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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The arguments are presented on pages 7-8 that one of ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to combine the teachings of Suzuki and Lee due to Lee not teaching pulsed electrodeposition on carbon nanotubes. These arguments are not found persuasive due to the fact that Suzuki already teaches electroplating (a type of electrodeposition) [0060] therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the benefit of pulsed electrodeposition to deposit uniform films [Lee 0032] would apply to the method of Suzuki.
The arguments are presented on pages 9-10 with regard to claims 10-12 that Hamon would not teach plating a lithium alloy on a porous conductor. These arguments are not found persuasive due to the fact that Suzuki is relied upon for the method of plating an alloy on a porous conductor [0040, 0055, 0061]. Hamon is only relied upon for teaching the benefits of using a lithium metal alloy (flexibility and outstanding electrical performance) [Hamon 0183-0184, 0198] as the alloy of Suzuki. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-9, filed 1/30/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of amended claim(s) 1 under Suzuki and Lee 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 Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.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 Suzuki, Lee, and the new prior art of Schoo et al. (US 2018/0159133 A1, hereafter Schoo) as necessitated by the amended claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-6 and 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki et al. (US 2016/0315313 A1, hereafter Suzuki) in view of Lee et al. (KR 101374754 B1, hereafter Lee), further in view of Schoo et al. (US 2018/0159133 A1, hereafter Schoo).
With regard to claims 1-5, Suzuki teaches a method of manufacturing a composite anode for a lithium secondary battery comprising:
preparing a solution comprising a lithium salt [0071];
disposing a working electrode and a counter electrode in the solution, wherein the working electrode comprises a porous conductor (carbon nanotubes, claim 5) and the counter electrode comprises lithium metal [0070-0071].
Suzuki teaches applying a current for electroplating [0060] but does not explicitly teach a power supply or pulsed electrodeposition. However, in the same field of endeavor, Lee teaches applying power to a cell (which would require a power source) for pulse electrodeposition (pulsed plating) [0031-0032]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use the pulsed electrodeposition of Lee with the method of Suzuki since it is known to be effective for depositing uniform films [Lee 0032].
Suzuki teaches electroplating in a solution but does not explicitly teach the details of the electrolyte comprising a solvent. However, in the same field of endeavor, Lee teaches the use of an electrolyte with LiTFSI (claim 2) as a lithium salt in an amount of 0.1M or 0.5M (which falls within the range of claim 4) [0042-0044] and a solvent including polypropylene carbonate (organic solvent, claim 3) [0038, 0065]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the electrolyte solution of Lee with the method of Suzuki for the benefit of low impurities and improved electrolytic characteristics [Lee 0045, 0066].
Suzuki does not teach plating a metal capable of alloying with lithium on the porous conductor prior to the pulse electrodeposition. However, in the same field of endeavor, Schoo teaches plating carbon nanotubes with nickel (which may alloy with lithium [0021 of instant application pg. pub]) prior to subsequent process steps for manufacturing a battery [0046-0047]. It would have been obvious to use the nickel plating of Schoo with the method of Suzuki for the benefit of a homogenous layer with a porosity that may be optimized for subsequent process steps [Schoo 0047].
With regard to claim 6, Suzuki does not explicitly teach the electrodeposition voltage. However, in the same field of endeavor, Lee teaches applying power to a cell (which would require a power source) for pulse electrodeposition (pulsed plating) with a voltage of -2.4V (which is about 1V greater than the lithium potential of -3.04V) [0031-0032]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use the pulsed electrodeposition and voltage of Lee with the method of Suzuki since it is known to be effective for depositing uniform films [Lee 0032] thereby providing a reasonable expectation of success in modified Suzuki to achieve deposition thereof.
With regard to claim 8, Suzuki does not explicitly teach the electrodeposition pulse time. However, in the same field of endeavor, Lee teaches applying power to a cell (which would require a power source) for pulse electrodeposition (pulsed plating) with a time of 0.001 to 0.1 minutes (which would be 60-6,000 ms and overlap and render obvious the claimed range) [0032]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use the pulsed electrodeposition time of Lee with the method of Suzuki since it is known to be effective for depositing uniform films [Lee 0032].
With regard to claim 9, Suzuki teaches a working temperature of 25 degrees C [0093, 0104].
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki, Lee, and Schoo as applied to claims 1-6 and 8-9 above, and further in view of Gaben (US 2021/0074991 A1, hereafter Gaben).
With regard to claim 7, Suzuki does not explicitly teach the claimed pulse frequency. However, in the same field of endeavor, Gaben teaches that high frequency pulses during electrodeposition prevent formation of surface bubbles and reduce variations in the electric field [0092]. Based on the teachings of Gaben one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to optimize a high pulse frequency for electrodeposition to prevent bubbles or electric field variations which would render the claimed range obvious.
Claim(s) 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki, Lee, and Schoo as applied to claims 1-6 and 8-9 above, and further in view of Hamon et al. (US 2019/0190058 A1, hereafter Hamon).
With regard to claims 10-12, Suzuki teaches plating an alloy (conductive material layer 14) on the porous conductor (carbon nanotubes) (claim 10) [0040, 0055, 0061], teaches the alloy may comprise copper, aluminum, and other metals (claim 11) [0040] and teaches lithium metal is electrodeposited on the alloy (conductive material layer) (claim 12) [0071-0072, fig. 1]. Suzuki teaches the alloy may include other metals [0040] but does not explicitly teach that the alloy for the conductive layer includes lithium. However, in the same field of endeavor, Hamon teaches the use of conductive layers that may include alloys of lithium and copper or aluminum [0198]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use the conductive layer of Hamon with the method of Suzuki since it is known to allow for flexibility and outstanding electrical performance [Hamon 0183-0184, 0198].
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki, Lee, and Schoo as applied to claims 1-6 and 8-9 above, and further in view of Bae et al. (US 2013/0183590 A1, hereafter Bae).
With regard to claim 13, Suzuki does not explicitly teach surface modifying the deposited layer. However, in the same field of endeavor, Bae teaches surface modifying (by plasma treatment) a surface to have a specific roughness [0036-0037, 0067]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use the surface modification of Bae with the method of Suzuki for the benefit of improved cycle-life characteristics [0036-0037].
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 BRENT C THOMAS whose telephone number is (571)270-7737. The examiner can normally be reached Flexible schedule, typical hours 11-7 M-F.
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, Miriam Stagg can be reached at (571)270-5256. 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.
/BRENT C THOMAS/Examiner, Art Unit 1724
/STEWART A FRASER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1724
Prosecution Insights