DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The Applicant's amendment filed on August 21, 2025 was received. Claims 1 and 17-19 were amended. Claims 7-11 and 15-16 were canceled. No claim was added.
The text of those sections of Title 35. U.S.C. code not included in this action can be found in the prior Office Action Issued September 23, 2024.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on August 21, 2025 has been entered.
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.
The claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhao (Surface fluorination of reactive battery anode materials for enhanced stability) on claims 15 and 19 were withdrawn, because the claims have either been amended or canceled.
Claims 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cho (US20020182488).
Regarding claim 17, Cho teaches an anode coated with a layer consisting of LiF (abstract, paragraphs 0028 and 0038).
Regarding claim 19, Cho teaches a lithium battery containing the anode superficially coated with a layer consisting of LiF (paragraphs 0008-0009, 0028 and 0038).
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.
The claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao (Surface fluorination of reactive battery anode materials for enhanced stability) in view of Inaba (US20140170497) as applied to claims 1-14 and 16-18 are withdrawn, because the claims have been amended.
Claims 1, 4-6, 14 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho (US20020182488) in view of Inaba (US20140170497).
Regarding claim 1, Cho teaches a method for forming a lithium anode protective layer comprising forming a LiF protective layer on a lithium metal anode surface (paragraph 0002). Cho teaches to subject the lithium metal anode surface to a fluorine containing gas atmosphere (paragraphs 0028 and 0038). Cho further teaches in a separate embodiment, in order to further enhance the reactivity of the reaction between the lithium in the lithium metal surface and the fluoride in a fluorine containing layer (fluorine source) to form the LiF layer, the reaction is heated to 30-120 ºC (paragraph 0034), which overlaps with the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exist. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler,116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP 2144.05. Cho further teaches when the temperature is too low, it may require too much time to induce reaction; when the temperature is too high, the lithium metal surface may be undesirably damaged by rapid reaction (paragraph 0034). Therefore, it would have been within the skill of the ordinary artisan to adjust and optimize the temperature during the reaction of the lithium metal with the fluorine source to form the LiF in the process to yield the desired speed of reaction without damaging the lithium metal surface. Discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art. In re Boesch, CCPA 1980, 617 F. 2d 272, 205 USPQ215.
Cho does not explicitly teach the fluorine containing gas is fluorine gas and the pressure of the reaction. However, Inaba teaches a method of fluorinating a surface for an anode for a lithium ion battery by fluorine gas (abstract, paragraphs 0001 and 0040). Inaba teaches the pressure is in the range of 0.01 to 2 atm (paragraph 0015), which overlaps with the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exist. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler,116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP 2144.05. Inaba further teaches the pressure governs the reaction time of the treatment. In addition, Inaba teaches the temperature governs the treatment time and the level of fluorination (paragraphs 0038-0039). Therefore, it would have been within the skill of the ordinary artisan to adjust and optimize the pressure and temperature of the treatment in the process to yield the desired treatment time and level of fluorination. Discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art. In re Boesch, CCPA 1980, 617 F. 2d 272, 205 USPQ215. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum values of the relevant process parameters through routine experimentation in the absence of showing of criticality. In re Aller, USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the fluorine gas as the fluorine gas as suggested by Inaba in the method of Cho because Inaba teaches the fluorine gas is used for fluorinating a surface for an anode for a lithium ion battery by fluorine gas (abstract, paragraphs 0001 and 0040). 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).
Regarding claims 4-5, Cho does not explicitly teach the fluorine gas is mixed with an inert gas. However. Inaba teaches the fluorine gas can be used alone or diluted with an inert gas such as argon (paragraph 0040). Fluorine gas mixed with argon and fluorine gas alone are considered as functionally equivalent fluorinate gas as evidenced by Inaba. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute fluorine gas mixed with inert gas for pure fluorine gas as fluorinate gas in method as disclosed by Cho.
Regarding claim 6, Inaba teaches the flow rate the fluorine gas governs the treatment temperature and treating time (paragraph 0039). Therefore, it would have been within the skill of the ordinary artisan to adjust and optimize the flow rate of the fluorine gas in the process to achieve the desired temperature and duration of the fluorinated treatment (paragraph 0039). Discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art. In re Boesch, CCPA 1980, 617 F. 2d 272, 205 USPQ215. Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical (MPEP 2144.05 II). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum values of the relevant process parameters through routine experimentation in the absence of showing of criticality. In re Aller, USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 14, Cho teaches the process consists of said surface treatment with fluorine containing gas (paragraphs 0028 and 0038). Inaba teaches the fluorine containing gas is fluorine gas (abstract, paragraphs 0001 and 0040).
Regarding claim 18, It is noted that claims 18 is product-by-process claim. “Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of the patentability if based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in a product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thrope, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 94, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Cho teaches a lithium metal anode coated with a layer consisting of LiF (abstract, paragraphs 0028 and 0038). Cho teaches the lithium metal anode is formed by subjecting the lithium metal anode surface to a fluorine containing gas atmosphere (paragraphs 0028 and 0038). Cho further teaches in a separate embodiment, in order to further enhance the reactivity of the reaction between the lithium in the lithium metal surface and the fluoride in a fluorine containing layer (fluorine source) to form the LiF layer, the reaction is heated to 30-120 ºC (paragraph 0034), which overlaps with the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exist. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler,116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP 2144.05. Cho further teaches when the temperature is too low, it may require too much time to induce reaction; when the temperature is too high, the lithium metal surface may be undesirably damaged by rapid reaction (paragraph 0034). Therefore, it would have been within the skill of the ordinary artisan to adjust and optimize the temperature during the reaction of the lithium metal with the fluorine source to form the LiF in the process to yield the desired speed of reaction without damaging the lithium metal surface. Discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art. In re Boesch, CCPA 1980, 617 F. 2d 272, 205 USPQ215.
Cho does not explicitly teach the fluorine containing gas is fluorine gas and the pressure of the reaction. However, Inaba teaches a method of fluorinating a surface for an anode for a lithium ion battery by fluorine gas (abstract, paragraphs 0001 and 0040). Inaba teaches the pressure is in the range of 0.01 to 2 atm (paragraph 0015), which overlaps with the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exist. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler,116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP 2144.05. Inaba further teaches the pressure governs the reaction time of the treatment. In addition, Inaba teaches the temperature governs the treatment time and the level of fluorination (paragraphs 0038-0039). Therefore, it would have been within the skill of the ordinary artisan to adjust and optimize the pressure and temperature of the treatment in the process to yield the desired treatment time and level of fluorination. Discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art. In re Boesch, CCPA 1980, 617 F. 2d 272, 205 USPQ215. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum values of the relevant process parameters through routine experimentation in the absence of showing of criticality. In re Aller, USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the fluorine gas as the fluorine gas as suggested by Inaba in the method of Cho because Inaba teaches the fluorine gas is used for fluorinating a surface for an anode for a lithium ion battery by fluorine gas (abstract, paragraphs 0001 and 0040). 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).
Claims 2-3 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho (US20020182488) in view of Inaba (US20140170497) as applied to claims 1, 4-6, 14 and 18, and further in view of Zhao (Surface fluorination of reactive battery anode materials for enhanced stability).
Regarding claim 2-3, Cho in view of Inaba teaches all limitations of these claim, except the quantity of the fluorine gas. However, Zhao teaches a method of surface fluorinated of a Li metal surface with fluorine gas to form a lithium fluoride coating (abstract, page 11552, Results and Discussion). Zhao teaches the surface of LiF is contacted with the fluorine gas for 12h to ensure the formation of a homogeneous and crystalline LiF coating layer (page 11552) to prevent the penetration of corrosive carbonate electrolytes (page 11551 left column), thus, Zhao teaches the quantity of the fluorine gas governs the level of homogenous of the coating and formation of crystalline LiF coating layer and the level of corrosive resistance of the coating. Therefore, it would have been within the skill of the ordinary artisan to adjust and optimize the quantity of the fluorine gas in the process as disclosed by Cho in view of Inaba to yield the desired level of homogeneous of the LiF coating and formation of crystalline LiF coating layer, and the desired level of corrosive resistance of the coating. Discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art. In re Boesch, CCPA 1980, 617 F. 2d 272, 205 USPQ215. Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical (MPEP 2144.05 II). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum values of the relevant process parameters through routine experimentation in the absence of showing of criticality. In re Aller, USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claims 12-13, Cho in view of Inaba teaches all limitations of these claim, except the duration of the treatment process. However, Zhao further teaches the duration of the treatment governs the thickness of the LiF coating (page 11553 left column). Therefore, it would have been within the skill of the ordinary artisan to adjust and optimize the duration in the process as disclosed by Cho in view of Inaba to yield the desired LiF coating thickness. Discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art. In re Boesch, CCPA 1980, 617 F. 2d 272, 205 USPQ215.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-6, 12-14 and 17-19 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NGA LEUNG V LAW whose telephone number is (571)270-1115. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am - 5 pm.
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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached on 5712721295. 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.
/NGA LEUNG V LAW/Examiner, Art Unit 1717