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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-13 and 16-22 are currently pending.
Claims 14 and 15 have been canceled.
Claims 5-7, and 10 have been previously withdrawn.
Claims 1 and 16 have been amended.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06/04/2026 has been entered.
Status of Rejections Pending since the Office Action of 4 March 2026
The 112(a) rejection pending from the previous Office Action is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
All the 102 rejections over Lewis have been withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment. However, new ground(s) of rejection has been set forth below as necessitated by Applicant’s amendment.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 9, 11-13, and 16-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewis et al, US 20160126558 A1 in view of Delnick et al., U.S Patent No. 7,947,397 B1.
Regarding Claim 1, Lewis discloses a direct-writing assembly, 3D printing, that enables a filament comprising the precursor ink to be extruded, corresponding to the extrusion printing of the claim, and be deposited onto a substrate, such as a current collector [Lewis, 0017 & 0018], wherein the precursor inks, the anode or cathode digits, comprise an electrochemically active material [Lewis, 0022], the anode and/or cathode structure may include a polymeric binder [Lewis, 0032], conductive particles or conductive precursor particles may be added to the precursor ink formulation [Lewis, 0034], and the anode and cathode inks are prepared by suspending particles of the active material in an aqueous solvent [Lewis, 0037]. Further, figures 1a-1d, 2d, and 3a-3b of Lewis, depict the anode/cathode structures extruded as ridges wherein open spaces are shown between the adjacent printed ridges, which is analogous to the conformal ridged coating as shown in figure 2d of the instant specification. The limitation of “for the battery electrode to expand and contract” is an intended use limitation. While intended use recitations and other types of functional language cannot be entirely disregarded. However, in apparatus, article, and composition claims, intended use must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Claims directed to apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959). See also MPEP § 2114. Lewis specifically teaches that the volumetric expansion of the anode and cathode electrodes is between 0% to about 2.2%. Therefore, the open spaces between the adjacent printed ridges of Lewis are capable of accommodating the expansion and contraction of the battery electrode to some degree.
Lewis teaches that the conductive additive can be made of carbon [0034], but does not specifically teach that the carbon is selected from a group consisting essentially of carbon black, carbon nanotubes, and reduced carbon.
However, Delnick teaches a method of fabricating an electrode for a battery comprising coating onto a current collector an aqueous slurry comprising electroactive material and electrically conductive additives, wherein the electrically conductive additives include carbon black (Column 4, line 65 through column 5, line 26).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select carbon black for the electrically conductive additive of Lewis, because selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use, in the instant case electrically conductive additive to be used in the electrode active materials of batteries, supports prima facie obviousness determination (MPEP 2144.07).
Regarding Claim 2, Lewis discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the electrochemically active material used for the cathode can intercalate lithium ions, such as lithium iron sulfate [Lewis, 0022], indicating an intercalation cathode.
Regarding Claim 9, Lewis discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the conductive particles may contain any material having electrical conductivity, such as carbon [Lewis, 0035].
Regarding Claim 11, Lewis discloses the method of claim 1, wherein figure 1a-1d of Lewis depicts a 3D interdigitated electrode, wherein the 3D printing entail a flowing precursor ink through a deposition nozzle attached to a moving micro-positioner with x-, y-, and z-direction capability [Lewis, 0018], wherein the nozzle may be raised incrementally in the z-direction to deposit additional filament (or multiple filaments) after the first printing layer [Lewis, 0019], indicating a non-planar electrode.
Regarding Claim 12, Lewis discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the figure 1a-1d of Lewis depicts a 3D interdigitated electrode, wherein the 3D printing entail a flowing precursor ink through a deposition nozzle attached to a moving micro-positioner with x-, y-, and z-direction capability [Lewis, 0018]. The filaments comprising the electrochemically active material may have a cylindrical shape from being extruded through the nozzle [Lewis, 0029], that forms the anode/cathode digits, wherein the width of each electrode digit is determined by the width of two adjacent filaments of the electrochemically active material [Lewis, 0028], indicating a rigid electrode.
Regarding Claim 13, Lewis discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the shear yield stress of the electrode ink ranges from 102 to 103 Pa [Lewis, 0039], corresponding to the claimed requirement of an ink with a yield stress greater than 1 Pa.
Regarding Claim 16, Lewis discloses a precursor ink comprising an electrochemically active material [Lewis, 0022], the anode and/or cathode structure may include a polymeric binder [Lewis, 0032], conductive particles or conductive precursor particles may be added to the precursor ink formulation [Lewis, 0034], and the anode and cathode inks are prepared by suspending particles of the active material in an aqueous solvent [Lewis, 0037].
Lewis teaches that the conductive additive can be made of carbon [0034], but does not specifically teach that the carbon is selected from a group consisting essentially of carbon black, carbon nanotubes, and reduced carbon.
However, Delnick teaches a method of fabricating an electrode for a battery comprising coating onto a current collector an aqueous slurry comprising electroactive material and electrically conductive additives, wherein the electrically conductive additives include carbon black (Column 4, line 65 through column 5, line 26).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select carbon black for the electrically conductive additive of Lewis, because selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use, in the instant case electrically conductive additive to be used in the electrode active materials of batteries, supports prima facie obviousness determination (MPEP 2144.07).
Regarding Claim 17, Lewis discloses a direct-write assembly of high-aspect ratio anode and cathode structures for Li-ion micro-batteries [Lewis, 0005], corresponding to the rigid 3-dimensional battery electrode of the claim, wherein a direct-writing assembly enables a filament comprising the precursor ink to be extruded, corresponding to the extrusion printing of the claim, and be deposited onto a substrate, such as a current collector [Lewis, 0017 & 0018]. The precursor inks, the anode or cathode digits, comprise an electrochemically active material [Lewis, 0022], the anode and/or cathode structure may include a polymeric binder [Lewis, 0032], conductive particles or conductive precursor particles may be added to the precursor ink formulation [Lewis, 0034], and the anode and cathode inks are prepared by suspending particles of the active material in an aqueous solvent [Lewis, 0037].
Regarding Claim 18, Lewis teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the electrochemically active material, were synthesized using LTO powder and LFP powder, by a solid-state reaction [Lewis, 0048]. The carbon that can be used as conductive particles, is stated as carbon particles [Lewis, 0034], indicating a solid state, and the binder is a polymeric binder, and though the polymeric binder is not explicitly taught to be solid, it was taught the inks have a solid loading of 57 wt% (LTO) and 60 wt% (LFP) [Lewis, 0039], therefore, it is assumed the polymer binder within the ink is solid.
There are a finite number of identified predictable solutions for the state of the polymeric binder of Lewis, such that the polymeric binder is solid or is not solid. Therefore, absence of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected from the finite number of identified, predictable solutions disclosed above, wherein the polymeric binder is solid, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so, see MPEP 2143 (E).
Regarding Claim 19, Lewis teaches the method of claim 18, wherein the precursor inks have a solid loading of 57 wt% (LTO) and 60 wt% (LFP) respectively [Lewis, 0039], falling within the range required by the claim.
Moreover, according to MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lieinside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim,541F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir.1990).
Regarding Claim 20, Lewis teaches the method of claim 1, wherein each ink (LFP and LTO), exhibit a highly shear thinking behavior, with viscosities between 103 to 104 Pa·s [Lewis, 0039], corresponding to 106 to 107 cP, which falls within the range required by the claim.
Moreover, according to MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lieinside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim,541F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir.1990).
Regarding Claim 21, Lewis teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the inks exhibit a shear rate between 10-1 to 100 s-1 as shown in figure 2b of Lewis, which falls within the range required by the claim.
Moreover, according to MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lieinside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim,541F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir.1990).
Regarding Claim 22, Lewis teaches the method of claim 1, wherein a direct-write assembly, enables electrochemically active materials to be deposited onto a current collector [Lewis, 0017], specifically the precursor ink is extruded through a nozzle and deposited onto a substrate [Lewis, 0018].
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewis et al, US 20160126558 A1 and Delnick et al., U.S Patent No. 7,947,397 B1 as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Yang et al, “Nano-FeS2 for Commercial Li/FeS2 Primary Batteries” (as cited in IDS).
Regarding Claim 3, Lewis teaches the method of claim 1, but is silent to teach the electrochemically active material comprising iron disulfide.
Yang teaches the use of iron disulfide electrodes in lithium cells [Yang, 0001].
Yang and Lewis are considered analogous arts in the area of batteries and power storage devices.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art, before the
effective filing date of the instant application to modify Lewis to include the iron disulfide material taught by Yang because such modification would result in an electrode material with a large number of nucleation sites for lithiated products, and thereby improve the kinetics of the non-intercalation lithiation process [Yang, 0001].
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewis et al, US 20160126558 A1 and Delnick et al., U.S Patent No. 7,947,397 B1 as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Kaehr et al, US 10826050 B1
Regarding Claim 4, Lewis teaches the method of claim 1, but is silent to teach on the electrochemically active material comprising iron trifluoride, carbon monofluoride, or sulfur.
Kaehr teaches a safety battery for depositing an ink formulation, wherein the battery can include any useful type of cathode, anode or electrolyte materials, such as carbon monofluoride [Kaehr, column 34, line 54 – 61].
Kaehr and Lewis are considered analogous arts in the area of batteries and power storage devices.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Lewis to include the carbon monofluoride as taught by Kaehr [Kaehr, column 34, line 54 – 61], because carbon monofluoride is well-known to use as an electrochemically active material in electrodes. Further, a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results supports prima facie obviousness determination (MPEP 2143, I, B).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed on 06/04/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 and 16 under Leweis have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Lewis and Delnick et al.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NIKI BAKHTIARI whose telephone number is (571)272-3433. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30 AM-6 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.
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.
/NIKI BAKHTIARI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1722
Prosecution Insights