DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
1. In response to the amendment received on 8/14/26:
claims 1, 7-20 are presently pending
claims 17-20 are withdrawn
the objections to the claims are withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claims
the rejections under 112(b) are withdrawn with respect to claim 8 but are maintained with respect to the rejections of claims 9, 10 and 13 as set forth below
all prior art grounds of rejection are withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claims
additional 112(b) grounds of rejection and prior art grounds of rejection are set forth as set forth below
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1 and 7-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 has been amended and requires that the first energy pulse “reaches up to +5 volts” (see claim 1 at line 6). However, this phrasing is unclear for the following reasons. First, it would seem that the phrase could be read as requiring the first energy pulse to have a voltage of 5 volts, i.e. reaches up … to 5 volts. However, second, it could also be read as requiring the first energy pulse to have a value of 5 volts or smaller, i.e. reaches … up to +5 volts. So, an amplitude of no higher than +5 volts or something at +5 volts or less than that. Moreover, in looking at the specification, the specification would clearly support the use of voltage values at +5 volts and -5 volts (see Specification at Figure 1A and ¶16), but then also clearly teaches the use of voltage values less than +5 (see Specification at ¶16). As such, while it would seem that applicant is requiring the voltage values of +5 volts and -5 volts, respectively, it is not clear that this is what is being required.
As mentioned above, it is noted that similar phrasing is used for the second energy pulse (see claim 1 at lines 6-7) and so also suffers from the same issue as identified above.
Please note, for purposes of claim interpretation the examiner will be treating the phrase under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification so as to require a voltage value of the positive and negative pulses of up to +5 volts in the positive direction for the oxidative first energy pulse and up to -5 volts in the negative direction for the reductive second energy pulse.
Claims 9 and 10 each recite the limitation “the first duration” and “the second duration” in the first line of each respective claim. However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims. Specifically, it is noted that claims 9 and 10 both depend from dependent claim 7; however, claim 8 is the dependent claim which sets forth “a first duration” and “a second duration” (see claim 8).
Claim 13 recites the limitation “the electrolyte” in line 3. However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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) 1, 7-12 and 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 2019/0221895 to Konopka et al., (hereinafter referred to as “KONOPKA”) with reference also to US Pub. No. 2018/0019496 to Konopka et al., incorporated by reference in its entirety (hereinafter referred to as “the ‘633 application” – it is noted that in the Nonfinal Action mailed 4/21/26 the examiner mistakenly referred to the ‘633 application as “the ‘435 application” but correction is made herein and acknowledged to be referred to the same 2018 publication referenced above).
Regarding claim 1, KONOPKA teaches a method (see generally KONOPKA at Abstract teaching a method of treating an electrode of a battery with a transverse current when charging a battery to suppress dendrite growth), comprising:
generating a first energy pulse followed by a second energy pulse (see KONOPKA at ¶33 teaching the application of an AC current to the electrode which would include a first and second pulse as claimed; see also the ‘633 application at Fig. 9 and ¶171-¶172 depicting and discussing the various AC waveforms that could be employed);
wherein the first energy pulse and the second energy pulse form a square wave (see the ‘633 application at Fig. 9, ¶171 and claim 4 depicting and mentioning a square wave being one possible waveform);
wherein the first energy pulse is an oxidation pulse and the second energy pulse is a reductive pulse (see KONOPKA at ¶33 and the ‘633 application at Fig. 9 depicting various waveforms of which for successive pulses the “first” energy pulse is any oxidative pulse and the “second” energy is the immediately following reductive pulse or another subsequent reductive pulse); and
wherein the first energy pulse reaches up to +5 volts, and the second energy pulse reaches up to -5 volts (see the ‘633 application at Fig. 9 in which the square wave has an amplitude of +1 volts and -1 volts so as to read on the range as claimed); and
applying the first energy pulse and the second energy pulse to a lithium metal electrode to electrically treat the lithium metal electrode to reduce and/or eliminate growth of dendrites on at least a portion of a surface of the lithium metal (see KONOPKA at ¶33-¶34 teaching the application to an electrode to reduce or eliminate dendrites; see also KONOPKA at ¶37 teaching the electrode being a lithium metal electrode).
While KONOPKA teaches the method wherein the AC waveform is tailored (see KONOPKA at ¶56) and in which the amplitude of the waveform is controlled in order to provide the desired smoothing effect (see KONOPKA at ¶55 and ¶61), KONOPKA fails to explicitly teach the oxidation pulse and the reductive pulse having the energy per area as claimed.
However, the amplitude of the AC waveform would dictate the current density supplied by the waveform and the frequency of the AC waveform would dictate the time of each oxidative and reductive pulse. Furthermore, KONOPKA teaches the waveform being controlled and tailored as set forth above with the frequency and amplitude of the waveform being controllable properties of the waveform that can be adjusted to achieve the desired effect (see KONOPKA at ¶56, ¶60-¶61 and ¶93 discussing the selection of a frequency and waveform/with amplitude that provides the desired treatment).
As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have optimized the waveform – including the amplitude and frequency - so as to obtain energy per area values that provide for the desired impact on the electrode.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have optimized the waveform so as to arrive at electrode energy values as claimed.
Regarding claim 7, KONOPKA teaches the method wherein the first energy pulse and the second energy pulse are voltage controlled and/or current controlled (see the ‘633 application at Fig. 9 depicting voltage-controlled waveforms).
Regarding claim 8, KONOPKA teaches the method wherein a first duration of the first energy pulse and a second duration of the second energy pulse each corresponds to reaching a threshold total capacity, a total energy, or a total time value (see KONOPKA at ¶35 and ¶61 teaching the control of the waveforms which would include durations to achieve the desired treatment of uneven or dendrites forming on the anode which would have a total capacity, energy or time value as claimed and would be necessarily changed as needed).
Regarding claim 9, KONOPKA teaches the method wherein the first duration and the second duration are equal (see the ‘633 application at Fig. 9 depicting the sinusoidal, square, and triangle waveforms having equal time durations for the positive and negative regions).
Regarding claim 10, KONOPKA teaches the method wherein the first duration and the second duration are different (see the ‘633 application at Fig. 9 depicting the ramp waveform having different time durations for the positive and negative regions).
Regarding claim 11, KONOPKA teaches the method wherein a time gap follows the first energy pulse, and wherein the time gap precedes the second energy pulse (see rejection of claim 1 above in which the second energy pulse instead of being the immediately subsequent negative portion of the waveform is the second or third cycle after the “first” positive half cycle such that there is a gap between the first and second energy pulses as set forth).
Regarding claim 12, KONOPKA teaches the method wherein there is no time gap between the first energy pulse and the second energy pulse (see rejection of claim 1 above in which the second energy pulse is the second half, i.e. the immediately subsequent negative half cycle, of the waveform such that there is no gap or time between the pulses).
Regarding claim 14, KONOPKA teaches the method wherein control of the first energy pulse and the second energy pulse is based on an electrical measurement between an electrode that completes the circuit with the lithium metal electrode being pulsed so as to form a galvanic cell (see the ‘633 application at ¶225 teaching the main control unit “MCU” as operating to measure the open circuit potential, i.e. a galvanic cell between the electrodes, and then modulate outputs based on the measurements).
Regarding claim 15, KONOPKA teaches the method wherein the first energy pulse and the second energy pulse are applied when the lithium metal electrode is contained in a cell of a lithium metal battery (see KONOPKA at ¶9-¶10 teaching the process for the reversing and healing of battery electrodes and so indicating the use of the process after the battery has been assembled; see also KONOPKA at ¶12 teaching the use of the process during charging of the battery).
Regarding claim 16, KONOPKA teaches the method wherein the electrical treatment of the lithium metal electrode improves lithium metal dissolution and/or deposition (see KONOPKA at ¶33 and ¶34).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KONOPKA as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US Pub. No. 2020/0280108 to Tomar et al., (hereinafter referred to as “TOMAR”).
Regarding claim 13, while KONOPKA teaches the method including a selection of the waveform characteristics based on the condition of the electrode surface (see KONOPKA at ¶61) and the possibility of monitoring the dendrite growth or electrode surface irregularities in real-time (see KONOPKA at ¶35), but fails to explicitly teach the controlling of the first and second pulse based on a probe providing an electrical measurement as claimed.
However, TOMAR teaches a battery management system that uses various sensors to detect issues with the cells (see TOMAR at Abstract). Specifically, TOMAR teaches the use of various electrical sensors, or probes, to monitor the voltage, current, or capacitance in an effort to monitor dendrite growth (see TOMAR at ¶90). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the sensors of TOMAR could be used to help monitor and then adjust the waveforms of KONOPKA in the method of treating with the AC waveform to suppress and/or minimize the growth of dendrites.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated one or more of the electrical sensors of TOMAR to provide feedback in the process of KONOPKA to allow for the modification of the waveform based on the sensed condition of the electrode being treated with the transverse AC waveform.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/14/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Specifically, it is noted that Applicant argues generally that KONOPKA and the ‘633 application fail to teach the claimed method as amended. However, for at least the reasons set forth above, the examiner does not find these arguments persuasive.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Bryan D. Ripa whose telephone number is (571)270-7875. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00AM-4:00PM ET.
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, James Lin can be reached at (571) 272-8902. 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.
/BRYAN D. RIPA/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1794
