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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 07/25/2024 and 08/14/2026 have been considered by the examiner.
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 20230163279 A1) in view of Miyazaki (US 20130089781 A1):
Regarding claim 1, Kim teaches the following elements:
A lithium metal secondary battery (“The present disclosure relates to an all-solid secondary battery and a method of preparing the all-solid secondary battery.” Kim [0002]. If lithium metal were included in the anode of the battery, the secondary battery of Kim would be a lithium metal secondary battery.)
having a negative electrode current collector layer, (“Referring to FIGS. 1 and 2, the anode 20 includes an anode current collector 21, an anode active material layer 22, and a contact layer 23.” Kim [0101]. The current collector 21 of Kim would function as the current collector layer.)
a composite alloy layer, (“ The first anode active material layer 221 may be disposed on the anode current collector 21 and may include a first metal. The first anode active material layer 221 may thus be a first metal layer. The first metal may include lithium metal or a lithium alloy.” Kim [0105]. In this case, if the first anode active material layer included a lithium alloy instead of lithium metal, this limitation would be met.)
a lithium metal layer, (“The contact layer 23 may include the lithium alloy, lithium metal, or a combination thereof. The contact layer 23 may include lithium metal,” Kim [0131]. In this case, the contact layer of Kim functions as the lithium metal layer, if lithium metal were chosen as the material in the contact layer.)
an electrolyte layer, (“The solid electrolyte 30 may be disposed between the cathode 10 and the anode 20. The solid electrolyte 30 includes a solid electrolyte. In an aspect, the solid electrolyte 30 may be a solid electrolyte layer.” Kim [0094] In this case, the solid electrolyte layer 30 functions as the electrolyte layer.)
a positive electrode active material layer, and a positive electrode current collector layer in this order, (“The cathode 10 may include a cathode current collector 11 and a cathode active material layer 12.” Kim [0078]. In this case, the cathode current collector functions as the positive electrode current collector layer, and the cathode active material layer functions as the positive electrode active material layer. Figure 1 of Kim depicts a stacked secondary battery which comprises an anode current collector, composite alloy layer, lithium metal layer, electrolyte, positive electrode active layer, and positive electrode current collector, in that order, thus meeting the above limitation.)
Kim is silent on the following elements of claim 1. Specifically, while Kim teaches that lithium-gallium, lithium-tin, and lithium-indium alloys are all suitable to be in a composite alloy layer, it is silent on the specific combination required by claim 1:
wherein the composite alloy layer contains a combination of a lithium-gallium alloy, and a lithium-tin alloy and/or a lithium-indium alloy.
However, Miyazaki teaches all of the elements of claim 1 not found in Kim. Specifically, Miyazaki teaches a negative electrode active layer on an anode current collector that can comprise one or more materials, and the materials listed include lithium-tin and lithium-gallium alloys:
wherein the composite alloy layer contains a combination of a lithium-gallium alloy, and a lithium-tin alloy and/or a lithium-indium alloy. (“A negative electrode active material used in the active material layer for the negative electrode of the present embodiment is a powder of at least one negative electrode material selected from the group consisting of, for example, a lithium metal, lithium alloys (lithium metal-containing alloys such as lithium-aluminum, lithium-lead, lithium-tin, lithium-aluminum-tin, lithium-gallium and Wood's metal), alloys capable of occluding/releasing lithium,” Miyazaki [0160])
Miyazaki and Kim are considered to be analogous because they are both within the same field of lithium secondary batteries comprising a negative electrode active material layer including a lithium alloy. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the negative electrode active layer of Kim to substitute it with that of Miyazaki, which can include both lithium-gallium and lithium-tin alloys, as this would only require the simple substitution of one negative electrode active material for another, and the simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 20230163279 A1) in view of Miyazaki (US 20130089781 A1) and further in view of Terada (WO-2024116782-A1, US 20260196491 A1 used as translation)
Regarding claim 2, modified Kim teaches the following elements:
The lithium metal secondary battery according to claim 1, wherein the composite alloy layer contains a lithium-gallium alloy and a lithium-tin alloy, (By modifying Kim with Miyazaki to meet the limitations of claim 1, the combination of lithium-gallium alloy and lithium-tin alloy used in the negative electrode active layer of Kim would meet the above limitation.)
Kim and Miyazaki are silent on the following elements of claim 2:
and wherein the atomic percentage of gallium with respect to a total amount of gallium and tin in the composite alloy layer is 10 to 90 atomic%.
However, Terada teaches all of the elements of claim 2 that are not found in Kim and Miyazaki:
and wherein the atomic percentage of gallium with respect to a total amount of gallium and tin in the composite alloy layer is 10 to 90 atomic%. (“The above alloy (A) may be a gallium-copper alloy. The alloy (A) may contain at least one selected from the group consisting of indium (In) and tin (Sn). When the alloy (A) contains indium and/or tin, the melting point is lowered, and thus the alloy (A) can be applied more uniformly and thinly onto an electrode at around room temperature. Furthermore, indium and tin also suppress the formation of the SEI film due to indium and tin being alloyed with lithium metal.” Terada [0029], “The metal layer may contain the metal element M (e.g., gallium). For example, the metal layer may contain a gallium-lithium alloy. The presence of gallium-lithium alloy layers around deposited lithium metal lumps makes it possible to suppress a reaction between the electrolyte solution and the deposited lithium metal, and as a result, the formation of a SEI film can be suppressed.” Terada [0031], and “A negative electrode substrate was produced by applying a gallium-indium-tin alloy melt to the negative electrode current collector, instead of applying gallium. The composition of the alloy was set to gallium:indium:tin=62:22:16.” Terada [0102]. If a gallium:indium:tin alloy was used with the provided composition, there would be a 79% atomic percentage of gallium to tin, which would anticipate the claimed range.)
Terada is considered to be analogous to Kim and Miyazaki because it is within the same field of using lithium alloyed with gallium, tin, and/or indium in a negative electrode active material layer. Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the negative electrode layer of Kim and/or Miyazaki to have the claimed ratio of gallium to tin in order to lower the melting point of the alloy, and therefore have a more thin and uniform coating at room temperature. Terada also encourages the use of a lithium-gallium alloy as it allows for the suppression of reaction between the electrolyte solution and lithium metal, and therefore suppress the formation of an SEI film.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 20230163279 A1) in view of Miyazaki (US 20130089781 A1) and further in view of Kita (JP S63178450A)
Regarding claim 3, Kim and Miyazaki are silent on the following elements:
The lithium metal secondary battery according to claim 1, wherein the composite alloy layer contains a lithium-gallium alloy and a lithium-indium alloy,
and wherein the atomic percentage of gallium with respect to a total amount of gallium and indium in the composite alloy layer is 10 to 45 atomic%.
However, Kita teaches all of the elements of claim 3 not found in Kim. Specifically, Kita teaches the use of a lithium-indium-gallium alloy layer that would meet all of the limitations of claim 3:
The lithium metal secondary battery according to claim 1, wherein the composite alloy layer contains a lithium-gallium alloy and a lithium-indium alloy, and wherein the atomic percentage of gallium with respect to a total amount of gallium and indium in the composite alloy layer is 10 to 45 atomic%. (“The lithium plate was immersed in a solution bath in which 0005 mol/At was dissolved to obtain a lithium plate in which a lithium-indium-gallium alloy layer was formed on the lithium surface. The composition of the lithium plate was about 86 atom % of lithium, about 8 atom % of indium, and about 6 atom % of gallium.” Kita [0001]. By using the lithium-indium-gallium layer of Kita in place of the first negative electrode active layer of Kim, all of the above limitations would be met. There would be a 42% atomic percentage of gallium to indium, which would anticipate the claimed range.)
Kita and Kim are considered to be analogous because they are both within the same field of lithium secondary batteries containing lithium alloys as part of a negative electrode. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the first negative electrode active material layer of Kim to have the lithium-alloy layer of Kita in order to prevent the formation of dendrites and therefore improve overall battery characteristics (“The present invention is to improve the charge-discharge cycle characteristics of a battery and eliminate the adverse effects of metal salts by immersing lithium in a non-aqueous solution in which a salt of a metal electrochemically alloying with lithium is dissolved outside the battery to form a lithium alloy on the surface of lithium and using the lithium alloy for a negative electrode in the production of a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery. That is, by immersing lithium in a non-aqueous solution in which a salt of a metal that electrochemically alloys lithium with lithium is dissolved outside the battery, the concentration and amount of the metal salt dissolved in the non-aqueous solution can be freely selected, dendrites during charging can be sufficiently prevented, and a sufficient amount of a lithium alloy can be formed on the lithium surface to sufficiently improve charge-discharge cycle characteristics.” Kita [0001])
Conclusion
The following references were considered to be relevant but were not used in the above rejection:
Foroozan (US 20240113393 A1)—teaches the usage of a protective coating for a lithium metal anode comprising a mixture of lithium alloys, including lithium-gallium, lithium-indium, and lithium-tin. Only difference from instant claim 1 is that the composite alloy layer is not explicitly in between the current collector and the lithium metal layer, although they can be both present on the surface of the anode current collector.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN ELI KASS-MULLET whose telephone number is (571)272-0156. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am-6pm except for the first Friday of bi-week.
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, NICHOLAS SMITH can be reached at (571) 272-8760. 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.
/BENJAMIN ELI KASS-MULLET/Examiner, Art Unit 1752
/NICHOLAS A SMITH/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752
Prosecution Insights