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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are moot in view of the new ground of rejection which includes prior art not previously relied upon. In the interest of compact prosecution two grounds of rejection are made below, one for anode patterning and one for cathode patterning as the claims are still generic to both.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 8-12, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (U.S. Pub No. 2020/0395600 of record) in view of Proell et al. (US Pub 2020/0028140 cited in IDS).
With regard to claim 8, Chen et al. teach an anode for Li-ion batteries with high capacity and fast charging capability (title - i.e. a method for improving the performance of a lithium-ion battery) and a method of making the anode, the method comprising: forming a first electrolyte well and second electrolyte well (vertical channels 24) in an electrode (anode 14) of the lithium-ion battery 10 using a laser source configured to emit a beam (paragraph [0061-0063]); applying an electrolyte to the electrode resulting in a portion of the electrolyte being present in the electrolyte wells 24; and storing the electrolyte in the electrolyte well (liquid electrolyte infiltration into porosity of separator 18, anode 14 and cathode 16 – paragraph [0068]): wherein: the electrode 14 comprises a length, a width, and a thickness (various SEM and schematic figures), the electrolyte well 24 extends into a first portion of the length of the electrode, the electrolyte wells are substantially parallel to each other (figure 1) and extend into a second portion of the width of the electrode, and the electrolyte wells have a depth less than the thickness of the electrode (see figure 19, paragraph [0053]).
Chen et al. teach that the anode further defines patterned channels with a tunable geometry to reduce electrolyte concentration gradients during cycling. Suggesting that an electrolyte is applied and present in the channels to solve the low accessible capacity of and Li plating problems that tend to affect thicker anode structures (paragraphs [0061-0066]) which indicates that the size, shape and pattern of the laser ablation (and therefore the resulting electrolyte retention properties) are result effective variables which should be optimized (MPEP 2144.05 Part II).
In regard to the amendment, the claim now differs from the prior art in calling for winding the electrode into a jelly roll formation. However, Proell et al. teach a similar laser ablated and patterned electrode containing parallel electrolyte wells (see figure 3 – paragraph [0047]) and the desirability to wind the electrode (anode 21 or cathode 22) up into a roll to form a jelly roll formation (figures 1 and 2 – paragraph [0044]) when forming a battery cell 2 because such is a much more time efficient way of forming a battery cell than stacking the cells (paragraph [0029]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the before the effective filing date of the claimed invention filed to wind the electrode of Chen et al. into a jelly roll as such is a more time efficient process for forming an electrode assembly as taught by Proell et al.
With regard to claims 9 and 15, Chen et al. teach the beam size, and the first, second, and third portions being approximately to the size of the beam, Chen et al. teach that the laser ablation process is more apt to form clean, debris and residual particle free, and well-defined vertical channels. Parameters of the laser such as power, wavelength, repetition rate, pulse duration and number of pulses can be tuned to help in this regard. Therefore, as the laser defines the channels, it would be inherent that the channels, formed by laser ablation, be of a size that would produce a length, width, and depth associated with the laser beam in such a way to produce clean, debris and residual particle free, well-defined channels.
With regard to claim 10, Chen et al. teach the that first portion is approximately equivalent to the length of the electrode, [0061].
With regard to claim 12, Chen et al. depicts in Fig. 1 channels (24) extending along the width of the anode.
In regard to claims 11 and 14, Chen et al. doesn’t teach the about 5 µm to about 50 µm range of the second portion and the depth of the channel being less than about 100 µm.
Chen et al. however teach that the patterned channels have a tunable geometry to reduce electrolyte concentration gradients during cycling in an effort to solve the low accessibility capacity of Li plating problems than tend to affect thicker anode structures.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the anode of Chen et al. with channels having a width and depth as claimed in order to prevent low capacity of Li plating of the anode as taught by Chen et al.
Claims 8-12, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu et al. (“The Ultrafast Laser Ablation of Li(Ni0.6Mn0.2Co0.2)O2 Electrodes with High Mass Loading” cited in IDS).
With regard to claim 8, Zhu et al. teach a cathode for Li-ion batteries and a method for improving the performance of a lithium-ion battery, the method comprising: forming first and second electrolyte wells (laser structured lines) in an electrode (cathode) of the lithium-ion battery using a laser source configured to emit a beam (figure 1, page 2 and 3 of 15); applying an electrolyte to the electrode resulting in a portion of the electrolyte being present in the electrolyte wells; and storing the electrolyte in the electrolyte wells (NMC 622 electrodes were soaked in electrolytes for 20 mins to ensure a homogeneous and complete wetting – section 2.2. Cell Preparation and characterization): wherein: the electrode comprises a length, a width, and a thickness, the electrolyte wells (line structure) extends into a first portion of the length of the electrode, the electrolyte well extends into a second portion of the width of the electrode, and the electrolyte wells are substantially parallel to each other (figure 2 below) and have a depth less than the thickness of the electrode (see pages 4 and 5, figure 2 and 3).
PNG
media_image1.png
526
668
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Zhu et al. teach that the cathode laser structured patterns should be selected related to the specific application-oriented demand, as certain thicknesses and depth were shown to have better power or capacity properties, which indicates that the size, shape and pattern of the laser ablation (and therefore the resulting electrolyte retention properties) are result effective variables which should be optimized (MPEP 2144.05 Part II).
In regard to the amendment, the claim now differs from the prior art in calling for winding the electrode into a jelly roll formation. However, Proell et al. teach a similar laser ablated and patterned electrode containing parallel electrolyte wells (see figure 3 – paragraph [0047]) and the desirability to wind the electrode (anode 21 or cathode 22) up into a roll to form a jelly roll formation (figures 1 and 2 – paragraph [0044]) when forming a battery cell 2 because such is a much more time efficient way of forming a battery cell than stacking the cells (paragraph [0029]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the before the effective filing date of the claimed invention filed to wind the electrode of Zhu et al. into a jelly roll as such is a more time efficient process for forming an electrode assembly as taught by Proell et al.
With regard to claims 9 and 15, Zhu et al. teach as seen in figure 1, the beam size, and the first, second, and third portions being approximately to the size of the beam.
With regard to claim 10 and 12, Zhu et al. teach the first and second portion is approximately equivalent to the length and/or width of the electrode (figures 1-3, line extends the entire length/width, which dimension is called length or width may be selected based on the overall geometry of the electrode, which may be cut into circles – see section 3.1 Electrode Preparation).
In regard to claim 11, Zhu et al. teach as seen in figure 2 above, a width such as approximately 40 microns for the laser channel may be formed.
In regard to claim 14, Zhu et al. teach the electrode may have a thickness of 91 micron (see first Example in figure 2 above), and therefore the depth of the channel must less than about 100 µm.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US Pub 2026/0038888 newly cited teaches a similar method of laser patterning electrodes which are substantially parallel (figure 3) considered relevant to the instant invention.
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 Nicholas P D'Aniello whose telephone number is (571)270-3635. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 9am to 5pm 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, Tong Guo can be reached at 571-272-3066. 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.
/NICHOLAS P D'ANIELLO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723