([0020] lithium anode including elemental lithium or alloy thereof, “Once the desired anode structure is obtained, the lithium layer may be laminated to a copper foil or other material suitable for use as a current collector. Alternatively, the resulting anode structure may be mounted to a transfer layer, and need not include the current collector as may be desired.”) Examiner notes that although the reference does not use terms such as 3D, monolith and network, the fact the lithium metal layer 14/214 can be used with or without a current collector, causes it to necessarily be a 3D monolith.
comprising: at least one anode active material, wherein the at least one anode active material is selected from the group consisting of: elemental lithium, ….; (FIG. 1 1 – FIG. 3 and [0017] “the lithium anode 10 has a layer of a current collector, such as copper foil 12 and a layer of lithium metal 14 overlying the layer of copper foil 12, but it should be understood that embodiments of the instant invention are satisfactory without the current collector layer.”)
a continuous ion-conducting network formed on surface(s) and/or in a bulk of the 3D monolith, wherein the continuous ion-conducting network comprises one or more ion-conducting materials, and wherein the one or more ion-conducting materials are homogenously distributed throughout the bulk of the anode. ([0011] solid electrolytes … alternatively, the particulate material may be insoluble but dispersible in non - aqueous electrolytes. The particulate material being dispersed throughout the lithium metal reads on the network limitation and homogeneous distribution.)
Regarding claim 11, Cho teaches all of the limitations as set forth above, and Cho further teaches wherein, ([0024] the particulate material used in formation of the lithium anode ... is selected from … [0037] lithium nitrate (LiNO3) which is a candidate within the scope of the claimed list of alternatives.
Regarding claim 12, Cho teaches all of the limitations as set forth above, and Cho further teaches wherein the at least one anode active material comprises about 1-99 wt% of a total mass of the anode; and wherein the one or more ion-conducting materials collectively comprise about 1-99 wt% of a total mass of the anode. ([0046] 10% LiNO3 in Li metal strip, which falls within the claimed ranges.
Regarding claim 16, Cho discloses all of the limitations as set forth above, and further discloses wherein the electrochemical cell is characterized by a coin configuration. ([0040] coin cell)
Regarding claim 26, Examiner notes that where the claim limitation contains a Markush group, the limitations of the claim can be met by providing an anticipating reference for just one of the members of the group. Further regarding claim 26, Cho discloses all of the limitations as set forth above, and further discloses wherein the at least one anode active material is selected from ([0021] lithium metal, lithium metal alloy, and [0035] Li7La3Zr2O12 (an example of a lithium composite material). These candidates are within the scope of the claimed list of alternatives.
Regarding claim 28, Cho discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Regarding the limitation wherein the one or more ion-conducting materials are in physical contact with each other for creating the continuous ion-conducting network, Cho at [0032-0033] contemplates that the addition of the particulate material may cause a change in ion conductivity after activating and/or may cause a change in the lithium ion diffusion coefficient after activating. At [0017], the particles are dispersed … randomly or intentionally … throughout the layer of lithium metal and on the surface of the lithium layer. At [0011], the laminate is pressed between two rollers to add, press, and/or embed the particulate matter materials at least partially into the portion of lithium metal. In light of Cho’s teaching that the addition of particulate material may cause a change in ion conductivity, a person of ordinary skill would expect the ion-conducting materials to from a continuous ion-conducting network.
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.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho (US 20210126260 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Cho teaches all of the limitations as set forth above, and Cho further teaches ([0024]) the particles having a size of 10 µm or less, which overlaps the claimed range of 6.66 µm to about 10 µm.
Claim(s) 8, 17-19 and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho (US 20210126260 A1) as set forth in claims 3, above, and in further view of Zhamu ‘484 (US 20170207484 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Cho teaches all of the limitations as set forth above, and further teaches the anode 10 comprising a current collector electrically coupled to the 3D monolith, (FIG. 1 – FIG. 3 and [0017] “the lithium anode 10 has a layer of a current collector, such as copper foil 12 and a layer of lithium metal 14 overlying the layer of copper foil 12). However, Cho does not explicitly teach wherein the current collector comprises a porous, 3D support structure; and wherein the 3D monolith is formed on outer surfaces of the porous, 3D support structure.
Zhamu ‘484, in the field of (abstract) alkali metal sulfur batteries, discloses (FIG. 3A and [0029] a conductive porous structure acting as a 3D anode current collector. At [0090] the porous current collector allows a desirable higher active material loading (areal density) and at [0094] allows the cell to have high volumetric energy density and high volumetric capacitance.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated, as of before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to modify the anode of Cho with the porous current collector of Zhamu ‘484, with a reasonable expectation of successfully improving active material loading (areal density) , volumetric energy density, and volumetric capacitance.
Regarding claims 17-19, Cho discloses all of the limitations as set forth above, and further discloses ([0040]) wherein the electrochemical cell is characterized by a coin configuration. However Cho is silent on wherein the electrochemical cell is characterized by a cylindrical configuration; a prismatic configuration; or a pouch configuration.
Zhamu ‘484, in the field of (abstract) alkali metal batteries having a conductive porous structure, discloses at [0081] that batteries can be cylindrical, square, button-like [refers to a coin cell], etc; and at [0192] discloses a pouch cell. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the functioning of the cell of Cho is not limited to the coin cell format, and therefore the coin cell of Cho can be replaced with a cylindrical; prismatic; or pouch configuration as taught by Zhamu ‘484, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 27, Examiner notes that where the claim limitation contains a Markush group, the limitations of the claim can be met by providing an anticipating reference for just one of the members of the group.
Further regarding claim 27, Cho discloses all of the limitations as set forth above, and further discloses ([0021] lithium metal alloys) but does not explicitly teach wherein the one or more lithium alloys or the one or more lithium composite materials are selected from the group consisting of: Li-Mg, Li-Si, Li-Li3N, Li-Li2O, Li-LiFePO4, Li-LiMgPO4, Li-NMC, Li-NCA, Li-LiCoO2, and combinations thereof; and wherein the one or more sodium alloys or the one or more sodium composite materials are selected from the group consisting of Na-Sn, Na-Si, Na-C and combinations thereof.
Zhamu ‘484, in the field of (abstract) 3D porous electrodes, discloses at [0047] that suitable anode materials include lithium- or sodium-doped silicon (Si), which are candidates are within the scope of the claimed list of alternatives.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated, as of before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to select lithium-doped silicon for the lithium metal alloy of Cho, because Li-Si represents of a limited number of known solutions for the selection of negative active material, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho (US 20210126260 A1) in view of Zhamu ‘484 (US 20170207484 A1), as set forth in claim 8, and in further view of Zhamu ‘137 (US 20190044137 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Cho in view of Zhamu ‘484 teaches all of the limitations as set forth above, and Cho further teaches ([0035)] the reduced graphene and LLZO are both candidates for use in the lithium anode of [0023-0035], and may be used in combination (Claim 11 of Cho) however Cho does not explicitly teach the use of graphene as a conductive additive.
Zhamu ‘137, in the field of (abstract) lithium ion batteries discloses [0039-0041] the use of graphene as an electrically conductive material and as a protective coating. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated, as of before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to modify the anode of Cho by adding the graphene conductive additive of Zhamu ‘137, with a reasonable expectation of successfully improving electrical conductivity and protection of the anode.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho (US 20210126260 A1) as set forth in claim 3, above, and in further view of Cai et al. (CN 111430676 B, see machine translation provided 5 September 2024).
Regarding claim 13, Modified Cho discloses all of the limitations as set forth above, and however, Cho does not explicitly teach that the anode is loaded with sulfur, and does not explicitly teach wherein the anode is loaded with sulfur in an amount of about 7.5 mg/cm2.
Cai teaches that a variety of materials may be selected as a solid electrolyte, including sulfide-based solid electrolytes ([0012], [0038], [0061]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected a sulfide-based solid electrolyte as the material for the ion-conducting solid electrolyte of modified Cho, since Cai teaches sulfide-based solid electrolytes as suitable materials for the solid electrolyte ([0038], [0061]). Such a person would have thus reasonably expected a sulfide-based solid electrolyte to be successful as the ion-conducting solid electrolyte in the anode of modified Cho. The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP § 2144.07). The anode of Cho comprising a sulfide-based solid electrolyte thus is loaded with the sulfur of the sulfide-based solid electrolyte.
Cai teaches that the mass content of the sulfide-based solid electrolyte can be 5-30 wt%, in order to achieve high ionic conductivity and high-rate performance ([0046]), but Cai does not disclose a specific optimized sulfur loading amount.
It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have optimized the sulfur loading amount via the sulfide-based solid electrolyte in order to achieve the desired balance between ionic conductivity provided by the solid electrolyte and rate performance provided by the active material (see [0046] of Cai). Such a person would have optimized the amount of sulfur to ensure enough solid electrolyte to provide high ionic conductivity while also ensuring that the solid electrolyte does not displace too much of the anode active material such that rate performance is impeded. See MPEP § 2144.05, II.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho (US 20210126260 A1) as set forth in claim 3, above, and further in view of Chu et al. (CN 110034280 B, see machine translation provided 5 September 2024).
Regarding claim 14, Cho discloses all of the limitations as set forth above, and however, Cho does not explicitly teach that the anode comprises one or more NASICON compounds characterized by a chemical composition Na1+xZr2SixP3-xO12, where x is characterized by a value in a range 0 < x < 3.
Chu in the field of (abstract) negative electrodes teaches [0059] an in situ composite negative electrode material comprising [0011] anode active material and a solid electrolyte, which may be selected from garnet-type, LISICON, and NASICON ([0018] to [0020]). At [0054] the NASICON may comprise Zr, thus meeting the instant limitation.
Because Cho teaches the use of an electrolyte material in the negative electrode, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to select NASICON as one of a finite number of identified, predictable solutions for use as the electrolyte material of Cho, with a reasonable expectation of creating a successful negative electrode.
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.
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.
CLAIRE A. RUTISER
Examiner
Art Unit 1751
/C.A.R./
Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/Haroon S. Sheikh/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1751
