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
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/06/2025, are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Status
Claims 1-5 having been previously withdrawn.
Claim 9 has been canceled.
Claims 6-8, 10-14 are examined on the merits in this office action.
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 Gayden et al. (US2021/0193986A1).
As to claim 6, the limitations of claim 6, depositing lithium layers and pressing the layers together are considered to be a product by process limitations and therefore are not given patentable weight, and any process which arrives at the end product of a layered anode, separator and cathode, meets the claimed limitation, and as shown in fig. 4 and paragraph [0049] of Gayden, discloses the final structure and product having an lithium metal anode [0043], separator, cathode [0047].
The product-by-limitations of claim 6 are not given patentable weight since the courts have held that patentability is based on a product itself, even if the prior art product is made by a different process (In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 1985). Moreover, a product-by-process limitation is held to be obvious if the product is similar to a prior art product (In re Brown, 173 USPQ 685, and In re Fessman, 180 USPQ 324). Claim 1 as written does not distinguish the product of the instant application from the product of the prior art.
Claim(s) 7, 8, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henslee et al. (US10,916,803B1, with priority date of December 20, 2019).
As to claim 7, Henslee discloses a lithium battery layer stack (fig. 1 , [C4L30-41] comprising: a cathode current collector (Conductive aluminum foil [C11L34-37]); a cathode on the cathode current collector (cathode casting, [C11L34-37] ); a separator (hybrid electrolyte (40) [C4L30-41])) on the cathode current collector ((20), fig. 1);
an anode layer (30) directly on the separator ((40) fig. 1) and an anode current collector on the anode layer (lithium sputter-coated copper foil. [C7L31-33] Where lithium sputter-coated would provide an anode layer).
wherein the anode layer is a lithium film (as exemplified in the instant specification paragraph [0022], “In the present disclosure, a "lithium film" or "lithium layer" can be understood as a layer, disclosing a “lithium film” and a “lithium layer” are synonymous.), in direct contact with both the anode current collector and the separator ((30) fig.1),
Henslee teaches (the lithium anode comprises a lithium sputter-coated copper foil [C7L31-33], where sputter coated lithium would provide a first sublayer and a second sublayer in direct contact as claimed.)
As to claim 8, the rejection of claim 7 is incorporated, Henslee discloses a first interface between the lithium metal anode layer and the anode current collector (lithium sputter-coated copper foil [C7L31-33]), and a second interface between the lithium metal anode layer and the separator or solid state electrolyte layer as shown in (30) fig. 1. With respect to the interfaces being lithium evaporation interfaces, this limitation is deemed a product by process and the product-by-process limitations of claim 8 are not given patentable weight since the courts have held that patentability is based on a product itself, even if the prior art product is made by a different process (In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 1985). Moreover, a product-by-process limitation is held to be obvious if the product is similar to a prior art product (In re Brown, 173 USPQ 685, and In re Fessman, 180 USPQ 324). Claim 8 as written does not distinguish the product of the instant application from the product of the prior art.
As to claim 10, the rejection of claim 7 is incorporated, Henslee discloses a cathode current collector is an Al foil (conductive aluminum foil substrate [C11L34-37]).
Claim(s) 11- 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henslee et al. (US10,916,803B1, with priority date of December 20, 2019), in view of Seok et al. (US2022/0109143A1, with priority date of February 1, 2019).
As to claim 11, the rejection of claim 7 is incorporated, Henslee discloses anode layer with lithium metal (lithium sputter-coated copper foil [C7L31-33]… lithium metal anode 30 [C7L51-55] Where sputtering provides a layer of lithium metal) .
Seok discloses an anode structure [0073] and further teaches, anode active material may include at least one selected from a lithium metal, a metal alloyable with lithium, a transition metal oxide, a non-transition metal oxide, and a carbon-based material, the metal alloyable with lithium may be Si, Sn, Al, Ge, Pb, Bi, Sb, a Si—Y alloy [0088-0089].
Since Seok teaches the anode layer may be lithium metal without alloys would provide an anode layer with lithium of 100% or as a main component, exemplified in paragraph [0022] of the instant specification a main component to be 90% or more.
Seok further teaches a secondary battery including such an electrode has improved charge-discharge characteristics at high rate [0031].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the application was filed to modify Henslee with the lithium content of Seok to improve the electrode charge-discharge characteristics at high rate.
As to claim 12, the rejection of claim 7 is incorporated, modified Henslee discloses anode layer (lithium sputter-coated copper foil [C7L31-33] with lithium metal [Seok, 0088], and as exemplified in the instant specification paragraph [0022], “In the present disclosure, a "lithium film" or "lithium layer" can be understood as a layer,” disclosing a “lithium film” and a “lithium layer” are synonymous. Since Seok teaches the anode layer (film) may be lithium metal without alloys would provide an anode layer with lithium of 100% or as pure lithium, exemplified in paragraph [0024] of the instant specification pure lithium to be 99% or more.
Claim(s) 13- 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gayden et al. (US2021/0193986A1), in view of Seok et al. (US2022/0109143A1, with priority date of February 1, 2019).
As to claim 13, the rejection of claim 6 is incorporated, Gayden discloses anode layer [0049] but is silent on the anode layer being a lithium metal.
In the same field of endeavor Seok discloses an anode structure [0073] and further teaches, anode active material may include at least one selected from a lithium metal, a metal alloyable with lithium, a transition metal oxide, a non-transition metal oxide, and a carbon-based material, the metal alloyable with lithium may be Si, Sn, Al, Ge, Pb, Bi, Sb, a Si—Y alloy [0088-0089].
Since Seok teaches the anode layer may be lithium metal without alloys would provide an anode layer with lithium of 100% or as a main component, exemplified in paragraph [0022] of the instant specification main component to be 90% or more.
Seok further teaches a secondary battery including such an electrode has improved charge-discharge characteristics at high rate [0031].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the application was filed to modify Gayden with the lithium content of Seok to improve the electrode charge-discharge characteristics at high rate.
As to claim 14, the rejection of claim 6 is incorporated, modified Gayden discloses anode layer [0049] with lithium metal [Seok, 0088], and as exemplified in the instant specification paragraph [0022], “In the present disclosure, a "lithium film" or "lithium layer" can be understood as a layer,” disclosing a “lithium film” and a “lithium layer” are synonymous. Since Seok teaches the anode layer (film) may be lithium metal without alloys would provide an anode layer with lithium of 100% or as pure lithium, exemplified in paragraph [0024] of the instant specification to be 99% or more.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues regarding claim 6, pages 6-7, the process of building an anode structure of Gaydon is different from the claimed process of first depositing an anode material. As discussed above the rejection of claim 6 relies on the limitations of claim 6 being a product by process claim and Gaydon discloses the end product of the claimed lithium anode structure ( lithium titanate (LTO), [0043]) , with a separator and cathode in paragraph [0049] and fig. 4, which meets the limitation.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lee et al. (US2010/0285372A1) Multilayer solid electrolyte for lithium thin film batteries.
Yamamoto et al. (US2005/0147888A1) Copper anode collector with lithium alloys.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 BART A HORNSBY whose telephone number is (313)446-6637. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-6:00 EST.
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, Matthew T Martin can be reached at 571-270-7871. 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.
BART HORNSBY
Examiner
Art Unit 1728
/MATTHEW T MARTIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1728