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 .
Claims 1-12 are currently pending and have been considered below.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. JP2021-178021, filed on October 29, 2021.
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.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yang et al. (US20160380314 A1).
Regarding Claim 1: Yang discloses a lithium metal battery (lithium secondary battery) [0013] comprising: a positive electrode [0014], a negative electrode [0015], a separator positioned between the positive electrode and the negative electrode [0154], and a liquid electrolyte comprising LiPF6 dissolved in a mixture of the organic solvent diethyl carbonate and fluoroethylene carbonate (non-aqueous electrolyte having a lithium-ion conductivity) [0118], [0212].
Yang further discloses uniform deposition of lithium metal at the lithium metal negative electrode during charging (lithium metal deposits at the negative electrode) [0017], [0058].
Yang further discloses deposition and dissolution of lithium at the lithium metal electrode during repeated charging and discharging, including dissolution of lithium from the negative electrode (lithium metal dissolves during discharging) [0017], [0057].
Yang further discloses a protection film comprising a polyvinyl alcohol graft copolymer, a crosslinked polyvinyl alcohol graft polymer, a crosslinked polyvinyl alcohol copolymer, or a blend thereof (resin film) [0012], [0044]- [0046].
Yang expressly discloses that the negative electrode may be a lithium metal thin film (lithium metal layer) and that the polymer protection film composition is directly coated and dried on the lithium metal electrode (lithium metal layer laminated with the resin film) [0139]- [0140], [0152].
Therefore, Yang discloses each and every limitation of claim 1.
Regarding Claim 2: Yang discloses the lithium secondary battery of claim 1 as discussed above.
Yang further discloses a polymer-containing protection film 13 formed on at least a portion of the surface of a lithium metal electrode 12 (negative electrode having the lithium metal layer on a principal surface on at least one side of the resin film) [0152].
Yang discloses directly coating a protection film forming composition onto the lithium metal electrode and drying the composition to form the protection film [0139].
Because the protection film is formed directly on the surface of the lithium metal electrode, the resulting protection film and lithium metal layer are necessarily in direct physical contact (the lithium metal layer is in contact with the principal surface of the resin film). See Yang’s Fig. 1 and [0160].
Therefore, Yang discloses each and every limitation of claim 2.
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.
Claims 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (US20160380314 A1) in view of Gopalakrishnan Nair et al. (US 20210210752 A1), hereinafter “Nair”.
Regarding Claim 3: Yang discloses the lithium secondary battery of claims 1 and 2 as set forth above. Yang does not disclose that the negative electrode has a lithium metal layer on each of the two principal surface on both sides of the resin film and that the positive electrode and the negative electrode are wound with the separator interposed therebetween.
Nair discloses an anode current collector comprising a polyethylene terephthalate (PET) polymer film coated with a metallic material (resin film having a metal layer formed thereon) [0041]. Nair further discloses an anode film formed from lithium metal or lithium metal foil and deposited using thin-film deposition techniques (lithium metal layer) [0042].
Nair further discloses processing chambers configured to process both sides of a continuous sheet of material and to deposit lithium metal films on the sheet (providing lithium metal layers on the two principal surfaces of the film) [0090], [0092]. Nair also discloses an electrode stack comprising a cathode current collector, a cathode film, a separator film, an anode film and an anode current collector. Nair teaches that this stack of layers may be formed into a cylinder by rolling the stack (positive electrode and negative electrode being wound with the separator interposed therebetween) [0048].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange the lithium metal layer of Yang on both surface of the polymer film and to wind the resulting positive electrode, separator and negative electrode stack as taught by Nair because Nair teaches processing both sides of the continuous electrode sheet and rolling the electrode layer stack into a cylindrical configuration. Applying those known techniques to Yang’s flexible polymer/lithium electrode would predictably produce a two-sided negative electrode capable of being incorporated into a wound battery stack. See MPEP §2143 A “Combining Prior Art Elements According to Known Methods To Yield Predictable Results”.
Regarding Claim 4: Yang discloses the lithium secondary battery of claims 1 as set forth above.
Yang does not disclose a foundation metal layer dispose on and in contact with a principal surface of the resin film, wherein the lithium metal layer contacts the foundation metal layer.
Nair discloses an anode current collector comprising a polyethylene terephthalate (PET) polymer film coated with a metallic material (resin film having a metal layer formed thereon) [0041]. Because the cooper coating is formed directly on the PET film, the copper coating is in contact with the principal surface of the PET (foundation metal layer being in contact with the principal surface of the resin film).
Nair further discloses an anode film comprising lithium metal, lithium metal foil, or lithium alloy foil (lithium metal layer) [0042]. Nair explains that, when the continuous sheet is a polymer material, a first processing chamber deposits a copper film on the polymer material and subsequent processing chambers deposit portions of a lithium metal film [0092]- [0094]. The resulting lithium metal film is therefore disposed of on the copper coated polymer substrate and contacts the copper foundation layer (lithium metal layer being in contact with at least the principal surface of the foundation metal layer).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a copper foundation layer between Yang’s polymer film and lithium metal layer, as taught by Nair because applying the known layer sequence to Yang’s negative electrode would predictably produce a laminate in which the copper layer contacts the polymer film and the lithium metal layer contact the copper layer. See MPEP §2143 A “Combining Prior Art Elements According to Known Methods To Yield Predictable Results”.
Regarding Claim 5: Yang discloses the lithium secondary battery of claims 1 and 4 as set forth above. Yang does not disclose that the foundation metal layer and the lithium metal layer on each of the principal surfaces of on both sides of the resin film, and the positive electrode and the negative electrode are wound, with the separator interposed between the positive electrode and the negative electrode.
Nair discloses an anode current collector comprising a polyethylene terephthalate (PET) polymer film coated with a metallic material (resin film having a metal layer formed thereon) [0041]. Because the cooper coating is formed directly on the PET film, the copper coating is in contact with the principal surface of the PET (foundation metal layer being in contact with the principal surface of the resin film).
Nair further discloses processing chambers configured to process both sides of a continuous sheet of material and to deposit lithium metal films on the sheet (providing lithium metal layers on the two principal surfaces of the film) [0090], [0092]. Nair also discloses an electrode stack comprising a cathode current collector, a cathode film, a separator film, an anode film and an anode current collector. Nair teaches that this stack of layers may be formed into a cylinder by rolling the stack (positive electrode and negative electrode being wound with the separator interposed therebetween) [0048].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange the lithium metal layer of Yang on both surface of the polymer film and to wind the resulting positive electrode, separator and negative electrode stack as taught by Nair because Nair teaches processing both sides of the continuous electrode sheet and rolling the electrode layer stack into a cylindrical configuration. Applying those known techniques to Yang’s flexible polymer/lithium electrode would predictably produce a two-sided negative electrode capable of being incorporated into a wound battery stack. See MPEP §2143 A “Combining Prior Art Elements According to Known Methods To Yield Predictable Results”.
Regarding Claim 6: Yang discloses the lithium secondary battery of claims 1 and 4 as set forth above. Yang does not disclose that the thickness of the foundation metal layer is 2µm or less.
Nair discloses a copper film having a thickness between approximately 50 nm and 500 nm (claim 6). The disclosed range of 50-500 nm corresponds to approximately 0.05-0.5 µm and therefore falls within the claimed range.
Nair further discloses an anode current collector comprising a polyethylene terephthalate (PET) polymer film coated with a metallic material (resin film having a metal layer formed thereon) [0041]. Because the cooper coating is formed directly on the PET film, the copper coating is in contact with the principal surface of the PET (foundation metal layer being in contact with the principal surface of the resin film).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ Nair’s disclosed copper film thickness of approximately 50-500 nm for the foundation metal layer of Yang because Nair identifies copper=coated PET polymer substrate and the claimed thickness range for the film copper and employing the disclosed thickness for the same current collecting layer would have amount to combining known prior art elements according to known methods to obtain the predictable results of a polymer supported thin metal current collector for the lithium metal layer. See MPEP §2143 A “Combining Prior Art Elements According to Known Methods To Yield Predictable Results”.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (US20160380314 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Liang et al. (US10910652 B2).
Regarding Claim 7: Yang discloses the lithium secondary battery of claims 1 as set forth above.
Yang further teaches that its polymer protection film should have a high degree of mechanical strength, remain stable against volume changes during charging and discharging, resist cracking, and provide satisfactory tensile properties [0054]- [0055]. Yang does not disclose that the tensile strength of the resin film is 100 MPa or more.
Liang discloses an insulation layer formed from an organic polymer material (resin film) used in a battery current collector to support and protect a conductive layer (col. 3, line 42-49; col. 6, line 7-22). Liang identifies suitable polymer material including PET, PI, PA, epoxy resin, PVDF, etc.
Liang further discloses that the tensile strength of the organic polymer insulation layer is not less than 150 MPa to 400 MPa. Because 150 MPa is greater than 100 MPa, Liang’s disclosed range satisfies the claimed limitation.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select or adjust the polymer protection film of Yang to have a tensile strength of at least 150MPa, as taught by Liang because Yang already identifies that its polymer protection film should have a high degree of mechanical strength, remain stable against volume changes during charging and discharging, resist cracking, and provide satisfactory tensile properties [0054]- [0055]. Liang teaches that a tensile strength of at least 150 MPa improve the overall mechanical strength and the stability of the battery (col. 5, line 33-40).
Claims 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (US20160380314 A1).
Regarding Claim 8: Yang discloses the lithium secondary battery of claims 1 as set forth above.
Yang further discloses that its polymer containing protection film (resin film) has an elongation of approximately 50% or greater [0054], [0069].
Therefore, Yang discloses every additional limitation of claim 8.
Regarding Claim 10: Yang discloses the lithium secondary battery of claims 1 as set forth above.
Yang further discloses that its polymer containing protection film (resin film) may have a thickness from approximately 1 µm to 20 µm, including a range from 1 µm to 5 µm. Yang’s Example 1 discloses a polymer protection film directly on a lithium metal thin film, wherein the resulting protection film has a thickness of 5 µm [0075], [0206]. Because 5 µm satisfies both the claimed limits, Yang discloses the additional limitations of claim 10.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (US20160380314 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hu et al. (US20190260066 A1).
Regarding Claim 9: Yang discloses the lithium secondary battery of claims 1 as set forth above.
Yang does not disclose that the thickness of the lithium metal layer is 40 µm or less in a discharged state with a depth of discharge of 90% or more.
Hu teaches a lithium metal anode having a thickness of less than 20 µm in a fully discharged state. A fully discharged state corresponds to a depth of discharged of 100%, which falls within the claimed range of 90% or more.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure Yang’s lithium metal layer to have a discharge-state thickness of less than 20 µm, as taught by Hu, because Hu explains that the small volume occupied by an ultrathin lithium metal anode contributes to increased battery energy density [0072]. The modification constitutes the application of a known technique to a similar lithium metal battery to obtain the predictable result of reducing anode volume and increasing the energy density, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (US20160380314 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (US10741846 B2).
Regarding Claim 11: Yang discloses the lithium secondary battery of claims 1 as set forth above.
Yang does not disclose that the resin contained in the resin film has an aromatic ring.
Lee discloses a protective layer formed on a lithium metal electrode, wherein the particles contained in the protective layer may comprise a polystyrene homopolymer, a copolymer containing styrene repeating units, or a crosslinked polymer thereof (col. 9, line 21-34). Lee more specifically identifies poly(styrene-divinylbenzene) copolymer, a poly(methyl methacrylate-divinylbenzene) copolymer, a poly(ethyl methacrylate-divinylbenzene) copolymer, a poly(pentyl methacrylate-divinylbenzene) copolymer, a poly(butyl methacrylate-divinylbenzene) copolymer, among other styrene-containing polymers (col. 5, line 35-52).
Although Lee does not expressly state that these resins contain an aromatic ring, the characteristic is necessarily present. Styrene contains a phenyl group, and therefore each styrene group contains a benzene aromatic ring. Accordingly, Lee inherently discloses a resin contained in the protective layer having an aromatic ring, as claimed.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include Lee’s styrene-containing polymer in the protection film of yang because Lee teaches that the polymer containing styrene repeating units has hydrophobicity and essentially no wettability toward the liquid electrolyte and the polymer does not adversely affect the lithium metal electrode, then the reactivity of the lithium metal electrode with the electrolyte may be suppressed (col. 9, line 21-34).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (US20160380314 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Son et al. (US20200075939).
Regarding Claim 12: Yang discloses the lithium secondary battery of claims 1 as set forth above.
Yang does not disclose that the lithium metal layer contains magnesium.
Son teaches that its lithium metal layer may comprise a lithium alloy and specifically identifies an alloy of lithium with magnesium (Mg) as a suitable material for the negative electrode [0026].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Son’s lithium-magnesium alloy as the material for Yang’s lithium metal layer because Son teaches that lithium-Mg is known as an alternative material suitable for a lithium secondary battery negative electrode. Such modification constitutes the substitution of known lithium metal electrode composition for another known lithium metal electrode composition to obtain a predictable result.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHALY M RESTO OQUENDO whose telephone number is (571)895-1575. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-5pm.
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, Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at (571) 270-3879. 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.
/NMRO/Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/NICOLE M. BUIE-HATCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights