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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 14-28 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to non-elected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Claim 11 is withdrawn as being drawn to a non-elected species. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 7 July 2026.
Status of Claims
Claims 11 and 14-28 stand withdrawn. Claims 1-10 and 12-13, as filed 7 July 2026, are examined herein. No new matter is included.
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.
Claims 7-8 and 10 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 7 includes the limitation (emphasis added) “wherein the protective coating includes at least one lithium alloy layer, the at least one lithium alloy layer serving as the lithium metal anode, and wherein the polymer electrolyte layer is deposited on the at least one lithium alloy layer.” Claim 7 is dependent on claim 1, and claim 1 includes the limitation “the anode structure including: … a lithium metal anode arranged on a side of the anode current collector arranged facing the electrolyte material; and a protective coating deposited on a surface of the lithium metal anode and arranged facing the electrolyte material…” It is not clear if the “lithium alloy layer serving as the lithium metal anode” of the protective coating of claim 7 is the same as the “lithium metal anode arranged on a side of the anode current collector”, or if it is a second layer of lithium metal anode. At [0039], a lithium alloy material may be coated onto lithium metal as a protective coating. Therefore the instant claim 7 is interpreted as a lithium alloy layer applied to lithium metal.
Claims 7 and 8 recites the limitation "the polymer electrolyte layer”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation is determined to include a polymer electrolyte layer.
Claim 10 includes the limitation “wherein the infused composite polymer electrolyte comprises at least one of conductive carbon particles, conductive carbon fibers, or ….” This could be ionically conductive carbon (e.g. graphene oxide) or electrically conductive carbon (e.g. carbon nanotubes). The specification does not clarify. (See [0081]) For the purpose of examination, the broadest reasonable interpretation is determined to include electrically and/or ionically conductive carbon.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woo (US 20190074520 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Woo teaches a lithium cell for a lithium metal battery (abstract) comprising:
an electrolyte material; ([0043])
a cathode structure arranged on one side of the electrolyte material, ([0043] positive electrode) the cathode structure including a cathode electrode and a cathode current collector; ([0060] positive electrode mixture slurry and aluminum current collector.)
an anode structure arranged on an opposite side of the electrolyte material from the cathode structure, the anode structure including: ([0043] negative electrode)
an anode current collector; ([0039] negative current collector)
a lithium metal anode arranged on a side of the anode current collector arranged facing the electrolyte material; and ([0036], [0038] lithium foil)
a protective coating deposited on a surface of the lithium metal anode and arranged facing the electrolyte material, ([0041-0042] a protective layer having lithium-ion conductivity is applied to the surface of the lithium metal using thermal vapor deposition, physical vapor deposition, or sputtering. The protective layer suppresses the reaction between an electrolyte and the negative electrode, in order to prevent dendrite formation. At [0055] the material is not particularly limited, as long as it is capable of blocking permeation of an electrolyte.)
While Woo does not explicitly teach wherein the protective coating extends beyond the lithium metal anode and onto the anode current collector to seal both a surface and edge regions of the lithium metal anode from contact with a liquid electrolyte of the electrolyte material. However, because the protective layer suppresses the reaction between an electrolyte and the negative electrode, in order to prevent dendrite formation, a person of ordinary skill would find it desirable to coat the edges of each lithium piece, in order to prevent dendrite formation, therefore rendering obvious the sealing of the edges between adjacent segments.
Regarding claim 2, Woo teaches all of the limitations as set forth above, and Woo further teaches wherein the lithium metal anode is formed into separate segments along the anode current collector, ([0020] lithium metal layer 200 showing lithium metal pieces 20 deposited on current collector 100). Regarding the limitation the protective coating sealing edges of the lithium metal anode segments between adjacent segments of the lithium metal anode, Woo teaches at [0041-0042] a protective layer having lithium-ion conductivity is applied to the surface of the lithium metal using thermal vapor deposition, physical vapor deposition, or sputtering. The protective layer suppresses the reaction between an electrolyte and the negative electrode, in order to prevent dendrite formation. At [0055] the material is not particularly limited, as long as it is capable of blocking permeation of an electrolyte.
Because the protective layer is applied by thermal vapor deposition, physical vapor deposition, or sputtering, the edges of each lithium metal piece will be coated during the process. Further, because the protective layer suppresses the reaction between an electrolyte and the negative electrode, in order to prevent dendrite formation, a person of ordinary skill would find it desirable to coat the edges of each lithium piece, in order to prevent dendrite formation, therefore rendering obvious the sealing of the edges between adjacent segments.
Regarding claim 3, Woo teaches all of the limitations as set forth above, and Woo further teaches wherein the lithium metal anode is formed from a patterned deposition of material rather than from a foil. ([0045])
Regarding claim 5, Woo teaches all of the limitations as set forth above, and Woo further teaches wherein the protective coating is formed by additive manufacturing. ([0041] TVD, PVD or sputtering) Examiner notes that these methods are examples of an additive process.
Regarding claim 13, Woo teaches all of the limitations as set forth above, and Woo further teaches wherein x and y dimensions of the lithium segments can be in a range of 20 µm to 20 mm and space between the segments can be in a range of 10 to 200 µm. Referring to FIG. 1, an electron micrograph shows a lithium patterned area which could be individual lithium metal pieces as shown FIG. 4 or could be a textured lithium surface as shown FIG. 8. Referring to the 500 µm scale marker, each square is about 120 µm in width and each space between square is about 80 µm, which falls within the
PNG
media_image1.png
348
464
media_image1.png
Greyscale
claimed range.
A person of ordinary skill seeking to make a lithium patterned area having individual lithium metal pieces, would be motivated to select dimensions as shown in FIG. 1, because the masking and deposition technology has been shown to be successful with these dimensions, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woo (US 20190074520 A1) as set forth in claim 1, above, and in further view of Lee (US 20170324097 A1).
Regarding claims 4 and 12, Woo teaches all of the limitations as set forth above, and Woo teaches at [0041-0042] the first protective layer, however Woo does not teach wherein the protective coating comprises an outer layer, each layer being of a different coating material.
Lee, in the field of (abstract) protective coatings for lithium metal anodes, teaches ([0044-0046] a protective layer applied to the surface of the lithium metal electrode, for the purpose of preventing side reactions between the lithium metal and the electrolyte, in order to prevent dendritic growth. At [0046], the protective layer has improved strength due to a crosslinked material including a polymerizable oligomer.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated, as of before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to add Lee’s protective coating including crosslinked material to the LiF coated lithium metal of Woo, in order to have a protective coating with the desirable feature of improved strength, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 12, Woo teaches all of the limitations as set forth above, and Woo further teaches wherein the lithium metal anode comprises separate lithium segments arranged in an array pattern on the anode current collector ([0020] lithium metal layer 200 showing lithium metal pieces 20 deposited on current collector 100).
Woo does not explicitly teach wherein the protective coating adheres directly to the anode current collector between the separate lithium segments and extends over and beyond the pattern of the separate lithium segments to seal the surface and the edge regions of the separate lithium segments from contact with the liquid electrolyte of the electrolyte material.
Lee, in the field of (abstract) protective coatings for lithium metal anodes, teaches ([0044-0046] a protective layer applied to the surface of the lithium metal electrode, for the purpose of preventing side reactions between the lithium metal and the electrolyte, in order to prevent dendritic growth. At [0046], the protective layer has improved strength due to a crosslinked material including a polymerizable oligomer.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated, as of before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to add Lee’s protective coating including crosslinked material to the LiF coated lithium metal of Woo, in order to have a protective coating with improved strength, with a reasonable expectation of success.
At [0146-0149], Lee teaches that the polymer solution may be applied to the negative electrode by dip coating, which is taught as one of a finite number of solutions to the problem of applying the polymer solution to the negative electrode.
Examiner notes that because the polymer solution after curing adheres to the lithium metal surfaces of the negative electrode, a person of ordinary skill would also expect that the polymer solution after curing will adhere to the metal current collector.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated, as of before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to select dip coating as the coating method for the negative electrode because as it represents one of a finite number of solutions to the problem of applying the polymer solution, wit a reasonable expectation of success, thus rendering obvious the adhesion of the protective coating to the current collector.
Claim(s) 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woo (US 20190074520 A1) as set forth in claim 1, above, and in further view of Lee (US 20170324097 A1) and White (US 20220396658 A1).
Regarding claims 6 - 8, Woo teaches all of the limitations as set forth above, however Woo does not explicitly teach wherein the protective coating comprises at least one polymer electrolyte layer including: a base polymer material; one or more lithium salts; inorganic filler; dispersant; plasticizer; auxiliary electrolyte; an initiator; and a rheology modifier.
Lee, in the field of (abstract) protective coatings for lithium metal anodes, teaches ([0044-0046] a protective layer including a particle applied to the surface of the lithium metal electrode, for the purpose of preventing side reactions between the lithium metal and the electrolyte, in order to prevent dendritic growth. At [0046], the protective layer has improved strength due to a crosslinked material including a polymerizable oligomer. Lee further teaches:
a base polymer material; ([0046] “a crosslinked material including a polymerizable oligomer”)
one or more lithium salts; ([0083-0084] the protective layer may include a liquid electrolyte … the liquid electrolyte may include a lithium salt., [0093] improved ionic conductivity)
inorganic filler; ([0177] lithium nitride) Examiner notes that because the lithium nitride occupies volume in the protective coating, it can be considered a filler material. Lithium nitride represents one of a finite number of solutions to the problem of selecting a particle for the protective layer, therefore the selection of lithium nitride is rendered obvious.
auxiliary electrolyte; ([0177] lithium nitride)
an initiator; ([0154] a thermopolymerization initator may be used to facilitate crosslinking)
a rheology modifier ([0080-0081] polyacrylate particles may be used. At [0082], mechanical strength of the protective layer is improved.)
At [0211], a protective coating as taught by Lee chemically improves a deposition / dissolution process of lithium ions to thereby improve deposition morphology of the lithium metal electrode and consequently increases deposition density on the surface of the lithium metal electrode and lithium ion mobility. As a result, the lithium metal battery including the protective layer may have improved rate capability and lifetime characteristics.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated, as of before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to add Lee’s protective coating including crosslinked material to the LiF coated lithium metal of Woo, in order to have a protective coating with improved strength and ionic conductivity, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Woo and Lee do not explicitly teach the protective coating including a dispersant and a plasticizer.
White, in the field of (abstract) polymerizable coatings having organic filler and suitable for use in energy storage applications, discloses at [0114] that “polymeric materials …may include one or more
dispersants. Generally, the dispersants may act to stabilize the inorganic filler particles in the composition - without dispersant, the particles may aggregate, thus adversely affecting the benefit of the particles in the composition.”
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated, as of before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to add a dispersant as suggested by White to the protective coating of modified Woo, with a reasonable expectation of successfully preventing undesirable particle aggregation.
At [0119] “A plasticizer is often added to a polymeric material to make the polymeric material more flexible. … It is the lowering of the glass transition temperature that usually leads to the
increased flexibility, increased elongation, and increased workability.”
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that flexibility and workability are desirable in protective coatings for lithium metal anodes, and therefore would have been motivated to add a plasticizer as suggested by White to the protective coating of modified Woo, with a reasonable expectation of successfully improving flexibility and workability of the negative anode.
Examiner notes that while the polymer chemistry of White’s protective coating may not be exactly identical to the chemistry of Lee’s protective coating, White is cited to teach the general concepts of adding dispersant and of adding plasticizer to any polymer composition having a filler particle, and therefore the teachings of White are relevant to the protective coating of modified Woo.
Woo in view of Lee and White also renders obvious the limitation of claim 7, wherein the polymer electrolyte layer is deposited on the at least one lithium alloy layer. Noting that the LiF coating of Woo can be considered a ceramic coating, Woo in view of Lee and White also renders obvious the limitation of claim 8, wherein the protective coating includes at least one ceramic layer, the at least one ceramic layer being deposited on the lithium metal anode, wherein the polymer electrolyte layer is deposited on the at least one ceramic layer.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woo (US 20190074520 A1) as set forth in claim 1, above, and in further view of Liao (US 20160072132 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Woo teaches all of the limitations as set forth above, including at [0055] a protective coating where the material is not particularly limited, as long as it is capable of blocking permeation of an electrolyte. However, Woo does not explicitly teach that the coating comprises lithium nitride and does not teach wherein the protective coating comprises porous lithium nitride infused with composite polymer electrolyte.
Liao, in the field of (abstract) lithium-ion conducting protective layers, discloses (FIG. 2 and [0078]) electrode 200 having protective coating layer 206. At [0045] the lithium-ion conductive layer may include lithium nitride; at [0049] the lithium ion conductive layer may be substantially porous; and at [0049] the pores are both interparticle pores and intraparticle pores. At [0046] it is desirable for the layer to be permeable to lithium ions but provide a physical barrier to other non-lithium ions. At [0059] “pores of the lithium-ion-conductive layer are filled with an electrolyte that is … a solid polymer….”
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated, as of before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to modify the protective coating of Woo by selecting lithium nitride having interparticle pores and intraparticle pores filled with electrolyte as taught by Liao, with a reasonable expectation of successfully improving the desirable feature of lithium-ion conductivity.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woo (US 20190074520 A1) in view of Liao (US 20160072132 A1), as set forth in claim 9 above, and in further view Subbaraman (US 20180358659 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Woo in view of Liao teaches all of the limitations as set forth above, however Woo does not explicitly teach wherein the infused composite polymer electrolyte comprises at least one of conductive carbon particles, conductive carbon fibers, or metallic powder. Woo teaches at [0041-0042] that the protective layer may be formed by depositing carbon on the lithium metal as a protective layer, which will allow lithium ions to pass through but suppress an increase in internal resistance of the battery. However, this does not explicitly teach conductive carbon particles.
Subbaraman, in the field of (abstract) protective layers for lithium-ion batteries, discloses (FIG. 1) protective layers 120 and 125. At [0014] ad-layer 120 allows lithium-ion access to anode current collector 110 while blocking access to solvent molecules, resulting in improved coulombic efficiency. “Materials for the first ad- layer 120 include … amorphous carbon coatings (e.g., carbon sheets, carbon particles (e.g., spherical micro-beads ), … graphene oxide films (e.g., graphene oxide and / or reduced graphene oxide)… lithium nitride, … and combinations thereof.”)
A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to add the carbon particles of Subbaraman to the protective coating of modified Woo, with a reasonable expectation of successfully blocking access to solvent molecules, resulting in improved coulombic efficiency.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CLAIRE A RUTISER whose telephone number is (571)272-1969. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM 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, Jonathan Leong can be reached at 571-270-1292. 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.
CLAIRE A. RUTISER
Examiner
Art Unit 1751
/C.A.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/Haroon S. Sheikh/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1751
Prosecution Insights