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
In response to the amendments received in the Remarks on December 3rd, 2025:
Claims 1-13 and 16-22 are pending in the current application, claim 1 has been amended, claims 5-8 and 10 were previously withdrawn and claims 14-15 were previously cancelled.
Claim 1 has been amended to include “and wherein the extrusion printing forms ridges and open spaces area created between adjacent extrusion printed ridges.”
Status of Pending Objections and Rejections from the Office Action of August 5th, 2025:
The previous claim rejections under 35 U.S.C 102(a)(1) and/or 102(a)(2) have been maintained in view of the amendments received in the Remarks on December 3rd, 2025.
The previous claim rejections under 35 U.S.C 103 have been maintained in view of the amendments received in the Remarks on December 3rd, 2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 3rd, 2025, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Lewis discloses an extruded anode and cathode material onto a substrate in alternating layers, wherein each layer is formed by continuous adjacent line extrusion, in contrasts to the amended claim 1, which recited extruding the material to form a ridged surface of extruded material and open spaces therebetween.
In response to applicants’ argument, figure 2d of the instant application shows the conformal ridge coating being extruded from the extrusion syringe, wherein the ridges aspect is depicted as the extruded ink. In comparison, figures 1a-1d, 2d, and 3a-3b of Lewis depict analogous structures, wherein the extruded ink forms ridges with spaces between the ridges. Further, figure 3b of the instant application, depicts the extruded/printed ink with space shown at the end, whereas Lewis, figure 3b depicts SEM pictures of the printed electrode structure, wherein space between the ridges and at the ends is clearly shown.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 1 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The matter not described in the specification is “the extrusion printing forms ridges and open spaces area created between adjacent extrusion printed ridges”. The closest reference is on page 15 of the instant specification, lines 27-28, that states “[r]idging may be allotting space for the cathode to expand and contract”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 9, 11-13, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lewis et al, US 20160126558 A1.
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 opens 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.
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].
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].
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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewis et al, US 20160126558 A1, 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, 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).
Claims 18-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Lewis et al, US 20160126558 A1.
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].
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 LILIAN ALICE ODOM whose telephone number is (703)756-1959. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9AM - 5PM 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, NIKI BAKHTIARI can be reached at (571) 272-3433. 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.
/LILIAN ALICE ODOM/Examiner, Art Unit 1722
/NIKI BAKHTIARI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1722