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 .
Examiner Note
It is noted that all references hereinafter to Applicant’s specification (“spec”) are to the published application US-2025-0006885-A1, unless stated otherwise. Further, any italicized text utilized hereinafter is to be interpreted as emphasis placed thereupon.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) filed 03MAY2024, 31JUL2025, 26SEP2025, and 24JUL2026 are in compliance with 37 CFR 1.97 and have been considered.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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) 1-2, 4-10, 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herle (US-20170324073-A1; “Herle”) in view of Youn (US-20190334165-A1; “Youn”).
PNG
media_image1.png
371
561
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claims 1 and 6, Herle teaches a process for fabricating a battery (a method for manufacturing an electrode assembly) [0034]. Herle teaches the separator is positioned such that the electrode and the surface protection layer face each other (see Fig. 1 and 2 of Herle below).
[AltContent: textbox (100 – Cell
110 – Positive Current Collector
120 – Positive Electrode
130 – Coated Separator
140 – Negative Electrode
150 – Negative Current Collector)]
Fig. 1 of Herle, duplicated from Sheet 1 of 3 of Herle
[AltContent: textbox (130 – Coated Separator
131 – Separator Film
132 – Separator Pores
133 – Ceramic Coating
134 – Barrier Layer
135 – Thin Film of Lithium Metal
136 – Protective Coating)]
PNG
media_image2.png
371
700
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 2 of Herle, duplicated from Sheet 1 of 3 of Herle
Herle teaches a transfer drum 446 (the base layer) [0027] coated with a corrosion resistant layer [0023] that transfers the lithium metal thin film from the transfer drum 446 to the separator 310 [0027]. Please refer to Fig. 4 for the manufacturing method of Herle. Herle teaches that the transfer drum 446 (the base layer) is removed [0027].
Herle teaches a separator coated with a thin film of lithium metal [0015].
Herle teaches a lithium-ion battery comprising a positive electrode, a negative electrode and a separator between the positive electrode and the negative electrode [0005]. Herle teaches that the lithium is deposited on the side of the separator facing the negative electrode [0019]. Herle teaches that the coated separator may comprise a thin film of lithium and the protective coating [0019] (a surface protection layer), wherein the lithium metal film may be coated with a protective layer [0022].
Herle teaches that the thickness of the lithium metal film that is transferred to the separator is between 1 μm and 5 μm [0015, 0037], which falls within the claimed range of 1 μm or greater and 10 μm or less. Prior art which teaches a range within, overlapping, or touching the claimed range anticipates if the prior art range discloses the claimed range with sufficient specificity. See MPEP 2131.03.
[AltContent: textbox (440 – Lithium Metal Deposition Module
442 – Lithium Metal Source
448 – Drum
446 – Transfer Drum
310 – Separator
444 – Lithium Metal Film
350 – Module for Forming Protective Coating)]
PNG
media_image3.png
323
687
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Fig. 4 of Herle, duplicated from Sheet 2 of 3 of Herle
Herle does not teach a method of transferring both the surface protection layer and the lithium metal layer to a separator, wherein a transfer laminate including a base layer, a surface protection layer and a lithium metal layer, is prepared before transferring. Herle does not protect the lithium metal layer during the transfer step.
Youn teaches the preparation of a transfer laminate comprising the steps of coating a polymer protective layer on the substrate (base layer) [0015-0016], depositing the lithium metal on the protective layer to form a lithium metal layer, and transferring the laminate to the current collector [0018]. Both the lithium metal layer and the protective layer were transferred [0045]. Youn teaches laminating the substrate, the protective layer, and the lithium metal layer, and transferring the metal layer using a device such as a roll press [0077], which is a method of lamination [0091].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the manufacturing method of Herle by coating both the protective layer and the lithium layer on the transfer drum 446 for transfer to the separator as taught by Youn. Youn and Herle each constitute prior art which is directly analogous to claimed invention (MPEP 2141.01(a)(I)) by falling in the same field of endeavor of batteries, directly pertaining as well to the problem that the applicant is trying to solve – how to transfer layers in a manufacturing method for an electrode assembly. Youn provides the adequate motivation for incorporating these features readily known in the art, by addressing the problem of lithium exposure to moisture and external air directly in the manufacturing process [0008]. Youn states that the manufacturing method prevents exposure of lithium metal to moisture and outside air and minimizes the formation of the oxidized layer on the surface of lithium metal [0013], which provides an advantage over the manufacturing method of Herle by combining the protection and lithium metal layers transfer in one step. This minimizes the formation of the oxidized layer on the surface of lithium metal by preventing exposure of the lithium metal to moisture and outside air [0013].
Regarding Claim 2, the thickness of the lithium metal film that is transferred to the separator is between 1 μm and 5 μm [0015, 0037], which overlaps with the claimed range of 2 μm or greater and 10 μm or less. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness, In re Wertheim, 191 USPQ 90, In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1934, and In re Peterson, 65 USPQ2d 1379.
Regarding Claim 4, Herle teaches the battery cells may be wound or stacked to form the battery cell configuration (the electrode assembly) [0034].
Regarding Claim 5, Herle teaches the deposition of a thin film of lithium metal may be by physical vapor deposition (PVD), such as by evaporation or transfer process [0022]. Herle teaches a physical vapor deposition (PVD) source 342, which may be a lithium metal electron beam evaporator (cold) in a vacuum environment [0025]. This constitutes a dry-on-dry process.
Regarding Claim 7, Herle teaches that lithium is contained in atomic layers of crystal structures of carbon graphite (negative electrode active material layer and negative electrode active material layer composition) at the negative electrode [0017]. Herle teaches that a thin film of lithium which serves as the negative electrode current collector may be deposited directly on the negative electrode [0036], wherein a thin film of lithium metal may be deposited on a graphitic (with or without silicon) layer (negative electrode active material layer) on a suitable electrically conductive substrate [0037].
Regarding Claim 8, Herle teaches a positive electrode active layer, comprising lithium cobalt oxide [0017], along with a positive electrode current collector [0016], wherein the lithium cobalt oxide, LiCoO2, covers the current collector [0017] (LiNixCoyMnzO2, when x and z equal 0 and y equals 1).
Regarding Claims 9, Herle teaches that the separator may be exposed to a corona or chemically treated as part of preparation [0030] (pre-treating the separator).
Regarding Claim 11, Herle teaches that the negative electrode active material comprises carbon graphite [0017].
Regarding Claim 12, Herle teaches that the surface protection layer may comprise lithium carbonate or lithium fluoride [0022] (inorganic particles), and may also include and inorganic (particles) protective coating or a polymer coating [0033].
Regarding Claim 13, Herle teaches a process for fabricating a battery (a method for manufacturing an electrode assembly) [0034] and the lithium ion battery produced [0015] (electrode assembly).
Regarding Claim 14, Herle teaches that after the winding or stacking, the battery cells (electrode assembly) are placed in cans (battery casing) which are evacuated, filled with electrolyte and then sealed [0034].
Claim(s) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herle (US-20170324073-A1; “Herle”) in view of Youn (US-20190334165-A1; “Youn”) and Miyagi (US-20210066707-A1; “Miyagi”).
Herle in view of Youn teach the limitations of Claim 1 as discussed above.
Herle teaches the thickness of the lithium metal film that is transferred to the separator [0015].
Herle does not teach the roughness of the lithium metal layer from the transfer laminate that is transferred in (b) of claim 1 to the separator.
Youn teaches that the lithium metal is transferred to the current collector [0018].
Youn does not teach the roughness of the lithium metal layer from the transfer laminate that is transferred in (b) of claim 1 to the separator [0018].
Miyagi teaches that the average surface roughness of the (Ra) of the current collector base being 0.05 μm or higher and 1.0 μm or lower [0344].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the manufacturing method of Herle in view of Youn by modifying the average surface roughness of the lithium layer that is transferred to the separator as taught by Miyagi. Youn, Herle and Miyagi each constitute prior art which is directly analogous to claimed invention (MPEP 2141.01(a)(I)) by falling in the same field of endeavor of batteries. Miyagi provides the adequate motivation for incorporating these features readily known in the art, by indicating that the regulation of the surface roughness enables satisfactory charge/discharge characteristics and improved adhesion [0344]. Moreover, Miyagi states that exceeding 1.5 μm is not practical for batteries due to difficulty in procurement at a reasonable thickness for a battery [0344]. In the discussion regarding the determination of ranges for roughness in the battery of Miyagi [0344], Miyagi establishes roughness as a result-effective variable, where adhesion, charge/discharge characteristics and battery size are the parameters that are directly affected by roughness and need to be optimized through experimentation. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to adjust the roughness for the intended application, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Miyagi teaches that the average surface roughness of the (Ra) of the current collector base being 0.05 μm or higher and 1.0 μm or lower [0344], which overlaps with the claimed range of 0.02 μm or greater and 0.2 μm or less. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness, In re Wertheim, 191 USPQ 90, In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1934, and In re Peterson, 65 USPQ2d 1379.
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herle (US-20170324073-A1; “Herle”) in view of Youn (US-20190334165-A1; “Youn”) and Lee (KR-0200129650-A; “Lee”).
Herle in view of Youn teach the limitations of Claim 1 as discussed above.
Herle teaches pre-treatment of the separator with corona prior to coating [0030].
Herle does not teach pre-treatment of the surface protection layer with plasma or corona.
Youn teaches pre-treatment of the substrate by a plasma and corona process [0015].
Youn does not teach pre-treatment of the surface protection layer with plasma or corona.
Lee teaches that the separator is coated with a slurry including a mixture or organic particles and a polymer binder (protective layer) (fourth full paragraph of Page 6). Lee teaches pre-treatment of the surface protection layer in that the separator 12 is positioned between the corona electrode and the ground electrode and subject to corona discharge treatment. This enables more effective contact with the electrode 11 so that adhesion to the separator is improved (first paragraph of Page 10) after which the electrodes and the separator are stacked (fourth full paragraph of Page 10). Lee also teaches that the surface treatment may be plasma treatment (first full paragraph of Page 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the manufacturing method of Herle in view of Youn by pre-treating the surface protection layer prior to electrode assembly as taught by Lee. Herle, Youn and Lee each constitute prior art which is directly analogous to claimed invention (MPEP 2141.01(a)(I)) by falling in the same field of endeavor of batteries. Lee provides the adequate motivation for incorporating these features readily known in the art, by indicating that the corona discharge treatment enables more effective contact with the electrode in that adhesion to the separator is improved as a result of the treatment during electrode assembly (second full paragraph of page 10).
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US-20200259180-A1 teaches a method of forming electrodes using a dry process [0060], wherein the active material may include hard carbon and soft carbon [0051]
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM FADDOUL SAVAGE whose telephone number is (571)270-0315. The examiner can normally be reached 8a.m.-5p.m..
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, Aaron Austin can be reached at 571-272-8935. 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.
/WILLIAM FADDOUL SAVAGE/
Examiner, Art Unit 1782
/ANTHONY J FROST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1782
Prosecution Insights