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 the Claims
Claims 1, 3-4, 9, 11-13, and 16-18 are pending and rejected. Claims 5, 10, 14, and 15 are withdrawn as being directed to non-elected species. Claims 2 and 6-8 are canceled. Claims 1, 3, and 4 are amended.
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 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 1, 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inoue, JP 2014167849 A in view of Liu, US 2014/0315083 A1, and Piwko, US 2020/0052304 A1.
The citations for Inoue, JP 2014167849 A are in reference to the machine translation provided by Espacenet.
Regarding claim 1, Inoue teaches a process for producing a bi-polar electrode for a battery (producing a conductive laminate sheet used in forming a bipolar battery having a plurality of electrodes having current collectors made of the conductive laminate, 0020, Fig. 1E, and Fig. 2), said process comprising:
a) providing a conductive material foil having a thickness from 10 nm to 100 µm and two opposing parallel primary surfaces and coating one or both of the primary surfaces with a layer of carbon material having a thickness from 5 nm to 50 µm to form a carbon-coated current collector (where a metal layer, i.e., conductive material, having a thickness of 50 nm or more and 1,000 nm or less is coated on at least one side with a conductive resin, 0011 and 0016, where the conductive resin includes a carbon-based material such as graphite, carbon black, etc., 0011, 0037, and 0039, where since the metal has a thickness within the claimed range it is considered to be a metal foil, where the conductive resin layer has a thickness of 0.01 microns or more, preferably 0.1 microns or more and preferably 30 microns or less, 0088); and
b) depositing a negative electrode layer and a positive electrode layer onto two opposing primary surfaces of said carbon-coated current collector, wherein said negative electrode layer is in physical contact with said layer of carbon material or directly with a primary surface of said conductive material foil and said positive electrode layer is in physical contact with said layer of carbon material or directly with the opposing primary surface of said conductive material foil and wherein the negative electrode and the positive electrode deposited on the two opposing primary surfaces have different compositions or structures (where a positive electrode and a negative electrode are laminated onto the conductive laminate sheet as a current collector of a bipolar battery so as to be on opposing primary surfaces, 0102, Fig. 1E, and Fig. 3, where the positive electrode includes active materials such as lithium-transition metal composite oxides or lithium-transition metal phosphate compounds, 0104-0105, and the negative electrode includes active materials such as carbon active materials, 0119-0120, so as to provide different compositions).
They teach that the metal material is selected from metals including aluminum, tin, niobium, copper, nickel, iron, chromium, titanium, gold, silver, platinum, and alloys thereof (0022). They teach that the battery is used for a lithium-ion secondary battery (0001).
Inoue does not teach using graphene as the carbon-based material.
Liu teaches a graphene coating-modified electrode plate for lithium secondary batteries where the electrode plate comprises a current collector foil, graphene layers coated on both surfaces of the current collector foil, and electrode active material layers coated on the graphene layers (abstract). They teach that the graphene coating-modified electrode plate increases the electrical conductivity and dissipation functions of the electrode plate due to the better electrical conductivity and thermal conductivity of graphene (abstract). They teach that the graphene layer has a thickness of 0.1 to 20 microns (0011). They teach that the electrode active material includes a positive material or a negative material (0013). They teach that the graphene layer includes a binder (0016-0018 and 0035). Therefore, Liu teaches applying a coating containing graphene, i.e. a carbon-based particle, and a binder on a current collector foil for a lithium secondary battery where the coating increases the electrical conductivity and dissipation functions of the electrode plate due to the better electrical conductivity and thermal conductivity of graphene.
From the teachings of Liu, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the process of Inoue to have used graphene as the carbon-based material in the layer coating the collector foil because Liu teaches that applying a coating containing graphene and a binder on a current collector foil for a lithium secondary battery increases the electrical conductivity and dissipation functions of the electrode plate due to the better electrical conductivity and thermal conductivity of graphene such that it will be expected to provide the desired electrical conductivity for the coating layer due to graphene being conductive while also providing benefits of dissipation functions as described by Liu. Further, since Inoue teaches forming the coating layer at a thickness of 0.1 microns or more to 30 microns or less and Liu teaches forming the graphene layer at a thickness of 0.1-20 microns, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected a thickness in the range of 0.1 to 20 microns because both Inoue and Liu indicate that a thickness within this range is suitable for a layer imparting electrical conductivity using a carbon-based material in a polymer. Therefore, in the process of Inoue in view of Liu a layer of graphene material will be applied onto the foil current collector of the bipolar electrode where the foil has a thickness within the claimed range (50-1,000 nm) and the graphene material layer has a thickness within the claimed range (0.1 to 12 µm). According to MPEP 2131.03, “[W]hen, as by a recitation of ranges or otherwise, a claim covers several compositions, the claim is ‘anticipated’ if one of them is in the prior art.” Titanium Metals Corp.v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citing In re Petering, 301 F.2d 676, 682, 133 USPQ 275, 280 (CCPA 1962)) (emphasis in original).
They do not teach that the current collector is one of the claimed materials.
Piwko teaches a bipolar electrode arrangement for energy storage (0002). They teach that the bipolar electrode arrangement includes a foil 302 disposed between an active anode material layer 402 and an active cathode material layer 404 (0120 and Fig. 5). They teach that the foil 302 may provide, for example, the cathode foil and/or the anode foil of the energy storage cell (0120 and Fig. 5). They teach that the foil includes an anode foil protection layer and a cathode foil protection layer (0121, 0125, and Fig. 5). They teach that the foil may be formed from a first metal such as aluminum, tin, germanium, magnesium, lead, zinc, antimony, and lithium (0041). They teach that the foil may be used in a battery such as a lithium-ion accumulator (0046). They teach that they protection layer is formed of a second metal different from the first metal such as copper, titanium, or nickel (0048 and 0137). They teach that the foils are inexpensive, have low weight and/or have particularly good passivatability, and/or generally be of good suitability (0056).
From the teachings of Piwko, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the process of Inoue in view of Liu to have formed the current collector from a metal foil such as magnesium or antimony with a protective coating of Ti, Cu, or Ni because Piwko teaches that such materials are desirable for use as a current collector in a bipolar electrode where they are inexpensive, have low weight and/or have particularly good passivatability, and/or generally be of good suitability such that it will be expected to provide a desirable metal foil current collector material in the bipolar electrode of Inoue in view of Liu.
Regarding claim 16, Inoue in view of Liu and Piwko suggest the process of claim 1. Inoue further teaches heating the coating layer at 50°C or more and 450°C or less (0083), where since the coating layer of Inoue in view of Liu and Piwko will contain multiple graphene sheets, the resulting layer that is heat-treated is expected to provide an aggregate layer of multiple graphene sheets so as to provide heating within the claimed range. According to MPEP 2131.03, “[W]hen, as by a recitation of ranges or otherwise, a claim covers several compositions, the claim is ‘anticipated’ if one of them is in the prior art.” Titanium Metals Corp.v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citing In re Petering, 301 F.2d 676, 682, 133 USPQ 275, 280 (CCPA 1962)) (emphasis in original).
Regarding claim 18, Inoue in view of Liu and Piwko suggests the process of claim 1. Inoue further teaches forming a bipolar battery including a plurality of electrodes having current collectors made of the conductive laminate (0020, Fig. 1E, and Fig. 2). Therefore, multiple bi-polar electrodes as defined in claim 1 will be implemented to form a bi-polar battery.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inoue in view of Liu and Piwko as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jang, US 2017/0221643 A1.
It is noted that the second inventor is used for US 2017/0221643 A1 to differentiate between Zhamu references.
Regarding claim 9, Inoue in view of Liu and Piwko suggest the limitations of instant claim 1.
They do not teach compressing the formed layer of graphene material to an extent that multiple graphene sheets are substantially aligned to be parallel to one another.
Jang teaches a process for producing an electrolyte-impregnated laminar graphene structure for use as a supercapacitor electrode (abstract). They teach that a dispersion is prepared containing graphene sheets in an electrolyte and the dispersion is subjected to a forced assembly procedure which results in the graphene sheets being substantially aligned along a desired direction (abstract). They teach that the process may further include a step of compressing or roll-pressing the electrolyte-impregnated laminar structure to reduce the thickness and improve the orientation of the graphene planes along a direction parallel to the conveyor surface (0039 and 0041). They teach that the orientation is conducive to a faster charge response and provides good conductivity along the plane directions (0083 and 0098). Therefore, Jang indicates that pressing can reduce thickness and improve the orientation of graphene sheets in a film along a direction parallel to a surface.
From the teachings of Jang, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have pressed or compressed the formed graphene material layer to improve the orientation of the graphene layers so that they are substantially aligned to be parallel to one another and to improve the in-plane properties of the film because Jang indicates that pressing a graphene containing layer provides such benefits such that it will be expected to result in improved properties of the film such as the conductivity due to the alignment. Therefore, in the process of Inoue in view of Liu, Piwko, and Jang the graphene material layer will be compressed to an extent that the multiple graphene sheets are substantially aligned to be parallel to one another.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inoue in view of Liu and Piwko as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Scheffer, WO 2016/081689 A2.
Regarding claims 11 and 12, Inoue in view of Liu and Piwko suggests the process of claim 1.
They do not teach that the coating procedure for coating the primary surfaces of the conductive material foil comprise forming a layer of an aggregate of multiple oriented/aligned graphene sheets are substantially parallel to one another.
Scheffer teaches applying a conductive composition to a portion of a first side of a first layer, where the conductive composition comprises graphene sheets (abstract). They teach applying a layer 105 to a substrate using methods such as CVD, PVD, electrochemical deposition, spraying, roll-to-roll coating, printing, and spin coating (0014). They teach depositing electroconductive layer 110 on layer 105, where layer 110 can include graphene sheet-based inks (0015). They teach that layer 110 is deposited using screen printing (0015). They teach that the conductivity of layer 110 can increase as the application pressure and/or temperature increases, where increasing the application pressure can increase the horizontal alignment of the graphene sheets, which can increase graphene sheet interconnectivity and the conductivity (0015).
From the teachings of Scheffer, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the process of Inoue in view of Liu and Piwko to have coated the foil by coating the mixture or dispersion onto the foil substrate by screen printing with the application of pressure, so as to increase the horizontal alignment of the graphene sheets because Scheffer teaches that depositing a graphene ink by screen printing with the application of pressure improves the horizontal alignment of the graphene sheets and increases the conductivity such that it will be expected to provide the desired and predictable result of successfully coating the foil with a graphene/binder dispersion to provide a film with aligned/oriented graphene sheets to improve the electrical conductivity of the film. Therefore, in the process of Inoue in view of Liu, Piwko, and Scheffer the procedure of coating at least one primary surface of the foil with a layer of graphene material comprises forming a layer of an aggregate (i.e. multiple sheets of graphene) of multiple oriented/aligned graphene sheets that are aligned horizontally on the substrate by a coating process.
As to dispersing the graphene sheets in a matrix material or using a binder, Inoue teaches that a conductive resin-containing solvent is applied to the metal layer to form a coating film (0077). They teach that the conductive resin-containing solvent contains the conductive resin composition and a solvent (0078). They teach including PVP as a dispersant to disperse the conductive material uniformly to improve conductivity (0045). They teach mixing to provide the varnish (0169), such that a dispersion will be formed. They teach forming the coating and then heating to dry the film and to form the resin layer (0082-0084 and 0087).
Liu teaches coating both surfaces of the current collector foil with a graphene layer by mixing graphene, binder, and solvent to form a slurry, where the layer can be applied by printing (0021 and 0030).
Scheffer teaches using graphene sheet-based inks (0015).
From this, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have mixed the polymer, graphene, and a solvent so as to provide a dispersion or slurry or ink and to coat the dispersion of the foil by screen printing because both Inoue and Liu indicate that such a mixture and process is suitable for coating the foil, where the mixture is a dispersion, Liu indicates that the graphene dispersion can be deposited by printing, and Scheffer indicates that screen printing can be used to coat a graphene-based ink, i.e. graphene in a liquid or a graphene dispersion, such that it will be expected to provide a suitable method and mixture for forming the film. Additionally, since Liu indicates that the polymer is used as a binder and Inoue teaches using a polymer or resin, it is understood to also act as a binder for the graphene sheets. Therefore, in the process of Inoue in view of Liu, Piwko, and Scheffer, the coating procedure will comprise dispersing multiple graphene sheets in an adhesive resin/binder polymer, in a liquid medium (solvent) to form the dispersion/suspension/slurry followed by coating or depositing the dispersion onto the foil or substrate so as to form a wet aggregate of the graphene sheets (where the multiple graphene sheets in the coating are considered to provide an aggregate of the sheets) and then drying the coating layer (such that it will remove the liquid medium) so as to form an aggregate of multiple graphene sheets on the foil, i.e. the graphene layer.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inoue in view of Liu, Piwko, and Scheffer as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Jang, US 2017/0221643 A1.
It is noted that the second inventor is used for US 2017/0221643 A1 to differentiate between Zhamu references.
Regarding claim 13, Inoue in view of Liu, Piwko, and Scheffer suggest the process of claim 11.
They do not teach consolidating the aggregate to align the multiple graphene sheets and/or to reduce porosity.
As discussed above for claim 9, from the teachings of Jang, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have pressed or compressed the formed graphene material layer to improve the orientation of the graphene layers so that they are substantially aligned to be parallel to one another and to improve the in-plane properties of the film because Jang indicates that pressing a graphene containing layer provides such benefits such that it will be expected to result in improved properties of the film such as the conductivity due to the alignment. Therefore, in the process of Inoue in view of Liu, Piwko, Scheffer, and Jang the graphene material layer will be compressed to an extent that the multiple graphene sheets are substantially aligned to be parallel to one another. Further, since the thickness is reduced, it is also expected to reduce the porosity in the aggregate.
Claims 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inoue in view of Liu and Piwko as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Zhamu, US 2017/0162291 A1 and Jang, US 2017/0221643 A1.
It is noted that the second inventor is used for US 2017/0221643 A1 to differentiate between Zhamu references.
Regarding claim 17, Inoue in view of Liu and Piwko suggest the limitations of instant claim 16.
They do not teach pressing after heat-treating.
Zhamu teaches a process for producing a highly conducting film of conductor-bonded graphene sheets that are highly oriented comprising (a) preparing a graphene dispersion; (b) depositing the dispersion onto a supporting solid substrate under a shear stress to form a wet layer; (c) drying the wet layer to form a dried layer having oriented graphene sheets; (d) heat treating the dried layer; and (e) impregnating the porous graphitic film with a conductor material that bonds the constituent graphene sheets to form the conducting film (abstract). They teach that the process for producing the graphitic film of highly oriented graphene sheets can be conducted on a continuous roll-to-roll basis making it more cost-effective (0051). They teach that the coating operation must include a provision of inducing shear stresses that align the graphene sheets along the surface plane of the supporting solid substrate so as to achieve high in-plane electrical and thermal conductivity values of the resulting film (0029). They teach that the coating operation can include silk screen coating, rotary screen coating, extrusion coating, or a combination thereof (0030). Zhamu teaches that the process further comprises a step of mechanically compressing or consolidating the film to produce a highly conducting film (0024 and 0081). They teach that compression can be done before or after impregnation to reduce the thickness of the film (0094). They also teach compressing after impregnation to form a solid, relatively pore-free film (0142). They teach that compression can be done before or after impregnation to reduce the thickness of the film (0094). They also teach compressing after heating (0094).
As discussed above for claim 9, Jang provides the suggestion of pressing or compressing the graphene material layer to improve the orientation of the graphene layers so that they are substantially aligned to be parallel to one another and to improve the in-plane properties of the film.
From the teachings of Zhamu and Jang, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have compressed the graphene layer after heating to align the sheets because Zhamu and Jang indicate that pressing a graphene containing layer improves conductivity and the in-plane properties of the film and Zhamu indicates that pressing can be done after heating the film, indicating it is a dry film, such that it will be expected to result in improved properties of the film.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inoue, JP 2014167849 A in view of Zhamu, US 2018/0053931 A1 (hereinafter Zhamu ‘931), Scheffer, WO 2016/081689 A2, and Piwko, US 2020/0052304 A1.
The citations for Inoue, JP 2014167849 A are in reference to the machine translation provided by Espacenet.
Regarding claim 3, as discussed above for claim 1, Inoue teaches producing a bi-polar electrode for a battery by applying a carbon material onto at least one surface of a foil current collector of the bipolar electrode, where the foil has a thickness within the claimed range (50-1000 nm). According to MPEP 2131.03, “[W]hen, as by a recitation of ranges or otherwise, a claim covers several compositions, the claim is ‘anticipated’ if one of them is in the prior art.” Titanium Metals Corp.v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citing In re Petering, 301 F.2d 676, 682, 133 USPQ 275, 280 (CCPA 1962)) (emphasis in original). They teach applying the carbon material to at least one surface of the foil and depositing a positive electrode material layer on one surface of the bipolar current collector and a negative electrode material layer on the other surface so as to provide a positive and negative electrode layer, where the negative electrode active material for the negative electrode material is selected from materials that are different from those for the positive electrode, indicating that the layers can have different compositions.
Inoue teaches that the conductive laminate sheet is endowed with electrical conductivity due to the conductive material (0037). They teach forming a lithium-ion secondary battery using the bipolar electrode plate (0001). Inoue teaches using aluminum, iron, chromium, silver, gold, niobium, and alloys thereof as the metal for the metal layer (0022).
Inoue does not teach using graphene as the carbon-based material.
Zhamu ‘931 teaches a humic acid-bonded metal foil current collector in a battery comprising (a) a thin metal foil having two opposed but parallel primary surfaces; and (b) a thin film of a mixture of humic acid (HA) and graphene, wherein both HA and graphene are chemically bonded to at least one of the two primary surfaces; wherein the thin film has a thickness from 10 nm to 10 microns (abstract). They teach that the film is electrolyte-compatible, non-reactive, corrosion-protective, of low contact resistance, thermally and electrically conductive, ultra-thin, and light-weight, enabling a battery to deliver a higher output voltage, higher energy density, high rate-capability, and much longer cycle life (0032). They teach that the current collector is a metal foil selected from copper, titanium, nickel, stainless steel, aluminum, or a combination thereof (0036). They teach preparing a dispersion of HA and graphene in a liquid medium, dispensing the dispersion onto at least one primary surface of a metal foil, removing the liquid medium from the wet layer to form a dried layer, and heat-treating the dried layer to produce the highly oriented humic acid/graphene film-bonded metal foil current collector (0044-0048, 0050, and 0113-0117). They teach that the process may comprise an additional step of further heat-treating the humic acid film-bonded metal foil to produce a graphitic film-bonded metal foil current collector (0049). They teach that the thin film of HA/graphene is chemically inert and provides a highly effective protective layer against corrosion of the underlying metal foil (0087). Therefore, Zhamu ‘931 teaches forming a coating on a current collector including the materials taught by Kaneko where the coating contains HA and graphene that are chemically bonded to the current collector so as to provide a film that is electrolyte-compatible, non-reactive, corrosion-protective, of low contact resistance, thermally and electrically conductive, ultra-thin, and light-weight, enabling a battery to deliver a higher output voltage, higher energy density, high rate-capability, and much longer cycle life.
From the teachings of Zhamu ‘931, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the process of Inoue to have used the HA/graphene film on the current collector to a thickness of 10 nm to 10 microns because Zhamu ‘931 teaches that the film is electrolyte-compatible, non-reactive, corrosion-protective, of low contact resistance, thermally and electrically conductive, ultra-thin, and light-weight, enabling a battery to deliver a higher output voltage, higher energy density, high rate-capability, and much longer cycle life where the film is formed to a thickness of 10 nm to 10 microns such that it will be expected to provide the benefits to the collector of Inoue while providing the conductivity as desired. Therefore, in the process of Inoue in view of Zhamu ‘931, at least one primary surface of the current collector will be coated with a layer of graphene material having a thickness within the claimed range to form a graphene-coated current collector, where the layer of graphene material is chemically bonded to the conductive material foil. According to MPEP 2131.03, “[W]hen, as by a recitation of ranges or otherwise, a claim covers several compositions, the claim is ‘anticipated’ if one of them is in the prior art.” Titanium Metals Corp.v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citing In re Petering, 301 F.2d 676, 682, 133 USPQ 275, 280 (CCPA 1962)) (emphasis in original).
They do not teach coating by brushing, hot melt coating, screen printing, or a combination thereof. Zhamu ‘931 teaches dispensing the dispersion by subjecting the dispersion to an orientation-inducing stress to align the HA sheets and graphene sheets (0114).
Scheffer teaches applying a conductive composition to a portion of a first side of a first layer, where the conductive composition comprises graphene sheets (abstract). They teach applying a layer 105 to a substrate using methods such as CVD, PVD, electrochemical deposition, spraying, roll-to-roll coating, printing, and spin coating (0014). They teach depositing electroconductive layer 110 on layer 105, where layer 110 can include graphene sheet-based inks (0015). They teach that layer 110 is deposited using screen printing (0015). They teach that the conductivity of layer 110 can increase as the application pressure and/or temperature increases, where increasing the application pressure can increase the horizontal alignment of the graphene sheets, which can increase graphene sheet interconnectivity and the conductivity (0015).
From the teachings of Scheffer, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the process of Inoue in view of Zhamu ‘931 to have coated the foil by coating the dispersion onto the foil substrate by screen printing with the application of pressure, so as to provide alignment of the HA sheets and graphene sheets because Scheffer teaches that depositing a graphene ink by screen printing with the application of pressure improves the horizontal alignment of the graphene sheets and increases the conductivity and Zhamu ‘931 indicates it is desirable to align the HA and graphene sheets such that it will be expected to provide the desired and predictable result of successfully coating the foil with the HA/graphene dispersion with an orientation-controlling stress to provide a film with aligned/oriented HA/graphene sheets to improve the electrical conductivity of the film. Therefore, in the process of Inoue in view of Zhamu ‘931 and Scheffer the procedure of coating both primary surfaces of the foil with a layer of graphene material comprises a coating process selected from screen printing.
They do not teach that the current collector is formed from one of the listed materials.
As discussed above for claim 1, Piwko teaches forming the foil from a metal such as magnesium, zinc, tin, or antimony (0041).
From the teachings of Piwko, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the process of Inoue in view of Zhamu ‘931 and Scheffer to have formed the current collector from a metal foil such as magnesium, zinc, tin, or antimony with a protective coating of Cu, Ti, or Ni because Piwko teaches that such materials are desirable for use as a current collector in a bipolar electrode where they are inexpensive, have low weight and/or have particularly good passivatability, and/or generally be of good suitability such that it will be expected to provide a desirable metal foil current collector material in the bipolar electrode of Inoue in view of Liu.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inoue, JP 2014167849 A in view of Zhamu, US 2018/0053931 A1 (hereinafter Zhamu ‘931) and Piwko, US 2020/0052304 A1.
The citations for Inoue, JP 2014167849 A are in reference to the machine translation provided by Espacenet.
Regarding claim 4, as discussed above for claim 3, Inoue in view of Zhamu ‘931 and Piwko suggests the features of claim 4, of producing a bi-polar electrode for a battery by applying a graphene material onto the foil current collector of the bipolar electrode, where the foil has a thickness within the claimed range (50-1,000 nm) and the graphene material layer has a thickness within the claimed range (10 nm to 10 µm), where the conductive material foil is selected from magnesium, tin, zinc, or antimony. According to MPEP 2131.03, “[W]hen, as by a recitation of ranges or otherwise, a claim covers several compositions, the claim is ‘anticipated’ if one of them is in the prior art.” Titanium Metals Corp.v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citing In re Petering, 301 F.2d 676, 682, 133 USPQ 275, 280 (CCPA 1962)) (emphasis in original). They suggest applying the graphene material at least one surface of the foil and depositing a positive electrode material layer on one surface of the bipolar current collector and a negative electrode material layer on the other surface so as to provide a positive and negative electrode layer, where the negative electrode active material for the negative electrode material is selected from materials that are different from those for the positive electrode, indicating that the layers can have different compositions.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/22/2026 have been fully considered.
In light of the amendment to claims 1, 3, and 4, Applicant’s arguments are considered persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been modified with the new reference of Piwko as discussed above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINA D MCCLURE whose telephone number is (571)272-9761. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30-5:00 EST.
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.
/CHRISTINA D MCCLURE/Examiner, Art Unit 1718 /GORDON BALDWIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights