DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2/26/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This is a non-final office action in response to Applicant's remarks and amendments filed on 2/26/2026. Claims 1-12 and16-20 are currently amended. Claim 14 is cancelled. Claim 21-22 are newly added. Claims 1-13 are pending review in this action.
The 35 U.S.C. 112, 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections in the previous Office Action are withdrawn.
New grounds of rejection necessitated by Applicant's amendments are presented below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, Davis fails to teach or suggest “wherein the at least one opening forms a channel providing access to the trench separating the second cells thereby forming one or more connected networks of channels and trenches. However, Figs. 1,3b,3c3d of Davis illustrate how the vertically aligned carbon nanotubes that form the forest are separate enough to form passages within the forest, and the passages are open from sides of the forest to communicate with the gaps, or “trenches”, between the forests, thus forming the claimed connected networks of channels and trenches.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-2 and 21-22 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1, 21-22: Claim 1 was amended to delete the recitation “three dimensional electrode comprising” the now claimed scaffold structure on a substrate. However, since the dependent claims 3-11, 15 and 20 thereof still recite, “The 3D electrode according to claim 1”, examiner has considered claim 1 to include the recitation, “A 3D electrode comprising a scaffold structure on a substrate” and considered new claims 21-22 to include the recitation “The 3D electrode according to claim 1” for consistency in order to avoid indefinite issues based on 35 USC 112(b).
Claim 2: In claim 2, line 2, the recitation “an a layer of further material provided on the scaffold structure” was deleted in the most recent amendments, yet in line 2, the instant claim requires the inclusion of “the layer of further material” in lines 18-21. Thus, the recitation “wherein the layer of further material” in line 18 is considered to have recited, “wherein a layer of further material” for consistency in order to avoid indefinite issues based on 35 USC 112(b).
Appropriate correction is required.
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 17-19 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.
Claim 16 was amended to delete the recitation about a composite layer on a surface of the carbon nanotubes and comprising a first electrode material. However, claims 17-19 each further include limitations to the composite layer or first electrode layer/material. For examination purposes, claims 17-19 are considered to include the respective layers as being introduced in these claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 6-9, 11-13, 15-16, 18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Davis (US 20110183206A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Davis discloses a scaffold structure on a substrate as a 3D electrode [par. 0051], the scaffold structure comprising carbon nanotubes 108 (e.g., carbon nanotube forests 106,202 on a substrate 102,208), wherein the carbon nanotubes are oriented largely parallel in a direction away from the substrate (e.g., vertically aligned carbon nanotubes) [pars. 0026-32; Figs. 1-3], and
wherein in a plane along a surface of the substrate, the carbon nanotubes are formed in first cells formed by one or more connected structures of carbon nanotubes (i.e., single forest 106 comprising carbon nanotubes 108), wherein the first cells are nested in a structure of second cells, different from the first cells (i.e., each forest is separated by a porous spacer 112 disposed therebetween), wherein the connected structures of carbon nanotubes comprise at least one opening, without carbon nanotubes, to provide access to the surface of the substrate (i.e., passages 204,302 that extend from an upper planar surface formed by the tops 206 of the carbon nanotube forests to the substrate 208) [pars. 030-32],
wherein second cells are separated from other ones of the second cells by a trench to prevent carbon nanotubes of ones of the second cells from contacting a carbon nanotube of other ones of the second cells across a first gap formed by the trench (i.e., each forest is separated by a porous spacer 112 disposed therebetween such that a carbon nanotube of ones of the second cells is prevented from contacting a carbon nanotube of other ones of the second cells; also the gaps in Figs. 2-3 between individual forests form the trenches, as claimed),
wherein the trench provides access to the substrate between connected structures of the carbon nanotubes, and
wherein the at least one opening forms a channel providing access to the trench separating the second cells thereby forming one or more connected networks of channels and trenches (i.e., Figs. 1,3b,3c3d illustrate how the vertically aligned carbon nanotubes that form the forest are separate enough to form passages within the forest, and the passages are open from sides of the forest to communicate with the gaps, or “trenches”, between the forests, thus forming the claimed connected networks of channels and trenches).
Regarding Claim 3, Davis discloses wherein the nanotubes have a length between 20 and 500 micrometer (e.g., 100 micrometer) [par. 0044].
Regarding Claim 6, Davis discloses wherein the connected structure of carbon nanotubes comprises a largest dimension, in a direction along the substrate, of less than 500 micrometer (i.e., the pitch, or the distance between the center of one forest to the center of an adjacent forest, is from 1-100 micrometer, which necessarily results in the largest dimension of the connected structure to be less than 500 micrometer) [pars. 0034,0043].
Regarding Claim 7, it seems that the instant application discloses forming of trenches in a linear fashion along a direction of movement of said substrate in order for the scaffold structure to exhibit the claimed effect during processing (i.e., during process of forming the scaffold structure) [PgPublication – par. 0129; Fig. 12]. In this regard, Davis discloses that the trenches separating the connected structures are also formed in a linear fashion such that the scaffold structure of Davis is capable of exhibiting the claimed effect in the case where the method of forming subsequent coatings on the pillars by moving the substrate along a single direction of movement during processing would be capable of utilizing a drag flow induced by said movement [Davis – Fig. 2].
Regarding Claim 8, Davis discloses wherein the at least one opening may be defined by one or more structures taken from the group consisting of:
an inner surface of the connected structure,
an outer surface of the connected structure, and
an opening defined by outer surfaces of adjacent structures [Figs. 1-2].
Regarding Claim 9, Davis discloses wherein the one or more openings have an orientation in a direction along the substrate [Figs. 1-2].
Regarding Claim 11, Davis discloses a top layer that is present covering the connected structures of carbon nanotubes to maintain a constant distance between terminal ends of the carbon nanotubes (i.e., by layering of porous spacer 112, cathode material 114, or current collector 116) [Fig. 1].
Regarding Claim 12, Davis discloses a method for producing a scaffold structure comprising carbon nanotubes (e.g., carbon nanotube forests 106,202 on a substrate 102,208) [pars. 0010-11,0026-32,0042-45,0050-52]; Figs. 1-3,5-6] comprising:
providing a substrate 102,202,
patterning the substrate to render a patterned substrate, and
growing largely parallel carbon nanotubes on the patterned substrate in a direction away from the patterned substrate,
wherein the patterned substrate is arranged to define carbon nanotubes growth, in a plane along a surface of the patterned substrate, in first cells formed by one or more connected structures of carbon nanotubes (i.e., single forest 106 comprising carbon nanotubes 108), wherein first cells are nested in a structure of second cells, different from the first cells, wherein the second cells are formed of second connected structures of carbon nanotubes (i.e., each forest is separated by a porous spacer 112 disposed therebetween), and wherein the connected structures of carbon nanotubes comprise at least one opening, without carbon nanotubes, to provide access to the surface of the patterned substrate (i.e., passages 204,302 that extend from an upper planar surface formed by the tops 206 of the carbon nanotube forests to the substrate 208) [pars. 030-32],
wherein the connected structure of carbon nanotubes comprises at least one opening, without carbon nanotubes, to provide access to the surface of the patterned substrate (i.e., passages 204,302 that extend from an upper planar surface formed by the tops 206 of the carbon nanotube forests to the substrate 208) [pars. 030-32], and
wherein ones of the second cells are separated from other ones of the second cells by a trench to prevent carbon nanotubes of one of the second cells from contacting a carbon nanotube of another one of the second cells across a first gap formed by said trench, wherein the trench provides access to the patterned substrate between connected structures of the carbon nanotubes (i.e., each forest is separated by a porous spacer 112 disposed therebetween such that a carbon nanotube of ones of the second cells is prevented from contacting a carbon nanotube of other ones of the second cells; also the gaps in Figs. 2-3 between individual forests form the trenches, as claimed).
Regarding Claim 13, Davis discloses the process further comprises further comprising depositing a further material (electrochemically active coating or porous spacer) on said scaffold structure using a fluid processing step,
wherein the fluid processing step comprises one or more types of fluid processing taken from the group consisting of: sputtering and CVD, and ALD and wet deposition methods [pars. 0009,0042,0047,0050-52; Figs. 1,5(d),6].
Regarding Claim 15, Davis discloses the electrode further comprising a top layer covering the connected structures of connected carbon nanotube structures (e.g., porous spacer 112), and an ingress structure formed by channels provided in the top layer (i.e., pores of or gaps/spaces within the porous spacer), to allow access to a fluid [pars. 008-9,0027; Fig. 1] {It is noted that Davis does not explicitly teach “to allow access to a fluid”. However, the latter recitation is recited in an intended use format where the fluid is not constituted by or is comprised by the electrode of the claimed invention. Since the structure of Davis meets the claimed structure, it is necessarily capable of allowing access to a fluid}.
Regarding Claim 16, Davis discloses an energy storage structure (battery 100) comprising the scaffold according to claim 1 as a 3D electrode [pars. 0026-0035,0051; Fig. 1-3].
Regarding Claim 18, the instant claim pertains to a method of forming the claimed invention that does not define a structural feature of the claimed product, and thus, is not given patentable weight for examination purposes.
Regarding Claim 20, Davis discloses wherein said substrate is a rigid substrate (i.e., the substrate includes stainless steel foil) [par. 0043].
Claim(s) 4-5, 17 and 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis, as applied to claims 1 and 16, respectively.
Regarding Claims 4 and 21, Davis discloses the pitch (i.e., the distance between the center of one forest to the center of an adjacent forest) is from 1-100 micrometer that may be controlled in order to reduce the transport resistance between an anode and a cathode to reduce the distance lithium ions have to travel or to obtain a desired energy density [pars. 0034,0043]. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled artisan to have optimized the first gap formed by the trench to separate the carbon nanotubes across the first gap by a distance between 500 nm and 20 micrometer in order to control the transport resistance between an anode and a cathode to reduce the distance lithium ions have to travel or to obtain a desired energy density, without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success [MPEP 2144.05(II)].
Regarding Claim 5, Davis discloses the pitch (i.e., the distance between the center of one forest to the center of an adjacent forest) is from 1-100 micrometer that may be controlled in order to reduce the transport resistance between an anode and a cathode to reduce the distance lithium ions have to travel or to obtain a desired energy density [pars. 0034,0043]. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled artisan to have optimized the smallest lateral dimension of the connected structure of carbon nanotubes in a direction along the substrate to be provided in a range from 1.6 micrometer to 85 micrometer in order to control the transport resistance between an anode and a cathode to reduce the distance lithium ions have to travel or to obtain a desired energy density, without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success [MPEP 2144.05(II)].
Regarding Claim 17, Davis discloses wherein the 3D electrode is further provided with an additional layer comprising an electrolyte material (e.g., porous spacer 112) and a further additional layer comprising a second electrode material (cathode material 114) [pars. 0027; Fig. 1], but fails to teach wherein the electrolyte material comprises a solid state electrolyte material, and wherein the first and/or the second electrode layer comprises lithium or sodium. However, providing the porous spacer to include a solid state electrolyte material between the anode and the cathode is well-known in the art for forming lithium-ion batteries, and providing the first and/or second electrode materials to include lithium or sodium is also well-known in the art as negative electrode material (e.g., lithium metal or alloy) or as positive electrode material (lithium cobalt oxide). Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled artisan to have modified the energy storage structure of Davis, wherein the electrolyte material comprises a solid state electrolyte material, and wherein the first and/or the second electrode layer comprises lithium or sodium, as well-known materials for forming electrolytes and first/second electrode materials in the art for lithium ion batteries.
Regarding Claim 22, Davis discloses the pitch (i.e., the distance between the center of one forest to the center of an adjacent forest) is from 1-100 micrometer that may be controlled in order to reduce the transport resistance between an anode and a cathode to reduce the distance lithium ions have to travel or to obtain a desired energy density [pars. 0034,0043]. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled artisan to have optimized a second gap formed by the channel that separates the carbon nanotubes across the channel by a distance of at least 0.5 μm in order to control the transport resistance between an anode and a cathode to reduce the distance lithium ions have to travel or to obtain a desired energy density, without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success [MPEP 2144.05(II)].
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis, as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Haverkate (WO2017105234A1 – foreign copy published 6/22/2017 previously provided; US20180375100A1 publication used as English-equivalent).
Regarding Claim 10, Davis fails to teach wherein the substrate is a flexible substrate. However, Haverkate, from the same field of endeavor, teaches manufacturing of a lithium battery with a substrate current collector formed of pillars on the substrate oriented largely parallel in a direction away from said substrate [Haverkate – Abstract; pars. 0031,0049]. Haverkate further teaches that such structure made on a bendable metal foil (i.e., substrate foil) allowing coiling or winding to increase the energy or power density per unit volume which can be made by providing isolated islands of pillar-clusters patterned in a metal foil to enable easy flexing [Haverkate – pars. 0008,0061]. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled artisan to have modified the substrate of Davis to have comprised a flexible substrate in order to increase energy or power density per unit volume of the electrode without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis, as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Rojeski (US20150099184A1).
Regarding Claim 19, Davis discloses wherein the energy storage structure further comprises a composite layer provided on a surface of said carbon nanotubes, wherein said composite layer comprises a first electrode material (e.g., active material layer 110) but fails to disclose wherein the composite layer has a gradient in a direction away from the substrate or in a direction along the substrate. However, Rojeski, from the same field of endeavor, discloses an electrode for a lithium ion battery comprising a plurality of carbon nanotubes 110 on a conductive substrate 105, wherein a composite layer including a first electrode material (silicon layer 115) is coated on the carbon nanotubes in a gradient (i.e., the Si coating is gradually thinned coaxially from the top to around the lower portion of the carbon nanotubes) which enables the whole Silicon Layer 115 to be electrically connected through the CNF 110 and to remain fully active during charge-discharge cycling [Rojeski – pars. 0015,0062-63,0068; Fig. 1A]. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled artisan to have employed the teachings of Rojeski to have modified the energy storage structure of Davis, wherein the composite layer has a gradient in a direction away from the substrate or in a direction along the substrate in order to enable the whole of the composite layer to be electrically connected through the carbon nanotubes and to remain fully active during charge-discharge cycling.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis (US 20110183206A1) in view of Tran-Van (FR2984014A1 – foreign copy and machine translations provided).
Regarding Claim 2, Davis discloses a scaffold structure on a substrate, the scaffold structure comprising carbon nanotubes 108 (e.g., carbon nanotube forests 106,202 on a substrate 102,208), wherein the carbon nanotubes are oriented largely parallel in a direction away from the substrate (e.g., vertically aligned carbon nanotubes) [pars. 0026-32; Figs. 1-2], and
wherein in a plane along a surface of the substrate, the carbon nanotubes are formed in one or more connected structures of carbon nanotubes (i.e., single forest 106 comprising carbon nanotubes 108), wherein the connected structures leave at least one area free of carbon nanotubes, to provide access to the surface of the substrate (i.e., passages 204,302 that extend from an upper planar surface formed by the tops 206 of the carbon nanotube forests to the substrate 208) [pars. 030-32], and
wherein ones of the connected structures are separated from other ones of the connected structures by one or more trenches to prevent carbon nanotubes of ones of the connected structures from contacting a carbon nanotube of another one of the connected structures across a first gap formed by the trench (i.e., each forest is separated by a porous spacer 112 disposed therebetween such that a carbon nanotube of ones of the second cells is prevented from contacting a carbon nanotube of other ones of the second cells; also the gaps in Figs. 2-3 between individual forests form the trenches, as claimed), and
wherein the trench provides access to the substrate between connected structures of the carbon nanotubes, and
wherein the at least one area free of carbon nanotubes forms a channel providing access to the one or more trenches forming one or more connected networks of channels and trenches (i.e., Figs. 1,3b,3c3d illustrate how the vertically aligned carbon nanotubes that form the forest are separate enough to form passages within the forest, and the passages are open from sides of the forest to communicate with the gaps, or “trenches”, between the forests, thus forming the claimed connected networks of channels and trenches),
wherein a layer of further material comprises electrode material (i.e., either active material 110), and
wherein a layer of further material conformally coats the sidewalls of the scaffold structure (i.e., the active material 110 uniformly coats the carbon nanotubes by way of CVD [pars. 0026,0047; Fig. 1,3] as described in ¶0038 of PgPublication of instant application for conformal coverage of a material to be deposited along sidewalls of the carbon nanotube structures).
Davis fails to further teach that the layer of further material conformally coats at least area free of carbon nanotubes and the surface of the substrate accessible through the first gap. However, Tran-Van, from the same field of endeavor, discloses a battery electrode 10 comprising a substrate 13, vertically aligned carbon nanotubes 14 forming a dense network connected by its base to the substrate, openings/gaps between the carbon nanotubes, and a layer of further material 12 comprising electrode material (i.e., silicon-based coating 12) is conformally coated on the sidewalls of the carbon nanotubes as well as the surface of substrate (note that layer 15 is optional) [Tran-Van – pg. 2, boxed/underlines sections; Fig. 5]. Tran-Van teaches that when the layer of further material comprising an electrode material is formed on all or part of the substrate, the electrode material having nanometric dimensions and very high surface/volume ratio makes it possible to better accommodate the mechanical stresses due to the volume variations resulting from the insertion and deinsertion of lithium [Tran-Van – pg. 2, boxed/underlines sections; Fig. 5]. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled artisan to have employed the teachings of Tran-Van to have modified the electrode of Davis, wherein the layer of further material conformally coats the surface of the substrate accessible through the at least area free of carbon nanotubes and the surface of the substrate accessible through first gap in order to render the electrode material of Davis having nanometric dimensions [Davis – par. 0041] and very high surface/volume ratio to make it possible to better accommodate the mechanical stresses due to the volume variations resulting from the insertion and deinsertion of lithium.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAROON S SHEIKH whose telephone number is (571)270-0302. The examiner can normally be reached 9-6.
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, JONATHAN LEONG can be reached at (571) 270-1292. 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.
HAROON S. SHEIKH
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1751
/Haroon S. Sheikh/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit