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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-4 and 8-11 in the reply filed on July 15, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 5-7 and 12-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on July 15, 2026.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-2, 8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kim (US Pub. No. 2019/0348668).
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Kim teaches a battery, wherein the battery half-cell including the anode 10 comprises a current collector 11 which can be copper (taken to be the claimed copper foil) (paragraph [0076]; figure 1), a lithium metal thin film layer 12 positioned on both sides of the current collector, and a coating layer 13 (taken to be the claimed capping layer) located on the surface of the lithium metal thin film layer (paragraph [0073]; figure 1), and the lithium metal thin film layer includes a columnar structure extending upward from the current collector (paragraph [0079]).
Regarding claim 2, Kim teaches a range of thickness of the lithium metal thin film layer of more specifically 0.1 to 30 μm (paragraph [0088]), with specific embodiments having a thickness of 20 μm (paragraphs [0201]-[0206]), such embodiments falling within the claimed range.
Regarding claim 8, Kim teaches a battery comprising an anode 10 according to claim 1 as set forth above, a cathode 70, and an electrolyte 80 (paragraphs [0168]-[0170]; figure 5).
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 4 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US Pub. No. 2019/0348668).
Regarding claim 4, Kim teaches a range of thickness of the coating layer 13 of from 2 nm to 2 μm, or 10 nm to 500 nm (paragraph [0094]), the broader range completely encompassing and the narrower range overlapping 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.” MPEP at 2144.05 citing In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use thickness values of the capping layer as claimed because Kim teaches overlapping ranges (paragraph [0094]).
Regarding claim 9, it is extremely well-known and conventional to use a lithium battery to power an electric vehicle, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the battery of Kim to power the electromotor for a vehicle which is moved by an electromotor in order to use a battery with high energy density (see Kim at paragraph [0002]).
Regarding claim 10, Kim teaches that it is preferable that the coating layer is formed uniformly on the entire surface of the lithium metal thin film layer with a thin thickness within the range of the thickness (paragraph [0096]), and as was set forth above, has a thickness in a range of 2 nm to 2 μm, or 10 nm to 500 nm (paragraph [0094]). It is noted that the preferred definition in the specification is that “conformal” has deviations of less than 5%, and ideally of less than 50 nm (see specification at page 4, lines 22-24). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the coating layer have a deviation of less than 5% because Kim teaches that it is preferable that the coating layer is formed uniformly on the entire surface of the lithium metal thin film layer with a thin thickness within the range of the thickness (see Kim at paragraph [0096]).
Claims 1-4, 8-9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herle (US Pub. No. 2019/0088987; of record) in view of Kim (US Pub. No. 2019/0348668).
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Herle teaches a battery, wherein the battery half-cell including the anode has a specific embodiment comprising a copper current collector (taken to be the claimed copper foil) (paragraph [0084]), the anode 110 comprising an anode current collector 160 and an anode film 170 formed on the current collector, where the anode film which can be lithium metal (taken to be the claimed lithium anode layer), and an optional ceramic coating 185 (taken to be the claimed capping layer) located on the surface of the anode film (paragraphs [0043]-[0044]; figure 1). Herle does not specifically disclose that the anode film comprises vertical structure. Kim teaches a battery comprising a lithium metal thin film layer that includes a columnar structure extending upward from the current collector (paragraph [0079]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a lithium film having a columnar structure as taught by Kim in the battery of Herle in order to have a battery with excellent electrochemical characteristics which can be formed in a short time (see Kim at paragraphs [0082]-[0083]).
Regarding claim 2, Herle teaches a specific range of the anode film of from about 1 μm to about 20 μm (paragraph [0045]).
Regarding claim 3, Herle teaches that the ceramic coating can be LLZO or LiPON (paragraph [0052]).
Regarding claim 4, Herle teaches a range of thickness of the ceramic coating of 50 to 100 nm (paragraph [0054]).
Regarding claim 8, Herle teaches an energy storage device 100 (taken to be the claimed battery) comprising an anode 110 according to claim 1 as set forth above, a cathode 120 (paragraph [0039], and an electrolyte (paragraph [0060]).
Regarding claim 9, it is extremely well-known and conventional to use a lithium battery to power an electric vehicle, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the battery of Kim to power the electromotor for a vehicle which is moved by an electromotor as a known transportation use of a battery (see Herle at paragraph [0003]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHILIP N SCHWARTZ whose telephone number is (571)270-1612. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-5:30.
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, Katelyn Smith can be reached at 571-270-5545. 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.
/P.N.S/ Examiner, Art Unit 1749 August 19, 2026
/SEDEF E PAQUETTE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749
Prosecution Insights