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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-23, as filed 20 March 2024, are examined herein. No new matter is included.
Objections
Claims 20 and 21 are objected to for being duplications of claims 10 and 11. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 10-11, and 20-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chae’274 (US 20210135274 A1) in view of Chae ‘940 (US 20210043940 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Chae‘274 explicitly teaches a prelithiation apparatus and process where a sacrificial substrate (support 2310 / lithium roll) carrying a patterned lithium film 2320 contacts an electrolyte-impregnated negative electrode 120 (anode material) to prelithiate the anode via electrochemical potential difference (0 V vs. 3 V) in an electrolyte [para. 0013-0026, 0068, 0101-104, 0124; FIG. 9–12].
To the extent that Chae’274 conducts prelithiation in a roll-to-roll contact path, Chae’940 explicitly teaches performing the contacting and prelithiation of an anode host with a patterned lithium donor directly inside an assembled electrochemical cell/battery housing upon electrolyte injection [0050,0075,0080].
A person of ordinary skill would find it obvious to carry out the prelithiation contacting step of Chae’274 directly inside an electrochemical cell housing as taught by Chae’940 to streamline production, eliminate separate washing/drying baths, and protect the highly sensitive prelithiated anode from moisture/ambient air degradation prior to final sealing.
Regarding claims 2 and 19, Chae’274 in view of Chae’940 teaches all of the limitations as set forth above, and Chae’274 further teaches [0114] wherein the anode material may be Si, SiOx, or graphite. These candidates are within the scope of the claimed list of alternatives.
Regarding claim 3, Chae’274 in view of Chae’940 teaches all of the limitations as set forth above. Regarding the limitation “wherein the substrate surface containing patterned lithium was prepared by forming a layered sheet from a protective material, lithium-containing foil, and a substrate material, wherein the protective material is in contact with one side of the lithium-containing foil, and a substrate surface of the substrate material is in contact with the other side of the lithium-containing foil; placing the layered sheet in a patterning device, subjecting the layered sheet to patterning by the patterning device, forming a shaped layered sheet and removing the shaped layered sheet from the patterning device; and removing the protective material and the lithium-containing foil from the substrate surface of the substrate material, to obtain a substrate material comprising the substrate surface containing patterned lithium”, Chae’274 discloses patterned lithium on a support, but does not explicitly teach the multi-step mechanical sequence: forming a layered sheet from a protective material, lithium foil, and substrate; placing it in a patterning device; patterning; and peeling/removing the protective material and foil.
Chae’940 explicitly teaches the exact mechanical sequence: laminating a lithium foil 210 to a polymer release film (protective material) 200 on an underlying substrate/electrode 100/110, passing the layered stack through a roll press (patterning device) under pressure (step S1), and peeling off the polymer release film (step e) to leave the patterned lithium adhered to the substrate (FIG. 1, [0016], [0036]–[0040], [0074]).
A person of ordinary skill would find it obvious to use the protective film stamping and peeling method of Chae’940 to form the patterned lithium substrate of Chae’274. Metallic lithium is soft, tacky, and fragile; interposing a protective polymer release film during mechanical roll-pressing prevents the lithium from tearing, adhering to, or fouling the press tooling, while enabling clean mechanical transfer of defined lithium patterns onto the substrate surface.
Regarding claims 4 and 13, Chae‘274 in view of Chae‘940 teaches all of the limitations as set forth above, and Chae ‘274 further teaches wherein the lithium-containing foil is lithium metal foil. ([0124])
Regarding claim 5 and 14, Chae‘274 in view of Chae‘940, teaches all of the limitations as set forth above, and Chae’274 appears to be silent on the thickness of the lithium foil. Chae ‘940 teaches at [0074] the use of foil having a thickness of 40µm, which falls within the claimed range of 30 µm to about 200 µm. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use the 40µm film of Chae’940 for the process of modified Chae’274, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 8, 9, 17, and 18, Chae‘274 in view of Chae‘940, teaches all of the limitations as set forth above. Chae’274 does not explicitly teach the protective material film. Chae ‘940 teaches [0074] the use of a releasable PET film. (e.g. “the protective material is a plastic film.”) A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select the releasable film of Chae’940 for the process of modified Chae’274, with a reasonable expectation of successfully releasing the film.
Regarding claims 10, 11, 20, and 21, Chae’274 in view of Chae’940 teaches all of the limitations as set forth above, and Chae’274 teaches [0063-0064] the current collector is a copper thin plate, for example a foil shape.
Regarding claim 12, Chae ‘274 teaches (abstract) a process for prelithiating an anode material.
Regarding the limitation “wherein the substrate surface containing patterned lithium was prepared by forming a layered sheet from a protective material, lithium-containing foil, and a substrate material, wherein the protective material is in contact with one side of the lithium-containing foil, and a substrate surface of the substrate material is in contact with the other side of the lithium-containing foil; placing the layered sheet in a patterning device, subjecting the layered sheet to patterning by the patterning device, forming a shaped layered sheet and removing the shaped layered sheet from the patterning device; and removing the protective material and the lithium-containing foil from the substrate surface of the substrate material, to obtain a substrate material comprising the substrate
surface containing patterned lithium”, Chae’274 discloses patterned lithium on a support, but does not explicitly teach the multi-step mechanical sequence: forming a layered sheet from a protective material, lithium foil, and substrate; placing it in a patterning device; patterning; and peeling/removing the protective material and foil.
Chae’940 explicitly teaches the exact mechanical sequence: laminating a lithium foil 210 to a polymer release film (protective material) 200 on an underlying substrate/electrode 100/110, passing the layered stack through a roll press (patterning device) under pressure (step S1), and peeling off the polymer release film (step e) to leave the patterned lithium adhered to the substrate (FIG. 1, [0016], [0036]–[0040], [0074]).
A person of ordinary skill would find it obvious to use the protective film stamping and peeling method of Chae’940 to form the patterned lithium substrate of Chae’274. Metallic lithium is soft, tacky, and fragile; interposing a protective polymer release film during mechanical roll-pressing prevents the lithium from tearing, adhering to, or fouling the press tooling, while enabling clean mechanical transfer of defined lithium patterns onto the substrate surface.
Regarding claim 22, Chae’274 in view of Chae’940 teaches all of the limitations as set forth above, and Chae‘274 further teaches a process for assembling a lithium battery having an anode characterized in that at least a portion of the anode is formed from a prelithiated anode material formed as set forth above in Claim 1. ([0127])
Regarding claim 23, Chae’274 in view of Chae’940 teaches all of the limitations as set forth above, and Chae ‘274 further teaches a lithium battery having an anode characterized in that at least a portion of the anode is comprised of a prelithiated anode material formed as in Claim 1. ([0127])
[AltContent: ]Claim(s) 6-7 and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chae ‘274 (US 20210135274 A1) in view of Chae ‘940 (US20210043940 A1) as set forth in claim 3, above, and in further view of Woo (US 20190074520 A1).
Regarding claim 6 and 15, Chae‘274 in view of Chae‘940, teaches all of the limitations as set forth above. Chae ’940 does not explicitly teach wherein the forming of the layered sheet is conducted under vacuum or in an inert atmosphere.
Woo, in the field of (abstract) patterned lithium layers, discloses at [0074] treatment of the lithium metal and copper foil stack in a vacuum chamber. At [0008] Woo discloses that lithium metal has strong chemical reactivity.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated, as of before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to carry out the layered sheet formation of modified Chae ‘274 in a vacuum chamber as taught by Woo, with a reasonable expectation of successfully avoiding contamination of the lithium with undesirable side reactions.
Regarding claims 7 and 16, Chae‘274 in view of Chae‘940 teaches all of the limitations as set forth above, and Chae ‘274 teaches the patterning of lithium in strips (FIG. 13). However, Chae‘274 does not teach wherein the patterning device provides a dot matrix pattern. Woo, in the field of (abstract) patterned lithium layers, discloses at [0012] “a shape of the pattern may have any one of a mesh shape, a lamellar shape, an embo shape, a linear shape, a circular shape, an elliptical shape, a polygonal shape, and a waveform shape.” Examiner notes that a pattern of circular shapes is equivalent to “dots”. At [0021], the pattern improves interfacial adhesion. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the linear pattern of modified Chae’274 by adding the circular shapes of Woo, with a reasonable expectation of successfully improving interfacial adhesion.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CLAIRE A RUTISER whose telephone number is (571)272-1969. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM M-F.
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, Jonathan Leong can be reached at 571-270-1292. 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.
CLAIRE A. RUTISER
Examiner
Art Unit 1751
/C.A.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/Haroon S. Sheikh/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1751
Prosecution Insights