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 and Claim Status
The amendment filed 12 November 2025 has been entered. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every objection set forth in the Office Action mailed 12 August 2025. Claims 1–19 are pending in the application. Claims 15–19 are withdrawn from consideration.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 2, and 5–11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cook et al. (US 2017/0350846 A1) as evidenced by Yang et al. (Yang, C.-P.; Yin, Y-X.; Zhang, S.-F.; Li, N.-W.; Guo, Y.-G. Accommodating lithium into 3D current collectors with a submicron skeleton towards long-life lithium metal anodes, Nat. Commun., 6, article number: 8058, published 24 August 2015).
Regarding Claim 1, Cook discloses a method for manufacturing a porous structure (see top electrode 302, [0057]; note [0057] discloses the top electrode 302 may have a random 3D porosity), the method comprising:
preparing a precursor (see ink, [0057]) by mixing first nanoparticles (see structural material, [0057]; note [0057] discloses the structural material can be in nanoparticle form) and second nanoparticles (see sacrificial nanoparticles, [0057]);
heat-treating the precursor (see sintered, [0058]); and
etching the second nanoparticles in the heat-treated precursor (see removed using temperature, solvent, dry vapor phase etch, etc., [0059]).
Cook does not disclose the method for manufacturing being directed to an anode comprising the porous structure for lithium batteries, nor wherein the method comprises disposing lithium metal on the porous structure. Instead, Cook discloses that the porous structure (302) is a conductive plate having a random three-dimensional porosity that is permeable to a reagent ([0060]) and is utilized as an electrode in a capacitive sensor ([0027]–[0028]). Note that Cook is analogous to the claimed invention as it is in the same field of methods for manufacturing porous structures utilized in electrochemical devices.
As, it is well-known in the field of lithium-based batteries that three-dimensional porous structures can also advantageously be utilized as current collectors in anodes of lithium metal batteries to aid in eliminating Li dendrite formation and improving lifespan, as evidenced by Yang (p. 2 ¶ “As a key component…”), and further that an essential step in the formation of such anodes for lithium metal batteries is disposition, i.e. plating, of lithium metal on the porous structure, as also evidenced by Yang (e.g. p. 2 ¶ “As a key component…” discloses growth of lithium on the porous structure to achieve the anode, p. 3 ¶ “Li-metal deposition…” discloses investigation of lithium plating behavior on the porous structure, and p. 7 ¶ “Electrochemistry. CR2032-type…” discloses deposition of lithium on the porous structure prior to regular battery cycling).
In light of the above, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the method for manufacturing a porous structure of Cook such that it is a method for manufacturing an anode comprising a porous structure for lithium batteries, with the method comprising disposition of lithium metal on the porous structure, as Yang evidences that three-dimensional porous structures can be advantageously utilized as current collectors in anodes of lithium batteries to aid in eliminating Li dendrite formation and improving lifespan, and that disposition of lithium metal on the porous structure is an essential step of formation of such an anode.
Regarding Claim 2, modified Cook discloses the method of Claim 1. Cook further discloses wherein the precursor further comprises a binder ([0037]).
Regarding Claim 5, modified Cook discloses the method of Claim 1. Cook further discloses wherein the first nanoparticles comprise at least one of a lithiophilic material (see silver, gold, graphene, graphite, [0039]) or a conductive metal (see copper, [0039]).
Regarding Claim 6, modified Cook discloses the method of Claim 5. Cook further discloses ([0039]) wherein the lithiophilic material comprises at least one of silver (Ag), gold (Au), or carbon (C).
Regarding Claim 7, modified Cook discloses the method of Claim 5. Cook further discloses ([0039]) wherein the conductive metal comprises copper (Cu).
Regarding Claim 8, modified Cook discloses the method of Claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein a mass ratio of the first nanoparticles to the second nanoparticles ranges from about 1:0.3 to about 1:1.2.
However, Cook discloses ([0057]–[0060]) that the second nanoparticles form the random 3D porosity of the porous structure, with pores left behind in the final structure wherever the second nanoparticles were located. One of ordinary skill in the art can therefore understand that increasing the mass ratio of the first nanoparticles to the second nanoparticles will decrease the porosity of the porous structure.
A result-effective variable is a variable which achieves a recognized result. The determination of the optimum or workable ranges of a result-effective variable is routine experimentation and therefore obvious (MPEP § 2144.05.II). In the instant case, the mass ratio of the first nanoparticles to the second nanoparticles is a variable that achieves the recognized result of affecting the porosity of the porous structure, as implicitly disclosed by Cook, thus making the mass ratio of the first nanoparticles to the second nanoparticles a result-effective variable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of modified Cook such that a mass ratio of the first nanoparticles to the second nanoparticles ranges from about 1:0.3 to about 1:1.2 via routine experimentation, for the purpose of achieving a porous structure with a suitable level of porosity.
Regarding Claim 9, modified Cook discloses the method of Claim 1. Cook further discloses wherein the second nanoparticles comprise at least one of organic particles (see PMMA (polymethyl methacrylate), PVP (polyvinylpyrrolidone), [0057]) or inorganic particles (see SiO2, SiN, ZnO, [0057]).
Regarding Claim 10, modified Cook discloses the method of Claim 9. Cook further discloses ([0057]) wherein the organic particles comprise poly(methyl methacrylate).
Regarding Claim 11, modified Cook discloses the method of Claim 9. Cook further discloses ([0057]) wherein the inorganic nanoparticles comprise silica (SiO2).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cook et al. (US 2017/0350846 A1) as evidenced by Yang et al. (Yang, C.-P.; Yin, Y-X.; Zhang, S.-F.; Li, N.-W.; Guo, Y.-G. Accommodating lithium into 3D current collectors with a submicron skeleton towards long-life lithium metal anodes, Nat. Commun., 6, article number: 8058, published 24 August 2015) as applied to Claim 2 above, as further evidenced by Tanaka et al. (US 2022/0246904 A1).
Regarding Claim 3, modified Cook discloses the method of Claim 2, but does not explicitly disclose wherein an amount of the binder ranges from about 3 to about 50% by weight based on the total amount of the precursor.
However, it is well-known in the field of lithium-based batteries that the amount of binder included during the formation of a battery structure such as an electrode affects the ion conductivity, capacity density, and mechanical strength of the battery structure, as evidenced by Tanaka ([0055]).
A result-effective variable is a variable which achieves a recognized result. The determination of the optimum or workable ranges of a result-effective variable is routine experimentation and therefore obvious (MPEP § 2144.05.II). In the instant case, the amount of binder by weight based on the total amount of the precursor is a variable that achieves the recognized result of affecting the ion conductivity, capacity density, and mechanical strength of the manufactured porous structure, as evidenced by Tanaka, thus making the amount of binder by weight based on the total amount of the precursor a result-effective variable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Cook such that the amount of the binder ranges from about 3 to about 50% by weight based on the total amount of the precursor via routine experimentation, for the purpose of achieving suitable levels of ion conductivity, capacity density, and mechanical strength of the porous structure.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cook et al. (US 2017/0350846 A1) as evidenced by Yang et al. (Yang, C.-P.; Yin, Y-X.; Zhang, S.-F.; Li, N.-W.; Guo, Y.-G. Accommodating lithium into 3D current collectors with a submicron skeleton towards long-life lithium metal anodes, Nat. Commun., 6, article number: 8058, published 24 August 2015) as applied to Claim 1 above, as further evidenced by Yao et al. (US 2021/0013498 A1).
Regarding Claim 4, modified Cook discloses the method of Claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the method is further comprising producing a precursor sheet by calendaring the precursor, after preparing the precursor.
However, it is well-known in the field of lithium-based batteries that calendaring a battery structure such as an electrode is a routine practice for achieving a desired thickness and porosity of the structure, and is performed by compressing the structure between two rollers (one of ordinary skill in the art will understand that this necessarily forms a sheet), as evidenced by Yao ([0063]).
It therefore would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Cook such that the method further comprises producing a precursor sheet by calendaring the precursor, after preparing the precursor, as this is a routine practice for achieving a sheet with a desired thickness and porosity.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cook et al. (US 2017/0350846 A1) as evidenced by Yang et al. (Yang, C.-P.; Yin, Y-X.; Zhang, S.-F.; Li, N.-W.; Guo, Y.-G. Accommodating lithium into 3D current collectors with a submicron skeleton towards long-life lithium metal anodes, Nat. Commun., 6, article number: 8058, published 24 August 2015) as applied to Claim 1 above, in view of Khazaka et al. (US 2018/0374813 A1).
Regarding Claim 12, modified Cook discloses the method of Claim 1. Cook does not explicitly disclose wherein, in the heat-treating the precursor, the precursor is heat-treated by raising the temperature from room temperature to about 240 °C to 260 °C at a rate of about 30 °C/min so that the first nanoparticles are welded to each other. However, Cook discloses ([0042]) that sintering the first nanoparticles to form a solid structure, i.e. so that the first nanoparticles are welded to each other, can be performed by heating the first nanoparticles to an elevated temperature, but that the first nanoparticles need not be heated to the melting point of the metal that forms the nanoparticles. Note that Cook also discloses that the first nanoparticles can comprise silver ([0039]).
Khazaka teaches a precursor (see paste, [0105]) comprising silver nanoparticles ([0105]), and a method of heat-treating (see sintering, [0111]) the precursor by raising the temperature to 250 °C at a rate of 5 °C/min so that a final joint of silver is formed ([0111]; one of ordinary skill in the art will understand that forming a final joint of silver is analogous to the silver nanoparticles being welded to each other). Khazaka does not explicitly teach that the starting temperature for the heat-treating is room temperature, however one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably assume this to be the case. Note that Khazaka is analogous to the claimed invention as it is in the same field of conductive nanoparticles.
KSR Rationale D states that it is obvious to apply a “known technique to a known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results” (MPEP § 2141). It would therefore have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of modified Cook such that in the heat-treating the precursor, the precursor is heat-treated by raising the temperature from room temperature to 250 °C at a rate of 5 °C/min so that the first nanoparticles are welded to each other, as Khazaka teaches that this is a known technique to yield the predictable result of welding first nanoparticles to each other when the first nanoparticles comprise silver (Ag).
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cook et al. (US 2017/0350846 A1) as evidenced by Yang et al. (Yang, C.-P.; Yin, Y-X.; Zhang, S.-F.; Li, N.-W.; Guo, Y.-G. Accommodating lithium into 3D current collectors with a submicron skeleton towards long-life lithium metal anodes, Nat. Commun., 6, article number: 8058, published 24 August 2015) as applied to Claim 1 above, in view of Sugawara (US 2016/0185932 A1) and as further evidenced by Gardner et al. (US 2014/0078644 A1).
Regarding Claims 13 and 14, modified Cook discloses the method of Claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein, in the etching the second nanoparticles, the heat-treated precursor is treated with an acid solution to remove the second nanoparticles (Claim 13), nor wherein the acid solution comprises hydrofluoric acid (HF) and at least one of methyl alcohol, ethyl alcohol, isopropyl alcohol, or any combination thereof (Claim 14). Cook instead discloses ([0059]) that the second nanoparticles can be removed using temperature, solvent, dry vapor phase etch, etc., depending on the types of first and second nanoparticles. Note that Cook also discloses ([0057]) that the second nanoparticles can be silica (SiO2).
Sugawara teaches a method for manufacturing a porous structure (see polyimide resin film, [0029]) for lithium batteries (see lithium ion secondary battery, [0107]), the method comprising: preparing a precursor (see varnish, [0031]) by mixing a first component (see polyamide acid or polyimide, [0031]) and second nanoparticles (see fine particles, [0031], which can be silica, [0033]; note that [0037] discloses that the fine particles can have particle diameters ranging from 100 to 2000 nm, and therefore can be nanoparticles); heat-treating the precursor ([0082]); and dissolving and removing, i.e. etching, the second nanoparticles in the heat-treated precursor ([0086]). Sugawara teaches ([0086]) that when the second nanoparticles comprise silica, the heat-treated precursor can be treated with an acid solution to remove the second nanoparticles, and that the acid solution comprises hydrofluoric acid (HF). Note that Sugawara is analogous to the claimed invention as it is in the same field of methods for manufacturing porous structures for batteries.
Sugawara discloses that the acid solution comprises hydrofluoric acid in low concentration, but does not disclose any other components, e.g. the diluent, present in the acid solution. However, it is well-known in the field of methods for manufacturing porous structures for batteries that an acid solution for the etching of silicon substrates can comprise hydrofluoric acid (HF) and an alcohol such as ethyl alcohol, methyl alcohol, or isopropyl alcohol, as evidenced by Gardner ([0029]).
KSR Rationale D states that it is obvious to apply a “known technique to a known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results” (MPEP § 2141). It would therefore have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of modified Cook such that in the etching of the second nanoparticles, the heat-treated precursor is treated with an acid solution to remove the second nanoparticles (Claim 13), and wherein the acid solution comprises hydrofluoric acid (HF) and at least one of methyl alcohol, ethyl alcohol, isopropyl alcohol (Claim 14), as the combined teachings/evidence of Sugawara and Gardner show that this is a known technique to yield the predictable result of removing second nanoparticles when the second nanoparticles comprise silica.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 JULIA MARIE FEHR, Ph.D. whose telephone number is (571)270-0860. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM 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, BASIA RIDLEY can be reached at (571)272-1453. 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.
/J.M.F./Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/BASIA A RIDLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1725