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 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.
(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) 1-5 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al (Adv. Funct. Mater. 2017, 27, 1704391).
Regarding Claim 1, Lee discloses:
A lithium metal secondary battery, comprising (Li metal batteries, referred to as LMBs, see Pg1704391/C(left).2nd ):
an electrode stack formed by stacking a positive electrode and a negative electrode having a negative electrode current collector with a separator interposed therebetween and an electrolyte solution (Li||LCO cells using separators with CuTF coating facing Li anode with an electrolyte solution, see Fig. 5 caption),
wherein lithium is deposited on the negative electrode current collector during charging and dissolved during discharging (“ultrathin Cu film on one side of the polyethylene support serves as an additional conducting agent to facilitate electrochemical stripping/deposition of Li metal,” (see Abstract) wherein the Li stripping/deposition is shown to occur on the negative current collector, see Fig. 3d),
wherein the separator includes a porous membrane and a porous conductive coat layer stacked on at least part of a surface of the porous membrane on the side of the negative electrode (a conductive copper thin film (referred to as CuTF) is coated on a porous polyethylene (referred to as PE) separator such that the pore structure of the PE is substantially maintained after conformal CuTF coating is applied, see Pg1704391/C(left) and Fig. 1b and 1c),
Lee describes preparing the PE/CuTF separator by coating a PE separator by DC magnetron sputtering, see Pg1704391/C(left)/Experiential section, 1st ¶. This preparation results in the pore structure of the PE (i.e., porous membrane) is substantially maintained after conformal CuTF coating (i.e., porous conductive coat layer) is applied, see Pg1704391/C(left) and Fig. 1b and 1c.
The instant specification recognizes the following:
Polyethylene as a suitable material for the porous membrane, see [0032]
DC sputtering as a suitable coating method for the porous conductive coat layer, see [0040]
Cu as a suitable material for the porous conductive coat layer, see [0039]
Therefore, it is the Examiner’s position that the structure disclosed by Lee is substantially identical to that of the claims and therefore the following claimed properties are inherent:
wherein electrical conductivity of the porous conductive coat layer is within a range of 1.0×101 to 1.0×105 S/cm,
and wherein surface resistivity of the porous conductive coat layer is 200 Ω/cm2 or less.
Regarding product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.).
Regarding Claim 2, Lee discloses:
wherein the porous conductive coat layer has a region that contacts the lithium deposited on the negative electrode current collector (“separator design by coating a CuTF onto one surface of the conventional PE separator facing to the anode in the LMB” see Fig. 3d).
Regarding Claim 3, Lee discloses:
wherein electrical conductivity of the negative electrode current collector is higher than electrical conductivity of the porous conductive coat layer (“Li metal plating can be initiated first at the Cu current collector surface but quickly on the CuTF surface facing toward the Cu foil because the Cu current collector has higher electric conductivity than the CuTF film,” see Pg1704391/C(left)/1st ¶).
Regarding Claim 4, Lee describes preparing the PE/CuTF separator by coating a PE separator by DC magnetron sputtering, see Pg1704391/C(left)/Experiential section, 1st ¶. This preparation results in the pore structure of the PE (i.e., porous membrane) is substantially maintained after conformal CuTF coating (i.e., porous conductive coat layer) is applied, see Pg1704391/C(left) and Fig. 1b and 1c.
The instant specification recognizes the following:
Polyethylene as a suitable material for the porous membrane, see [0032]
DC sputtering as a suitable coating method for the porous conductive coat layer, see [0040]
Cu as a suitable material for the porous conductive coat layer, see [0039]
Therefore, it is the Examiner’s position that the structure disclosed by Lee is substantially identical to that of the claims and therefore the following claimed property is inherent:
wherein peel strength of the porous conductive coat layer against the porous membrane is 0.5 N/m or more.
Regarding product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.).
Regarding Claim 5, Lee discloses:
wherein thickness of the porous conductive coat layer is within a range of 0.01 to 5 μm (CuTF thickness of the as-prepared Janus separator was ≈70 nm (i.e., 0.07 μm) which is within the claimed range, see Pg1704391/C(left)/Experiential section, 1st ¶).
Regarding Claim 7, Lee discloses:
A separator for a lithium metal secondary battery (separator for lithium metal batteries, referred to as LMBs, see Pg2/C(left)/ last sentence of 2nd ¶),
the separator comprising a porous membrane and a porous conductive coat layer stacked on one surface of the porous membrane (a conductive copper thin film (referred to as CuTF) is coated on a porous polyethylene (referred to as PE) separator such that the pore structure of the PE is substantially maintained after conformal CuTF coating is applied, see Pg3/C(left) and Fig. 1b and 1c),
Lee describes preparing the PE/CuTF separator by coating a PE separator by DC magnetron sputtering, see Pg1704391/C(left)/Experiential section, 1st ¶. This preparation results in the pore structure of the PE (i.e., porous membrane) is substantially maintained after conformal CuTF coating (i.e., porous conductive coat layer) is applied, see Pg1704391/C(left) and Fig. 1b and 1c.
The instant specification recognizes the following:
Polyethylene as a suitable material for the porous membrane, see [0032]
DC sputtering as a suitable coating method for the porous conductive coat layer, see [0040]
Cu as a suitable material for the porous conductive coat layer, see [0039]
Therefore, it is the Examiner’s position that the structure disclosed by Lee is substantially identical to that of the claims and therefore the following claimed properties are inherent:
wherein electrical conductivity of the porous conductive coat layer is within a range of 1.0×101 to 1.0×105 S/cm,
and wherein surface resistivity of the porous conductive coat layer is 200 Ω/cm2 or less.
Regarding product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.).
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) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al (Adv. Funct. Mater. 2017, 27, 1704391), as applied to Claim1 above, and in further view of Oka et al. (US-20200144560-A1).
Regarding Claim 6, Lee is silent toward:
A secondary battery module comprising a plurality of the lithium metal secondary batteries according to claim 1,
To solve the same problem of designing nonaqueous electrolyte secondary batteries (see Abstract), Oka teaches stacking a plurality of nonaqueous electrolyte secondary batteries 10 to form a battery module 30 to electrically connect the batteries 10 via busbars, see [0030].
Absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to stacked the batteries of Lee into a battery module to electrically connect a plurality of batteries via busbars.
wherein the plurality of lithium metal secondary batteries are each restrained with a restraining force within a range of 0.1 to 2.0 MPa along a stacking direction of the electrode stack.
To solve the same problem of designing nonaqueous electrolyte secondary batteries (see Abstract), Oka teaches applying a pressure of the electrode groups of the plurality of nonaqueous electrolyte secondary batteries 10 to a pressure of 0.1 MPa to 10 MPa which overlaps the claimed range. Oka further teaches the application of pressure allows for the interelectrode distance to remain constant, see [0022].
Absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have applied a pressure to the stack batteries of modified Lee to maintain interelectrode distance.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kayla E Clary whose telephone number is (571)272-2854. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00-5:00 (PT).
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, Allison Bourke can be reached at 303-297-4684. 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.
/K.E.C./
Kayla E. ClaryExaminer, Art Unit 1721
/ALLISON BOURKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1721
Prosecution Insights