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 without traverse of Species IA and IIA, in the reply filed on February 17, 2026 is acknowledged.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 11, 19-21, 24, 27, 28, 31, 44, 45 and 48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tani et al. (hereinafter “Tani”) (U.S. Pub. No. 2013/0115510 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 2 and 44, Tani teaches an anode comprising a copper collector foil 2 (electrically conductive layer) having a heat-resistant layer, an anti-corrosion treatment layer, and a silane coupling treatment layer 2 on a surface thereof. A silicon-type active material film 3 may then be formed on the silane coupling treatment layer 2 (see paragraphs 12, 37 and 39).
The heat-resistant layer may comprise a nickel formed non the surface of the copper foil 2. Additionally, a zinc layer may be formed on the copper foil instead, or the zinc layer may be formed on the nickel layer. It is also permissible to form the layer containing nickel after the formation of the zinc layer (first surface sublayer comprises zinc) (see paragraph 29).
The anti-corrosion layer that is formed on the heat-resistant layer may comprise an inorganic dielectric film. As an inorganic film, a thin chromate layer (metal oxide; oxometallate; chromium) may be used (metal-oxygen compound) (see paragraph 30).
The silane coupling treatment layer (third surface sublayer comprising a silicon compound) is subsequently formed on top of the anti-corrosion layer (see paragraph 31). The silane coupling treatment layer may be formed using a silane coupling agent, wherein such silane coupling agents are known in the art to form siloxane layers.
The silicon-type active material film 3 may be formed, for example, by depositing high-purity silicon on the current collector via plasma-enhanced chemical vapor deposition or electron-beam physical vapor deposition (at least 40 atomic% silicon; substantially free of carbon-based binders) (see paragraph 45). A thickness of the silicon-type active material film 3 may be from about 0.5 µm to about 6 µm (see paragraph 18).
Tani teaches that the collector copper foil should have a surface roughness Rz that is 2.0 or more and 5.0 or less in order to provide good adhesion between the current collector and the active material. When a copper foil with a surface that is not roughened, but rather smooth or shiny, is used, part of the active material silicon film formed may exfoliate (see paragraph 24).
Although Tani provides a surface roughness Rz instead of surface roughness Ra, it is well within the ambit of the ordinary artisan to determine a suitable surface roughness for the collector copper foil on the basis of Ra as claimed. It has been held by the courts that discovering an optimum value or workable ranges of a known result-effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, and is thus not novel. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05).
Regarding claim 11, in the instance where the heat-resistant layer is formed solely by the zinc layer formed on the copper foil, the heat-resistant layer is understood to comprise essentially pure zinc (at least 98 atomic % zinc).
Regarding claim 24, Tani teaches that the copper collector foil may be roughened utilizing copper particulates (see paragraph 41; FIG. 3). This roughened surface as illustrated in FIG. 3, includes a plurality of peaks and valleys, wherein the peaks may be considered nanopillars.
Regarding claims 27 and 31, in the instance where the heat-resistant layer is formed by providing the zinc layer on top of the nickel layer, the nickel layer, together with the copper collector foil, may be considered equivalent to the claimed electrically conductive layer.
Regarding claim 28, in the instance where the heat-resistant layer, the anti-corrosion treatment layer, and the silane coupling treatment layer are formed on both surfaces of the copper collector foil (see FIG. 4), and where the heat-resistant layers are formed by providing the zinc layer on top of the nickel layer, the copper collector foil sandwiched between two nickel layers may be considered equivalent to the claimed electrically conductive layer. In this case, the copper collector foil is located between a nickel layer on a first side thereof, and the heat-resistant layer, the anti-corrosion treatment layer, and the silane coupling treatment layer on a second side thereof.
Regarding claim 45, although Tani is silent as to a density of the lithium storage layer, the instant specification establishes that a suitable silicon-based lithium storage layer may be formed via plasma-enhanced chemical vapor deposition. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the silicon-type active material film of Tani, which may be also to be formed by plasma-enhanced chemical vapor deposition, to exhibit a density that is substantially identical the claimed density. It has been held by the courts that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. See In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977) (see MPEP § 2112.01).
Regarding claim 48, Tani teaches that the anode may be utilized in a lithium secondary battery (see paragraph 61).
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tani as applied to claims 1, 2, 11, 19-21, 24, 27, 28, 31, 44, 45 and 48 above, and further in view of Brewer et al. (hereinafter “Brewer”) (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0057757 A1).
The Brewer reference has a common assignee and inventor with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
Regarding claim 25, Tani is silent as to the claimed dimensions of the nanpillars.
Brewer teaches an anode 100 comprising a lithium storage coating 107 deposited over the current collector 101 and in contact with a first metal oxide material 105 and a second metal oxide material 106 (see paragraph 23; FIG. 1C). The current collector 101 includes a plurality of electrically conductive structures 104 embedded in, and perpendicular to (angle of 90°), an electrically conductive substrate 103 (see paragraph 21; FIG. 1A).
The electrically conductive structures may have a trapezoidal shape such that they are widest nearest to the electrically conductive substrate (see paragraph 43; FIG. 6B). The electrically conductive structures may each have an aspect ratio defined by heigh H divided by width W that is in a range of 1 to 2 (see paragraph 40). They may each have a height H that is at least 1 µm (see paragraph 42).
Thus, H may equal 1 µm, B may equal 1 µm, W/B may equal 1.0, and H/B may equal 1.0.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the electrically conductive structures of Brewer in the anode of Tani because Brewer teaches that one or more of at least the following advantages may be realized relative to conventional anodes: improved stability at aggressive ≥1C charging rates; higher overall areal charge capacity; higher charge capacity per gram of silicon; improved physical durability; simplified manufacturing process; and more reproducible manufacturing process (see paragraph 8).
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
Claims 35 and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tani as applied to claims 1, 2, 11, 19-21, 24, 27, 28, 31, 44, 45 and 48 above, and further in view of Nishiyama et al. (hereinafter “Nishiyama”) (CN 104205428 A; see English machine translation).
Regarding claim 35, although Tani teaches that copper collector foil may comprise a copper alloy, Tani does not explicitly teach an alloy of copper, nickel and silicon.
Nishiyama teaches that a copper-nickel-silicon alloy may be used as a negative electrode current collector in order to provide improved strength at low thickness (see paragraph 117). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the copper-nickel-silicon alloy of Nishiyama in the current collector of Tani because the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07).
Regarding claim 39, although Tani does not explicitly teach a tensile strength of the current collector, the instant specification establishes a tensile strength of copper-nickel-silicon alloy that is 690 to 860 MPa. As such, the ordinary artisan would expect the copper-nickel-silicon ally of Nishiyama to exhibit a similar tensile strength. It has been held by the courts that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. See In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977) (see MPEP § 2112.01).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHAN J ESSEX whose telephone number is (571)270-7866. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 am - 6:00 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.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at (571) 272-1330. 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.
/STEPHAN J ESSEX/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1727