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 .
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendment received February 24, 2026:
Claims 1-2, 7-9 and 17-22 are pending. Claims 3-6 and 10-16 have been cancelled as per applicant’s request. Claims 17-20 are withdrawn.
The previous 112 rejections have been withdrawn in light of the amendment. However, new 112 rejections have been made below.
The core of the previous rejection is maintained with slight changes made in light of the amendment. All changes to the rejection are necessitated by the amendment.
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 1-2, 7-9 and 21-22 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 1 recites “a lithiophilic metal” twice. It is unclear if the second recitation of “a lithiophilic metal” (line 12) is referring to the same lithiophilic metal recited in line 8 or if it is referring to a different lithiophilic metal. Thus, the claim language is indefinite.
Claims 2, 7-9 and 21-22 also rejected due to dependency on claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-2, 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komatsu et al. (US 2022/0255078) in view of Lee et al. (WO 20228149751A1) and Yin et al. (“Metal chloride perovskite thin film based interfacial layer for shielding lithium metal from liquid electrolyte”, 2020)*. The U.S. version of Lee et al. (US 2023/0318039) is used as the English translation and is referenced below. *The Supplementary Information of the Yin et al. reference is attached and referenced below.
Regarding Claim 1, Komatsu et al. teaches a lithium metal anode comprising an anode active material layer of lithium metal (Para. [0012], [0015] and Fig. 1, #106), a protective layer (Fig. 1, #108) formed between an anode active material layer (i.e. the lithium metal) and a solid electrolyte (Fig. 1, #104) (i.e. a protective film formed on one surface of the lithium metal) and the protective layer comprises an ion-conducting material including LiBr (i.e. a lithium salt) (Para. [0004]) and comprising one more ion-conducting material (further including a component) (Para. [0019]), wherein the solid electrolyte is an argyrodite sulfide compound (Para. [0016]) (i.e. wherein the protective film is disposed between the lithium metal and a solid electrolyte layer that includes an argyrodite-based sulfide solid electrolyte).
Komatsu et al. does not teach wherein the lithium-metal alloy in the protective film includes an alloy that includes lithium and a lithophilic metal wherein the lithiophilic metal is at least one of Ag, Sn, Mg, Au, Pt, Zn, or Pb.
However, Lee et al. further teaches forming a lithium-friendly (i.e. lithiophilic) Li-Mg alloy on the surface of the negative electrode (Para. [0019], lines 17-18) (i.e. a lithium-metal alloy in a protective film includes an alloy that includes lithium and a lithiophilic metal wherein the lithiophilic metal is Mg).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the protective layer of Komatsu et al. to incorporate the teaching of an Li-Mg alloy as taught by Lee et al., as forming such an alloy in the protective film would improve lithium charging/discharging efficiency and suppress the growth of dendrites, contributing to increased capacity of the battery (Para. [0036]).
Komatsu et al. does not teach the protective film further includes a perovskite compound that includes a metal halide perovskite, wherein the perovskite film includes a lithiophilic metal and a halide component, each distributed across the protective film, the halide component being derived from the perovskite compound.
However, Yin et al. teaches a perovskite layer on a lithium metal anode (pg. 5, col. 2, lines 31-32) forming a perovskite protection layer (pg. 6, col. 1, lines 18-20) (i.e. a protective film including a perovskite compound) wherein the perovskite thin film includes a MAPbCl3 perovskite thin film (i.e. that includes a metal halide perovskite) wherein the SEM image of the top surface has corresponding EDX mappings indicating the distributions of Pb (i.e. a lithophilic metal) and Cl (i.e. the halide component being derived from the perovskite compound) on the top surface (see Supplementary Fig. 11 of the MAPbCl3- coated substrate indicating the distribution of Pb, Cl on the top surface) (i.e. wherein the protective film includes a lithiophilic metal and a halide component, each distributed across the protective film).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the protective film of Komatsu et al. to incorporate the teaching of a perovskite compound film as taught by Yin et al., as perovskite protective layer can effectively isolate the Li metal from electrolyte to restrain Li loss and side reactions and enable the cells to maintain a stable capacity performance providing good protection for the lithium metal anode (pg. 6, col. 2, line 8 – pg. 7, col. 1, line 3).
Regarding Claim 2, Komatsu et al. as modified by Lee et al. and Yin et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention of claim 1 as explained above.
Komatsu et al. further teaches the protective layer comprises an ion-conducting material including LiBr (i.e. the lithium salt is at least LiBr) (Para. [0004]).
Regarding Claim 7, Komatsu et al. as modified by Lee et al. and Yin et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Komatsu et al. does not teach the protective film further includes a perovskite compound including a metal halide perovskite of the structure ABX3.
However, Yin et al. teaches a perovskite layer on a lithium metal anode (pg. 5, col. 2, lines 31-32) forming a perovskite protection layer (pg. 6, lines 18-20) wherein the perovskite in the protection layer is a metal chloride perovskite thin film (pg. 2, col. 1, lines 58-66) comprising MAPbCl3 (i.e. the metal perovskite has an ABX3 structure wherein A is methylammonium [MA+], B is Pb2+ and X is Cl-) (pg. 2, lines 37-38 and lines 58-60).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the protective film of Komatsu et al. to incorporate the teaching of a metal chloride perovskite compound of MAPbCl3 as taught by Yin et al., as a metal chloride perovskite layer can allow fast lithium ion transport throughout its framework, with excellent isolation from liquid electrolyte (pg. 2, col. 1, lines 58-66) and restrains Li loss and side reactions and enable the cells to maintain a stable capacity performance providing good protection for the lithium metal anode (pg. 6, col. 2, line 8 – pg. 7, col. 1, line 3).
Regarding Claim 9, Komatsu et al. as modified by Lee et al. and Yin et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention of claim 1 as explained above.
Komatsu et al. further teaches the anode active material can be a layer of a lithium compound (Para. [0015]).
Komatsu et al. does not teach wherein the lithium metal includes an alloy of lithium and a metal that includes aluminum, zinc, bismuth, cadmium, antinomy, silicon, lead, tin, gallium, or indium.
However, Lee et al. teaches the negative electrode is a lithium-based metal (Para. [0052], line 1) wherein the lithium-based metal (i.e. the lithium metal) is a lithium alloy of lithium and at least one of Al, Zn, Si, Pb, Sn and In (i.e. includes an alloy of lithium and a metal that includes aluminum, zinc, antimony, silicon, lead, tin or indium) (Para. [0054]).
The substitution of a lithium-based metal wherein the lithium-based metal (i.e. the lithium metal) is a lithium alloy of lithium and at least one of Al, Zn, Si, Pb, Sn and In as taught by Lee et al., for the lithium compound forming the anode active material layer of Komatsu et al. would achieve the predictable result of an anode active material for a negative electrode of a lithium ion battery (see Lee et al. – Para. [0052] and Komatsu et al. – Para. [0015], wherein the substituted components function as anode active material) . Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to substitute a lithium-based metal wherein the lithium-based metal (i.e. the lithium metal) is a lithium alloy of lithium and at least one of Al, Zn, Si, Pb, Sn and In as taught by Lee et al., for the lithium compound forming the anode active material layer of Komatsu et al., as the substitution would achieve the predictable result of an anode active material for a negative electrode of a lithium ion battery (see Lee et al. – Para. [0052] and Komatsu et al. – Para. [0015]). The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.). There is a reasonable expectation of success as Komatsu et al. teaches the anode active material can be a layer of a lithium compound (Para. [0015]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komatsu et al. (US 2022/0255078) in view of Lee et al. (WO 20228149751A1) and Yin et al. (“Metal chloride perovskite thin film based interfacial layer for shielding lithium metal from liquid electrolyte”, 2020) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Wu et al. (“All-Inorganic Lead Free Double Perovskite Li-Battery Anode Material Hosting Li+ Ion Concentrations”, 2021).
Regarding Claim 8, Komatsu et al. as modified by Lee et al. and Yin et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 7 as explained above.
Komatsu et al. as modified by Lee et al. and Yin et al. teaches a lithium metal anode protection layer comprising a metal halide perovskite of MAPbCl3 as explained above.
Komatsu modified by Lee et al. and Yin et al. does not teach a metal halide perovskite has an ABX3 structure wherein B is a combination of Ag+ and Bi3+.
- However, Wu et al. teaches halide perovskite materials wherein lithium ions can enter the interior of the halide perovskite lattice (pg. 1, col. 1, lines 9-10) wherein monovalent and trivalent cations can replace Pb2+ as an effective way to develop lead-free perovskite material (pg. 1, col. 1, lines 29-33) wherein Ag+ and Bi3+ can replace the Pb (pg. 1, col. 2, lines 2-5) (i.e. the B is a combination of Ag+ and Bi3+).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Komatsu et al. as modified by Lee et al. and Yin et al. to incorporate the teaching of replacing Pb with Ag and Bi, as it would provide a more environmentally-friendly electrode material for lithium batteries (pg. 1, col. 1, lines 24-28).
Claims 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komatsu et al. (US 2022/0255078) in view of Lee et al. (WO 20228149751A1) and Yin et al. (“Metal chloride perovskite thin film based interfacial layer for shielding lithium metal from liquid electrolyte”, 2020) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (US 2021/0143412), referred to hereinafter as Lee (2).
Regarding Claim 21, Komatsu et al. as modified by Lee et al. and Yin et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention of claim 1 as explained above
Komatsu et al. teaches the electrolyte is a sulfide compound, for example, an argyrodite (Para. [0016]).
Komatsu et al. does not teach the solid electrolyte includes at least one of a compound represented by Li7-xPS6-xClx (0≤x≤2), Li7-xPS6-xBrx (0≤x≤2), or Li7-xPS6-xIx (0≤x≤2).
However, Lee (2) teaches a lithium anode active material wherein a first anode active material (Fig. 1, #22) covers a second anode active material and may serve as a protection layer (Para. [0076]) and a solid electrolyte layer (Fig. 1, #30) wherein the solid electrolyte is an argyrodite-type solid electrolyte including at least one selected from Li7-xPS6-xClx (0≤x≤2), Li7-xPS6-xBrx (0≤x≤2), or Li7-xPS6-xIx (0≤x≤2) (Para. [0058]) (i.e. the solid electrolyte includes at least one of a compound represented by Li7-xPS6-xClx (0≤x≤2), Li7-xPS6-xBrx (0≤x≤2), or Li7-xPS6-xIx (0≤x≤2)).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the argyrodite solid electrolyte of Komatsu et al. to incorporate the teaching of an argyrodite-type solid electrolyte including at least one selected from Li7-xPS6-xClx (0≤x≤2), Li7-xPS6-xBrx (0≤x≤2), or Li7-xPS6-xIx (0≤x≤2) as taught by Lee (2), as it would provide decreased internal resistance of the all-solid secondary battery and penetration of the solid electrolyte layer by Li may be suppressed or reduced (Para. [0059]) providing excellent battery characteristics (Para. [0018]).
Regarding Claim 22, Komatsu et al. as modified by Lee et al. and Yin et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention of claim 1 as explained above
Komatsu et al. teaches the electrolyte is a sulfide compound, for example, an argyrodite (Para. [0016]).
Komatsu et al. does not teach the solid electrolyte includes at least one of a compound represented by Li6PS5Cl, Li6.5 Sb0.5Ge0.5--S5I, or Li5.7PS4.7Cl1.3 or Li6.6 Sb0.5Si0.6--S5I.
However, Lee (2) teaches a lithium anode active material wherein a first anode active material (Fig. 1, #22) covers a second anode active material and may serve as a protection layer (Para. [0076]) and a solid electrolyte layer (Fig. 1, #30) wherein the solid electrolyte is an argyrodite-type solid electrolyte including Li6PS5Cl (Para. [0058]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the argyrodite solid electrolyte of Komatsu et al. to incorporate the teaching of an argyrodite-type solid electrolyte including Li6PS5Cl as taught by Lee (2), as it would provide decreased internal resistance of the all-solid secondary battery and penetration of the solid electrolyte layer by Li may be suppressed or reduced (Para. [0059]) providing excellent battery characteristics (Para. [0018]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 24, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Yin Fig. 2e teaches spatial separation between a perovskite layer and underlying alloy layer and thus, does not teach a lithiophilic metal and a halide component each distributed across the protective film as required by newly amended claim 1.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The underlying alloy layer is not the perovskite thin film. Additionally, Fig. 2e shows the MSC-Li perovskite layer (i.e. MASnCl3) whereas the above rejection cites MAPbCl-3 as the perovskite compound. Thus it is unclear how this demonstrates the perovskite film does not teach a lithiophilic metal and a halide component each distributed across the protective film. Nonetheless, Fig. 2a demonstrates Sn and Cl distributed across the protective film (i.e. a halide component each distributed across the protective film) as does Supplementary Fig. 11 of the MAPbCl3- coated substrate indicating the distribution of Pb, Cl on the top surface for the above cited MAPbCl-3. -Therefore, the argument is not persuasive and the rejection of record is maintained.
Applicant argues that the dependent claims are distinct from the prior art of record for the same reason as the independent claim.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The rejection with respect to the independent claim has been maintained, and thus the rejections to the dependent claims are maintained as well.
With respect to the arguments regarding the 103 rejections of claim 8 and 21-22, Applicant argues that the prior art used to render obvious the rejected claims do not cure the deficiencies of the rejection applied to the independent claim. Applicant does not argue how the combination is not proper. Therefore, the Examiner maintains the obviousness rejections and upholds the rejection to the independent claim, as above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARMINDO CARVALHO JR. whose telephone number is (571)272-5292. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30a.m.-5p.m..
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, Ula Ruddock can be reached at 571 272-1481. 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.
/ARMINDO CARVALHO JR./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights