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
1. Applicant’s election of Group I in the reply filed on 02/24/2026 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Claims 8-13 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 02/24/2026.
Priority
2. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 05/04/2023, 09/23/2024, and 10/07/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
4. 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 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.
5. Claim(s) 1 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yamazaki et al. (Pub. No. US 20140099539 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Yamazaki teaches an electrode (100, Fig. 1B, see [0070]) comprising: a base collector (101a, Fig. 1B, see [0070]) made of a metal material (metals, see [0067] where 101 is made of metal, and see in Fig. 1A or 1B where 101a is part of 101); and at least one unit electrode (each protrusion of 101b with 102 coated, Fig. 1B, see [0070] the 101b portion is made of multiple individual protrusions, and each one is considered a unit electrode) attached to the base collector (101a, Fig. 1B, see [0070], see [0065] where the protrusion portions 101b are each connected to 101a, see [0082] where the 101b and 101a are strongly bonded together), wherein each unit electrode (each protrusion of 101b with 102 coated, Fig. 1B, see [0070]) comprises: a unit collector (each protrusion of 101b not including 102, Fig. 1B, see [0070]) made of a metal material (metals, see [0067] where 101 is made of metal, and see in Fig. 1A or 1B where 101b is part of 101) and having a size less than that of the base collector (101a, Fig. 1B, see [0070], see Fig. 1A where each protrusion of 101b is smaller than 101a); and an electrode active material (102, Fig. 1B, see [0070]) applied on one surface (top surface, see [0070] where the active material layer 102 is applied on the top of protrusions 101b) of the unit collector (each protrusion of 101b not including 102, Fig. 1B, see [0070]).
Regarding claim 3, Yamazaki teaches wherein the base collector (101a, Fig. 1B, see [0070]) has a plate shape (see Fig. 1B where 101a has a plate shape, further see Fig. 5A gives an illustration of how the 101a from Fig. 1B would be expected to look from above which further shows the plate shape).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
7. Claim(s) 2 and 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamazaki et al. (Pub. No. US 20140099539 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Yamazaki teaches wherein the at least one unit electrode (each protrusion of 101b with 102 coated, Fig. 1B, see [0070] the 101b portion is made of multiple individual protrusions, and each one is considered a unit electrode) is a plurality of unit electrodes (protrusions of 101b with 102 coated, Fig. 1B, see [0070] the 101b portion is made of multiple individual protrusions, and each one is considered a unit electrode), but fails to teach in the embodiment of Figs. 1A/1B each of the unit electrodes has a block shape.
However, in a different embodiment Yamazaki teaches each of the unit electrodes (each protrusion of 101b with 102 coated, Fig. 1B, see [0070] the 101b portion is made of multiple individual protrusions, and each one is considered a unit electrode) has a block shape (117, Fig. 4H, see [0100] wherein each of the protrusion portions is shape 117).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the embodiment of Figs. 1A/1B to have each of the protrusions in 101b to be the shape 117 as taught by the embodiment of Fig. 4H of Yamazaki. Further, it has been held that combining two embodiments disclosed adjacent to each other in a prior art patent does not require a leap of inventiveness and involves only routine skill in the art. Further, Yamazaki teaches that modifications can be made (see [0058]) and the portions 101b may be a combination or modified form of any of the shapes (see [0102]).
Regarding claim 4, Yamazaki teaches the electrode active material (102, Fig. 1B, see [0070]) is applied to an entire top surface (top surface, see [0070] where the active material layer 102 is applied on the top of protrusions 101b) of each unit collector (each protrusion of 101b with 102 coated, Fig. 1B, see [0070] the 101b portion is made of multiple individual protrusions, and each one is considered a unit electrode), but fails to teach in the embodiment of Figs. 1A/1B wherein each unit collector has a plate shape.
However, in a different embodiment Yamazaki teaches each of the unit electrodes (each protrusion of 101b with 102 coated, Fig. 1B, see [0070] the 101b portion is made of multiple individual protrusions, and each one is considered a unit electrode) has a plate shape (117, Fig. 4H, see [0100] wherein each of the protrusion portions is shape 117).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the embodiment of Figs. 1A/1B to have each of the protrusions in 101b to be the shape 117 as taught by the embodiment of Fig. 4H of Yamazaki. Further, it has been held that combining two embodiments disclosed adjacent to each other in a prior art patent does not require a leap of inventiveness and involves only routine skill in the art. Further, Yamazaki teaches that modifications can be made (see [0058]) and the portions 101b may be a combination or modified form of any of the shapes (see [0102]).
Regarding claim 5, Yamazaki teaches wherein the plurality of unit electrodes (protrusions of 101b with 102 coated, Fig. 1B, see [0070] the 101b portion is made of multiple individual protrusions, and each one is considered a unit electrode) are arranged to form columns and rows (columns and rows, Fig. 1B below, note modification above where the shape of the protrusions was changed to a shape 117 from Fig. 4H) on one surface (top surface, Fig. 1B below, note this surface is the top of 101a not the top of the active material which is layered on top of 101a) of the base collector (101a, Fig. 1B, see [0070]).
PNG
media_image1.png
382
584
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, Yamazaki fails to teach in the present embodiment wherein the plurality of unit electrodes are together arranged in a configuration having a shape similar to a shape of a top surface of the base collector.
However, in a different embodiment Yamazaki teaches wherein a shape of a top surface of the plurality of unit electrodes (protrusions of 101b with 102 coated, Fig. 1B, see [0070] the 101b portion is made of multiple individual protrusions, and each one is considered a unit electrode) is a square (101c, Fig. 5C, see [0107] wherein the protrusion portions 101c are square top surfaces).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the current embodiment such that the top surface of each 101b is a square top surface as taught by the embodiment of Fig. 5C of Yamazaki. Further, it has been held that combining two embodiments disclosed adjacent to each other in a prior art patent does not require a leap of inventiveness and involves only routine skill in the art. Further, Yamazaki teaches that modifications can be made (see [0058]) and the portions 101b may be a combination or modified form of any of the shapes (see [0102]).
Therefore, Yamazaki teaches wherein the plurality of unit electrodes (protrusions of 101b with 102 coated, Fig. 1B, see [0070] the 101b portion is made of multiple individual protrusions, and each one is considered a unit electrode) are together arranged in a configuration (see configuration illustrated below, this shows a modified form of Fig. 5C as modified above with each top surface being a square shape) having a shape similar to a shape of a top surface (top surface, Fig. 1B above, note the general shape of the top surface is square, as further representable by Fig. 5A which illustrates a top down view of said shape) of the base collector (101a, Fig. 1B, see [0070]).
PNG
media_image2.png
442
330
media_image2.png
Greyscale
8. Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamazaki et al. (Pub. No. US 20140099539 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Watanabe et al. (Pub. No. US 20200365886 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Yamazaki fails to teach further comprising an electrode tab part extending from one end of the base collector.
However, Watanabe teaches an electrode tab part (37, Fig. 2, see [0028]) extending from one end (end portion, see [0028]) of the base collector (negative electrode current collector, see [0028]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Yamazaki to add an electrode tab extending from an end portion of 101a as taught by Watanabe to allow the negative electrode to connect with other negative electrodes or other components (see [0034] of Watanabe where the tab is used to electrically connect the negative electrode to other components such as other negative electrodes). Further, Yamazaki teaches that modifications can be made (see [0058]) and tabs can be connected to the negative electrode (see [0266] of Yamazaki).
9. Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ono et al. (Pub. No. US 20200350529 A1) in view of Qiu (Pub. No. CN 107154499 A).
Regarding claim 14, Ono teaches an electrode assembly (40, Fig. 4, see [0021]), in which electrodes (10/20, Fig. 4, see [0021]) and separators (30, Fig. 4, see [0021]) are alternately stacked (see Fig. 4 wherein 10/20 and 30 are alternately stacked), but fails to teach each of the electrodes comprising: a base collector made of a metal material; and at least one unit electrode attached to the base collector, wherein each unit electrode comprises: a unit collector made of a metal material and having a size less than that of the base collector; and an electrode active material applied on one surface of the unit collector.
However, Qui teaches electrodes (1/2, Fig. 1, see [0035]) comprising: a base collector (13/23, Fig. 1, see [0035]) made of a metal material (see [0035] where 13 is aluminum and 23 is copper); and at least one unit electrode (14/15 and 24/25, Fig. 1, see [0035-0037]) attached to the base collector (13/23, Fig. 1, see [0035], see [0042] and [0046] where 14 is attached, see [0050] and [0057] where 24 is attached to 23), wherein each unit electrode (14/15 and 24/25, Fig. 1, see [0035]) comprises: a unit collector (14/24, Fig. 1, see [0035]) made of a metal material (Nickel, see [0042] and [0050] where 14 and 24 are made of nickel) and having a size (thickness of 10-50nm, see [0042] and [0050]) less than that of the base collector (13/23, Fig. 1, see [0035], see [0041] thickness of 13 is 500-1000 nm, see [0051] thickness of 23 is 200-600 nm); and an electrode active material (15/25, Fig. 1, see [0036-0037]) applied on one surface of the unit collector (14/24, Fig. 1, see [0035], see Fig. 1 wherein 15/25 are respectively applied to a surface of 14/24).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Ono to substitute the positive electrode current collector 11 and the negative electrode current collector 21 as taught by Ono for the positive electrode current collector 10 and negative electrode current collector 20 respectively as taught by Qui to reduce weight, improve energy density, reduce cost, and prevent the copper/aluminum layer from falling off easily or being easily oxidized (see [0009] of Qui).
Conclusion
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOUGLAS CALEB MARROQUIN whose telephone number is (571)272-0166. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30-5:00 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, Tiffany Legette can be reached at 571-270-7078. 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.
/DOUGLAS C MARROQUIN/Examiner, Art Unit 1723 /TIFFANY LEGETTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights