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 § 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) 1, 3-7, 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sachdev et. al. (US 2023/0140811), hereafter referred to as “Sachdev”, in view of Kim et. al. (US 11,495,783), hereafter referred to as “Kim” as evidenced by Xu et al. (US2019/0299263), hereinafter referred to as Xu.
Re Claim 1, Sachdev discloses a method for producing (“methods of making a wide metal sheet” [0002]) a low roughness lithium metal material anode (“a lithium metal electrode” [0023]) via multiple compressions comprising:
compressing, by a first rolling mill unit (pair of rollers 1142, see Fig. 10 illustrated below) of a rolling mill system, a lithium metal (“the metal comprises lithium” [0019]) material (sheet precursor 800, 1140) having an initial material thickness (first thickness 308) and initial material surface roughness (the sheet precursor of Sachdev inherently has an initial surface roughness as all materials have a surface roughness) into a compressed lithium metal material having a first compressed material thickness (second thickness 910), wherein the first compressed material thickness is less than the initial material thickness (The second thickness is less than the first thickness" [0004,0023]); and
compressing, by the first rolling mill unit or one or more second rolling mill units (pair of rollers 1142, see Fig. 10 illustrated below) of the rolling mill system, the compressed lithium metal material one or more additional times into a further compressed lithium metal material having a final compressed material thickness and a final material surface roughness (“each pair of rollers 1142 may facilitate further reduction in thickness and/or roughness of the sheet precursor 1140" [0083]), wherein the final compressed material thickness having a value at or between 5 micrometers and 200 micrometers ("The second thickness 910 may be less than or equal to about 100 µm" [0074]) and is less than the initial compressed material thickness (“The second thickness is less than the first thickness" [0004,0023]) and wherein the final material surface roughness is smoother than the initial material surface roughness (“the use of multiple sequential pairs of rollers that progressively decrease in roughness." [0076]).
Sachdev does not explicitly disclose that the final material surface roughness is characterized by an average roughness (Ra) value of less than or equal to 1.0 micrometers and a maximum roughness (Rz) value of less than or equal to 5.0 micrometers or that the further compressed lithium metal material exhibits a reduction in the number of grains, as compared to the lithium metal material and compressed lithium metal material, after being compressed by one or more of the first rolling mill unit and the one or more second rolling mill units.
Kim teaches that a maximum roughness value of less than or equal to 5.0 micrometers (“The inputted surface roughness value Rz of the electrode may be 3 μm or less, preferably, 2 μm or less. That is, when the inputted surface roughness value Rz of the electrode is 3 μm or more, there is a problem that the performance of the finished electrode is significantly deteriorated. Thus, the inputted surface roughness value Rz of the electrode may be 3 μm or less, preferably, 2 μm or less to prevent the quality of the electrode from being deteriorated” [0073] and the experimental data on Figs. 4b and 5b show that either of the rolls taught by Kim produce electrodes with a maximum roughness value greater than 5um) in order to improve electrode performance (“when the inputted surface roughness value Rz of the electrode is 3 μm or more, there is a problem that the performance of the finished electrode is significantly deteriorated” [0073]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sachdev to incorporate the teachings of Kim by configuring the rolls to create a surface roughness value of less than 3μm in order to improve electrode performance. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized a reasonable expectation of success.
Kim teaches that the roughness of the roller correlates to the end roughness of the electrode (“When the electrode is rolled by using the rolling roller of which the surface roughness increases, a surface roughness of the electrode may be deteriorated to continuously produce abnormal electrodes” [0006]). The experimental data from Fig. 3 shows that the roll with a roughness of 1 um produces a rougher electrode than the roll with a roughness of 0.4 um. The less rough the roll is, the less rough the end product electrode is.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sachdev, in view of Kim, to incorporate the further teachings of Kim by having the first rolling mill unit use a rougher roll, such as the roll with a surface roughness of 1 micrometer, and having the second rolling mill unit use a less rough roll, such as the roll with a surface roughness of 0.4 micrometers, in order to gradually reduce the roughness of the metal sheet and have a final material surface with an average roughness of less than 1 um. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized a reasonable expectation of success and would have applied the principle that the surface roughness of the roller impacts the surface roughness of the electrode as taught by Kim.
PNG
media_image1.png
923
1365
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 10 of Sachdev, illustrated
Sachdev, in view of Kim, fail to explicitly disclose that the further compressed lithium metal material exhibits a reduction in the number of grains, as compared to the lithium metal material and compressed lithium metal material, after being compressed by one or more of the first rolling mill unit and the one or more second rolling mill units. However, the method disclosed by Sachdev, in view of Kim, would inherently cause the further compressed lithium metal material to exhibit a reduction in the number of grains, as compared to the lithium metal material and compressed lithium metal material, as evidenced by Xu. Xu teaches that the friction between the rollers and metal sheet raises the temperature of the metal sheet, causing grain growth (“the deformation heat due to deformation and frictional heat generated by the contact between rolled piece and roller will cause a substantial increase in the actual temperature of the rolled piece, which may induce dynamic recrystallization and grain growth” [0012]). As the metal sheet in Sachdev, in view of Kim, contacts the first and then the second rolling mill, more energy is imparted to the sheet, causing grain growth and a corresponding reduction in the number of grains.
This finding of inherency is further supported by applicant’s specification which states that the use of multiple rollers causes a reduction in the number of lithium metal grains (“While lithium metal anode manufacturers typically use a single roll for compressing lithium metal to a target thickness, the disclosed subject matter is configured to produce the target thickness at using gradual and/or incremental compression steps that are expected to result in a smoother material surface and the reduction in the number of grains in the lithium metal material” Pg. 11, Lines 6-11). As the method disclosed by Sachdev, in view of Kim, involves multiple, incremental compressions, the method will result in the further compressed lithium metal material exhibiting a reduction in the number of grains, as compared to the lithium metal material and compressed lithium metal material.
Re Claim 3, Sachdev in view of Kim discloses the method according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above) and Sachdev further discloses that the rolling mill system comprises the one or more second rolling mill units (pair of rollers 1142) and lithium metal material is introduced to the first rolling mill unit and the one or more second rolling mill units of the rolling mill system in a single mechanical direction via a single pass (see Fig. 10, illustrated above).
Re Claim 4, Sachdev in view of Kim discloses the method according to claim 3 (see rejection of claim 3 above) and Sachdev further discloses that wherein the lithium metal material is introduced to the rolling mill system without folding the lithium metal material and/or without introducing the lithium material in a bi-directional manner (the method as described in Sachdev does not fold the metal sheet nor introduce it in a bidirectional manner).
Re Claim 5, Sachdev in view of Kim discloses the method according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above) and Sachdev further discloses that the average roughness value and maximum roughness value exhibited by the further compressed lithium metal material are both reduced by each compression performed by the first rolling mill unit and/or the one or more second rolling mill units. (“the use of multiple sequential pairs of rollers that progressively decrease in roughness." [0076])
Re Claim 6, Sachdev in view of Kim discloses the method according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above) and Sachdev further discloses that the first rolling mill unit and/or the one or more second rolling mill units is a tandem rolling mill device (pair of rollers 1142).
Re Claim 7, Sachdev in view of Kim discloses the method according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above) and Sachdev further discloses that the lithium metal material is a lithium metal workpiece and/or at least a portion of lithium metal foil ("the metal sheet 900 may be a metal foil" [0077]).
Re Claim 12, Sachdev in view of Kim discloses the method according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above) and Sachdev further discloses further comprising manufacturing a lithium metal anode from the further compressed lithium metal material ("The individual sheets may be used as electrodes (e.g., a lithium metal electrode)." [0077] and "In one example, a negative electrode includes metallic lithium” [0051]).
Re Claim 13, Sachdev in view of Kim discloses the method according to claim 12 (see rejection of claim 12 above) and Sachdev further discloses that the lithium metal anode is configured for use in a lithium-ion battery, a lithium sulfur battery, a lithium air battery, or a solid-state battery ("The lithium-ion battery may be a lithium-metal battery or cell." [0051]).
Re Claim 14, Sachdev discloses a method for controlling a compression rate of lithium metal material comprising: introducing a lithium metal material (“the metal comprises lithium” [0019]) having an initial material thickness (materials inherently have a thickness) and initial material surface roughness (the sheet precursor of Sachdev inherently has an initial surface roughness as all materials have a surface roughness) into a first rolling mill unit (pair of rollers 1142) of a rolling mill system (see Fig. 10 illustrated above); compressing, by the first rolling mill unit (pair of rollers 1142), the lithium metal material (“the metal comprises lithium” [0019]) into a compressed lithium metal material having a first compressed material thickness (first thickness 308) and first compressed material surface roughness (materials inherently have a roughness), introducing the compressed lithium metal material into either i) the first rolling mill again or ii) one or more second rolling mill unit of the rolling mill system that is positioned in series with the first rolling mill unit (pair of rollers 1142, see Fig. 10 illustrated above); and compressing, by the first rolling mill unit or the one or more second rolling mill units (pair of rollers 1142, see Fig. 10 illustrated below), the compressed lithium metal material one or more additional times into a further compressed lithium metal material having a final compressed material thickness (second thickness 910), and a final material surface roughness (“each pair of rollers 1142 may facilitate further reduction in thickness and/or roughness of the sheet precursor 1140" [0083]), wherein the final compressed material thickness having a value at or between 5 micrometers and 200 micrometers ("The second thickness 910 may be less than or equal to about 100 µm" [0074]) and is less than the initial compressed material thickness (“The second thickness is less than the first thickness" [0004,0023], and ) and wherein the final material surface roughness is smoother than the initial material surface roughness (“the use of multiple sequential pairs of rollers that progressively decrease in roughness." [0076]).
Sachdev does not explicitly disclose that the final material surface roughness is characterized by an average roughness (Ra) value of less than or equal to 1.0 micrometers and a maximum roughness (Rz) value of less than or equal to 5.0 micrometers or that the further compressed lithium metal material exhibits a reduction in the number of grains, as compared to the lithium metal material and compressed lithium metal material, after being compressed by one or more of the first rolling mill unit and the one or more second rolling mill units.
Kim teaches that a maximum roughness value of less than or equal to 5.0 micrometers (“The inputted surface roughness value Rz of the electrode may be 3 μm or less, preferably, 2 μm or less. That is, when the inputted surface roughness value Rz of the electrode is 3 μm or more, there is a problem that the performance of the finished electrode is significantly deteriorated. Thus, the inputted surface roughness value Rz of the electrode may be 3 μm or less, preferably, 2 μm or less to prevent the quality of the electrode from being deteriorated” [0073] and the experimental data on Figs. 4b and 5b show that either of the rolls taught by Kim produce electrodes with a maximum roughness value greater than 5um) in order to improve electrode performance (“when the inputted surface roughness value Rz of the electrode is 3 μm or more, there is a problem that the performance of the finished electrode is significantly deteriorated” [0073]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sachdev to incorporate the teachings of Kim by configuring the rolls to create a surface roughness value of less than 3mm in order to improve electrode performance. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized a reasonable expectation of success.
Kim teaches that the roughness of the roller correlates to the end roughness of the electrode (“When the electrode is rolled by using the rolling roller of which the surface roughness increases, a surface roughness of the electrode may be deteriorated to continuously produce abnormal electrodes” [0006]). The experimental data from Fig. 3 shows that the roll with a roughness of 1 um produces a rougher electrode than the roll with a roughness of 0.4 um. The less rough the roll is, the less rough the end product electrode is.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sachdev, in view of Kim, to incorporate the further teachings of Kim by having the first rolling mill unit use a rougher roll, such as the roll with a surface roughness of 1 micrometer, and having the second rolling mill unit use a less rough roll, such as the roll with a surface roughness of 0.4 micrometers, in order to gradually reduce the roughness of the metal sheet and have a final material surface with an average roughness of less than 1 um. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized a reasonable expectation of success and would have applied the principle that the surface roughness of the roller impacts the surface roughness of the electrode as taught by Kim.
PNG
media_image1.png
923
1365
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 10 of Sachdev, illustrated
Sachdev, in view of Kim, fail to explicitly disclose that the further compressed lithium metal material exhibits a reduction in the number of grains, as compared to the lithium metal material and compressed lithium metal material, after being compressed by one or more of the first rolling mill unit and the one or more second rolling mill units. However, the method disclosed by Sachdev, in view of Kim, would inherently cause the further compressed lithium metal material to exhibit a reduction in the number of grains, as compared to the lithium metal material and compressed lithium metal material, as evidenced by Xu. Xu teaches that the friction between the rollers and metal sheet raises the temperature of the metal sheet, causing grain growth (“the deformation heat due to deformation and frictional heat generated by the contact between rolled piece and roller will cause a substantial increase in the actual temperature of the rolled piece, which may induce dynamic recrystallization and grain growth” [0012]). As the metal sheet in Sachdev, in view of Kim, contacts the first and then the second rolling mill, more energy is imparted to the sheet, causing grain growth and a corresponding reduction in the number of grains.
This finding of inherency is further supported by applicant’s specification which states that the use of multiple rollers causes a reduction in the number of lithium metal grains (“While lithium metal anode manufacturers typically use a single roll for compressing lithium metal to a target thickness, the disclosed subject matter is configured to produce the target thickness at using gradual and/or incremental compression steps that are expected to result in a smoother material surface and the reduction in the number of grains in the lithium metal material” Pg. 11, Lines 6-11). As the method disclosed by Sachdev, in view of Kim, involves multiple, incremental compressions, the method will result in the further compressed lithium metal material exhibiting a reduction in the number of grains, as compared to the lithium metal material and compressed lithium metal material.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sachdev (US 2023/0140811) in view of Kim (US 11,495,783) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hagerman et. al (US 4,474,845), hereafter referred to as “Hagerman”.
Re Claim 2, Sachdev, in view of Kim, disclose the method of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), but fail to disclose that the lithium metal material is repeatedly introduced to the first rolling mill unit in a one-way mechanical direction via multiple passes.
Hagerman teaches that the lithium metal material is repeatedly introduced to the first rolling mill unit in a one-way mechanical direction via multiple passes (“a method in which the workpiece is fed between compacting rollers or other compacting means a plurality of times with the same lateral orientation (i.e., in the same direction) on each pass” Col. 6, Lines 43-47).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sachdev in view of Kim to incorporate the teachings of Hagerman to repeatedly introduce the material to the first rolling mill unit for the purpose of saving cost by only using one rolling unit.
Claim(s) 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sachdev (US 2023/0140811) in view of Kim (US 11,495,783) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Olsen et al. (US 5,616,366), hereafter referred to as “Olsen”.
Re Claim 9, Sachdev in view of Kim discloses the method according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above) and Sachdev further discloses that the first rolling mill unit and the one or more second rolling mill units are positioned in series (see Fig. 10, illustrated above), but fails to explicitly disclose that the rolling mill units are configured with incrementally decreasing rolling gap sizes such that the lithium metal material is incrementally compressed by the rolling mill system; however, Sachdev discloses each pair of rollers facilitating further reduction in thickness and/or roughness (“each pair of rollers 1142 may facilitate further reduction in thickness and/or roughness of the sheet precursor 1140" [0083]),.
Olsen teaches that rolling mill units are configured (“The roller 126 is mounted on a support 134 which permits adjustment of the roller 126 with respect to the substrate 114, spools 112, 120 and roller 125” Col. 11, Lines 9-11) with rolling gap sizes such that the lithium metal material is compressed by the rolling mill system (“by positioning between rollers with a known gap to define a constant thickness” Col. 4, Lines 9-11).
Sachdev in view of Kim discloses a device that contains every element of the claimed invention except for explicitly disclosing that the incremental compression of the rolling mill system is accomplished by incrementally decreasing rolling gap sizes. Olsen discloses a configuration that adjusts the gap between the rollers to compress the lithium metal sheet and thereby define the sheet’s thickness. Adjusting the gap between the rollers to define the thickness of the metal sheet was known in the art. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added the support of Olsen to the rolling mill units of Sachdev in view of Kim to adjust the gap between the rollers to apply compression and incrementally decrease the thickness of the lithium metal.
Re Claim 10, Sachdev in view of Kim in further view of Olsen discloses the method according to claim 9 (see rejection of claim 9 above) and Sachdev in view of Kim in further view of Olsen further discloses that the compression rate applied to the lithium metal material is controlled by incrementally decreasing the rolling gap sizes associated with working roller components of the first rolling mill unit and/or the one or more second rolling mill units (Changing the size of the roller gap inherently changes the amount of compressive force/compression rate).
Re Claim 11, Sachdev in view of Kim in further view of Olsen discloses the method according to claim 10 (see rejection of claim 10 above) and Sachdev in view of Kim in further view of Olsen further discloses that that a rolling gap sizes formed by the positioning of an upper roller component and a lower working roller component of the first rolling mill unit and/or the one or more second rolling mill unit is adjusted to incrementally control the compression rate applied to the lithium metal material. (Changing the size of the roller gap inherently changes the amount of compressive force/compression rate)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pgs. 7-8, filed August 6th, 2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 8, the further limitations of which have been amended into claims 1 and 14, under Sachdev, in view of Kim and Honma, have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claim 1 under Sachdev, in view of Kim and Honma, has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Sachdev, in view of Kim.
Applicant’s amendments around the claim objections and 112 rejections are welcomed and all claim objections and rejections under 35 USC 112 (b) are withdrawn.
Applicant’s other arguments filed August 6th, 2026 were responded to in the Advisory Action mailed August 31st, 2026.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM D DICKSTEIN whose telephone number is (571) 272-1847. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am to 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, Christopher Templeton can be reached at (571) 270-1477. 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.
/W.D.D./Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3725
/BOBBY YEONJIN KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3725
Prosecution Insights