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 .
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 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) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. (Adv. Funct. Mater. 2021, 31, 2102735).
Regarding Claim 1, Lin teaches:
A lithiophilic-supported current collector for an electrochemical cell that cycles lithium ions (Au (gold) nanoseed decorated 3D porous Cu (copper) which serves as a current collector for Li metal anodes in a battery, see Pg9-10/Section 3. Conclusions. The Au nanoseeds are conducive to the improvement of Li wettability (i.e., lithiophilic) , see Pg9-10/Section 3. Conclusions),
the lithiophilic-supported current collector comprising (Au nanoseed decorated 3D porous Cu, see Pg9-10/Section 3. Conclusions):
Lin is silent toward the porosity of the porous Cu (i.e., current collector substrate) and, therefore, does not teach:
a current collector substrate having a porosity of greater than or equal to about 5 vol.% to less than or equal to about 50 vol.%;
However, Lin teaches the porosity of the Au/Cu nanoscaffold product is controlled by changing the preparation conditions of the template-sacrificed hot fusion construction method which forms the porous Cu, see Pg/3/C(left) and Pg/7/C(right)/ 2nd half of 1st paragraph. Specifically, Lin teaches the controlling the weight ratio of atomized Cu powder and polyurethane powder to prepare the porous Cu is the method by which the porosity is adjusted. Lin further teaches when the porosity is too high there is inhomogeneous Li deposition and when the porosity is too low not enough Li can be accommodated, see Pg/7/C(right)/2nd half of 1st paragraph. Although the benefits of adjusting the porosity are discussed for the Au/Cu nanoscaffold product, it is the porosity of the porous Cu precursor which is controlled. This disclosure teaches that the weight ratio of atomized Cu powder and polyurethane powder to prepare the porous Cu is a result effective variable that controls the porosity of the porous Cu and ultimately the Au/Cu nanoscaffold.
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have optimized the porosity of the porous Cu to arrive at the desired homogeneous Li deposition and suitable Li accommodation amount.
It is the Examiner’s position that this routine optimization would have led one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have arrived at the claimed porosity of “porosity of greater than or equal to about 5 vol.% to less than or equal to about 50 vol.%,” without undue experimentation.
Lin further teaches:
and a lithiophilic material comprising an element selected from the group consisting of: indium, lead, bismuth, gold, and combinations thereof (Au nanoseeds, see Pg9-10/Section 3. Conclusions).
Regarding Claim 2, Lin discloses “uniform dispersion of Au nanoseeds on 3D porous Cu skeleton,” see Pg3/C(right).
Regarding Claim 3, Lin discloses a 3D porous Cu substrate, see Pg9-10/Section 3. Conclusions.
Regarding Claim 4, Lin discloses the Au nanoseeds are uniformly dispersed on the 3D porous Cu skeleton (see Pg3/C(right)) and Lin ranges the diameter of the Au nanoseeds from 10-70 nm (see Pg17) which is within the claimed range.
Regarding Claim 5, Lin teaches the pristine Cu nanoscaffold has a thickness of 0.3 mm (i.e., 300 micrometers) which is within the claimed range, see Pg13/1st paragraph.
Regarding Claim 6, Lin discloses “uniform dispersion of Au nanoseeds on 3D porous Cu skeleton,” see Pg3/C(right).
Regarding Claim 7, Lin discloses the pores of the are filled with lithium during lithium plating with increased filling controlled by the increase in capacity, see Fig.4c and Fig. 4 caption. Lin further discloses the Au nanoseeds form an alloy with the lithium, see Pg4/C(right) last paragraph. The lithium gold alloy meets the claim limitation of a lithiophilic material which fills the one or more porous surfaces. This disclosure teaches the pore filling is a result effective variable that is controlled by the areal specific capacity, see Fig. 4.
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have optimized the areal specific capacity to arrive at the desired filling amount.
It is the Examiner’s position that this routine optimization would have led one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have arrived at the claimed “lithiophilic material fills greater than or equal to about 80 % to less than or equal to about 100 % of a total porosity of the one or more porous surfaces,” without undue experimentation.
Regarding Claim 22, Lin teaches:
wherein the lithiophilic material defines a lithiophilic layer that is disposed on one or more surfaces of the current collector substrate (Lin teaches “uniform dispersion of Au nanoseeds on 3D porous Cu skeleton,” (i.e., a layer) see Pg3/C(right). Note, the claim as written does not require the layer to be continuous. ).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. (Adv. Funct. Mater. 2021, 31, 2102735) as applied to claims 1 and 6 above, and further in view of Zhang et al. (ACS Energy Lett. 2020, 5, 180−186).
Regarding Claim 8, Lin teaches with the following modification in view of Zhang:
wherein the current collector substrate has an average thickness greater than or equal to about 5 micrometers to less than or equal to about 1,000 micrometers (the pristine Cu nanoscaffold has a thickness of 0.3 mm (i.e., 300 micrometers) which is within the claimed range, see Pg13/1st paragraph),
Liu is silent toward:
and the one or more porous surfaces occupy greater than or equal to about 1 % to less than or equal to about 60 % of the total thickness of the current collector substrate.
To solve the same problem of designing a porous copper cased current collector with a lithium metal anode (see Abstract), Zhang teaches providing a porous copper current collector which has a porous and non-porous section in which the porous section is 40% of the thickness of the entire current collector (referred to as 2h-3D CuZn), which is within the claimed range, see Fig. 2. Zhang further teaches the 2h-3D CuZn sample exhibits cyclic stability, longest span-life, and the lowest Li stripping/plating overpotential when compared to the 8h-3D CuZn which is porous throughout the thickness of the entire current collector.
Absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to provide the porous current collector which the porous section is 40% of the thickness of the entire current collector in order to improve cyclic stability, long span-life, and the Li stripping/plating overpotential.
Claim(s) 9-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. (Adv. Funct. Mater. 2021, 31, 2102735) in view of Zhang et al. (ACS Energy Lett. 2020, 5, 180−186) as applied to claims 1, 6, and 8 above, and further in view of Fang et al. (CN-113488656-A with citations from provided translation).
Regarding Claim 9-12, Lin does not teach:
wherein the current collector substrate comprises a copper-zinc alloy and the one or more porous surfaces comprises copper.
wherein the current collector substrate comprises a copper-tin alloy and the one or more porous surfaces comprises copper.
wherein the current collector substrate comprises a copper-gold alloy and the one or more porous surfaces comprises copper.
wherein the current collector substrate comprises a copper-aluminum alloy
and the one or more porous surfaces comprises copper (Note, this limitation of the claim is interpreted to be met by any amount of copper on the porous surfaces including the alloy.).
To solve the same problem of providing a porous current collector with a lithophilic layer (see Abstract), Fang teaches the current collector can suitably be copper alloyed with zinc, tin, gold, or aluminum. The disclosure of Fang teaches that the copper alloy materials of his invention is a conventional and successful material for current collectors.
Consequently, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed would have had a reasonable expectation of success in preparing the 3D porous Cu of Liu with copper alloyed with zinc, tin, gold, or aluminum as taught by Fang.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. (Adv. Funct. Mater. 2021, 31, 2102735) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hwang et al. (US-20220077469-A1)
Regarding Claim 21, Lin does not teach:
wherein the element comprises indium, lead, bismuth, or a combination thereof.
However, since the prior art of Hwang recognizes the equivalency of gold and bismuth and indium in the field of lithophilic materials, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to replace the gold of Lin with the bismuth or indium of Hwang as it is merely the selection of functionally equivalent lithophilic metals recognized in the art and one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/04/2025 have been fully considered and are addressed below:
Claim rejections under 35 USC § 102 and 103
Applicant’s arguments, see page 11-12, of the response filled 09/04/2025 with respect to the claims rejected under 35 USC § 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of claims 1-6 under 35 USC § 102 has been withdrawn.
However, upon further consideration, the amended limitation is rendered obvious over the previously applied art of Lin. Applicant argues, on page 12 of the response, that the discussion found in Lin concerning the porosity is directed toward the Au/Cu nanoscoffold product and not the current collecting substrate. This is found unpersuasive because Lin teaches the porosity of the Au/Cu nanoscaffold product is controlled by changing the preparation conditions of the template-sacrificed hot fusion construction method which forms the porous Cu (i.e., current collecting substrate), see Pg/3/C(left) and Pg/7/C(right)/ 2nd half of 1st paragraph. Specifically, Lin teaches the controlling the weight ratio of atomized Cu powder and polyurethane powder to prepare the porous Cu is the method by which the porosity is adjusted. Lin further teaches when the porosity is too high there is inhomogeneous Li deposition and when the porosity is too low not enough Li can be accommodated, see Pg/7/C(right)/2nd half of 1st paragraph. Although the benefits of adjusting the porosity are discussed for the Au/Cu nanoscaffold product, it is the porosity of the porous Cu precursor which is controlled.
Double Patenting Rejections
Applicant’s arguments, see page 13, with respect to the provisional double patenting rejections over application numbers 17971326 and 18462611, and the nonprovisional double patenting rejections over patent number 10608241 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The double patenting rejections with respect to 17971326, 18462611, and 10608241 have been withdrawn.
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Li (US-20200274155-A1) teaches tin, bismuth, and indium are lithophilic metals, see [0030].
Conclusion
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 Kayla E Clary whose telephone number is (571)272-2854. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00-5:00 (PT).
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, Allison Bourke can be reached at 303-297-4684. 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.
/K.E.C./
Kayla E. ClaryExaminer, Art Unit 1721
/ALLISON BOURKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1721