DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment and Claim Status
The amendment filed 29 December 2025 has been entered. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every 35 U.S.C. § 112 rejection set forth in the Office Action mailed 1 October 2025. Claims 3, 12, and 18 have been canceled. Claims 1, 2, 4–11, 13–17, and 19–21 are pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frysz et al. (US 6110622 A) in view of Choudhury et al. (Choudhury, R.; Wild, J.; Yang, Y. Engineering current collectors for batteries with high specific energy, Joule 5, p. 1301–1305, published 16 June 2021).
Regarding Claims 1 and 11, Frysz discloses an electrode (see current collector contacted with an electrode active material, C4L31–46; see also anode and cathode, C4L47–61) comprising:
a current collector (see conductive substrate 10A, C4L31–46, FIG. 6–9); and
an electrode material (see electrode material, C7L7–25) comprising an electrode active material (see electrode active material, C4L31–46, C6L58–C7L6),
the current collector (10A) comprising at least one groove formed in the current collector (10A) (see substrate portions 29, C4L31–46, FIG. 6–9),
the electrode material being provided within the at least one groove (29) (C4L31–46, C5L56–67, and C8L26–50),
each of the at least one groove (29) having a prescribed depth from a surface (see strand structure 22, C4L31–46, FIG. 6–9) of the current collector (10A) (C4L31–46, C5L28–55, FIG. 6–9),
the prescribed depth being less than the total thickness of the current collector (10A) (C4L31–46, C5L28–55, FIG. 6–9).
Frysz further discloses the total thickness of the current collector (10A) being about 1 to about 2000 µm (see 0.001 to about 2 millimeters, C3L36–51), which overlaps with the claimed range of 60 µm to 100 µm. Note that when the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP § 2144.05.I).
Furthermore, Choudhury teaches (p. 3101 ¶ “Batteries with high…”) current collectors for batteries with high specific energies, such as lithium metal batteries. Choudhury teaches that thickness of a current collector affects battery weight (p. 1301 ¶ “Although Cu and…”), cell resistance (p. 1304 ¶ “Although current collector…”), thermal conductivity (p. 1304 ¶ “Although current collector…”), and mechanical strength (p. 1304–1305 “The second challenge…”). Choudhury and Frysz are analogous to the claimed invention as they are in the same field of current collectors for secondary batteries.
A result-effective variable is a variable which achieves a recognized result. The determination of the optimum or workable ranges of a result-effective variable is routine experimentation and therefore obvious (MPEP § 2144.05.II). In the instant case, the thickness of the current collector is a variable that achieves the recognized result of affecting battery weight, cell resistance, thermal conductivity, and mechanical strength, as taught by Choudhury, thus making the thickness of the current collector a result-effective variable. Therefore, in addition to the prima facie case of obviousness established above, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electrode of Frysz such that the total thickness of the current collector is 60 µm to 100 µm via routine experimentation, for the purpose of achieving suitable levels of battery weight, cell resistance, thermal conductivity, and mechanical strength.
Frysz does not disclose the prescribed depth ranging from 20 µm to 40 µm, nor the prescribed depth being at least one third of the total thickness of the current collector (10A). However, Frysz does disclose (C5L56–67) that the presence of the grooves (29) allows for enhanced contact between the current collector (10A) and the electrode active material, as well as accommodation for increased amounts of electrode active material. One of ordinary skill in the art will understand from this disclosure of Frysz that the prescribed depth affects the amount of contact between the current collector (10A) and the electrode active material, and the amount of electrode active material that can be accommodated. Finally, one of ordinary skill in the art will also understand that the prescribed depth also affects the thickness of the current collector (10A) left below each groove (29) which, as taught by Choudhury above, affects battery weight, cell resistance, thermal conductivity, and mechanical strength.
A result-effective variable is a variable which achieves a recognized result. The determination of the optimum or workable ranges of a result-effective variable is routine experimentation and therefore obvious (MPEP § 2144.05.II). In the instant case, the prescribed depth is a variable that achieves the recognized result of affecting the amount of contact between the current collector and the electrode active material, the amount of electrode active material that can be accommodated, and the thickness of the current collector left below each groove, as disclosed by Frysz and taught by Choudhury, thus making the prescribed depth a result-effective variable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electrode of modified Frysz such that the prescribed depth is at least one third of the total thickness of the current collector and ranges from 20 µm to 40 µm via routine experimentation, for the purpose of achieving suitable levels of contact between the current collector and the electrode active material, amount of electrode active material that can be accommodated, and thickness of the current collector left below each groove.
Further regarding Claim 11, Frysz further discloses a battery (see battery, C4L47–61) comprising
a cathode (see cathode, C4L47–61);
an anode (see anode, C4L47–61); and
an electrolyte (see nonaqueous, ionically conductive electrolyte, C9L8–19) disposed between the cathode and the anode (one of ordinary skill in the art will understand that in a typical battery, some of a nonaqueous, ionically conductive electrolyte would be disposed between the cathode and the anode),
at least one of the anode and the cathode comprising the components of the electrode that are set forth in the rejection above (C4L31–46).
Regarding Claim 2, modified Frysz discloses the electrode of Claim 1. Frysz further discloses (C3L65–C4L21) wherein the current collector (10A) is formed of at least one of copper and aluminum.
Regarding Claims 4 and 13, modified Frysz discloses the electrode and battery of Claims 1 and 11, respectively. Frysz further discloses (C4L31–46, C5L28–55, C6L44–57, FIG. 6–9) wherein the at least one groove (29) comprises a plurality of grooves (29) formed in a pattern (see grid structure 14A) in the current collector (10A), each of the plurality of grooves (29) having a same prescribed depth from the surface (22) of the current collector (10A) (see e.g. FIG. 7, which appears to illustrate equivalent steps 30A between the surface (22) of the current collector (10A) and each groove (29)).
Regarding Claim 5, modified Frysz discloses the electrode of Claim 4. Frysz further discloses wherein the pattern comprises a plurality of concentric circles (C6L44–57).
Regarding Claim 7, modified Frysz discloses the electrode of Claim 1. Modified Frysz further discloses wherein the at least one groove (29) is formed such that a surface area of the current collector (10A) is greater than a surface area of the current collector (10A) before the at least one groove is formed (C5L56–67 disclose that the current collector has enhanced contact with the electrode active material after etching, i.e. an increased surface area; FIG. 6–9).
Regarding Claim 9, modified Frysz discloses the electrode of Claim 1. Frysz further discloses (C8L26–50) wherein the electrode active material is an anode active material that comprises at least one metal selected from lithium, sodium and magnesium (see metal selected from Group IA, IIA… of the Periodic Table of the Elements).
Regarding Claim 15, modified Frysz discloses the battery according to Claim 11. Frysz further discloses wherein
either the anode or the cathode comprise the at least one groove (29) formed in the current collector (10A) (as set forth in the rejection of Claim 11 above),
the anode including an anode current collector (see conductive substrate… that can be used to fabricate the anode, C4L47–61) and an anode material (see electrode active material, C4L31–46; see specifically metal selected from Group IA, IIA, or IIIB or the Periodic Table of the Elements, C8L26–50) provided within the at least one groove (29) of the anode current collector (C4L31–46, C5L56–67, and C8L26–50), or
the cathode including a cathode current collector (see conductive substrate… that can be used to fabricate the cathode, C4L47–61) and a cathode active material (see electrode active material, C4L31–46; see specifically e.g. mixed metal oxides, C6L58–C7L6) provided within the at least one groove (29) of the cathode current collector (C4L31–46, C5L56–67, and C8L26–50).
Frysz does not disclose a battery wherein each of the anode and the cathode comprise the at least one groove (29) formed in the current collector (10A).
However, Frysz discloses (C5L56–67) that the presence of the grooves (29) allows for enhanced contact between the current collector (10A) and the electrode active material, as well as accommodation for increased amounts of electrode active material. It would therefore have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the battery of modified Frysz such that each of the anode and the cathode comprise the at least one groove (29) formed in the current collector (10A), for the purpose of ensuring that both the anode and the cathode reap the benefits of enhanced contact between the current collector (10A) and the electrode active material, as well as accommodation for increased amounts of electrode active material.
Claims 6 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frysz et al. (US 6110622 A) in view of Choudhury et al. (Choudhury, R.; Wild, J.; Yang, Y. Engineering current collectors for batteries with high specific energy, Joule 5, p. 1301–1305, published 16 June 2021) as applied to Claims 1 and 11 above, as evidenced by Bhardwaj et al. (US 2014/0065457 A1).
Regarding Claims 6 and 14, modified Frysz discloses the electrode and battery of Claims 1 and 11, respectively, but does not disclose wherein the at least one groove (29) is formed by at least one of: laser etching and stamping, and instead discloses (C3L37–51) that the at least one groove (29) is formed by chemical machining, i.e. chemical etching.
However, it is noted that these limitations are considered to be product-by-process limitations, and even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process (In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964,966). Once the Examiner provides a rationale tending to show that the claimed product appears to be the same or similar to that of the prior art, although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to Applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product (In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292
(Fed. Cir. 1983), MPEP § 2113).
In the instant case, both laser etching and chemical etching are well-known in the field of current collectors for secondary batteries as processes for producing current collectors comprising patterned grooves of a prescribed depth, as evidenced by Bhardwaj ([0038]). As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect that the claimed product, produced via laser etching, would be the same or similar to that of modified Frysz, produced via chemical etching.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frysz et al. (US 6110622 A) in view of Choudhury et al. (Choudhury, R.; Wild, J.; Yang, Y. Engineering current collectors for batteries with high specific energy, Joule 5, p. 1301–1305, published 16 June 2021) as applied to Claim 1 above, as evidenced by Muffoletto et al. (US 5716422 A).
Regarding Claim 8, modified Frysz discloses the electrode of Claim 1. Frysz further discloses wherein the electrode material is provided on the surface of the current collector (10A) and within the at least one groove (29) by disclosing (C4L31–46) that the electrode active material can be contacted on the current collector (10A) via a spray coating process as described by Muffoletto. Such a spray coating process results in a lamellar structure which forms a coating on the current collector, as evidenced by Muffoletto (C1L56–C2L5); one of ordinary skill in the art will understand that this will inherently result in the electrode material being provided on the surface of the current collector (10A) and within the at least one groove.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frysz et al. (US 6110622 A) in view of Choudhury et al. (Choudhury, R.; Wild, J.; Yang, Y. Engineering current collectors for batteries with high specific energy, Joule 5, p. 1301–1305, published 16 June 2021) as applied to Claim 1 above, in further view of Liu et al. (Liu, J.; Bao, Z.; Cui, Y.; Dufek, E.J.; Goodenough, J.B.; Khalifah, P.; Li, Q.; Liaw, B.Y.; Liu, P.; Manthiram, A.; Meng, Y.S.; Subramanian, V.R.; Toney, M.F.; Viswanathan, V.V.; Whittingham, M.S.; Xiao, J.; Yang, J.; Yang, X.-Q.; Zhang, J.-G. Pathways for practical high-energy long-cycling lithium metal batteries, Nature Energy 4, p. 180–186, published 25 February 2019).
Regarding Claim 10, modified Frysz discloses the electrode of Claim 1. Frysz further discloses (C6L58–C7L6 and C8L21–25) wherein the electrode active material is a cathode active material that comprises a mixed metal oxide, and preferably can be coupled with an alkali metal anode. However, Frysz does not explicitly disclose wherein the cathode active material is a lithium transition metal oxide.
Liu teaches (p. 180 ¶ “Lithium (Li)-ion…”) analysis of factors to increase the cell-level energy density and cycle life of batteries comprising lithium metal anodes. Liu teaches (p. 180 ¶ “To develop the…”) that high-nickel-content lithium nickel manganese cobalt oxide (a lithium transition metal oxide) is an ideal cathode active material for coupling with a lithium metal anode due to its capacity, operating voltage, and commercial availability.
Liu is analogous to the claimed invention as it is in the same field of lithium-based electrodes for secondary batteries. It would therefore have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electrode of modified Frysz such that the cathode active material is a lithium transition metal oxide, specifically high-nickel-content lithium nickel manganese cobalt oxide, as Frysz discloses that the cathode active material can preferably be coupled with an alkali metal anode, and Liu teaches that high-nickel-content lithium nickel manganese cobalt oxide is an ideal cathode active material for coupling with a lithium metal anode due to its capacity, operating voltage, and commercial availability.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frysz et al. (US 6110622 A) in view of Choudhury et al. (Choudhury, R.; Wild, J.; Yang, Y. Engineering current collectors for batteries with high specific energy, Joule 5, p. 1301–1305, published 16 June 2021) as applied to Claim 15 above, in view of Nair et al. (Nair, J.R.; Imholt, L.; Brunklaus, G.; Winter, M. Lithium Metal Polymer Electrolyte Batteries: Opportunities and Challenges, Electrochem. Soc. Interface 28, p. 55–61, published 2019).
Regarding Claim 16, modified Frysz discloses the battery of Claim 15, but does not disclose wherein the electrolyte includes at least one of: a solid polymer electrolyte, and a solid state electrolyte comprising sulfide. Instead, Frysz discloses (C9L8–36) wherein the electrolyte includes a nonaqueous, ionically conductive electrolyte comprising a salt dissolved in an aprotic organic solvent. Note that Frysz also discloses that the battery comprises an alkali metal anode (C6L58–C7L6).
Nair teaches (p. 55 ¶ “Lithium metal anodes…”) batteries comprising lithium metal anodes. For such batteries, Nair teaches (p. 55 ¶ “Notably, lithium metal…”) that replacement of traditional liquid-solvent-based nonaqueous electrolytes with solid electrolytes is beneficial for suppressing deposition of high surface area lithium metal. Furthermore, Nair teaches (p. 55 ¶ “Today, solid polymer…” and Tables I and II) that solid polymer electrolytes specifically provide the benefits of lower lithium densities and improved flexibility compared to inorganic ceramic/glassy solid electrolytes.
Nair is analogous to the claimed invention as it is in the same field of secondary batteries capable of cycling lithium. It would therefore have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the battery of modified Frysz such that the electrolyte includes a solid polymer electrolyte, as solid polymer electrolytes can suppress deposition of high surface area lithium metal and have suitable lithium densities and flexibility.
Claims 17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho et al. (US 2016/0204464 A1) in view of Choudury et al. (Choudhury, R.; Wild, J.; Yang, Y. Engineering current collectors for batteries with high specific energy, Joule 5, p. 1301–1305, published 16 June 2021).
Regarding Claim 17, Cho discloses a battery (see secondary battery 200, [0094], FIG. 7) comprising:
a first metal support (see first electrode collector layer 101 and first conductor layer 103, [0077], [0094], FIG. 7; note that [0084] discloses that the first electrode collector layer 101 and the first conductor layer 103 may be unitary using the same conductive material) having at least one groove formed therein (see spaces between adjacent first conductor layers 103, FIG. 7), each of the at least one groove having a prescribed depth (see height of first conductor layers 103, FIG. 7) from a first surface (see top edge (in the vertical direction of FIG. 7) of first conductor layers 103, FIG. 7) of the first metal support (101+103), the prescribed depth being less than the thickness of the first metal support (101+103) (FIG. 7).
an anode material (see first active material layer 102, [0077], [0094], FIG. 7; note that [0123] discloses that the first active material layer 102 can have either polarity) formed on the first metal support (101+103) such that the anode material (102) is provided on the first surface of the first metal support (101+103) and within the at least one groove ([0094], FIG. 7);
an electrolyte (see electrolyte layer 120, [0077], [0094], FIG. 7) formed on the anode material (102) such that the electrolyte (120) is provided on the first surface of the first metal support (101+103) and within the at least one groove ([0094], FIG. 7);
a cathode material (see second active material layer 112, [0077], [0094], FIG. 7; note that [0123] discloses that the second active material layer 112 can have either polarity) formed on the electrolyte (120) such that the cathode material (112) is provided on the first surface of the first metal support (101+103) and within the at least one groove ([0094], FIG. 7); and
a second metal support (see second electrode collector layer 111 and second conductor layer 113, [0077], [0094], FIG. 7; note that [0084] discloses that the second electrode collector layer 111 and second conductor layer 113 may be unitary using the same conductive material) provided on the cathode material (112), the second metal support (111+113) having at least one projection (see second conductor layers 113, [0077], [0094], FIG. 7) configured to mate with the at least one groove of the first metal support (101+103) such that the at least one projection (113) of the second metal support (111+113) is provided within the at least one groove of the first metal support (101+103) (FIG. 7).
Cho does not explicitly disclose the total thickness of the first metal support (101+103) being 60 µm to 100 µm.
Choudhury teaches (p. 3101 ¶ “Batteries with high…”) current collectors for batteries with high specific energies, such as lithium metal batteries. Choudhury teaches that thickness of a current collector affects battery weight (p. 1301 ¶ “Although Cu and…”), cell resistance (p. 1304 ¶ “Although current collector…”), thermal conductivity (p. 1304 ¶ “Although current collector…”), and mechanical strength (p. 1304–1305 “The second challenge…”). Note that Cho discloses ([0079], [0084], [0086]) that the first metal support (101+103) conducts electrons, and therefore can be considered as analogous to a current collector. Also note that Choudhury and Cho are analogous to the claimed invention as they are in the same field of current collectors for secondary batteries.
A result-effective variable is a variable which achieves a recognized result. The determination of the optimum or workable ranges of a result-effective variable is routine experimentation and therefore obvious (MPEP § 2144.05.II). In the instant case, the thickness of the first metal support is a variable that achieves the recognized result of affecting battery weight, cell resistance, thermal conductivity, and mechanical strength, as taught by Choudhury, thus making the thickness of the first metal support a result-effective variable. It would therefore have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the battery of Cho such that the thickness of the first metal support is 60 µm to 100 µm via routine experimentation, for the purpose of achieving suitable levels of battery weight, cell resistance, thermal conductivity, and mechanical strength.
Cho does not disclose the prescribed depth ranging from 20 µm to 40 µm, nor the prescribed depth being at least one third of the total thickness of the first metal support (101+103).
Cho does disclose ([0086]) that that the grooves of the first metal support (101+103) enable easy transmittance of electrons from the bottom of the first metal support (101+103) to the ends of the anode (102) and cathode (112) materials, and uniform exchange of metal ions between the entire anode (102) and cathode (112) materials through the electrolyte (120). One of ordinary skill in the art will understand from this disclosure of Cho that the prescribed depth affects the ease of exchange of electrons from the bottom of the first metal support (101+103) to the ends of the anode (102) and cathode (112) materials and metal ions between the anode (102) and cathode (112) materials through the electrolyte (120). Finally, one of ordinary skill in the art will understand that that the prescribed depth also affects the thickness of the first metal support (101+103) left below each groove which, as taught by Choudhury above, affects battery weight, cell resistance, thermal conductivity, and mechanical strength.
A result-effective variable is a variable which achieves a recognized result. The determination of the optimum or workable ranges of a result-effective variable is routine experimentation and therefore obvious (MPEP § 2144.05.II). In the instant case, the prescribed depth is a variable that achieves the recognized result of affecting the ease of exchange of electrons from the bottom of the first metal support to the ends of the anode and cathode materials and metal ions between the anode and cathode materials through the electrolyte, as well as the thickness of the first metal support left below each groove, as disclosed by Cho and taught by Choudhury, thus making the prescribed depth a result-effective variable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the battery of modified Cho such that the prescribed depth is at least one third of the thickness of the first metal support and ranges from 20 µm to 40 µm via routine experimentation, for the purpose of achieving suitable levels of ease of exchange of electrons from the bottom of the first metal support to the ends of the anode and cathode materials and metal ions between the anode and cathode materials through the electrolyte, as well as the thickness of the first metal support left below each groove.
Regarding Claim 19, modified Cho discloses the battery of Claim 17. Cho further discloses (FIG. 7) wherein the at least one groove comprises a plurality of grooves formed in a pattern in the first metal support (101+103), each of the plurality of grooves having a prescribed depth from the surface of the first metal support (101+103).
Regarding Claim 20, modified Cho discloses the battery of Claim 19. Cho further discloses ([0094], FIG. 7) wherein the at least one projection (113) comprises a plurality of projections (113) each configured to mate with one of the plurality of grooves such that each of the plurality of projections (113) of the second metal support (111+113) is provided within a respective one of the plurality of grooves of the first metal support (101+103).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frysz et al. (US 6110622 A) in view of Choudhury et al. (Choudhury, R.; Wild, J.; Yang, Y. Engineering current collectors for batteries with high specific energy, Joule 5, p. 1301–1305, published 16 June 2021) as applied to Claim 1 above, further in view of Xu et al. (Xu, M.; Reichman, B.; Wang, X. Modeling the effect of electrode thickness on the performance of lithium-ion batteries with experimental validation, Energy 186, 115864, published 5 August 2019).
Regarding Claim 21, modified Frysz discloses the electrode of Claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the electrode material fills an entirety of the at least one groove (29). However, one of ordinary skill in the art will understand that the determination of whether the electrode material fills an entirety of the at least one groove (29) is based on the thickness of the electrode material layer.
Xu teaches (p. 2 ¶ “This paper develops…”) the effects of electrode thickness on lithium transport in secondary batteries. Xu teaches that increasing the thickness of an electrode material layer increases the energy density but also the internal resistance of the battery.
A result-effective variable is a variable which achieves a recognized result. The determination of the optimum or workable ranges of a result-effective variable is routine experimentation and therefore obvious (MPEP § 2144.05.II). In the instant case, the thickness of the electrode material layer is a variable that achieves the recognized result of affecting the energy density and internal resistance of the battery, as taught by Xu, thus making the thickness of the electrode material layer a result-effective variable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electrode of modified Frysz such that the thickness of the electrode material layer is such that the electrode material fills an entirety of the at least one groove via routine experimentation, for the purpose of achieving suitable levels of energy density and internal resistance in the battery.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 29 December 2025 with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections in the office action mailed 1 October 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the following reasons:
Applicant argues on p. 7–8 of Remarks in regards to Claims 1 and 11 that the references Frysz and Choudhury fail to teach the limitation “a current collector having at least one groove formed in the current collector, each of the at least one groove having a prescribed depth from a surface of the current collector, the prescribed depth ranging from 20 µm to 40 µm and being at least one third of a total thickness of the current collector and less than the total thickness of the current collector” as required by the amended claims. Applicant specifically argues:
Frysz does not teach or suggest forming grooves that have a prescribed depth;
Frysz only teaches generally that providing the intersecting strands 22, 24 is what creates the improved contact between the substrate and active material, and that Frysz fails to teach that the depth of the grooves affects the contact between the substrate and the active material, rather than the mere presence of the intersecting strands; and
Choudhury does not teach of suggest at least one groove formed in the current collector with a prescribed depth, let alone a groove having the claimed depth of 20 to 40 µm.
These arguments are not persuasive for the following reasons:
Firstly, as set forth in the rejection of Claims 1 and 11 above, Frysz does disclose (C4L31–46 and FIG. 6–9) grooves having a prescribed depth. Specifically, Frysz discloses in C4L31–46: “As shown in FIGS. 6 to 9, another embodiment of a conductive substrate 10A according to the present invention comprises a grid structure 14A wherein the workpiece is not contacted with the etchant for a period of time sufficient to completely etch away the material bordered by the frame 12 and the strand structures 22 and 24 to provide the openings 26. Instead, the areas where the openings 26 would reside is thinned or reduced in thickness but not etched completely through to provide substrate portions 29 having a thickness substantially less than that of the workpiece material…”; thus, Frysz can be understood as disclosing that the depth of the grooves is predetermined and controlled by the etching time; further, FIG. 6–9 clearly illustrate grooves (29) which are of regular and equal depth formed by the described process.
Secondly, as set forth in the rejection of Claims 1 and 11 above, Frysz discloses in C5L56–67: “Thus, those skilled in the art will realize that the selective chemical machining of the workpiece provides the conductive substrates 10 and 10A having a “basket weave” configuration provided by the intersecting strands 22, 24. This construction provides for enhanced contact between the conductive substrate and the electrode active material, particularly at those locations roughened by the corrosive action of the etchant on the workpiece. Further, the chemically machined conductive substrate 10, 10A do not have burrs which can contribute to short circuit conditions, and the portions of the workpiece removed by the etchant provide for increased amounts of active materials.”; thus, Frysz discloses that it is the surface area (“… this construction provides for enhanced contact between the conductive substrate and the electrode active material…”) and volume (“… the portions of the workpiece removed by the etchant provide for increased amounts of active materials…”) of the grooves which grant the disclosed effects. Because surface area and volume of the grooves can be dictated by the depth of the grooves, it can be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art from the disclosure of Frysz that it is the depth, and not the mere presence, of the grooves which determine the extent to which the above effects are observed. As such, this disclosure of Frysz, in combination with Choudhury as set forth in the rejection, together can be understood to identify the prescribed depth as a result-effective variable which would be obvious to optimize via routine experimentation.
Thirdly, it is noted that Choudhury is used as a teaching reference in the rejection of Claims 1 and 11, and therefore it is not necessary for this secondary reference to contain all the features of the presently claimed invention. Rather, this reference teaches a certain concept, namely the effect of current collector thickness on battery properties, and in combination with the primary reference, discloses the presently claimed invention.
For the above reasons, Applicant’s argument that Frysz and Choudhury fail to teach the above recited limitations of amended Claims 1 and 11 is not persuasive.
Applicant argues on p. 9 of Remarks in regards to Claims 6 and 14 that the reference Bhardwaj fails to teach or even suggest a current collector having at least one groove with a depth that is at least one third but less than a total thickness of the current collector and within the claimed range of 20 to 40 µm. This argument is not persuasive. It is noted that Bhardwaj is used as a teaching reference in the rejection of Claims 6 and 14, and therefore it is not necessary for this secondary reference to contain all the features of the presently claimed invention. Rather, this reference teaches a certain concept, namely that both laser etching and chemical etching are well-known in the field of current collectors for secondary batteries as processes for producing current collectors comprising patterned grooves of a prescribed depth, and in combination with the other cited references, discloses the presently claimed invention. Thus, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues on p. 9–10 of Remarks in regards to Claim 8 that the reference Muffoletto fails to teach or even suggest a current collector having at least one groove with a depth that is at least one third but less than a total thickness of the current collector and within the claimed range of 20 to 40 µm. This argument is not persuasive. It is noted that Muffoletto is used as an evidentiary reference in the rejection of Claim 8, and therefore it is not necessary for this evidentiary reference to contain all the features of the presently claimed invention. Rather, this reference provides evidence, namely that the spray coating process referenced by Frysz results in a lamellar structure which forms a coating on the current collector, and in combination with the other cited references, discloses the presently claimed invention. Thus, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues on p. 10 of Remarks in regards to Claim 10 that the reference Liu fails to teach or even suggest a current collector having at least one groove with a depth that is at least one third but less than a total thickness of the current collector and within the claimed range of 20 to 40 µm. This argument is not persuasive. It is noted that Liu is used as a teaching reference in the rejection of Claim 10, and therefore it is not necessary for this secondary reference to contain all the features of the presently claimed invention. Rather, this reference teaches a certain concept, namely that a lithium transition metal oxide, specifically high-nickel-content nickel manganese cobalt oxide, is an ideal cathode active material for coupling with a lithium metal anode due to its capacity, operating voltage, and commercial availability, and in combination with the other cited references, discloses the presently claimed invention. Thus, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues on p. 11 of Remarks in regards to Claim 16 that the reference Nair fails to teach or even suggest a current collector having at least one groove with a depth that is at least one third but less than a total thickness of the current collector and within the claimed range of 20 to 40 µm. This argument is not persuasive. It is noted that Nair is used as a teaching reference in the rejection of Claim 16, and therefore it is not necessary for this secondary reference to contain all the features of the presently claimed invention. Rather, this reference teaches a certain concept, namely that replacement of traditional liquid-solvent-based nonaqueous electrolytes with solid electrolytes is beneficial for suppressing deposition of high surface area lithium metal, and that solid polymer electrolytes specifically provide the benefits of lower lithium densities and improved flexibility compared to inorganic ceramic/glassy solid electrolytes, and in combination with the other cited references, discloses the presently claimed invention. Thus, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues on p. 11–14 of Remarks in regards to Claims 17–20 that the references Cho and Choudhury fail to teach the limitation “a battery comprising a first metal support having at least one groove formed therein, each of the at least one groove having a prescribed depth from a first surface of the first metal support, the prescribed depth ranging from 20 µm to 40 µm and being at least one third of a total thickness of the first metal support and less than the total thickness of the first metal support” as required by amended Claim 17. Applicant specifically argues:
The portion of Cho relied on by the Office Action merely teaches a secondary battery including a collector layer 101 and a conductor layer 103, along with an electrolyte layer 120, with Cho appearing to show in FIG. 7 merely a battery that is formed by folding or bending layers to form a desired structure; nowhere does Cho teach or even suggest grooves formed in a metal support layer of a battery;
Cho does not disclose the grooves having a prescribed depth of 20 to 40 µm; and
Choudhury does not teach or suggest at least one groove formed in the current collector with a prescribed depth, let alone a groove having the claimed depth of 20 to 40 µm.
These arguments are not persuasive for the following reasons:
Firstly, Cho does disclose grooves formed in a metal support for a battery, as set forth in the rejection of Claim 17 above. FIG. 7 of Cho clearly illustrates that the combination of collector layer 101 and conductor layer 103 (which as disclosed in [0084] can be unitary and made of the same conductive material) form a metal support with grooves formed by the spaces between adjacent first conductor layers 103, with the grooves having a depth that is analogous to the height of the first conductor layers 103 in the vertical direction. One of ordinary skill in the art can further determine from the equal and regular nature of each of these grooves as shown in FIG. 7 that they are of a prescribed depth, i.e. formed to be of a specific and matching height. Furthermore, whether the battery of Cho is formed by folding or bending layers to form a desired structure does not appear to be relevant to the instant claims, and it is further submitted that Cho does not appear to disclose folding or bending of layers.
Secondly, it is the case that Cho alone does not disclose that the prescribed depth ranges from 20 to 40 µm; instead, as set forth in the rejection of Claim 17 above, the combined disclosures of Cho and Choudhury together can be understood to identify the prescribed depth as a result-effective variable which would be obvious to optimize via routine experimentation.
Thirdly, it is noted that Choudhury is used as a teaching reference in the rejection of Claim 17, and therefore it is not necessary for this secondary reference to contain all the features of the presently claimed invention. Rather, this reference teaches a certain concept, namely the effect of current collector thickness on battery properties, and in combination with the primary reference, discloses the presently claimed invention.
For the above reasons, Applicant’s argument that Cho and Choudhury fail to teach the above recited limitations of amended Claim 17 is not persuasive.
Applicant argues on p. 14 of Remarks in regards to the rejection of Claim 21 that the reference Xu fails to teach or even suggest a current collector having at least one groove with a depth that is at least one third but less than a total thickness of the current collector and within the claimed range of 20 to 40 µm. This argument is not persuasive. It is noted that Xu is used as a teaching reference in the rejection of Claim 21, and therefore it is not necessary for this secondary reference to contain all the features of the presently claimed invention. Rather, this reference teaches a certain concept, namely the effects of electrode thickness on lithium transport in secondary batteries, particularly that increasing the thickness of an electrode material layer increases the energy density but also the internal resistance of the battery, and in combination with the other cited references, discloses the presently claimed invention. Thus, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Response to Arguments
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JULIA MARIE FEHR, Ph.D. whose telephone number is (571)270-0860. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM 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, BASIA RIDLEY can be reached at (571)272-1453. 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.
/J.M.F./Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/BASIA A RIDLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1725