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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I and Species B in the reply filed on 08/13/2015 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). Claims 1-5, 20-28 are currently under examination. Claims 6-19 have been withdrawn. Claims 20-29 have been newly added.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation of “coupling the electrode material to the foam component of the foam-tab assembly, wherein the electrode material fills the voids of the foam component portion and couples the electrode material to the foam-tab assembly” to “ coupling the electrode material to the foam component of the foam-tab assembly, wherein the electrode material fills the voids of the foam component portion and couples Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-5, and 20-28 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, 2, 3, 24, 25, 27, 28, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation of “the foam component portion” in the claims. Initially claim 1 recites “a foam component” in line 4 and then the rest of the aforementioned claims refer to “the foam component portion”. Applicant is either required to change the first incident of the “foam component” in line 4 of claim 1 to “a foam component portion, or alternatively change the recitations of “the foam component portion” to “the foam component” to avoid confusion. Claim 2-5, and 20-28 are rejected for being dependent from claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, claim 4 recites the limitation of “the anode” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitations in the claims. For the purpose of this Office Action, the “anode” is considered to be referring to the claimed “electrode material”. Claim 5 is rejected for being dependent from claim 4.
Regarding claim 20, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation of “the first end of tab portion”. Claim 27 is rejected for being dependent from claim 20.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1, 20, 21, 23, 24, 25 and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Hiroaki, DE 102015108488 A1 (Already on the record, please refer to the attached English translation for citations).
Regarding claim 1, Hiroaki teaches a method of manufacturing a lithium anode assembly [0001] comprising:
Providing an anode current collector (4; Fig.1, [0035]), corresponding to the claimed “electroconductive tab portion”;
Coupling a foam component (anode layer 1 is made of a porous metal having many pores [0036]; porous metal is a metal foam [0038]; Fig.1) to the electroconductive tab portion (4) to form a foam-tab assembly, wherein the foam component includes a plurality of voids;
Providing an electrode material (Lithium metal; [0038]); and
Coupling the electrode material (lithium metal) to the foam component (1) of the foam-tab assembly wherein the electrode material fills the voids of the foam component portion and couples to the foam-tab assembly [0038].
Regarding claim 20, Hiroaki teaches a housing (12; Fig.3) made of a molded polymer (note that the polymer has to be a melt polymer prior to injection molding to form the housing) [0065]. Hiroaki teaches that the first end of the tab portion (4) is outside the housing 12 and the foam component portion (1) is placed inside the housing. Therefore, the melt polymer (12) is coupled between the first end of the tab portion and the foam component portion.
Regarding claim 21, Hiroaki teaches that the foam component portion (1; Fig.1, [0038]) is comprised of a first material and the tab portion (4) is comprised of a second material [0041].
Regarding claim 23, Hiroaki teaches that the electrode material is comprised of lithium (lithium alloy, lithium metal, lithium compound) ([0036-0037]).
Regarding claim 24, Hiroaki teaches that the foam component portion (1) is a nickel foam [0038], the electroconductive tab portion (4) is a nickel tab [0041] and the electrode material is lithium metal ([0036-0037]).
Regarding claim 25, Hiroaki teaches that an embedded lithium matrix is formed by the lithium within the nickel foam when compressed into the nickel foam of the foam component portion [0038].
Regarding claim 27, Hiroaki teaches that a spacer portion (7; Fig.1) of the electroconductive tab portion (4) is positioned between the foam component (1) and the melt polymer (12) (See fig.3).
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.
Claim(s) 2-4, and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiroaki, DE 102015108488 A1 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sang, CN 102437310 A (English translation attached for citations).
Regarding claims 2 and 26, Hiroaki teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth above, but does not specifically teach that the electroconductive tab portion and the nickel foam component portion are coupled by ultrasonic weld (as required by claim 2) across a width of the electroconductive tab portion (as required by claim 26).
However, Sang teaches an electrode assembly comprising a copper or nickel tab (1), a copper or nickel foam current collector (4) which is filled with lithium powder (2), wherein the nickel foam is ultrasonically welded across a width of the tab [0012].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to couple the electroconductive tab portion and the nickel foam component portion of Hiroaki through ultrasonic welding, because such method increases the electric energy power output of the assembly as taught by Sang [0032]. Moreover, use of a known technique to improve similar devices (in the instant case, using ultrasonic welding to couple a tab portion to the current collector foam portion) in the same way supports prima facie obviousness determination (MPEP 2143, I, Part C). KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding claims 3, Hiroaki teaches that the electroconductive tab portion (4) and the foam component portion (1) is comprised of nickel (See [0038] and [0041]).
Regarding claim 4, Hiroaki teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth above, but does not explicitly teach that foam-tab assembly is coupled to the electrode material using a mechanical press.
However, Sang teaches that the nickel foam current collector is coupled to the lithium powder (corresponding to the claimed “electrode material”) by mechanical pressing (abstract and [0013]).
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 use mechanical pressing in order to couple the electrode material of Hiroaki to the foam-tab assembly by a mechanical press as taught by Sang, because such method would effectively increase the specific surface area of the electrode and increase the discharge current density of the electrode and effectively improves the battery discharge rate characteristics (Sang: abstract).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiroaki, DE 102015108488 A1 and Sang, CN 102437310 A (English translation attached for citations) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Issaev et al., U.S. 2008/0003500 A1.
Modified Hiroaki teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth above, but does not specifically teach that the mechanical press is an arbor press.
However, Issaeve teaches a manufacturing method of a lithium cell, wherein an Arbor pressing method is taught to manufacture the anode [0076].
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 use Arbor pressing to mechanically press the electrode material of modified Hiroaki to the foam component portion, because use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way supports prima facie obviousness determination (MPEP 2143, I, Part C). KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Claim(s) 22 and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiroaki, DE 102015108488 A1 as applied to claim 21 above.
Regarding claim 22, Hiroaki teaches that the foam component portion (1; Fig.1, [0038]) is comprised of a first material and the tab portion (4) is comprised of a second material [0041], wherein the first material is nickel or copper foam and the second material is nickel, copper or alloys thereof.
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 different material for the foam component portion and the tab portion (for example copper for one and nickel for the other), because selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports prima facie obviousness determination (MPEP 2144.07).
Regarding claim 28, Hiroaki teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth above, but does not specifically teach that the foam portion has a thickness less than the electroconductive tab portion configured to permit ample volume for the electrode material to flow into foam component.
However, a person of ordinary skill in the would recognize that the thickness of the foam portion of the anode of Hiroaki can be adjusted to optimize resistance and improve the overall performance of the anode assembly. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Moreover, In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
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