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 .
Claim Objections
It is recommended that Applicant amend the claims as follows:
In claim 2, line 2, “ionic radius of the second metal ion” should read “an ionic radius of the second metal ion” for proper grammar.
In claim 7, line 2, “concentration of the second metal ions” should read “a concentration of the second metal ions” for proper grammar.
In claim 8, lines 1 and 2, after correcting the above grammatical error in claim 7, “concentration of the second metal ions” should read “wherein the concentration of the second metal ions” for proper grammar and antecedence.
In claim 9, lines 2 and 3, “a surface of a negative electrode” should read “a surface of [[a]] the negative electrode plate” to denote proper antecedence from claim 1’s negative electrode plate, as intended in spec.’s ¶ 0059.
In claim 10, line 2, after correcting the above antecedent issue, “a surface of a negative electrode” should read “[[a]] the surface of [[a]] the negative electrode plate” for proper antecedence from claim 9.
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 2 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.
Claim 2 recites “ionic radius of the second metal ion” in line 2. As claim 1 recites that “the electrolyte contains second metal ions” (line 9, emphasis added), it is unclear which ion claim 2’s “the second metal ion” references. The specification’s ¶ 0052 describes that the second metal ions are “metal ions … preferably with an ionic radius less than or equal to 0.92 nm”. Examiner notes that the specification’s “preferably” is exemplary language, meaning the specification does not limit the second metal ions to this radius. Therefore, under the claim’s broadest reasonable interpretation, in light of the specification, for this Office Action claim 2 will be interpreted as requiring at least one second metal ion with an ionic radius ≤ 0.92 nm, as appears intended by ¶ 0052.
Claim 13 recites “the battery pack according to claim 10” in line 2, but claim 10 does not recite a battery pack; rather, claim 12, from which claim 13 does not depend, is the only claim reciting a battery pack. Thus, it is unclear if Applicant desires claim 13 to instead recite “An electric apparatus, comprising the battery pack according to claim 12” or “An electric apparatus, comprising at least one of the secondary battery according to claim 10”, both of which include different scope. The spec.’s ¶ 0110 describes that “the electric apparatus includes at least one of the secondary battery … or the battery pack provided in this application.” Thus, under the claim’s broadest reasonable interpretation, for this Office Action claim 13 will be interpreted as requiring at least one of the secondary battery according to claim 1 or the battery pack of claim 12, as appears intended by ¶ 0110.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 recites “a negative electrode active substance layer, a first metal oxide layer, and a second metal ion adsorption layer that are sequentially arranged on at least one surface of the negative electrode current collector” (lines 3–6). Examiner notes that “sequentially arranged” is interpreted according to its plain meaning given that the specification appears devoid of a special definition due to merely exemplary language (see, e.g., “To be specific …” (and, thus, language permitting broader embodiments) at ¶ 0046). The plain meaning of “sequentially arranged” refers to the layers’ being arranged in any non-specific sequence with respect to each other because the claim does not specify the sequence’s order, and the claim does not specify the absence of intervening layers.
Thus, the claim appears to allow any combination of the active substance layer (ASL), first metal oxide layer (FMOL), and second metal ion adsorption layer (SMIAL). Accordingly, for this Office Action the first set of 102 rejections reflect the interpretation of ASL:SMIAL:FMOL, while the subsequent rejection includes what appears to be the spec.’s preferred embodiment of ASL:FMOL:SMIAL (see, e.g., ¶ 0046).
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, 3–5, 9, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen et al. (Lithium Metal Protected by Atomic Layer Deposition Metal Oxide for High Performance Anodes, from 10/09/24 IDS) (Chen).
Regarding claims 1 and 3, Chen discloses a secondary battery (rechargeable coin cell, e.g., p. 12304, right col., last ¶), comprising a negative electrode plate (alumina-coated Li-Cu plate, e.g., Id. and fig. 5 (p. 12302)) and an electrolyte (p. 12308, left col., last ¶), wherein the negative electrode plate comprises a negative electrode current collector (Cu foil, p. 12304, right col., last ¶) and a negative electrode active substance layer (Li metal, e.g., Id.), a first metal oxide layer (Al2O3, e.g., Id. and fig. 5), and a second metal ion adsorption layer (note deposited Li ions—and, thus, layer—between Li metal and Al2O3, e.g.,, p. 12307, Conclusion) that are sequentially arranged on at least one surface of the negative electrode current collector (Id., fig. 5); the first metal oxide is aluminum oxide (Al2O3, e.g., fig. 5); and the electrolyte contains second metal ions (from LiPF6, p. 12308, left col., last ¶).
It is submitted that the above disclosure further reads on claim 3; i.e., the second metal ions are Li+ (via LiPF6).
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Chen discloses the secondary battery according to claim 1, wherein a thickness of the first metal oxide layer is 4 nm (p. 12304, left col., next-to-last ¶), falling within 0.1–10 nm (claim 4) and 0.5–5 nm (claim 5).
Regarding claim 9, Chen discloses the secondary battery according to claim 1, wherein a thickness of a solid electrolyte interphase film formed on a surface of the negative electrode is < 10 nm (p. 12304, left col., first ¶), falling within < 40 nm.
Regarding claim 11, Chen discloses the secondary battery according to claim 1, wherein the first metal oxide layer is formed by ALD (e.g., p. 12304, left col., first ¶).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen et al. (Lithium Metal Protected by Atomic Layer Deposition Metal Oxide for High Performance Anodes, from 10/09/24 IDS) (Chen), as evidenced by Princeton University (Nglos324 – Lithium).
Regarding claim 2, Chen discloses the secondary battery according to claim 1, wherein an ionic radius of the second metal ion is 60 pm (as evidenced by Princeton University’s graphic of Li+), falling within ≤ 0.92 nm.
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 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) 1, 3–5, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamimura et al. (WO 2021262699 A1) (Kamimura).
Regarding claims 1, 3, and 11, Kamimura discloses a secondary battery (e.g., LIB of p. 10 and in exs. of pp. 15/16), comprising a negative electrode plate (e.g., Li metal anode in Ex. 1, top of p. 16; see also list on p. 10, lines 10–14) and an electrolyte (e.g., 1 M LiPF6 in Ex. 1, bottom of p. 15), wherein the electrolyte includes second metal ions (Li+ from LiPF6, Id.).
Kamimura further discloses that the negative electrode plate may include a negative electrode current collector and a negative electrode active substance layer (e.g., p. 10, lines 17–19), as well as an ALD-deposited metal-oxide layer atop the active layer to protect from diminished electrochemical behavior (e.g., p. 9, lines 4 and 5; p. 10, lines 2 and 15–19), where the metal oxide may be a doped molybdenum oxide (e.g., p. 9, lines 10–18), but Kamimura fails to explicitly embody such.
As Kamimura is analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely metal-oxide protective layers in battery anodes, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to routinely incorporate a negative electrode plate including an active substance layer such as Li metal atop at least one surface of a negative current collector, where a first metal oxide layer of molybdenum oxide is ALD-deposited atop the active layer, as suggested by Kamimura, with the reasonable expectation of forming a successful negative electrode with suitably maintained electrochemical performance, as suggested by Kamimura (see also, e.g., MPEP 2143 (A.)).
Kamimura is silent to a second metal ion adsorption layer atop the first metal oxide layer.
However, the instant specification discloses that, via the strong metal-ion adsorption in the first metal-oxide layer, the second metal ions from the electrolyte adhere to the first oxide layer’s surface to form a natural protective layer after conventionally cycling/aging the battery (e.g., ¶ 0047, 0051, 0086; see also exs., e.g., ¶ 0120 and 0138).
Because Kamimura discloses 1) a substantially similar electrode structure formed by 2) a substantially similar method (depositing nm-thick metal-oxide layer atop active layer—which would be pre-formed with conductive material and/or binder, as discussed above and on p. 10, lines 17–19, as well as exs.—via ALD, followed by extensive cycling/formation, e.g., top of p. 11 as well as Ex. 1, pp. 15/16) as the instant spec. (e.g., ¶ 0124), alongside 3) a substantially similar LiPF6 electrolyte at what appears to be an identical concentration of 1 M (compare Kamimura’s Ex. 1’s electrolyte to spec.’s at ¶ 0140), the skilled artisan would have reasonably expected Kamimura’s electrode to also form the second metal ion adsorption layer, absent evidence otherwise (MPEP 2112.01 (I)).
It is submitted that the above disclosure further reads on the following:
(claim 3) the second metal ions are Li+ (via LiPF6, e.g., Ex. 1);
(claim 11) the first metal oxide layer is formed by ALD (e.g., top of p. 11 and Ex. 1).
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Kamimura discloses the secondary battery according to claim 1, wherein a thickness of the first metal oxide layer is preferably 0.3–4 nm (bottom of p. 9), falling within claim 4’s 0.1–10 (nm). Further, this 0.3–4 nm overlaps claim 5’s 0.5–5 nm such that the skilled artisan could have routinely selected within the overlap with a reasonable expectation of forming a suitably thick metal-oxide layer (MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Additionally, the skilled artisan would recognize that the metal-oxide layer must be thick enough to perform its function of reducing excessive electrolytic decomposition (top of p. 3). Meanwhile, the artisan would understand that making the film too thick would necessarily increase ion-diffusion distance and, thus, resistance. To balance these effects, then, it would have been obvious to arrive at claim 5’s range by routinely optimizing the oxide layer’s thickness (MPEP 2144.05 (II)).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamimura et al. (WO 2021262699 A1) (Kamimura), as applied to claim 1, as evidenced by Princeton University (Nglos324 – Lithium).
Regarding claim 2, Kamimura discloses the secondary battery according to claim 1, wherein an ionic radius of the second metal ion is 60 pm (as evidenced by Princeton University’s graphic of Li+), falling within ≤ 0.92 nm.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamimura et al. (WO 2021262699 A1) (Kamimura), as applied to claim 1, in view of Deguchi (US 20100068613 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Kamimura discloses the secondary battery according to claim 1.
Regarding the limitation “the second metal ions are provided by at least one salt selected from LiCl, CrCl3, CaCl2, KCl, NaCl, MoCl6, or FeCl2”, it appears that such is a product-by-process limitation. In accordance with MPEP 2113, the method of forming a device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the product itself; though product-by-process claims are limited and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself.
In this case, the implied structure from the salt in the final product is the anion/cation pair (as seen in the spec., e.g., ¶ 0142). As discussed in claim 1, Kamimura exemplifies a LiPF6 salt source for the second metal ions (e.g., Ex. 1) yet, while not appearing limited to such to achieve the desired electrolyte, fails to explicitly articulate a LiCl source—and, thus, Li+/Cl-.
Deguchi teaches a battery with a porous insulating film containing an electrolyte and an inorganic oxide (Abstract), where the electrolyte may be LiPF6 or LiCl (¶ 0062).
Deguchi is analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely electrolytes in batteries with inorganic-oxide layers.
As Kamimura appears to afford no technical preference to the LiPF6 salt and Deguchi recognizes LiCl and LiPF6 as equivalent electrolyte salts, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to routinely substitute Kamimura’s LiPF6 with Deguchi’s LiCl with a reasonable expectation of forming a successful second metal-ion source (MPEP 2143 (B.) and 2144.06 (II)).
Claim(s) 7 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamimura et al. (WO 2021262699 A1) (Kamimura), as applied to claim 1, in view of Choi et al. (US 20200251778 A1) (Choi).
Regarding claims 7 and 8, Kamimura discloses the secondary battery according to claim 1.
Kamimura further exemplifies a 1 mol/L concentration of electrolyte (Ex. 1, as discussed in claim 1) yet, while not appearing explicitly limited to this range, fails to explicitly disclose that the second metal ions’ concentration in the electrolyte is < 0.1 mol/L (claim 7) and < 0.05 mol/L (claim 8).
Choi teaches a LIB electrolyte (Title), where the lithium salt’s concentration may be 0.01–2.0 mol/L to further improve battery characteristics (¶ 0065).
Choi is analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely LIB electrolytes.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to employ Choi’s broader 0.01–2.0 mol/L as Kamimura’s electrolyte concentration with the reasonable expectation of achieving a successful electrolyte and improved battery characteristics, as taught by Choi.
More importantly, though, the skilled artisan would understand that the lithium salt and, thus, ions must be concentrated enough for suitable Li+ conductivity, while enough solvent (as in Kamimura’s EC/EMC in Ex. 1) must be present to suitably dissolve the salt without detracting from such conductivity. Meanwhile, the instant spec. notes that the second metal ions’ concentration in the electrolyte is the concentration after forming the metal ion adsorption layer (¶ 0058), so the skilled artisan would necessarily have to further account for some number of ions “lost” to form the adsorption layer in the final electrolyte and battery. To balance all these effects, then, it would have been obvious to arrive at the respectively recited ranges by routinely optimizing the second metal ions’ concentration in the electrolyte, including within 0.01 mol/L to less than 0.1 mol/L (claim 7) and 0.01 mol/L to less than 0.05 mol/L (claim 10) (MPEP 2144.05 (II)).
Claim(s) 9 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamimura et al. (WO 2021262699 A1) (Kamimura), as applied to claim 1, in view of Yang (US 20180102522 A1).
Regarding claims 9 and 10, Kamimura discloses the secondary battery according to claim 1.
Kamimura further discloses that an SEI film forms on a surface of the negative electrode (e.g., top of p. 3) but fails to articulate a thickness of such and, thus, < 40 nm (claim 9) or 10–35 nm (claim 10).
Yang teaches a Li-metal-based electrode (Title), similar to Kamimura’s, where an SEI 10~50 nm thick forms atop the electrode (¶ 0030).
Yang is analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely SEI films in negative electrodes.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the claimed invention's effective filing date, that Kamimura's SEI must necessarily be incorporated with some thickness, and, as demonstrated by Yang, the skilled artisan would find it obvious to employ a 10~50 nm thick SEI, a range respectively overlapping claims 9 and 10’s ranges such that the skilled artisan could have routinely selected within the overlap with a reasonable expectation of forming a successful SEI (MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Additionally, Kamimura uses the ALD oxide layer to control the SEI’s formation (as seen throughout disclosure and, e.g., Title) and, thus, thickness. The skilled artisan would recognize, therefore, that the SEI will necessarily possess a minimum thickness because it inevitably forms due to electrolytic decomposition upon initial cycling (Kamimura’s p. 1, lines 11–13). However, the artisan would further recognize that making the SEI too thick would necessarily increase ion-diffusion distance and, thus, resistance (as seen in Kamimura’s p. 1, lines 19 and 20). To balance these effects, then, it would have been obvious to arrive at the recited range by routinely optimizing the SEI’s thickness (MPEP 2144.05 (II)).
Claim(s) 12 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamimura et al. (WO 2021262699 A1) (Kamimura), as applied to claim 1, in view of Hara (US 20180175362 A1).
Regarding claims 12 and 13, Kamimura discloses the secondary battery according to claim 1 but, in being unconcerned with the application of such, fails to explicitly disclose a battery pack comprising the secondary battery, as well as an electric apparatus comprising the secondary battery and/or battery pack.
Hara teaches that LIBs are known to be used to power EVs via battery packs (e.g., ¶ 0003, 0004).
Hara is analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely LIB applications in battery packs and electrical devices.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to routinely incorporate Kamimura’s battery into a battery pack incorporated into an EV, as taught by Hara, with the reasonable expectation of successfully powering the EV, as taught by Hara (e.g., MPEP 2143 (A.)).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20190190028 A1: similar disclosure as Kamimura and instant spec (porous, inorganic-oxide insulating film atop negative electrode active layer to stabilize SEI).
US 20190165429 A1: Li-metal electrode with piezoelectric protective layer to prevent uneven Li+ deposition.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN S MEDLEY whose telephone number is (703)756-4600. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00–5:00 EST M–Th and 8:00–12:00 EST F.
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 on 571-270-192. 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.
/J.S.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 1/14/2026