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 .
Applicant's election with traverse of Claims 1-11 and 14-15 in the reply filed on 8/12/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no administrative burden. This is not found persuasive because further prior art demonstrates the inventions as claimed lack unity of invention, as is demonstrated later in this office action.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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.
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) 1, 3-4, and 6- 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2019/0237750) in view of Worhle et al. (US 2017/0229712).
Regarding Claim 1, Kim meets the claimed,
A pre-lithiation method of an electrode for a lithium secondary battery, the pre-lithiation method comprising ([0014] teaches a method of pre-lithiating an electrode): forming an electrode active material layer on one surface or both surfaces of an electrode current collector layer ([0072] teaches a negative electrode slurry being applied to one side of a current collector); and transferring lithium onto the electrode active material layer ([0037] teaches that lithium metal sheet 30 is laminated onto negative electrode material mix 20), wherin the transferring of the lithium metal comprises preparing a transfer laminate ([0037] teaches forming a lithium metal sheet by applying lithium metal to a substrate, which is a release film) in which a base layer, […] and a lithium metal are sequentially laminated ([0037] teaches a base substrate with lithium metal applied on it), […] laminating the transfer laminate onto the electrode active material layer ([0037] teaches that lithium metal sheet 30 is laminated onto negative electrode material mix 20) so that a surface of the lithium metal opposite to a surface in contact with the release layer comes into contact with a surface of the elelctrode active material layer opposite to a surface in contact with the electrode current collector layer ([0037] teaches that lithium metal sheet 30 is laminated onto negative electrode material mix 20. [0038] teaches that the side of the lithium metal sheet attached to a substrate, which is removed, the lithium remains uniformly bonded to the negative electrode 20, therefore, the lithium metal sheet surface in contact with the negative electrode material mix must be opposite the side of the material mix in contact with an electrode current collector layer); and removing the base layer ([0037]-[0038] teach that the substrate is removed), and wherein a second adhesive force of a contact surface between the electrode current collector layer and the electrode active material layer after applying an external pressure condition of 5 kgf/cm to 150 kgf/cm is higher than a first adhesive force of a contact surface between the base layer and the release layer after applying the external pressure condition of 5 kgf/cm to 150 kgf/cm ([0047] teaches a pressure of 10 to 100 kg/cm² applied to the stack).
Kim does not specifically teach a base layer, a release layer, and a lithium metal layer all sequentially laminated, and as such, also does not teach an adhesive force between a base layer and a release layer.
Worhle is analogous as it teaches a protective layer for a lithium metal for use in a battery.
Worhle meets the claimed,
[…] in which a base layer, a release layer and a lithium metal are sequentially laminated ([0032] teaches a pre-lithiating layer of lithium metal, as well as a protective layer coating. In order to function as a protective coating, the protective layer would need to be between the substrate that is removed and the lithium metal layer),
The combination of Kim and Worhle renders a base layer, release layer, and lithium metal layers that are then laminated upon an electrode active material layer. The base layer is then removed. In this case, the adhesive force between the base layer and the release layer is necessarily lower than the adhesive force between the electrode active material layer and the current collector, otherwise, the active material layer and the current collector would separate from each other instead of the base layer being separated from the release layer.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use a superhydrophobic nanostructured protective layer protects the metallic lithium from reacting too heavily with liquid electrolyte or removing it entirely, and since it's superhydrophobic, even were there to be small defects, any polar components common in liquid electrolytes, would be repelled, and being a nanostructure means it is also incredibly thin and does not significantly reduce the energy density of the battery (See Worhle [0020]).
Regarding Claim 3, Kim meets the claimed,
The pre-lithiation method of claim 1, wherein the preparing of the transfer laminate in which the base layer, the release layer and the lithium metal are sequentially laminated comprises coating and laminating […] on the base layer ([0037] teaches a base substrate with lithium metal applied on it), and depositing the lithium metal […] ([0037] teaches forming a lithium metal sheet by applying lithium metal to a substrate), wherein the depositing of the lithium metal comprises adjusting a deposition temperature, and wherein the adjusting of the deposition temperature comprises adjust a temperature of a surface opposite to a surface on which the lithium metal is deposited to -30°C or higher and 10°C or lower to form a temperature of the transfer laminate of 80°C or lower ([0046] teaches that the temperature of the sheets during the deposition is 5 °C to 100°C).
Kim does not specifically teach a release layer.
Worhle is analogous as it teaches a protective layer for a lithium metal for use in a battery.
Worhle meets the claimed,
The pre-lithiation method of claim 1, wherein the preparing of the transfer laminate in which the base layer, the release layer and the lithium metal are sequentially laminated comprises coating and laminating the release layer on the base layer ([0038] teaches a superhydrophobic, nanostructure protective layer 40 covering lithium layer 42),
The combination would necessarily require the protective layer to be placed on the base layer before the lithium layer as is taught by Kim. Therefore, the combination would render a sequential layering order of the base layer, the protective layer, and then the lithium layer.
Further, Worhle does teach that the protective layer may be deposited by spray or doctor blading a thin layer (see Worhle [0016]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use a superhydrophobic nanostructured protective layer protects the metallic lithium from reacting too heavily with liquid electrolyte or removing it entirely, and since it's superhydrophobic, even were there to be small defects, any polar components common in liquid electrolytes, would be repelled, and being a nanostructure means it is also incredibly thin and does not significantly reduce the energy density of the battery (See Worhle [0020]).
Regarding Claim 4, Kim meets the claimed,
The pre-lithiation method of claim 1, wherein the laminating is performed under a temperature condition of 20°C to 90°C ([0046] teaches that the temperature of the sheets during the deposition is 5 °C to 100°C) and a pressurization condition of 5 kgf/cm to 500 kgf/cm ([0047] teaches a pressure of 10 to 100 kg/cm² applied to the stack).
Regarding Claim 6, Kim does not teach a release layer.
Worhle is analogous as it teaches a protective layer for a lithium metal for use in a battery.
In combination, Kim and Worhle meets the claimed,
The pre-lithation method of claim 1, wherein the first adhesive force is lower than an adhesive force of a contact surface between the release layer and the lithium metal.
As the protective layer must remain on the lithium metal, it is necessary for the first adhesive force between the base layer and the release layer (the protective layer) to be lower than the adhesive force between the release layer (the protective layer) and the lithium metal, otherwise during removal of the base layer, the release layer (the protective layer) would be removed along with it. Therefore, since the protective layer necessarily stays on the lithium metal, there is a higher adhesive force between the protective layer and the lithium metal than between the base layer and the protective layer.
Regarding Claim 7, Kim meets the claimed,
The pre-lithiation method of claim 1, wherein a thickness of the lithium metal is 1 µm or greater and 10 µm or less ([0019] teaches a thickness of the lithium metal of 2 to 200 µm).
Regarding Claim 8, Kim does not teach a release layer.
Worhle is analogous as it teaches a protective layer for a lithium metal for use in a battery.
Worhle meets the claimed,
The pre-lithiation method of claim 1, wherein the release layer comprises one or more selected from the group consisting of silicon-modified polyester in which a silicon chain is graft-linked to a polyester main chain; an acrylic resin; Si; melamine; and fluorine ([0018] teaches the protective layer being nanostructured silicon).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use silicon as it has good lithium ion conduction properties (See Worhle [0036]).
Regarding Claim 9, Kim meets the claimed,
The pre-lithiation method of claim 1, comprising pre-lithiating the electrode active material layer after removing the base layer ([0037]-[0038] teach that the substrate is removed), wherein in the pre-lithiating of the electrode active material layer, the electrode active material layer is pre-lithiated within 30 minutes to 24 hours after transferring lithium metal ([0037] teaches that lithium metal sheet 30 is laminated onto negative electrode material mix 20. At the point where the lithium metal sheet 30 is laminated onto negative electrode material mix 20, the material mix 20 is pre-lithiated, therefore, within 30 minutes of transferring the lithium metal, the material mix 20 is considered pre-lithiated).
Regarding Claim 10, Kim meets the claimed,
The pre-lithiation method of claim 1, wherein the forming of the electrode active material layer on one surface or both surfaces of the electrode current collector layer comprises coating an electrode slurry comprising an electrode active material layer composition on one surface or both surfaces of the electrode current collector layer ([0072] teaches a negative electrode slurry being applied to one side of a current collector), and wherein the electrode active material layer composition comprises one or more selected from the group consisting of an electrode active material, an electrode conductive material, and an electrode binder ([0071] teaches SiO as the negative electrode active material, Denka Black as the conductive material, and SBR as the binder for the production of a negative electrode).
Regarding Claim 11, Kim meets the claimed,
The pre-lithiation method of claim 10, wherein the electrode active material comprises a silicon-containing active material ([0071] teaches SiO as the negative electrode active material), and wherein the silicon-containing active material comprises one or more selected from the group consisting of SiOx (x=0), SiOx (0<x<2), SiC, and a Si alloy ([0071] teaches SiO as the negative electrode active material).
Claim(s) 2, 5, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2019/0237750) in view of Worhle et al. (US 2017/0229712) and further in view of Fei et al. (US 2023/0352648) and Kim et al. (US 2020/0403242).
From this point forward, Kim et al. (US 2019/0237750) will be referred to as Kim and Kim et al. (US 2020/0403242) will be referred to as Kim (2020).
Regarding Claim 2, Kim/Worhle do not teach a specific first or second adhesive force.
Fei is analogous as it teaches a prelithiation device.
Fei does not specifically teach a first adhesive force between 10 gf/inch and 150 gf/inch. However, Fei does teach that a first adhesive force between a base layer and the release layer is a result effective variable. It is well-established that the optimization of result-effective variables only requires ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05, II).
Specifically, Feit teaches that the adhesive force between a lithium layer and the roller is often higher than the lithium layer and the substrate it is intended to be placed on (and later removed from). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to optimize the adhesive force between layers being laminated together such that the removable layer can still be removed, but is high enough that during the formation process, the layers are not stuck to the rolling or pressing implements.
Kim/Worhle/Fei does not teach a specific second adhesive force.
Kim (2020) is analogous as it teaches an anode composition.
Kim (2020) meets the claimed,
[…] and wherein the second adhesive force is 20 gf/inch or higher and 200 gf/inch or lower ([0075] teaches an adhesive force of 30 gf/cm, which is approximately 76.2 gf/inch).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use the anode composition, and obtain the particular adhesive force, in order to improve the anode manufacturing processability (See Kim (2020) [0075]).
Regarding Claim 5, Kim/Worhle does not teach specific adhesive forces.
Fei is analogous as it teaches a prelithiation device.
Fei does not specifically teach a first adhesive force between 10 gf/inch and 150 gf/inch. However, Fei does teach that a first adhesive force between a base layer and the release layer is a result effective variable. It is well-established that the optimization of result-effective variables only requires ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05, II).
Specifically, Fei teaches that the adhesive force between a lithium layer and the roller is often higher than the lithium layer and the substrate it is intended to be placed on (and later removed from) (See Fei [0039]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to optimize the adhesive force between layers being laminated together such that the removable layer can still be removed, but is high enough that during the formation process, the layers are not stuck to the rolling or pressing implements.
Kim/Worhle/Fei do not teach a specific second adhesive force.
Kim (2020) is analogous as it teaches an anode composition.
Kim (2020) teaches a second adhesive force of 76.2 gf/inch (See Kim (2020) [0075]).
In the case where the first adhesive force is a value between 0 gf/inch and 56.2 gf/inch, the combination of Kim/Worhle/Fei/Kim (2020) meets the claimed,
The pre-lithiation method of claim 1, wherein the first adhesive force and the second adhesive force satisfy a range of Equation 1 below,
20
g
f
i
n
c
h
≤
s
e
c
o
n
d
a
d
h
e
s
i
v
e
f
o
r
c
e
-
f
i
r
s
t
a
d
h
e
s
i
v
e
f
o
r
c
e
≤
150
g
f
i
n
c
h
As taught by Fei, the adhesive force is a result-effective variable, therefore, it would be obvious to optimize the first adhesive force to be between 0 gf/inch and 56.2 gf/inch such that the removable layer can still be removed, but is high enough that during the formation process, the layers are not stuck to the rolling or pressing implements.
Regarding Claim 14, Kim/Worhle does not teach specific adhesive forces.
Fei is analogous as it teaches a prelithiation device.
Fei does not specifically teach a first adhesive force between 10 gf/inch and 150 gf/inch. However, Fei does teach that a first adhesive force between a base layer and the release layer is a result effective variable. It is well-established that the optimization of result-effective variables only requires ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05, II).
Specifically, Feit teaches that the adhesive force between a lithium layer and the roller is often higher than the lithium layer and the substrate it is intended to be placed on (and later removed from) (See Fei [0039]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to optimize the adhesive force between layers being laminated together such that the removable layer can still be removed, but is high enough that during the formation process, the layers are not stuck to the rolling or pressing implements.
Kim/Worhle/Fei do not teach a specific second adhesive force.
Kim (2020) is analogous as it teaches an anode composition.
Kim (2020) meets the claimed,
[…] and wherein the second adhesive force is 50 gf/inch or higher and 190 gf/inch or lower ([0075] teaches an adhesive force of 30 gf/cm, which is approximately 76.2 gf/inch).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use the anode composition, and obtain the particular adhesive force, in order to improve the anode manufacturing processability (See Kim (2020) [0075]).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2019/0237750) in view of Worhle et al. (US 2017/0229712) and further in view of Fei et al. (US 2023/0352648) and Huang et al. (US 2023/0197962).
Kim/Worhle does not teach specific adhesive forces.
Fei is analogous as it teaches a prelithiation device.
Fei does not specifically teach a first adhesive force between 10 gf/inch and 150 gf/inch. However, Fei does teach that a first adhesive force between a base layer and the release layer is a result effective variable. It is well-established that the optimization of result-effective variables only requires ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05, II).
Specifically, Feit teaches that the adhesive force between a lithium layer and the roller is often higher than the lithium layer and the substrate it is intended to be placed on (and later removed from) (See Fei [0039]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to optimize the adhesive force between layers being laminated together such that the removable layer can still be removed, but is high enough that during the formation process, the layers are not stuck to the rolling or pressing implements.
Kim/Worhle/Fei do not teach a specific second adhesive force.
Huang does not teach a specific second adhesive force.
However, Huang teaches that an adhesive force between an electrode plate and a current collector is a result effective variable. It is well-established that the optimization of result-effective variables only requires ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05, II).
Specifically, Huang teaches that a high bonding force allows a negative electrode plate to remain stable during cycling of power and during swelling periods (See Huang [0006]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to optimize the adhesion between an electrode and a current collector in order to achieve a sufficient amount of stability during power cycling and the associated swelling of the electrode.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW Y. HO whose telephone number is (571)842-1342. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 - 6:00, Mon - Thurs.
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, Xiao S. Zhao can be reached at (571) 270-5343. 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.
/A.Y.H./ Examiner, Art Unit 1744
/MICHAEL M. ROBINSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1744
Prosecution Insights