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 .
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-12 in the reply filed on 8/13/25 is acknowledged. Claims 13-20 have been withdrawn as being directed toward a non-elected as detailed in paper filed 6/18/25. Hence, claims 1-12 remain in the application for prosecution thereof.
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 1-12 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.
Regarding claim 1, the terms “flexible substrate stack” and “flexible polymer layer stack” are confusing as to whether these are the same or different. It is confusing that a “flexible polymer layer stack” is a polymer substrate and the Examiner questions whether the claim should recite a flexible substrate stack on a polymer substrate and ab=void confusion. Clarification is requested.
Regarding claims 6 and 7, the claim is unclear and confusing as to whether the laser is a CO2 or Fluorine laser or whether the laser is utilized in an environment that include CO2 or fluorine? It is also unclear whether the CO2 gas or fluorine gas is performed before, during or after the laser treatment? Clarification is requested.
Regarding claim 8, the term “low” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “low” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Regarding claims 2-5 and 9-12, the claims are rejected based upon being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
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.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Balogh et al. (2016/0181594) in combination with Park et al. (2024/0088358).
Balogh et al. (2016/0181594) teaches a process for lithiating negative electrodes for lithium-ion cells. Balogh et al. (2016/0181594) teaches a pre-lithiated electrode such as a negative electrode (claimed anode) and disposing a lithium metal adjacent to the surface of the pre-lithiated electrode and then heating and compressing to transfer lithium ions to the electrode ([0011], [0012]). The lithium metal can include a lithium film or a carrier comprising a polymer [0050].
Balogh et al. (2016/0181594) fails to teach exposing the lithium metal film to laser instead of heat.
Park et al. (2024/0088358) teaches electrode for lithium secondary battery having encapsulated active material whereby pre-lithiation can be formed via application of energy such as a laser [0125]-[0126].
Therefore. It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Balogh et al. (2016/0181594) process by using a laser for heating the lithium metal film for lithiation of the anode as evidenced by Park et al. (2024/0088358) with the expectation of achieving similar success, i.e. lithiation of the anode.
Regarding claim 1, Balogh et al. (2016/0181594) teaches a polymer substrate and therefore would meet the claimed “flexible” substrate.
Regarding claim 2, Balogh et al. (2016/0181594) teaches laminating the metal film as it teaches compressing the lithium film [0052].
Regarding claim 3, Balogh et al. (2016/0181594) teaches the flexible substrate can include a metal foil which meets the claimed current collector [0050].
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Balogh et al. (2016/0181594) teaches a continuous process and is performed roll to roll process (Fig. 5 and [0067]-[0070]).
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Balogh et al. (2016/0181594) in combination with Park et al. (2024/0088358) further in combination with Herle (2020/0185161).
Features detailed above concerning the teachings of Balogh et al. (2016/0181594) in combination with Park et al. (2024/0088358) are incorporated here.
Balogh et al. (2016/0181594) in combination with Park et al. (2024/0088358) fails to teach exposing the lithium metal film to CO2 gas, fluorine gas or plasma.
Herle (2020/0185161) teaches pre-lithiation of lithium-ion capacitors whereby a substrate comprising one or more anode is contacted with a lithium layer for pre-lithiation (abstract). Herle (2020/0185161) teaches the lithium film by plasma, Co2 gas and forming LiF which would suggest a gaseous environment including fluorine [0031].
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Balogh et al. (2016/0181594) in combination with Park et al. (2024/0088358) process to include exposing the lithium metal film to CO2, plasma or fluorine gas as evidenced by Herle (2020/0185161) with the expectation of producing a protection layer thereon the lithium metal film.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Balogh et al. (2016/0181594) in combination with Park et al. (2024/0088358) further in combination with Kim et al. (2020/0303728).
Features detailed above concerning the teachings of Balogh et al. (2016/0181594) in combination with Park et al. (2024/0088358) are incorporated here.
Balogh et al. (2016/0181594) in combination with Park et al. (2024/0088358) fail to teach exposing the lithium metal film to form a protective film including a dielectric film.
Kim et al. (2020/0303728) teaches a negative electrode lithium battery whereby lithium is incorporated into the negative electrode (abstract). Kim et al. (2020/0303728) teaches the lithium metal film can include a protective film comprising alumina (aluminum oxide – AL2O3) [0041]-[0047].
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Balogh et al. (2016/0181594) in combination with Park et al. (2024/0088358) process to include forming a protection layer of alumina as evidenced by Kim et al. (2020/0303728) with the expectation of delaying lithium deterioration upon exposure to moisture.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Balogh et al. (2016/0181594) in combination with Park et al. (2024/0088358) further in combination with Herle (2020/0343533).
Features detailed above concerning the teachings of Balogh et al. (2016/0181594) in combination with Park et al. (2024/0088358) are incorporated here.
Balogh et al. (2016/0181594) in combination with Park et al. (2024/0088358) fail to teach exposing the lithium metal film to form a protective film including a metal chalcogenide film.
Herle (2020/0343533) teaches forming protective films on lithium metals including metal chalcogenides (abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Balogh et al. (2016/0181594) in combination with Park et al. (2024/0088358) process to include forming a protection layer of metal chalcogenides as evidenced by Herle (2020/0343533) with the expectation of delaying lithium deterioration upon exposure to moisture.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN K TALBOT whose telephone number is (571)272-1428. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 6:30-5PM - Fri OFF.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at 571-272-5166. 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.
/BRIAN K TALBOT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1715