Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status
This Office Action is responsive to the Arguments and Amendments filed 20 April 2026. As directed by applicant, no claims are currently amended, cancelled or added. Thus claims 1, 3, and 16-20 are pending. This is a Final Office Action.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 16 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Wanatabe (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/ 0276670) in view of Matsuo (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/ 0096763) further in view of Tanaka (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2003/ 0143337).
Regarding claim 1, Wanatabe discloses a method for cutting a foil (Abstract, cutting foil 4, fig. 1) comprising lithium (¶¶ 0058, 0060, the electrode paste on the foil comprises lithium), the method comprising: irradiating the foil with a laser beam (30) wherein the foil comprises a lithium foil or a metal foil coated with lithium (¶0060, the paste/coating comprises lithium); and
moving the laser beam relative to the foil in a feeding direction at a feed rate (¶0026, moving speed) so as to cut the foil, thereby producing a cut-to-size foil blank (fig. 1, cutting and sizing).
However, Wanatabe does not teach having a wavelength of between 440 nm and 460 nm or between 400 nm and 410 nm, and wherein the laser beam impinges on a surface of the foil at an angle of incidence of between 0° and about 45°,. Matsuo teaches that wavelengths may be between large ranges, including between 360nm and 830 nm (¶0023), in his laser cutting method. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Wanatabe in view of Matsuo, to arrive at, through routine experimentation, depending on the limitations of the process (e.g. time, speed) or the parameters of the foil (e.g. thickness), or the absorption of the material at different wavelengths, the claimed wavelengths of visible light, needing to see the focused laser, to process the foil and perform the cutting, at the desired speed and depth.
And while Wanatabe in view of Matsuo teaches all the limitations above, it still does not teach wherein the laser beam impinges on a surface of the foil at an angle of incidence of between 0° and about 45°.
Now, Wanatabe does teach that laser reciprocates through an angle, but it does not describe precisely the degree (Wanatabe, ¶96, figs. 9-10). However, Tanaka, in his method of irradiating a lithium film (¶0176), teaches impinging at an angle of incidence of between 0° and about 45° (Tanaka, fig. 1, ¶¶0099, 0104,0024 “varying the angle of incidence on the substrate”, as can be seen, only a slight angle “not smaller than 2’ (arcminutes ). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Wanatabe in view of Matsuo with the teachings of Tanaka, to process the surface, having an angle of incidence on the surface, in order to compensate for the direction of travel and the movement of the substrate under the laser and so that the surface may be homogeneously irradiated without interference (from reflection) (Tanaka, ¶¶0030, 104).
Regarding claim 3, Wanatabe in view of Matsuo and Tanaka all the limitations of claim 1, as above, and further discloses wherein the metal foil comprises a copper foil or an aluminum foil coated with lithium (Wanatabe, ¶0058-60, copper/aluminum foil coated with lithium in paste).
Regarding claim 16, Wanatabe in view of Matsuo in view of Tanaka, teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as above, and further teaches a method wherein the angle of incidence is between 0° and 30° (in light of the combination above).
Regarding claim 20, Wanatabe discloses a method of [cutting] (¶¶ 0058, 0060, the electrode paste on the foil comprises lithium), the method comprising: irradiating the foil with a laser beam (laser 30, fig. 1) wherein the foil comprises a lithium foil or a metal foil coated with lithium (¶0060, the paste/coating comprises lithium).
However, Wanatabe does not teach where the laser is “drilling” or where is has “a wavelength of between 440nm and 460 nm or between 400 nm and 410 nm”, and wherein the laser beam impinges on a surface of the foil at an angle of incidence of between 0° and about 45°,. However, it is noted that Wanatabe does teach “cutting” (Abstract, cutting foil 4, fig. 1). However, it is noted that “drilling” and “cutting” are similar processes of removing material and going through the foil, only that cutting moves along a direction, continuously diving the foil, while drilling might be only going through the foil at a singular or limited position. Given the cutting of Wanatabe, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to drill into the sheet or foil with the laser, as desired or necessary, in order to modify the sheet or to begin a cut and the drilling through the sheet would essentially involve the first step of cutting the sheet, that is going through the sheet/foil with the laser beam, and then stopping, as the process or operator may require.
And while Wanatabe teaches all the limitations above, it still does not teach the laser has a wavelength of between 440 nm and 460 nm or between 400 nm and 410 nm, and wherein the laser beam impinges on a surface of the foil at an angle of incidence of between 0° and about 45°. Matsuo teaches that wavelengths may be between large ranges, including between 360nm and 830 nm (Matsuo, ¶0023), in his laser cutting method. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Wanatabe in view of Matsuo, to arrive at, through routine experimentation, depending on the limitations of the process (e.g. time, speed) or the parameters of the foil (e.g. thickness), or the absorption of the material at different wavelengths, needing to see the focused laser, the claimed wavelengths to process the foil and perform the cutting, at the desired speed and depth.
And while Wanatabe in view of Matsuo teaches all the limitations above, it still does not teach wherein the laser beam impinges on a surface of the foil at an angle of incidence of between 0° and about 45°.
Now, Wanatabe does teach that laser reciprocates through an angle, but it does not describe precisely the degree (Wanatabe, ¶96, figs. 9-10). However, Tanaka, in his method of irradiating a lithium film (¶0176), teaches impinging at an angle of incidence of between 0° and about 45° (Tanaka, fig. 1, ¶¶0099, 0104,0024 “varying the angle of incidence on the substrate”, as can be seen, only a slight angle “not smaller than 2’ (arcminutes ). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Wanatabe in view of Matsuo with the teachings of Tanaka, to process the surface, having an angle of incidence on the surface, in order to compensate for the direction of travel and the movement of the substrate under the laser and so that the surface may be homogeneously irradiated without interference (from reflection) (Tanaka, ¶¶0030, 104).
Claim(s) 17, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Lu (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/ 0312173) in view of Tanaka (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2003/ 0143337).
Regarding claim 17, Lu teaches a method for welding a metallic workpiece to a foil comprising lithium (¶0070, Lithium), the method comprising: irradiating the foil at an interface with the metallic workpiece with a laser beam (Lu, ¶0075, “subjected to a laser beam” “performing a welding process”), wherein the foil comprises a lithium foil or a metal foil coated with lithium (¶0070, foil could comprise lithium), and wherein the foil is welded to the metallic workpiece in an electrically conducting manner (Lu, ¶0075, 0082, “forming a conductive path” or possibly “though a conductive adhesive”).
However, Lu does not explicitly teach wherein the laser “ha[s] a wavelength of between 440 nm and 460 nm or between 400 nm and 410 nm to form a weld seam at the interface with the metallic workpiece” and wherein the laser beam impinges on a surface of the foil at an angle of incidence of between 0° and about 45°. However, Lu does teach a laser having potentially possible wavelengths process the metal foil “based on the metal foil composition, melting temperature and/or thickness” (Lu, ¶0053) and that includes wavelengths of between “300 nanometers to 500 nanometers, [or] 400 nanometers to 750 nanometers” (id.). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Lu, to arrive at, through routine experimentation, depending on the limitations of the process (i.e. time) or the parameters of the foil (thickness, etc.), or the absorption of the material at different wavelengths, desiring to see the focused laser, the claimed wavelengths to process the foil and perform the welding, considering that Lu already teaches that the claimed ranges are within the range that Lu could perform at.
And while Liu teaches all the limitations above, it still does not teach wherein the laser beam impinges on a surface of the foil at an angle of incidence of between 0° and about 45°. Lu does seem to indicate that there may some angle of incidence between the foil and the incoming laser as the laser impinges on the foil (see figs. 10-12), but the angle is not precisely described in the specification.
?However, Tanaka, in his method of irradiating a lithium film (¶0176), teaches impinging at an angle of incidence of between 0° and about 45° (Tanaka, fig. 1, ¶¶0099, 0104,0024 “varying the angle of incidence on the substrate”, as can be seen, only a slight angle “not smaller than 2’ (arcminutes ). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Liu with the teachings of Tanaka, to process the surface, having an angle of incidence on the surface, in order to compensate for the direction of travel and the movement of the substrate under the laser and so that the surface may be homogeneously irradiated without interference (from reflection) (Tanaka, ¶¶0030, 104; (see also Wanatabe, U.S. patent Publication 2020/ 0276670; ¶96, figs. 9-10, providing for an oscillating angle for cutting a lithium foil)n
Regarding claim 18, Lu in view of Tanaka teaches all the limitations of claim 17, as above, and further teaches a method wherein the metallic workpiece comprises a metal different from that of the foil (Lu, ¶0070, having two metal pieces of different metals).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Lu (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/ 0312173) in view of Tanaka (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2003/ 0143337) and further in view of Pfleging (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/ 0316020).
Regarding claim 19, Lu in view of Tanaka teaches all the limitations of claim 17, as above, but does not further teaches a method, wherein the foil forms an anode of a solid- state battery, and the metallic workpiece forms a current collector. However, Pfleging teaches wherein the foil forms an anode of a solid- state battery (¶0022, the layer including lithium is the “anode”), and the metallic workpiece forms a current collector (Pfleging, ¶0044, current collector foil under). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to Modify Lu in view of the teachings of Pfleging, to use the welded foil of Lu in the use of a lithium battery (lithium on top of foil), in order to use a conventional way to achieve the expected result of the anode and current collector, even as Lu teaches its use in a solar cell.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 20 April 2026 with respect to claim(s) have been considered but are not persuasive. Specifically, applicant argues that the prior art does not teach, inter alia, wherein the laser has having a wavelength of between 440 nm and 460 nm or between 400 nm and 420 nm, and does not teach wherein the laser beam impinges on a surface of the foil at an angle of incidence of between 0° and about 45°, And while it seems that a first glance these limitations would overcome the art, on further consideration, they do not. The prior art (Matsuo, Lu, see citations above) teaches that the wavelength may be within these ranges for processing such claimed material, and it would be obvious through routine experimentation, depending on the parameters of the cutting/welding and the absorption of the material, to use the claimed range for this laser processing and to see the laser spot (violet or blue, respectively). Now, the invention’s wavelengths fall within the wavelength range taught in Matsuo, and applicant only argues against a detrimental laser wavelength outside of the range cited in Matsuo (Applicant argues that a laser with a wavelength of 1000- 1100 nm has an adverse effect). Thus, having a wavelength within that taught in Matsuo would be obvious. Regarding the angle, applicant argues that Tanaka does not disclose a method of cutting or drilling a lithium-containing foil, but rather it discloses a method of irradiating an amorphous semiconductor (Remarks, p. 6/8) and therefore Tanaka would not be analogous art. However, Watanabe already teaches a reciprocating angle for its cutting method (Watanabe, ¶96, figs. 9-10), but it does not teach the range of angles. Tanaka, is a laser processing method involving lithium delineating the angle in order to better cause movement of the laser in order to be absorbed well by the substrate, and this would be a conventional way of doing this method to achieve expected results and thus it teaching may be combined with Wanatabe, who already teaches some reciprocating angle..
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see attached and previously filed PTO-892.
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 LAWRENCE H SAMUELS whose telephone number is (571)272-2683. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM M-F.
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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at 571-270-5569. 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.
/LAWRENCE H SAMUELS/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights