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 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 1-20 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.
Claims 1 and 2 each recite the relative term “thin” without providing sufficient context to know where the line between thin, not thin, and thick are drawn. Additionally, those claims both require fibrous carbon to be oriented “randomly”. It is unclear what this requires structurally, since a random orientation can be any orientation, including all fibers in perfect parallel alignment. If this is meant to be a product-by-process limitation then the process must be clearly defined.
Further regarding claim 9 it is unclear if the claim intends to require both charging and discharging to be performed by “depositing lithium metal on the surface of the negative electrode and electrolytically dissolving the deposited lithium metal” or instead Applicant intends the claim to require charging to be performed by “depositing lithium metal on the surface of the negative electrode” and discharging to be performed by “electrolytically dissolving the deposited lithium metal”. If the latter, Applicant should include the word “respectively”, or otherwise structure the claim to make that intention clear.
Regarding claim 10, it is unclear what the recited Markush group includes. In particular, it is unclear if the last recitation “other metals that do not react with lithium” is a single option requiring multiple other metals that do not react with lithium, or if instead it is meant to also allow an individual other metal that does not react with lithium. Additionally, it is unclear what is meant by “alloys thereof”. In particular, it is unclear whether “thereof” applies to ever previously listed metal, or just to the ”other metals that do not react with lithium” and it is also unclear whether this means alloys formed by combinations of the materials which “thereof” includes, or instead, is meant to cover any alloy that includes at least one of the materials which “thereof” includes. Finally, “other metals that do not react with lithium” is vague. It is unclear if this is meant to cover any metal that does not react with lithium, or just some undefined additional group of elements beyond those already listed. Clearer language is required.
Regarding claim 11, it is unclear what is structurally required of this claim. Claim 1 is directed to a specific structure. It is unclear if claim 11 requires that structure to be one that has not been charged and does not include lithium. If it covers more than that, including a battery that has lithium deposited on the surface of its negative electrode, it is unclear how it can be determined if that lithium was present before charging or not.
Claim 14 includes further uses of the relative term “thin.” Moreover, it is unclear if “stacked film thereof” allows for stacks of thin films of metal or alloy or if it can include stacks of thin films of carbon and thin films of metal or alloy.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Japanese Publication No. JP 2015/043309 to Arai, citing to the enclosed machine translation (“Arai”) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0058185 to Lee (“Lee”). Regarding claims 1, 3, 5, 8-11, 13, and 15, Arai discloses a negative electrode for a lithium ion secondary battery comprising a current collector of copper foil in some embodiments, onto which is plated a composite carbon/metal layer where the carbon is multi-walled carbon nanotubes having diameter ranging from 100-150nm and the metal of the carbon/metal composite includes copper and/or tin. Arai at paragraphs [0011], [0024] and [0045]. The copper current collector is considered to correspond to the recited negative electrode that doesn’t include active material. The carbon/metal composite is configured to face the positive electrode and separator separating the negative/positive electrodes providing an anchor point for the deposition of lithium metal onto the negative electrode. The carbon fibers are deposited without any attempt to align them in an ordered manner, and thus are considered to be randomly deposited.
Arai focuses on an electrode for use in lithium ion batteries, noting that such lithium ion batteries typically include a positive electrode active material in the positive electrode. Id. at paragraph [0002]. Although a positive electrode and a separator separating the positive and negative electrode from one another are required elements of a lithium ion battery, Arai does not disclose a conductive thin film formed on a surface of the separator facing the negative electrode.
Lee is similarly directed to negative electrodes for use in lithium batteries. Lee at Abstract. Lee discloses that one concern in such battery systems is lithium depositing on the negative electrode in an uneven/uncontrolled manner such that dendrites form which may pierce the separator placed between the positive/negative electrodes thereby causing a short in the battery. Id. at paragraph [0009]. To prevent this, Lee discloses providing on an outermost surface of the negative electrode that is in contact with the separator an electrically conductive layer having a thickness ranging from 0.01 to 10 microns. Id. at paragraphs [0015] and [0018]. This is used in examples where, like in Arai, the active material is lithium being deposited in a carbon and/or tin metal containing active material layer. Thus, the person or ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention would have been motivated to provide the outermost thin conductive protective layer of Lee to the electrode structure of Arai in order to prevent dendrite growth/short circuiting thereby creating a thin conductive layer on the surface of the separator facing the negative electrode of its battery.
Further regarding claim 4, Arai discloses that the length of its carbon nanotube fibers is 10-15 microns, giving an aspect ratio ranging from 67-150. Arai at paragraph [0024].
Further regarding claim 6, although Arai doesn’t specifically disclose a volume ratio of carbon in its composite layer, it does disclose that the carbon nanotubes are present to provide structural integrity to maintain attachment of the outer active material layer to the current collector. Thus, the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of inventio would have had reason to choose an amount that balances the need for this structural integrity with the need for high capacity/conductivity of the negative electrode structure as a whole for a given application.
Further regarding claim 7, Arai discloses that the desire in the art has been to provide the thinnest current collector/inactive electrode structure possible in order to improve specific capacity. Arai at paragraph [0008] Thus, the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention would have had reason to provide the carbon/metal composite of Arai in a thickness that is as reduced as possible while maintaining structure integrity/conductivity.
Further regarding claim 12, given the voltage of a lithium battery is 3 volts or more, the recited energy density would be, at a maximum, equivalent to 17 Ah/kg (equivalent to 17 mAh/g). Arai discloses that its electrodes have a specific capacity of 590 mAh/g. Id. at paragraph [0043].
Further regarding claims 2 and 16-20, although the system of Lee focuses on a polymer separator for use with liquid electrolyte compositions, solid electrolytes were a commonly known alternative for use in lithium ion battery systems and thus their use as the separator is considered to be nothing more than the obvious substitution of one commonly known alternative for another to achieve a predictable result.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WYATT P MCCONNELL whose telephone number is (571)270-7531. The examiner can normally be reached 9am to 5pm M-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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at 571-272-1330. 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.
/WYATT P MCCONNELL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1727