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 § 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4-6, 13-15, and 20 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.
Claims 4 and 13 each recite “wherein a portion of an electrolyte applied to the lithium metal composite anode interfaces with a surface of the lithium metal composite anode at a contact angle less than ninety (90) degrees”. As written, it is not entirely clear if the electrolyte is meant to be positively required as a structure of or attached to the anode. However, the limitation appears to indicate a property of the claimed anode when an electrolyte is applied, and not a positive recitation of the electrolyte as part of the claimed lithium metal composite anode. If the claim is intended to be interpreted as claiming the combination of the anode and the electrolyte layer, it is suggested to reword the claim to state “further including” prior to the recitation of “a portion” rather than “wherein” and insert “and” before “interfaces”. If the limitation is intended to be a recitation of a property, it is suggested to add “when” before “a portion”. Claims 5, 6, 14 and 15 are included as they depend from claims 4 and 13.
Regarding claim 20, the phrase "or the like" renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "or the like"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16, 17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2018/0123114 (Cho) (cited on IDS filed 02/13/2024).
Regarding claims 1 and 10, Cho discloses a method of forming a lithium metal anode comprising a lithium metal and adding a hydrophilic material in the form of a coating which is considered adhering the hydrophilic matter to the portion of lithium metal [0033, 0077, claim 8].
Regarding claims 2 and 11, Figure 7 illustrates the hydrophilic property of the nanomaterial coating including a nitrogen doped graphene oxide layer which are well wet and contrast with a hydrophobic property of titania nanopowder [0033].
Regarding claims 4 and 13, Cho discloses the hydrophilic property as described in [0033] and Figure 7 for a nitrogen-doped graphene oxide coated layer and describes it as “well wet”. A hydrophilic surface which is well wet is considered to inherently have a contact angle less than 90 degrees as this is generally understood to be the meaning of hydrophilic. Applicant’s instant specification at [0033] states that when applied to the portion of the lithium metal, the hydrophilic matter can cause a liquid (e.g. liquid electrolyte, water, polymer electrolytes with plasticizer etc.) to form a contact angle of less than 90 degrees on the surface of the lithium metal composite. Further, the instant specification at [0037] states that a low contact angle is associated with a hydrophilic surface and is indicative of a surface’s good wettability. Thus, the well-wet hydrophilic surface of Cho is considered to mee the required contact angle. Further, Cho discloses that four kinds of electrolytes were used and include carbonate solutions (carbonate based liquid electrolyte) and ether-based electrolytic liquid solutions.
Regarding claims 7 and 16, Cho discloses the film of graphene may be applied by dip coating, spray coating, spin coating, inkjet coating, doctor blading, etc. [0074].
Regarding claims 8 and 17, Cho discloses lithium metal anode [0045, 0065, 0072, 0086] which is considered to be a disclosure of pure lithium as no express disclosure of additional materials are present. Alternatively, if other materials are present with the lithium, it is considered a lithium composite.
Regarding claims 19 and 20, Cho discloses a demonstration of the anode with a cathode and carbonate-based electrolyte (separator) [0042], and discloses a lithium metal battery comprising the disclosed lithium metal anode, a cathode and an electrolyte (separator) therebetween [0054].
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.
Claims 3, 9, 12, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0123114 (Cho) in view of Tao, “A surface chemistry approach to tailor the hydrophilicity and lithiophilicity of carbon films for hosting high-performance metal anodes” (both cited on IDS filed 02/13/2024).
Cho discloses a lithium anode as discussed above but does not disclose chemical groups or embedding.
Tao discloses forming lithium metal anodes to enable stable Li metal batteries using a carbon scaffold formed of numerous interwoven nanofibers. The scaffold is immersed in ammonia solution and provides an ammoniated scaffold. The ammoniated scaffold is then placed on a surface of molten and the molten Li climbs and is uniformly distributed into the carbon scaffold due to the improved wettability (pages 6-7). Providing the ammoniated carbon improves the wettability of the carbon scaffold and allows for the uniform distribution of the carbon in the lithium. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify the surface of the carbon of Cho to improve the wettability thereof for interaction with Li and provide large binding energy toward the Li (page 7 of Tao).
Regarding the dispersion and embedding, Tao discloses a scaffold comprising interwoven nanofibers (considered particles) and the molten lithium uniformly infiltrates the carbon scaffold to provide an anode that delivers higher capacity due to lithiophilic (ammoniated) carbon and unique microstructure (Tao conclusion). It would have been obvious to combine the hydrophilic matter of Tao which is dispersed and embedded throughout the lithium metal disclosed by Tao in the anode of Cho to provide the benefits disclosed by Tao such as higher capacity.
Claims 6 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0123114 (Cho) (cited on IDS filed 02/13/2024) in view of US 2022/0093969 (Ma).
Cho discloses electrolytes but does not disclose a polymer-based electrolyte comprising a plasticizer. Ma discloses an electrolyte comprising a polymer-based electrolyte and a plasticizer (abstract) to bond the anode to a separator. Ma further discloses a cathode, liquid electrolyte (214) which is located inside the separator (212) [0039, Figure 2] and polymer electrolyte lamination layer (216). The polymer electrolyte lamination layer provides significantly less swell than anodes without the lamination layer [0034]. It would have been obvious to provide a polymer-based electrolyte with a plasticizer as disclosed by Ma as the electrolyte in Cho to provide less swell in the anode.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER C MCNEIL whose telephone number is (571)272-1540. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Tong Guo can be reached at 5712723066. 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.
JENNIFER C. MCNEIL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1723
/Jennifer McNeil/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights