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 Status
Applicant’s arguments and claim amendments submitted on April 8th, 2026 have been
entered into the file.
Currently, claim 12 is amended, claim 7 is cancelled, claims 8-19 are withdrawn, and claims 22-23 are new, resulting in claims 1-6 and 20-23 pending for examination.
Response to Amendment
The amendments and claim amendments filed on April 8th, 2026 have been received.
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.
Claim 1, 6, 20, 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fan (Non-Patent Literature, “Powder-Sintering Derived 3D Porous Current Collector for Stable Lithium Metal Anode”), further in view of You (U.S. Patent Publication No. 20220102731 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Fan discloses a sintering method to obtain a porous copper zinc alloy current collector which is used as a host material to induce dendrite-free lithium deposition (Abstract). Fan teaches the Cu-Zn alloy formed of sintered particles which result in a 3D open porous structure (Page 70, Column 2, Paragraph 1), which is considered equivalent to the instant continuous particulate matrix, comprising sintered copper particles, and open pore structure of the current collector of the battery anode. Further, Fan discloses the Li nucleation and deposition process on the Cu foil (Page 71, Column 2, Paragraph 3; Figure 3h), which is considered equivalent to the instant anode material disposed at least within pores of the current collector.
Fan is silent as to the sintered copper particles having a mean diameter of less than 5 µm.
However, You discloses a negative electrode active material and negative electrode current collector for a lithium secondary battery (Paragraph 0010), wherein the current collector uses current collector particles instead of the conventional plate-type current collector (Paragraph 0008). You teaches that when the current collector is in the form of particles rather than a plate, the electrode active material and current collector particles may be in uniform contact with each other, leading to improved output characteristics of the battery and reduced resistance (Paragraph 0029). You teaches the negative electrode current collector particles are preferably copper particles in order to improve the stability of the battery (Paragraph 0063). You teaches the average particle diameter of the copper particles of the negative electrode current collector is 0.5 µm to 3 µm, in order to increase the surface area of the negative electrode current collector in contact with the negative electrode active material (Paragraph 0064).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the sintered copper particles of Fan to incorporate the teachings of You in which the diameter of the copper particles of the current collector is between 0.5 µm to 3 µm (corresponds to less than 5 µm of the instant claim). Doing so would advantageously result in increased surface area of the negative electrode current collector in contact with the negative electrode active material, as recognized by You.
Regarding claim 6, Fan teaches the anode as described above with respect to claim 1, wherein the anode material comprises lithium (Abstract).
Regarding claim 20, Fan teaches a battery (coin-type cell) comprising the anode as discussed above with respect to claim 1 (3D porous Cu-Zn alloy), a separator (Celgard 2400), an electrolyte (LiTFSI in DME/DOL), and a cathode (counter-electrode).
Regarding claim 22, Fan teaches the anode as described above with respect to claim 1.
The independent claim 1 recites “the continuous particulate matrix comprises sintered copper particles.” Fan teaches the continuous particulate matrix made of a Cu-Zn alloy, also described above in the rejection of claim 1. Therefore, Fan teaches the matrix made up of copper particles and zinc particles, consistent with the structure of an alloy, and the copper particles of the instant claim are equated with the copper particles of the alloy of Fan. Further, the continuous particulate matrix comprises sintered copper particles as written in the independent claim is open to the presence of additional, non-copper particles.
As the copper particles of Fan exist as particles separate from the zinc particles of the alloy, the copper particles of Fan are considered pure (elemental) copper particles which necessarily comprise at least 99.5 wt% pure copper, meeting the instant claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 23, Fan teaches the anode as described above with respect to claim 1.
The limitation “wherein the continuous particulate matrix is formed by forming a slurry comprising the copper particles, a binder, and a solvent, casting the slurry into a film, de-binding under heat and/or vacuum to remove the binder and solvent, and sintering the copper particles” is a method limitation and does not determine the patentability of the product, unless the method produces a structural feature of the product. The method of forming the product is not germane to the issue of patentability of the product itself, unless Applicant presents evidence from which the Examiner could reasonably conclude that the claimed product differs in kind from those of the prior art. See MPEP § 2113.
Furthermore, there does not appear to be a difference between the prior art structure and the structure resulting from the claimed method because Fan discloses a battery anode comprising a current collector comprising a continuous particulate matrix and an open pore structure and an anode material disposed at least within pores of the current collector; and the continuous particulate matrix comprising sintered copper particles, as described above in the rejection of claim 1.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fan in view of You as applied to claims 1, 6, 20, 22-23 above, and further in view of Yang (Chinese Patent Publication No. 104916849 A).
Regarding claim 21, Fan teaches the anode of claim 1. As discussed above, Fan teaches the anode of the battery comprised of sintered copper particles which make up a continuous particle matrix.
Fan is silent as to the anode material completely filling the pores of the current collector.
However, Yang discloses a flexible device comprising a positive electrode sheet, negative electrode, and a separator. Yang teaches the current collector for the positive electrode is porous so that the active substance may be completely embedded into the pore structure of the current collector, thereby increases the adhesion force between the current collector and the active substance, ensuring that the interface is tightly bonded during bending and excellent electrochemical performance is ensured (Paragraph 9). While Yang teaches the active material completely embedded in the porous current collector of the positive electrode, the ordinary artisan would find it obvious that the active material completely embedded in the porous current collector of the negative electrode (as taught by Fan) would result the same beneficial results as articulated by Yang, as adhesion between the current collector and the active material is recognized in the art as desirable in both the positive and negative electrodes of a battery.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the copper particles of the porous anode current collector of Fan to incorporate the teachings of Yang in which the anode material completely fills the pores of the current collector. Doing so would advantageously result in tight bonding between the negative electrode active material and the negative electrode current collector during bending and excellent electrochemical performance, as recognized by Yang.
Claim 1-2, 6, 20, 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sauter (German Patent Publication No. 102016210838), further in view of You.
Regarding claim 1, Sauter discloses a battery anode comprising a current collector which is porous and has pores (Abstract), meeting the instant claimed limitation of the open pore structure of the current collector. Sauter also teaches the pores of the current collector are at least filled with lithium of the anodic active material (Abstract) which is pressed into the pores of the current collector during calendaring (Page 4, Paragraph 8), meeting the claimed limitation that anode material is disposed at least within pores of the current collector. Sauter further teaches the current collector of the anode comprises sintered copper chips (Page 4, Paragraph 2). The OED definition of “chip” is a small piece or fragment of a larger whole and the Cambridge definition of “particulate” is a very small piece of a substance. Therefore, the chips which comprise the current collector of the Sauter are considered equivalent to the particulate which comprise the current collector of the instant claim. Further, according to the Merriam Webster definition of “matrix”, the natural material in which something is embedded, the current collector of Sauter may be considered a matrix because the copper matrix comprises pores which the lithium of the anodic active material fills (Abstract), meeting the limitations of the instant claim.
Sauter teaches the application of a film on both sides of the current collector (Page 4, Paragraphs 6 and 9), where the current collector comprises sintered copper chips (Page 4, Paragraph 2), discussed above, thus the limitation of the current collector being continuous is anticipated by Sauter. In the alternative, Sauter teaches that the copper chips are sintered and therefore the sintered particle to particle structure would establish a continuous matrix. This is further supported by Sauter, who teaches the other morphologies of the copper current collector of the anode to be an expanded metal mesh (Page 3, Paragraph 7) or copper tissue or a fabric of copper fibers (Page 4, Paragraphs 1-3). These mesh, tissue, and fabric options for the anodic current collector taught by Sauter are continuous. Therefore, one would also expect because the sintered copper chips forming the anodic current collector to form a continuous structure. In the alternative, it would further be obvious to an ordinary artisan to make continuous the sintered copper chips in accordance with the other continuous copper current collector structures taught by Sauter.
Sauter is silent as to the sintered copper particles having a mean diameter of less than 5 µm.
However, as discussed above, You discloses a negative electrode active material and negative electrode current collector for a lithium secondary battery (Paragraph 0010), wherein the current collector uses current collector particles instead of the conventional plate-type current collector (Paragraph 0008). You teaches that when the current collector is in the form of particles rather than a plate, the electrode active material and current collector particles may be in uniform contact with each other, leading to improved output characteristics of the battery and reduced resistance (Paragraph 0029). You teaches the negative electrode current collector particles are preferably copper particles in order to improve the stability of the battery (Paragraph 0063). You teaches the average particle diameter of the copper particles of the negative electrode current collector is 0.5 µm to 3 µm, in order to increase the surface area of the negative electrode current collector in contact with the negative electrode active material (Paragraph 0064).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the sintered copper particles of Sauter to incorporate the teachings of You in which the diameter of the copper particles of the current collector is between 0.5 µm to 3 µm (corresponds to less than 5 µm of the instant claim). Doing so would advantageously result in increased surface area of the negative electrode current collector in contact with the negative electrode active material, as recognized by You.
Regarding claim 2, Sauter teaches the battery anode as discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Sauter teaches the current collector coated on a first side with a first film (layer) containing lithium (Page 4, Paragraph 6). Further, Sauter teaches the current collector also being coated on a second side, which is opposite the first side, with a second film (layer) containing lithium (Page 4, Paragraph 9). Thus, Sauter teaches the current collector of the anode coated on both sides with anodic active material (Page 4, Paragraph 10), meeting the instant claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 6, Sauter teaches the battery anode as discussed above with respect to claim 1, wherein the anode material comprises lithium (Page 3, Paragraph 4), as discussed above.
Regarding claim 20, Sauter teaches a battery comprising the anode of claim 1, an electrolyte (Page 6, Paragraph 6), a separator, and a cathode (Page 7, Paragraph 7).
Regarding claim 22, Sauter teaches the anode as described above with respect to claim 1.
As described above in the rejection of claim 1, Sauter teaches the anode current collector comprising sintered copper chips which were equated with the sintered copper particles of the continuous particulate matrix.
The copper chips of Sauter are considered pure (elemental) copper chips as Sauter teaches the chips are made of only copper. Therefore, the copper chips of the disclosure of Sauter necessarily comprise at least 99.5 wt% pure copper, meeting the instant claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 23, Sauter teaches the anode as described above with respect to claim 1.
The limitation “wherein the continuous particulate matrix is formed by forming a slurry comprising the copper particles, a binder, and a solvent, casting the slurry into a film, de-binding under heat and/or vacuum to remove the binder and solvent, and sintering the copper particles” is a method limitation and does not determine the patentability of the product, unless the method produces a structural feature of the product. The method of forming the product is not germane to the issue of patentability of the product itself, unless Applicant presents evidence from which the Examiner could reasonably conclude that the claimed product differs in kind from those of the prior art. See MPEP § 2113.
Furthermore, there does not appear to be a difference between the prior art structure and the structure resulting from the claimed method because Sauter discloses a battery anode comprising a current collector comprising a continuous particulate matrix and an open pore structure and an anode material disposed at least within pores of the current collector; and the continuous particulate matrix comprising sintered copper particles, as described above in the rejection of claim 1.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sauter in view of You as applied to claims 1-2, 6, 20, 22-23 above, and further in view of Morita (U.S. Patent Publication No. 20010018150 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Sauter teaches the battery anode as discussed above with respect to claim 2.
Sauter teaches the anodic active material applied to both sides of the current collector of the anode, with the thickness of the anodic active material preferably between 1 µm and 2 µm. Therefore, if the thickness of both layers of anodic active material applied to the negative current collector is taught by Sauter to be in the range of 2 µm and 4 µm, which lies within the range of the sum of thickness of the first and second layer of the instant claim, meeting the limitations.
Sauter is silent to the thickness of the current collector comprising sintered copper chips.
However, Morita discloses a nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery comprising a positive electrode, negative electrode, and nonaqueous electrolyte (Abstract). Morita teaches a current collector having a porous structure, wherein the thickness of the current collector is desirably between 5 µm and 20 µm. Morita teaches when the current collector falls within the range, the strength of the electrode is well balanced with a desirable lightweight characteristic (Paragraph 0135).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the current collector of the negative anode of Sauter to incorporate the teachings of Morita so that its thickness is between 5 µm and 20 µm. Doing so would advantageously result in an electrode of sufficient strength while also being lightweight, as recognized by Morita.
The resulting range of thickness of copper current collector of Sauter modified by Morita lies within the instant range of thickness of copper current collector, meeting the claimed limitation.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sauter in view of You as applied to claims 1-2, 6, 20, 22-23 above, and further in view of Isshiki (U.S. Patent Publication No. 20140023922 A1) and Kojima (U.S. Patent Publication No. 20210351393 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Sauter teaches the battery anode as discussed above with respect to claim 3, with a first and or second layer of anode material disposed on the current collector.
Sauter is silent as to the thickness of the first layer and/or the second layer has a variation along a length of the anode of less than 2 µm.
However, Kojima discloses a negative electrode for a battery, the negative electrode layer comprising a negative electrode mixture layer containing the negative electrode active material (Paragraph 0144). Kojima teaches the variation in the thickness of the negative electrode mixture layer being ± 10% or less (Paragraph 0144).
Isshiki discloses a posterior pressurization step to integrate the electrode composition layer and the current collector to minimize variations in the thickness of the shape of the formed electrode layer (Paragraph 190). Further, Isshiki teaches that when the thickness of the electrode composition layer is more even (less variation), a higher capacity of an electrochemical element can be obtained.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the anode material layer of Sauter to incorporate the teachings of Kojima motivated by Isshiki in which the negative electrode mixture layer has a thickness variation of ± 10% or less. Doing so would advantageously result in higher capacity of the battery, as recognized by Isshiki.
As discussed above in the rejection of claim 3, Sauter teaches the anodic active material applied to both sides of the current collector of the anode, with the thickness of the anodic active material preferably between 1 µm and 2 µm. When applying the teachings of Kojima in the modification above, when the variation of the thickness is ± 10% or less, the resulting variation of the first and/or second layer is determined to be 0.9 µm -1.1 µm (1 µm ± 0.1* 1 µm) and 1.8 µm – 2.2 µm (2 µm ± 0.1* 2 µm). Thus, the overall range of variation of thickness of the anode material layer along the length of the anode is thus 0.9 µm-2.2 µm.
The range of variation of anode material layer thickness of Sauter in view of Kojima and Isshiki substantially overlaps the claimed ranges of variation of anode material layer thickness in the instant claim. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by Sauter in view of Kojima and Isshiki because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sauter in view of You as applied to claims 1-2, 6, 20, 22-23 above, and further in view of Uchiyama (W.O. 2021153526 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Sauter teaches the battery anode as discussed above with respect to claim 3.
Sauter is silent regarding the anode having a surface roughness of less than 1 µm.
However, Uchiyama discloses a negative electrode for nonaqueous electrolyte secondary batteries containing a negative electrode current collector and a negative electrode mixture layer supported by the negative electrode collector (Abstract). Uchiyama teaches the negative electrode current collector may be a porous conductive substrate and may further be comprised of copper (Page 17, Paragraph 1). Uchiyama teaches the surface roughness of a metal foil used for the negative electrode current collector to be in the range of 0.5 µm and 5 µm (Page 17, Paragraph 2). Uchiyama further teaches that when the surface roughness is 0.5 µm or more, the good adhesion between the negative electrode mixture layer and the metal foil is maintained during charging and discharging. When the surface roughness is 5 µm or less, Uchiyama teaches the anchor effect resulting from the unevenness, thus adhesion of the negative electrode mixture layer is improved (Page 17, Paragraph 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the negative electrode current collector of Sauter to incorporate the teachings of Uchiyama in which the surface roughness of the collector is between 0.5 µm and 5 µm. Doing so would advantageously result in desirable adhesion between the negative electrode mixture layer and the negative current collector, as recognized by Uchiyama.
The resulting range of surface roughness of the current collector of Sauter modified by Uchiyama substantially overlaps the claimed ranges of current collector surface roughness in the instant claim. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by Sauter modified by Uchiyama because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sauter in view of You as applied to claims 1-2, 6, 20, 22-23 above, and further in view of Yang.
Regarding claim 21, Sauter teaches the anode of claim 1. As discussed above, Sauter teaches the anode of the battery comprised of sintered copper particles which make up a continuous particle matrix.
Sauter is silent as to the anode material completely filling the pores of the current collector.
However, as discussed above, Yang teaches the current collector for the positive electrode is porous so that the active substance may be completely embedded into the pore structure of the current collector, thereby increases the adhesion force between the current collector and the active substance, ensuring that the interface is tightly bonded during bending and excellent electrochemical performance is ensured (Paragraph 9). While Yang teaches the active material completely embedded in the porous current collector of the positive electrode, the ordinary artisan would find it obvious that the active material completely embedded in the porous current collector of the negative electrode (as taught by Sauter) would result the same beneficial results as articulated by Yang, as adhesion between the current collector and the active material is recognized in the art as desirable in both the positive and negative electrodes of a battery.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the copper particles of the porous anode current collector of Sauter to incorporate the teachings of Yang in which the anode material completely fills the pores of the current collector. Doing so would advantageously result in tight bonding between the negative electrode active material and the negative electrode current collector during bending and excellent electrochemical performance, as recognized by Yang.
Claim 21 is alternately rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sauter in view of You as applied to claims 1-2, 6, 20, 22-23 above, and further in view of Young (Korean Patent Publication No. 201800356602 A).
Regarding claim 21, Sauter teaches the anode of claim 1.
Sauter is silent as to the anode material completely filling the pores of the current collector.
However, as discussed above, Sauter teaches a porous current collector comprised of sintered copper particles which form a continuous particulate matrix.
Young discloses an electrode composite for a battery including a porous current collector onto which an electrode composite material is supported (Paragraph 0001). Young teaches the pore size of the porous current collector as a way to control the impregnation effect of the active material. Young teaches that when pore size is too small, the porous current collector cannot be impregnated with active material and if the pore size is too large, there are remaining voids among the current collector particles after the active material is impregnated, which act as a resistor to the electrode because the current collector particles lack contact with the active material particles (Paragraph 0048).
Absent unexpected results, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the current collector of Sauter to incorporate the teachings of Young with respect to pore size of the continuous particulate matrix and further to optimize the pore size of the matrix of sintered copper particles, since it has been held where general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05. In the present invention, one would have been motivated to optimize the pore size of the porous cooper current collector of the anode in order for the anode material to completely fill the pores of the current collector in order to effectively impregnate the voids of the porous current collector so that no voids are unoccupied. For example, the ordinary artisan would recognize, according to the teachings of Young, that by completely occupying the voids of the porous current collector, the resistance to the electrode in reduced and greater contact between the active material particles and the current collecting particles is obtained. Thus, the void size of the pores of the porous current collector may be tuned in order to completely fill the pores with anode material according to the claimed limitation.
Response to Arguments
In the remarks filed April 8th, 2026, applicant argues that the Examiner’s cited motivation for employing the particles of You in the current collector of Fan is improper. Applicant argues that the current collector of You us in the form of discrete, distributed particles while Fan is related to a sintered current collector and that the relationship between the particle size and surface area being inversely related does not necessarily apply to sintered particles. Applicant provides that smaller particles enhance the kinetics of sintering and lead to a greater rate of surface area reduction compared with larger particles and therefore one of ordinary skill in the art practicing the invention of Fan would not assume that the increased surface area of contact between particles in a mixture would translate to higher surface area in a sintered article.
These arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments, the Examiner presents that arguments presented by the applicant cannot take the place of evidence in the record. See MPEP 716.01(c)(II). It appears that the relationship between particle size and surface area as it pertains to sintered particles are attorney arguments and applicant has not provided where this evidence is derived from.
Additionally, in response to applicant’s arguments, the Examiner presents that in the same way that applicant argues that the relationship of particle size decreasing and surface area increasing may not necessarily apply to sintered particles, it is also possible that this relationship may apply to sintered particles. The fact that it is “possible” that an increased particle surface area could potentially result in a sintered product with decreased final surface area, especially without providing evidence of such a teaching, does not render the modification of Fan by You improper, as argued by applicant. The increased surface area of particles in the mixture may lead to high surface area of the sintered product, and thus prima facie obviousness can be established under the teaching/suggestion/motivation relating to the particle size as set forth by Fan.
Additionally, for clarity of the record the Examiner provides that obviousness was established not by “employing the particles of You in the current collector of Fan” as argued by applicant, but by modifying the particles in the current collector of Fan to incorporate the teachings of You relating to particle size.
In the remarks filed April 8th, 2026, applicant argues that the product form of You is completely different from that of Fan. Applicant argues that the benefits of You are tied to the fact that You employs distributed current collector particles mixed with anode material and therefore it is inappropriate to conclude that the same would be realized for a product form in which the particles are sintered into a porous disc, as in Fan.
These arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments, the Examiner presents the teaching relating to the particle size if the current collector particles of Fan: “[0064] The negative electrode current collector particles may have an average particle diameter (D50) of 0.5 μm to 3 μm, and preferably, 1 μm to 2.5 μm. It is preferable that the average particle diameter of the negative electrode current collector particles is within the above-described range in view of increasing the surface area of the negative electrode current collector in contact with the negative electrode active material.”
Therefore, the Examiner presents that in Paragraph 64 of the disclosure, You very clearly presents a teaching relating to the particle size of the current collector particles and subsequently establishes how the average particle diameter of the current collector particles of the negative electrode are related to the surface area of the resulting collector in contact with active material. As such, You presents the teaching related to the particle size of the current collector particles and the motivation to modify Fan to incorporate such a teaching. There is no evidence in Fan that such a modification could not obtain similar desirable effects when controlling the particle size according to You.
In the remarks filed April 8th, 2026, applicant argues that the disclosure of Fan provides Cu-Zn alloy particles with a large particle size of about 120 µm – 150 µm to render a high surface area while the modification of Fan in view of You would reduce the particle size by 40x without Fan suggesting a need. Applicant further argues that the modification of Fan by You would not result in a reasonable expectation of success as required by the finding of obviousness in the MPEP.
These arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments, the Examiner presents that a reference is not limited to working examples (see In re Fracalossi, 215 USPQ 569 (CCPA 1982)). As the SEM images of Fan show an example where the prepared Cu-Zn alloy particles are sized to approximately 120 µm to 150 µm (Figure 1B), this is an embodiment of the disclosure where the size of an example particle prepared are measured. Fan does not teach away from reducing the particle size, and further, as established above, You discloses a motivation which supports the modification of Fan by You as described above to establish prima facie obviousness.
In the remarks filed April 8th, 2026, applicant argues that You specifically distinguishes its distributed particulate current collector from a structure current collector, like a mesh or the sintered current collector of Fan, as described in Paragraph 0070 of You. The applicant argues that You teaches away from assembling its current collector particles into a structured current collector.
These arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments, the Examiner presents that You does not teach away from a sintered current collector, such as the current collector of Fan. As described in paragraph 70 of You: “When the negative electrode includes a current collector in the form of a mesh rather than particles as the negative electrode current collector, lifting between negative electrode active materials and the mesh-type current collector inevitably occurs such that the content of pores inside the negative electrode is increased, and thus there is a concern about a reduction in electrical connection between negative electrode active materials, an increase in resistance of the negative electrode, and a decrease in energy density.”
Therefore, You teaches the disadvantages of the current collector being specifically mesh. Applicant’s arguments directed toward teaching away from a “structured” current collector and further away from sintered particles are not founded, as this interpretation of You is inconsistent with what is explicitly stated in the disclosure. Therefore, there is no evidence in You to suggest that the teachings could not be applied to the sintered current collector of Fan, as described in the above rejection.
In the remarks filed April 8th, 2026, applicant argues that similar to Fan, Sauter teaches a sintered current collector which applicant argues results in it not being obvious to modify Sauter in view of You for at least the reasons discussed above, particularly relating to the particle size and surface are of sintered particles. Additionally, applicant argues that the benefits taught by You are based on its product form, which is entirely different from that of Sauter.
These arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments, the Examiner presents that the modification of Sauter in view of You would be obvious to the ordinary artisan for at least the reasons discussed above. Further, in response to applicant’s arguments that the product form of You is different from that of Sauter, the examiner presents that You discloses a negative electrode active material and negative electrode current collector for a lithium secondary battery, wherein the current collector uses current collector particles instead of the conventional plate-type current collector in order to improve output characteristics of the battery and reduce resistance. You teaches the negative electrode current collector particles are preferably copper particles in order to improve the stability of the battery, which overlaps with the fundamental features of Sauter.
In the remarks filed April 8th, 2026, applicant argues that Sauter teaches directly away from a high density current collector in the disclosure at paragraph [0055]. Applicant argues that finer particles lead to increased densification during sintering and therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would not have incorporated the particle sizes as taught by You as it could lead to a sintered product that does not meet the requirements of Sauter.
These arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments, the Examiner presents that “[A] reference disclosure must be evaluated for all that it fairly [teaches] and not only for what is indicated as preferred.” In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390 (CCPA 1969) and a reference is not limited to working examples (see In re Fracalossi, 215 USPQ 569 (CCPA 1982)).” Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 424 (CCPA 1971).
The teachings of Sauter in Paragraph 55, cited by applicant, are directed toward the embodiment in which the current collector of the anode is comprised of a web of copper having pores. As discussed in the rejection of claim 1, the embodiment of Sauter teaching the claimed limitations is when the current collector of the anode is comprised of sintered copper chips, not the web as cited in applicant’s arguments. Therefore, Sauter does not teach away from a high density current collector (nor is such a feature claimed), as the embodiment of Sauter discussed in Paragraph 55 is not relied upon by the Examiner.
In response to applicant’s arguments with respect to fine particles and densification, the Examiner presents that arguments presented by the applicant cannot take the place of evidence in the record. See MPEP 716.01(c)(II). It appears that the relationship between particle size and density as it pertains to sintered particles are attorney arguments and applicant has not provided where this evidence is derived from.
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 OLIVIA A JONES whose telephone number is (571)272-1718. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30 AM - 4:30 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, Marla McConnell can be reached at (571) 270-7692. 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.
/O.A.J./Examiner, Art Unit 1789
/MARLA D MCCONNELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights