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.
Claims 1, 2, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Li et al. (WO 2021179220 A1, using US 20230006209 A1 as the English translation), hereinafter Li.
Li teaches a lithium metal secondary battery, in this case a rechargeable [0040] lithium-ion battery [0025], comprising, as required by claims 1 and 7:
a positive electrode, in this case a cathode electrode [0025];
a negative electrode, in this case an anode plate [0026]; and
an electrolyte [0028], wherein
the negative electrode includes a negative electrode current collector 3 and a porous body 1, in this case a porous anode skeleton [0039],
the porous body 1 is placed on a surface of the negative electrode current collector 3, in this case the unsealed surface of the porous body 1 is placed adjacent to the current collector 3 [0022] as also seen in Fig. 1,
the porous body 1 includes an electrically-insulating skeleton, in this case comprising an insulating polymer, such as nylon [0053], which is a polyamide, as required by claim 2,
the electrically-insulating skeleton is contiguous in mesh form, in this case being an interlaced structure, reading on a mesh form, comprising multiple border-sharing pockets, reading on being contiguous, as seen by the structure in Fig. 1,
gaps in the electrically-insulating skeleton form pores [0040], and
lithium ions are dissolved in the electrolyte, in this case through the addition of lithium salts, like LiFSI, LiNO3, or LiPF6 [0074].
Li further teaches a method of charging and discharging the lithium metal secondary battery, as required by claim 7, comprising:
(a) charging a lithium metal secondary battery through deposition of a lithium metal in the pores [0040], as required by claim 7 and also corresponding to a charging reaction of the negative electrode, as required by claim 1; and
(b) discharging the lithium metal secondary battery through dissolution of the lithium metal present in the pores into the electrolyte, in this case taught by the lithium at the anode constantly decreasing during discharging [0040], as required by claim 7 and also corresponding to a discharging reaction of the negative electrode, as required by claim 1.
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.
Claims 5 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li.
Regarding claim 5, Li teaches the lithium metal secondary battery according to claim 1. Li is silent as to the porous body having a porosity from specifically 50 to 80%. However, Li teaches the porous body having a porosity from 20 to 90%. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to select a porosity within the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)
Regarding claim 8, Li teaches the method of charging and discharging a lithium metal secondary battery according to claim 7, wherein
The porous body has a first main face contacting the negative electrode current collector, in this case the current collector side [0041], as seen in Fig. 1, and a second main face located opposite to the first main face, in this case the separator side [0041], and
in the above (a),
the lithium metal starts to be deposited at the first main face, and in a direction heading from the first main face toward the second main face, sequentially from the pores close to the first main face, the lithium metal fills the pores, in this case seen by the lithium metal being induced to accumulate gradually from the current collector side to the separator side during the lithium deposition process [0041].
Li is silent as to the charging completing by the time when the lithium metal reaches the second main face. However, Li teaches inducing gradual accumulation of the lithium metal deposition inside the anode skeleton in order to prevent the lithium metal from preferentially depositing on the surface of the anode skeleton, which would cause volume swelling during cycling [0031]. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the charging of the battery of Li to be considered to be complete when the pores of the anode skeleton are filled, because further charging would cause undesired volume swelling due to forced lithium metal deposition onto the surface of the anode skeleton, instead of inside the skeleton. Further, the deposition is taught to accumulate gradually from the current collector side to the separator side. This means that the last filled pores would be adjacent to the separator side, which is considered to be the second main face. Therefore, the limitation is considered to be met.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Zhang et al. (CN 105789559 B), hereinafter Zhang.
Li teaches the lithium metal secondary battery according to claim 1. Li is silent as to the electrically insulating skeleton including oxide glass. However, Zhang teaches a lithium metal battery negative electrode including a framework material comprising an insulating material (pg. 2, ¶ 5), the insulating material comprising glass fiber and its oxide (pg. 2, ¶ 7).
Li and Zhang are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of electrically insulating negative electrode framework skeletons. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the skeleton of Li with the glass oxide insulating material of the framework of Zhang. Doing so would have improved the mechanical properties of the lithium metal negative electrode, inhibited the growth of dendrites, alleviated the volume expansion of the electrode in the process of deintercalating lithium, and improved the safety performance and cycle life of the lithium metal battery (pg. 2, ¶ 13). Further, the selection of a known material, in this case glass fiber and its oxide, based on its suitability for its intended use, in this case as a negative electrode insulating skeleton, supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Liu et al. (US 20220149353 A1), hereinafter Liu.
Li teaches the lithium metal secondary battery according to claim 1. Li is silent as to a pore size of the porous body. However, Liu teaches a three-dimensional composite metallic lithium negative electrode comprising a three-dimensional polymer framework [0008] with a pore diameter of 10 μm to 800 μm and any sub-ranges therein [0040], as well as an example with a pore size of about 50 μm [0113]. This range lies within the claimed range of 1 μm or more. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)
Li and Liu are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of negative electrode polymer framework skeletons. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the polymer skeleton of Li with the pore size of the polymer framework of Liu. Doing so would have allowed for effective dispersion of current density, which is conducive to improving the lithium deposition, reducing the generation of highly active dendritic lithium, and improving the cycle stability [0113].
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Costello et al. (US 20070054186 A1), hereinafter Costello.
Li teaches the lithium metal secondary battery according to claim 1. Li further teaches the electrolyte including a solute including an imide salt, in this case LiFSI, and a solvent, in this case DOL (dioxolane), DME (dimethyl ether), DMC (dimethyl carbonate), or EMC (ethyl methyl carbonate) [0074]. Li is silent as to the solvent including a hydrofluoroether. However, Costello teaches an electrolyte composition including at least one hydrofluoroether compound [0069], preferably mixed with one or more conventional electrolyte solvents, like 1,3-dioxolane, dimethyl carbonate, or ethyl methyl carbonate [0071].
Li and Costello are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of secondary battery electrolyte compositions. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electrolyte of Li to include at least one hydrofluoroether compound, as taught by Costello. Doing so would have produced an electrolyte with adequate abilities to dissolve fluorine-containing electrolyte salts, when mixing hydrofluoroether compound with conventional electrolyte solvents, and high stabilities with respect to metallic lithium [0044]. Further, the selection of a known material, in this case hydrofluoroether compounds, based on its suitability for its intended use, in this case as an electrolyte solvent, supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUSTIN KENWOOD VAN KIRK whose telephone number is (703)756-4717. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm 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, Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at (571)272-3433. 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.
/DUSTIN VAN KIRK/Examiner, Art Unit 1722
/ANCA EOFF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722
Prosecution Insights