DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
1. Claims 17-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/16/25.
Applicant’s election of claims 1-16 in the reply filed on 12/16/25 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
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 .
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 2 be found allowable, claim 3 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 14, line 3, the claim appears to be missing a word between “cell” and “the” and need correction.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 8-10 and 13 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.
As to claim 8, the claim sets forth “a second of the second energy pulse” (see claim 8 line 2). However, while it would appear that a second duration is meant to be set forth, the claim doesn’t make this explicit and could be referring to something else. It is suggested that the claim be amended to explicitly refer to “a second duration” if that is what is intended.
Please note, for claim interpretation purposes the examiner will be treating the limitation as referring to a second duration, i.e. the duration of the 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 this limitation in the claim. 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” (see claim 8). Furthermore, claim 8 as current written would fail to provide antecedent basis for “the second duration” of claims 9 and 10 but would if amended as suggested above.
Claim 13 recites the limitations “the electrical measurement” and “the electrolyte” in lines 2-3. However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-12 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by 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 ‘435 application”).
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 ‘435 application at Fig. 9 and ¶171-¶172 depicting and discussing the various AC waveforms that could be employed); 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).
Regarding claims 2 and 3, KONOPKA teaches the method wherein the first energy pulse is an oxidative pulse and the second energy pulse is a reductive pulse (see KONOPKA at ¶33 and the ‘435 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).
Regarding claim 4, KONOPKA teaches the method wherein the first energy pulse and the energy pulse form a square wave (see the ‘435 application at Fig. 9, ¶171 and claim 4 depicting and mentioning a square wave being one possible waveform).
Regarding claim 5, KONOPKA teaches the method wherein the first energy pulse and the second energy pulse form at least one of the following waveforms: a triangle wave, a sinusoidal wave, a sawtooth wave, and a random waveform (see the ‘435 application at Fig. 9, ¶171 and claim 4 depicting and mentioning the waveforms including triangle, sine wave, saw tooth, and combinations).
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 ‘435 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 ‘435 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 ‘435 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 ‘435 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KONOPKA.
Regarding claim 6, 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.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KONOPKA 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US Pub. No. 2020/0112017 to Rehnlund et al., teaching an electrochemical device and method for charging the electrochemical device
US Pub. No. 2018/0131046 to Stock et al., teaching a rapid forming of an electrode
US Pub. No. 2014/0295261 to Miyake et al., teaching an electrochemical device and method for suppressing deterioration of the electrochemical device
US Pub. No. 2017/0338465 to Holme et al., teaching a pulse plating of lithium material in electrochemical devices
US Pub. No. 2018/0131045 to Antonopoulos teaching a method of forming an electrode
US Pub. No. 2019/0131622 to Dasgupta et al., teaching a method of improved performance in metal electrodes for batteries
US Pub. No. 2015/0056484 to Lee et al., teaching methods for dendrite detection and devices for batteries and dendrite sensors
US Pat. No. 6,377,030 to Asao et al., teaching a method of charging secondary battery by varying current or voltage at an inflection point in a storage region before full charge and device therefor
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
Prosecution Insights