DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is responsive to the November 3rd, 2025 arguments and remarks (“Remarks”). The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office 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 .
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendments received in the Remarks on November 3rd, 2025:
Claims 1 and 4-9 are pending in the present application. Claim 1 is amended.
Claim 1 is amended to specify a selection of compounds representing the source of a lithium ion of the lithium ion-containing polymer.
Support for the amendment is found in the applicant’s disclosure including the specification as originally filed. No new matter has been amended.
Status of Claims
Claims 1 and 4-9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as described below:
Claims 1, 4-5, and 8-9 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun et al. (W.O. Pat. No. 2019059662) in view of Adachi et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20040009402 A1), Ahn et al. (K.R. Pat. No. 20050043453 A), and Watanabe (U.S. Pat. No. 5186877 A), and further in view of Miyamae et al. (US. Pat. No. 20190372125 A1). The rejections are withdrawn based on the amendment to Claim 1.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun et al. (W.O. Pat. No. 2019059662) in view of Adachi et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20040009402 A1), Ahn et al. (K.R. Pat. No. 20050043453 A), Watanabe (U.S. Pat. No. 5186877 A), and Miyamae et al. (US. Pat. No. 20190372125 A1) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhang Chao et al. (C.N. Pat. No. 108832097 A). The rejections are withdrawn based on the amendment to Claim 1.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed November 3rd, 2025 have been fully considered as further described below:
The affidavit under 37 CFR 1.132 filed 11 is insufficient to overcome the rejection of Claims 1 and 4-9 based upon [Sun et al. (W.O. Pat. No. 2019059662) in view of Adachi et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20040009402 A1), Ahn et al. (K.R. Pat. No. 20050043453 A), Watanabe (U.S. Pat. No. 5186877 A), Miyamae et al. (US. Pat. No. 20190372125 A1), and Zhang Chao et al. (C.N. Pat. No. 108832097 A)] as set forth in the last Office action because: the affidavit provided attempts to demonstrate unexpected results for the electrochemical properties of surface patterned lithium foil and bare lithium foil when compared to surface-patterned copper foil and bare copper foil, finding that the lithium foil outperforms the copper foil in both cases (surface-patterned or bare).
"An affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 must compare the claimed subject matter with the closest prior art to be effective to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Burckel, 592 F.2d 1175, 201 USPQ 67 (CCPA 1979)" (see MPEP § 716.02(e)).
Applicant has not appropriately compared the claimed subject matter with the closest prior art as required by MPEP § 716.02(e). Similar to the affidavit filed on 06/12/2025, applicant compares lithium foil to copper foil to attempt to show unexpected results. However, on pg. 5 of the previous OA (dated 07/09/2025), Examiner utilizes prior art reference Sun et al. as the primary reference for the basis of the rejection in which Examiner considers to be the closest prior art; Sun et al. is cited to teach a lithium foil anode as claimed (see para. 13 of previous OA). Sun et al. is further modified by Adachi et al to adopt the structure, as recited in the rejection below, of the mesh projections in which include the spindle-like projections having a length within the claimed range forming a surface-patterned lithium foil. The closest prior art, Sun et al. as asserted by the Examiner, includes lithium foil as the anode, rather than copper foil as applicant suggests by the experimental results presented in the affidavit.
Further, it is unclear which prior art reference is relied upon as the closest prior art in the affidavit to support a suggestion of copper foil; it appears that the applicant is referring to the copper foil of Adachi et al. for comparison. However, the rejection is not based on a modification with the copper foil of Adachi et al. as described above and further described in the rejection below. Any further affidavits/declarations should clearly point out the prior art used in comparison and the comparison should be made in view of the closest prior art. For example, an appropriate affidavit may compare the lithium foil of the prior art (Sun et al.) to the lithium foil of the claimed invention providing sufficient evidence distinguishing there between and demonstrating unexpected results. As the rejection is not based on a teaching of a copper foil anode, the relevance of the affidavit is unclear.
Therefore, the applicant’s affidavit is not sufficient in demonstrating unexpected results and/or persuading non-obviousness. All changes made to the rejection are based on the newly added limitations.
Cited Prior Art
Previously cited Sun et al. (WO 2019059662) (“Sun et al.”)
Previously cited Adachi et al. (US 20040009402 A1) (“Adachi et al.”)
Previously cited Watanabe (US 5186877 A) (“Watanabe”)
Previously cited Miyamae et al. (US 20190372125 A1) (“Miyamae et al.”)
Previously cited Zhang Chao et al. (CN 108832097 A) (“Zhang Chao et al.”)
Previously Cited Ahn et al. (KR 20050043453 A) (“Ahn et al.”)
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
All figures referenced and included in previous office actions have been omitted.
Claims 1, 4-5, and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun et al. (W.O. Pat. No. 2019059662) in view of Adachi et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20040009402 A1), Ahn et al. (K.R. Pat. No. 20050043453 A), and Watanabe (U.S. Pat. No. 5186877 A), and further in view of Miyamae et al. (US. Pat. No. 20190372125 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Sun et al. teaches a metal secondary battery in which a metal is provided as a negative electrode (anode) and a metal ion is reduced to a solid metal during the charging process; the metal secondary battery may be a lithium-ion battery (para. 25). The metal electrode (10) of the battery may be a lithium foil (Fig. 1, para. 28) and will be described as a lithium foil anode hereinafter. The metal secondary battery (100) can include all solid materials and lithium forming an all-solid-state lithium battery comprising a negative electrode (10) (lithium foil anode), a positive electrode (40) (cathode), a separator (30), a protective layer (20), a negative electrode current collector (50), a positive electrode current collector (60), and a solid electrolyte (Fig 2, para. 41-47). A protective layer (20) may be disposed on the lithium foil anode and a method of applying the slurry or prepared protective layer is described (Fig. 1, para. 29, 38).
Furthermore, to prepare the protective layer (20) for application on the lithium foil anode, graphene, a carbon nanomaterial, is mixed with water to prepare or form a dispersion; dopamine is added to the dispersion and stirred, equivalent to mixed (para. 55). Mixing dopamine with the dispersion allows or permits the dopamine to be polymerized on the carbon nanomaterial (para. 36). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that mixing dopamine with the dispersion permits the dopamine to perform a polymerization reaction. The carbon nanomaterial (21) is coated or surface-modified with the polydopamine layer (22) (Fig. 1). The surface-modified carbon nanomaterial may further be dispersed in a binder (23) to form the protective layer (20) (Fig. 1). The binder may be a polymer further containing lithium salt analogous to a lithium-ion containing polymer (para. 32 and 34). The slurry or mixture containing the surface-modified carbon nanomaterial and the binder or lithium ion-containing polymer may be applied to the lithium foil anode (para. 36-38). Further, Sun et al. teaches the polymer binder may contain a lithium salt such as lithium nitrate (para. 32 and 34) forming a lithium ion-containing polymer in which lithium nitrate is a source of lithium ions.
Sun et al. does not teach step (c) of forming a regular sub-millimeter scale textured structure on a lithium foil as required by Claim 1. Sun et al. does not teach a composite polymer electrolyte membrane.
Adachi et al. teaches combining a metal foil member (14d) and a mesh member (14e) shown in Fig. 3 to form projections (14c) shown in Fig. 2 (para. 29). Adachi et al. teaches depressions not limited to a lattice structure with almost square openings, but also may be a rhombus or a hexagon, both of which are spindle-like shapes; the mesh projections or openings in the mesh have a length larger than 1/400 inch but smaller than 1/4 inch, equivalent to a range of 63.5 µm to 6350 µm (para. 31). Therefore, the size of the openings of the mesh member may be less than one millimeter in length to form a regular sub-millimeter scale texture structure on a foil member. Adachi et al. teaches pressing the mesh member (14e) against one of the faces or sides of the foil member (14d) (Fig. 3, para. 41). The mesh member can be made using thin metal lines forming a weave texture equivalent to a metal mesh having a textured pattern (Fig. 3, para. 30).
Further, Adachi et al. further teaches the regular sub-millimeter scale textured structure including numerous, or a plurality, of columns of mesh projections (14c) analogous to first depressions and the columns of the first depressions being displaced from each other horizontally or in a first direction (Fig. 2). Each of the columns of the first depressions include numerous, or a plurality of first depressions. Each of the first depressions of each column are displaced from each other in a horizontal, or first direction, and a vertical, or second direction. Referencing items (1) and (2), the first depressions of each of the columns are staggered with the first depressions of an adjacent one of the columns (Fig. 2).
Ahn et al. teaches a secondary battery comprising a lithium foil anode (14) and a composite polymer electrolyte (13) disposed between the anode and cathode (12) forming a membrane (Fig. 4, para. 9).
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 lithium foil of Sun et al. to include the formation of a sub-millimeter scale textured structure using a mesh member in which the depressions may have a length larger than 1/400 inch but smaller than 1/4-inch, equivalent to a range of 63.5 µm to 6350 µm, as taught by Adachi et al. and to further modify the all-solid-state lithium battery of Sun et al. to include a composite polymer electrolyte membrane as taught by Ahn et al. The claimed range of 450 µm to 640 µm falls within the range of the prior art. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (see MPEP § 2144.05, I).
Further, it would have been obvious to adopt the structure of the mesh projections as described by Adachi et al. Specifically, the mesh member of Adachi et al., can be formed of sub-millimeter openings and pressed against the lithium foil of Sun et al. to form a textured surface on the lithium foil. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found the teachings of Adachi et al. useful when searching for an improved method of battery manufacturing, specifically preparation of a metal foil anode. It would be obvious to form mesh projections on the lithium foil in step (c) to suppress expansion and contraction of the anode active material layer, preventing pulverization and peeling of the anode active material and improving cycle characteristics (Adachi et al., Abstract). Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would find the teachings of Ahn et al. useful in providing an optimal solid polymer electrolyte with improved ion conductivity and mechanical properties for use in a lithium battery (Ahn et al., para. 4).
Further, Sun et al. does not specifically teach cold pressing the lithium foil with the metal mesh.
Watanabe teaches cold pressing at room temperature under the pressure from 1 atm to 200 atm (15 psi to 2900 psi), preferably from 5 atm to 50 atm (73 psi to 730 psi), for 5 to 300 seconds in the process of preparing an electrode (para. 28).
Therefore, 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 lithium foil of Sun et al. including the pressed mesh member of Adachi et al. to further include the step of cold pressing as taught by Watanabe. One of ordinary skill in the art would find the teachings useful when determining an optimal method for combining the lithium foil with the metal mesh.
Further, Sun et al. does not teach the structure including a plurality of rows of second depressions, the rows of the second depressions being displaced from each other in the second direction, each of the rows of the second depressions including a plurality of the second depressions which are displaced from each other in the first direction, the second depressions of each of the rows of the second depressions being staggered with the second depressions of an adjacent one of the rows of the second depressions such that one of the first depressions is surrounded by four of the second depressions and one of the second depressions is surrounded by four of the first depressions.
Based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim limitations, one of ordinary skill in the art would consider the first and second depressions to have varying shape or orientation. Annotations have been added in color to the original image to aid in understanding (See previous Office Action). Referencing Fig. 1, Miyamae et al. teaches a first protrusion (341A), analogous to a first depression, and a second protrusion (341B), analogous to a second depression, on the surface of a negative electrode current collector (342) (Fig. 1, para. 58). The first and second depressions have a long rectangular shape with opposite orientation (para. 30). The structure includes more than one or a plurality of rows of second depressions (341B). Each of the rows are displaced from each other in a vertical or second direction. Each row includes two, or a plurality of second depressions. Annotated item (2), a second depression, is surrounded by four first depressions while item (1), a first depression, is surrounded by four second depressions (341B). Item (2) is displaced from adjacent second depressions in a horizontal first direction and vertical second direction.
Therefore, 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 lithium foil of Sun et al. to include both first and second depressions of various shapes or orientation as taught by Miyamae et al. in forming the metal mesh member as taught by Adachi et al. Similarly, it would be obvious to stagger the rows of second depressions as taught by Adachi et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would find the teachings of Miyamae et al. useful as it is related directly to a lithium secondary battery including a nonaqueous electrolyte. Furthermore, Miyamae et al. includes benefits of arranging the protrusions as described such as reducing the likelihood of blocking the movement of a nonaqueous electrolyte, limiting expansion and reduction in charge/discharge efficiency, and improving safety of the lithium secondary battery (para. 29).
Regarding Claim 4, Sun et al. is modified by Adachi et al., Ahn et al., Watanabe, and Miyamae et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. As shown above, Watanabe teaches the cold pressing being performed at a range including or overlapping the claimed range of 25 psi to 150 psi. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (see MPEP § 2144.05, I).
Regarding Claim 5, Sun et al. is modified by Adachi et al., Ahn et al., Watanabe, and Miyamae et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. Sun et al. teaches the carbon particles analogous to carbon nanomaterial may be carbon black, carbon nanotubes, graphene, or a composite including one thereof. The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to select carbon black, carbon nanotubes, or graphene to improve the lifespan of the metal secondary battery (para. 14).
Regarding Claim 8, Sun et al. is modified by Adachi et al., Ahn et al., Watanabe, and Miyamae et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. Sun et al. teaches a weight ratio ranging from 5 to 50 parts by weight of the surface modified carbon nanomaterial with respect to 100 parts by weight of the binder or lithium ion containing polymer (para. 33). A weight ratio of 50 to 100, equivalent to 1:2, parts by weight of surface modified carbon nanomaterial to the lithium ion-containing polymer is included in the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (see MPEP § 2144.05, I).
Regarding Claim 9, Sun et al. is modified by Adachi et al., Ahn et al., Watanabe, and Miyamae et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. Adachi et al. teaches that the mesh member may be formed of thin metal lines of nickel, stainless steel, or the like (para. 30). Therefore, the mesh member can be described as a metal mesh. The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to select a nickel or stainless-steel mesh so that the weave texture or mesh is not easily deformed to improve effects (Adachi et al. para. 30).
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun et al. (W.O. Pat. No. 2019059662) in view of Adachi et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20040009402 A1), Ahn et al. (K.R. Pat. No. 20050043453 A), Watanabe (U.S. Pat. No. 5186877 A), and Miyamae et al. (US. Pat. No. 20190372125 A1) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhang Chao et al. (C.N. Pat. No. 108832097 A).
Regarding Claim 6, Sun et al. is modified by Adachi et al., Ahn et al., Watanabe, and Miyamae et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. Sun et al. teaches adding or introducing a tris-L-L buffer solution in the polymerization reaction of step b) (para. 36).
Sun et al. does not specifically teach introducing a tris(hydroxymethyl)aminomethane buffer solution in the dispersion.
Zhang Chao et al. teaches polymerization (a polymerization reaction) performed by adding a buffer reagent tris(hydroxymethyl)aminomethane hydrochloride (tris(hydroxymethyl)aminomethane buffer solution) to a dispersion to adjust the pH to a value between 8 and 9 (para. 14).
Therefore, 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 polymerization reaction of Sun et al. to include the addition of tris(hydroxymethyl)aminomethane buffer solution to adjust the pH to a value between 8 and 9 as taught by Zhang Chao et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would find the teachings useful to determine improved methods of preparing and applying a carbon nano composite material. Furthermore, if duplicating the results of Sun et al., it would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to research specific tris L-L buffer solutions.
Regarding Claim 7, Sun et al. is modified by Adachi et al., Ahn et al., Watanabe, Miyamae et al., and Zhang Chao et al., teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 6 above. As applied to Claim 6, Zhang Chao et al. teaches the pH of the dispersion being adjusted to a value ranging from 8 to 9 as specified by the claim (para. 14).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINA RENEE DAULTON whose telephone number is (703)756-5413. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, ULA RUDDOCK can be reached at (571) 272-1481. 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.
/C.R.D./Examiner, Art Unit 1729
/ULA C RUDDOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729