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
The amendment filed on 03/09/2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 9 and 14-16 are amended, Claims 13 is canceled and Claims 1, 9 and 14-16 are pending.
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 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tachibana et al. (JP 5412638 B2 – Machine Translation referenced for citation), hereinafter “Tachibana” in view of Hu et al. (PECVD-derived graphene nanowall/lithium composite anodes towards highly stable lithium metal batteries, Energy Storage Materials 22 (2019) 29–39), hereinafter “Hu” and Kawai et al. (Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. 49 060220, 2010), hereinafter “Kawai”. Tachibana, Hu and Kawai are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely carbon nanowalls.
In regard to Claim 1, Tachibana et al. discloses an electrode for power storage device comprising a current collector and an active material layer on the current collector being made of a metal foil or a metal plate, wherein the active material layer comprises a carbon nanowall (Tachibana, [1,19]) wherein the carbon nanowall comprises a thin film comprising graphite materials, i.e. carbon having a six-membered ring structure (Tachibana, [8, 59]). Tachibana et al also discloses the carbon nanowalls are vertically standing, vertically oriented, and vertically aligned off of the substrate (Tachibana, [22, 27, 37]), which may reasonably include angles from 80° to 110° and of which would overlap the claimed range. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges, as overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obvious. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2144.05.
While Tachibana et al. discloses lithium ions inserted and desorbed from the electrolyte solution into the electrode active material (Tachibana, [4]) it is silent as to its carbon nanowalls direct grown on the copper substrate comprising a surface on which metal lithium crystal is configured to be deposited and the carbon nanowall being configured to involve, in a charge-discharge reaction, two or more lithium ions per carbon atom in a single charge or discharge. However, as taught in Hu et al. this is a known structural capability of direct grown vertical carbon nanowalls.
Hu et al. discloses directly growing a uniform and dense layer of vertical erected graphene nanowalls on 3D copper substrate (designated as Cu@VG) via plasma-enhanced chemical vapor deposition (PECVD), which functions as a highly-efficient host material for dendrite-free Li plating at high current density and high areal capacity loadings and its high-surface-area matrix could not only accommodate the huge volume change, but also homogenize the electric-field distribution and induce a uniform Li deposition even at high power conditions (Hu, Pg 30).
This demonstrates that a vertically grown carbon nanowall such as the nanowall disclosed in Tachibana reasonably comprises a surface on which metal lithium crystal is configured to be deposited. Further, as is consistent with the current application which discloses that additional lithium is adsorbed or deposited on the carbon nanowall surface and the gaps between the nanowalls (Original Specification, [0073]) the carbon nanowalls of Tachibana with high surface area acting as a lithium deposition host will necessarily involve more lithium as evidenced by Hu which discloses wherein PECVD-derived, firmly-anchored graphene nanowalls enable a highly-conductive and flexible interface with huge space for accommodating the volume change of Li, thereby inducing a uniform electric-field distribution and Li deposition and more importantly, the ample topological defects and oxygen-containing groups (C-O and C=O) within the PECVD-derived graphene nanowalls could act as efficient lithiophilic sites to further boost the uniform Li nucleation and plating (Hu, Pgs 30,33). Thus, the vertically grown carbon nanowalls such as the nanowalls disclosed in Tachibana are reasonably configured to involve, in a charge- discharge reaction, two or more lithium ions per carbon atom in a single charge or discharge.
Lastly, While Tachibana et al. discloses carbon nanowalls grown directly on a metal substrate, it fails to explicitly disclose the active material layer includes an amorphous carbon layer between the current collector and the carbon nanowall. Kawai et al. discloses an analysis of carbon nanowalls grown on a substrate in a substantially similar manner as Tachibana et al. (CVD) and under examination found that an interfacial layer of amorphous carbon was formed on the substrate, in between the substrate and the carbon nanowall (Kawai, Abstract). This layer formed on the surface of the substrate is taught to have the benefit of providing spare cavities which allow for the growth of carbon nanowalls and increase surface area (Kawai, PG 060220-1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide an amorphous carbon layer between the current collector and the carbon nanowall as taught in Kawai to the current collector disclosed in Tachibana et al. as doing so would give the skilled artisan the reasonable expectation of achieving the benefits taught in Kawai et al. and as doing so would amount to nothing more than applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
In regard to Claim 14, Tachibana in view of Hu and Kawai et al. discloses the electrode for power storage device according to claim 1. While Tachibana et al. discloses a carbon nanowall grown off the surface of a substrate with a height of several microns (Tachibana, [43]), which anticipates the claimed range, it fails to explicitly disclose an amorphous carbon layer. Kawai et al. discloses an amorphous carbon layer formed on the surface of the substrate with a thickness set at the discretion of the skilled artisan in the range of 5-75nm (Kawai, PG 060220-2), which overlaps the claimed range. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference, as overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obvious. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Claims 9 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tachibana et al. (JP 5412638 B2 – Machine Translation referenced for citation), hereinafter “Tachibana” in view of Hu et al. (PECVD-derived graphene nanowall/lithium composite anodes towards highly stable lithium metal batteries, Energy Storage Materials 22 (2019) 29–39), hereinafter “Hu” and Kawai et al. (Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. 49 060220, 2010), hereinafter “Kawai”. Tachibana, Hu and Kawai are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely carbon nanowalls.
In regard to Claim 9, Tachibana et al. discloses a power storage device comprising a positive electrode current collector, a positive electrode active material layer on the positive electrode current collector, a negative electrode current collector being made of a metal foil or a metal plate, and a negative electrode active material layer on the negative electrode current collector (standard battery configuration), wherein the negative electrode active material layer comprises a carbon nanowall (Tachibana, [1, 19]) wherein the carbon nanowall comprises a thin film comprising graphite materials, i.e. carbon having a six-membered ring structure (Tachibana, [8, 59]). Tachibana et al also discloses the carbon nanowalls are vertically standing, vertically oriented, and vertically aligned off of the substrate (Tachibana, [22, 27, 37]), which may reasonably include angles from 80° to 110° and of which would overlap the claimed range. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges, as overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obvious. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2144.05.
While Tachibana et al. discloses lithium ions inserted and desorbed from the electrolyte solution into the electrode active material (Tachibana, [4]) it is silent as to its carbon nanowalls direct grown on the copper substrate comprising a surface on which metal lithium crystal is configured to be deposited and the carbon nanowall being configured to involve, in a charge-discharge reaction, two or more lithium ions per carbon atom in a single charge or discharge. However, as taught in Hu et al. this is a known structural capability of direct grown vertical carbon nanowalls.
Hu et al. discloses directly growing a uniform and dense layer of vertical erected graphene nanowalls on 3D copper substrate (designated as Cu@VG) via plasma-enhanced chemical vapor deposition (PECVD), which functions as a highly-efficient host material for dendrite-free Li plating at high current density and high areal capacity loadings and its high-surface-area matrix could not only accommodate the huge volume change, but also homogenize the electric-field distribution and induce a uniform Li deposition even at high power conditions (Hu, Pg 30).
This demonstrates that a vertically grown carbon nanowall such as the nanowall disclosed in Tachibana reasonably comprises a surface on which metal lithium crystal is configured to be deposited. Further, as is consistent with the current application which discloses that additional lithium is adsorbed or deposited on the carbon nanowall surface and the gaps between the nanowalls (Original Specification, [0073]) the carbon nanowalls of Tachibana with high surface area acting as a lithium deposition host will necessarily involve more lithium as evidenced by Hu which discloses wherein PECVD-derived, firmly-anchored graphene nanowalls enable a highly-conductive and flexible interface with huge space for accommodating the volume change of Li, thereby inducing a uniform electric-field distribution and Li deposition and more importantly, the ample topological defects and oxygen-containing groups (C-O and C=O) within the PECVD-derived graphene nanowalls could act as efficient lithiophilic sites to further boost the uniform Li nucleation and plating (Hu, Pgs 30,33). Thus, the vertically grown carbon nanowalls such as the nanowalls disclosed in Tachibana are reasonably configured to involve, in a charge- discharge reaction, two or more lithium ions per carbon atom in a single charge or discharge.
Lastly, While Tachibana et al. discloses carbon nanowalls grown directly on a metal substrate, it fails to explicitly disclose the active material layer includes an amorphous carbon layer between the current collector and the carbon nanowall. Kawai et al. discloses an analysis of carbon nanowalls grown on a substrate in a substantially similar manner as Tachibana et al. (CVD) and under examination found that an interfacial layer of amorphous carbon was formed on the substrate, in between the substrate and the carbon nanowall (Kawai, Abstract). This layer formed on the surface of the substrate is taught to have the benefit of providing spare cavities which allow for the growth of carbon nanowalls and increase surface area (Kawai, PG 060220-1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide an amorphous carbon layer between the current collector and the carbon nanowall as taught in Kawai to the current collector disclosed in Tachibana et al. as doing so would give the skilled artisan the reasonable expectation of achieving the benefits taught in Kawai et al. and as doing so would amount to nothing more than applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
In regard to Claim 16, Tachibana in view of Hu and Kawai et al. discloses the electrode for power storage device according to claim 9. While Tachibana et al. discloses a carbon nanowall grown off the surface of a substrate with a height of several microns (Tachibana, [43]), which anticipates the claimed range, it fails to explicitly disclose an amorphous carbon layer. Kawai et al. discloses an amorphous carbon layer formed on the surface of the substrate with a thickness set at the discretion of the skilled artisan in the range of 5-75nm (Kawai, PG 060220-2), which overlaps the claimed range. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference, as overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obvious. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Claims 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tachibana et al. (JP 5412638 B2 – Machine Translation referenced for citation), hereinafter “Tachibana” in view of Hu et al. (PECVD-derived graphene nanowall/lithium composite anodes towards highly stable lithium metal batteries, Energy Storage Materials 22 (2019) 29–39), hereinafter “Hu” and Kawai et al. (Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. 49 060220, 2010), hereinafter “Kawai” as applied to claim 9 above and further in view of Yoshida et al. (US 20120225353 A1), hereinafter “Yoshida”. Tachibana, Hu, Kawai and Yoshida are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely carbon nanowalls.
In regard to Claim 15, Tachibana et al. in view of Hu and Kawai et al. disclose the electrode for power storage device according to claim 9. While Tachibana discloses a battery with a positive and negative electrode it fails to explicitly disclose the number of lithium atoms that the positive electrode active material layer can contain per unit area is equal to or greater than twice the number of carbon atoms that the negative electrode active material layer can contain per unit area.
Yoshida et al. also discloses a power storage device and an electrode for a power storage device comprising a positive electrode current collector, a positive electrode active material layer on the positive electrode current collector (Yoshida, Paragraphs [0058-0059]) and a negative electrode current collector with a negative electrode active material layer on the negative electrode current collector, wherein the active material layer comprises a carbon nanowall (Yoshida, Abstract) and wherein the positive electrode active material layer contains lithium atoms (Yoshida, Paragraph [0060]), and, the carbon nanowall comprises a thin film (Yoshida, Paragraph [0038, 0043]). Further, Yoshida describes carbon nanowalls formed from graphene sheets vertically grown with plasma CVD (Yoshida, Paragraph [0038]) and graphene is built from sp2-bonded carbon atoms arranged in hexagonal 6 membered rings, which by definition means the carbon nanowalls comprise carbon having a six-membered ring structure.
However, while Yoshida is silent as to the number of lithium atoms that the positive electrode active material layer can contain per unit area being equal to or greater than twice the number of carbon atoms that the negative electrode active material layer can contain per unit area. The original specification discloses a positive electrode active material layer P2 that is composed of the same materials as the positive electrode active material of Yoshida (Yoshida, Paragraph [0060] and is formed in the same way (Original Specification, Paragraph [0046-0048)).
It is later disclosed in the original specification that the same positive electrode active material P2 is capable of a number of lithium atoms that the positive electrode active material layer P2 can contain per unit area is equal to or greater than twice the number of carbon atoms that the negative electrode active material layer N2 can contain per unit area (Original Specification, Paragraph [0148]). Considering the positive electrode active material layer disclosed in Yoshida contains the same composition in terms of a function, property or characteristics as the positive electrode active material layer disclosed in the original specification and that “products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties" In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990) and further, that a chemical composition and its properties are inseparable (See MPEP § 2112.01), Yoshida et al. discloses the number of lithium atoms that the positive electrode active material layer can contain per unit area is equal to or greater than twice the number of carbon atoms that the negative electrode active material layer can contain per unit area. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide a positive electrode active material as taught in Yoshida et al. to the battery of Tachibana et al. as doing so would give the skilled artisan the reasonable expectation of success and as doing so would amount to nothing more than a variation of a positive electrode active material for use in the same field based on design incentives or other market forces, as the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 9 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 and the new combination of references discloses the limitations of amended independent claims 1 and 9 as addressed in the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH MAX OTERO whose telephone number is (571)272-2559. The examiner can normally be reached M-F Generally 7:30-430.
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, Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at (571) 270-3879. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/K.M.O./Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/JONATHAN CREPEAU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights