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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 4/12/2024 has/have been received and complies with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner, and a copy with initials is attached herewith.
Drawings
3. The drawings were received on 8/16/2023. These drawings are acceptable.
Election/Restrictions
4. Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-6 and 17-20) in the reply filed on 6/15/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the search and examination of all of the claims could be made without serious burden on the Examiner. This is not found persuasive because: The inventions require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries).
The requirement is still deemed proper. Therefore, claims 1-6 and 17-20 are examined on the merits.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
5. 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.
6. 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)(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.
7. Claim(s) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kamath et al (US 20240128498 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kamath discloses a lithium ion cell comprising a lithium metal anode that includes a current collector and a lithium metal layer; a cathode having a lithium intercalation material such as lithium cobalt oxide; and a solid-state electrolyte (SSE) having a lithiophilic layer on a surface of the SSE, wherein the lithiophilic layer includes a metal oxide [Abstract; paragraph 0007-0008, 0010, , 0012, 0014-0015, 0027, 0029-0033, 0035-0037, 0041-0042, 0044-0047, 0058].
Regarding claim 2, Kamath teaches that the lithium ion cell is a (anode-free (hostless) cell wherein lithium metal is plated on the current collector during charge of the lithium ion cell to define a plated lithium layer between the current collector and the lithiophilic layer [paragraph 0027, 0029-0030].
Regarding claim 3, Kamath teaches that the lithiophilic layer has a thickness of between 5 Å to 1 μm (0.5 nanometers to 1000 nanometers) [Abstract; paragraph 0014, 0035].
Regarding claim 4, Kamath teaches that the metal oxide may comprise an oxide of one or more metals including Ti, Ni, Zn, Sn, Si and/or Al, such as titanium dioxide, nickel oxide, zinc oxide, tin oxide, silica, or alumina [paragraph 0014].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamath et al (US 20240128498 A1) as applied in claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, Kamath teaches providing a lithiophilic layer on a surface of the solid-state electrolyte (SSE) [paragraph 0005,-0007, 0010]. Although, it is not explicit that the SSE is lithiophobic, however, to prevent the surface of the SSE from lithophobic properties, Kamath teaches lithiophilic layer on the surface of the solid-state electrolyte (SSE) and would have been obvious.
12. Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamath et al (US 20240128498 A1) as applied in claim 1 and further in view of Badding et al (US 20240097196 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Kamath remains silent that the SSE is a garnet-type SSE that includes a composition comprising lithium, lanthanum, oxygen, and one of zirconium, niobium, or tantalum. However, Badding teaches that solid-state batteries (SSBs) (e.g., SS lithium (Li) metal batteries based on inorganic solid-state electrolytes (SSEs) (such as garnet-type SSE)) have attracted much attention due to their high safety, improved energy density, high ionic conductivity, and stability against Li metal. Badding further teaches that the solid-state electrolyte comprises lithium, lanthanum, zirconium, and oxygen [paragraph 0026, 0053]. Therefore, the claim would have been obvious because a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art (KSR v. Teleflex, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)) and an ordinarily skilled artisan would have recognized such a substitution without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success.
13. Claim(s) 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zeng et al (US 20240030453 A1) in view of Kamath et al (US 20240128498 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Zeng discloses a vehicle comprising an anode-free lithium ion battery pack and a propulsion system configured to receive electric power from the lithium ion battery [Abstract; paragraph 0027-0030, 0046]. Zeng remains silent about the details of the lithium ion battery as claimed. However, Kamath discloses a lithium ion cell comprising a lithium metal anode that includes a current collector and a lithium metal layer; a cathode having a lithium intercalation material such as lithium cobalt oxide; and a solid-state electrolyte (SSE) having a lithiophilic layer on a surface of the SSE, wherein the lithiophilic layer includes a metal oxide and wherein lithium metal is plated on the current collector during charge of the lithium ion cell to define a plated lithium layer between the current collector and the lithiophilic layer [Abstract; paragraph 0005-0008, 0010, , 0012, 0014-0015, 0027, 0029-0033, 0035-0037, 0041-0042, 0044-0047, 0058]. Although, it is not explicit that the SSE is lithiophobic, however, to prevent the surface of the SSE from lithophobic properties, Kamath teaches lithiophilic layer on the surface of the solid-state electrolyte (SSE) and would have been obvious.
Therefore, the claim would have been obvious because a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art (KSR v. Teleflex, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)) and an ordinarily skilled artisan would have recognized such a substitution without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 18, Kamath teaches that the lithiophilic layer has a thickness of between 5 Å to 1 μm (0.5 nanometers to 1000 nanometers) [Abstract; paragraph 0014, 0035].
Regarding claim 19, Kamath teaches that the metal oxide may comprise an oxide of one or more metals including Ti, Ni, Zn, Sn, Si and/or Al, such as titanium dioxide, nickel oxide, zinc oxide, tin oxide, silica, or alumina [paragraph 0014].
14. Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zeng et al (US 20240030453 A1) in view of Kamath et al (US 20240128498 A1) as applied in claim 17 and further in view of Badding et al (US 20240097196 A1).
Regarding claim 20, Zeng/Kamath remains silent that the SSE is a garnet-type SSE that includes a composition comprising lithium, lanthanum, oxygen, and one of zirconium, niobium, or tantalum. However, Badding teaches that solid-state batteries (SSBs) (e.g., SS lithium (Li) metal batteries based on inorganic solid-state electrolytes (SSEs) (such as garnet-type SSE)) have attracted much attention due to their high safety, improved energy density, high ionic conductivity, and stability against Li metal. Badding further teaches that the solid-state electrolyte comprises lithium, lanthanum, zirconium, and oxygen [paragraph 0026, 0053]. Therefore, the claim would have been obvious because a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art (KSR v. Teleflex, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)) and an ordinarily skilled artisan would have recognized such a substitution without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUHAMMAD S SIDDIQUEE whose telephone number is (571)270-3719. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Tong Guo can be reached at (571) 272-3066. 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.
/MUHAMMAD S SIDDIQUEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights