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
In response to the amendment received December 19, 2025:
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 11-19 are withdrawn from consideration as being drawn to a nonelected invention.
The previous claim objections are withdrawn in light of the amendment.
The previous rejection is withdrawn in light of the amendment. However, a new prior art rejection has been made below. All changes to the rejection are necessitated by the amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-5, 7 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Liu et al. (US 2018/0287164).
Regarding Claim 1, Liu et al. teaches an electrode for a lithium-ion battery (Para. [0025]) (i.e. an electrode for a rechargeable cell), comprising a copper collector foil (Fig. 1, #100) (i.e. an electrode substrate), and a field of copper wires (Fig. 1A, #106) integrally bonded to the surface of the current collector (i.e. a current collector fixed to the electrode substrate and having a three-dimensional (3D) porous structure defining enclosed void spaces (see Fig. 1A), wherein active electrode material is applied to the copper wire-containing surfaces of the copper foil and the particles of anode material (i.e. active material) occupy the spaces between the copper wires (Para. [0012], [0013]) (i.e. active material particles arranged within the void spaces) and the anode materials are capable of intercalating lithium during cell charging (i.e., wherein the charging of the battery cell reversibly deposits transient ions onto the active material particles and thus, inherently expand the active material particles into the void spaces of the 3D porous structure) and de-intercalating lithium ions during discharge (Para. [0024]) (i.e. discharging the battery cell extracts the transient ions from the active material particles, and thus, the active material inherently contracts out of the void of the 3D porous structure). An inherent feature does not need to be recognized by the art at the time of the invention, but only that the subject matter is in fact inherent in the prior art reference. See MPEP §2112(II).
Regarding Claim 2, Liu et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Liu et al. further teaches on the surface of the copper foil, copper is progressively re-deposited as wire-like projections (Para. [0030]).
Li et al. does not explicitly teach wherein the current collector is fixed to the electrode substrate by electrochemical deposition.
However, the limitation of the instant claim is a product by process limitation. The manner in which the product is formed (via electrodeposition) is a product by process limitation which does not further limit the claimed product.
“[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985)(citations omitted).
Regarding Claim 3, Liu et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Liu et al. further teaches a copper collector foil (Fig. 1, #100) (i.e. an electrode substrate), and a field of copper wires (i.e. current collector) (Fig. 1A, #106) (i.e. wherein the electrode substrate is configured as metal foil, wherein each of the electrode substrate and the current collector is constructed from copper).
Regarding Claim 4, Liu et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Liu et al. further teaches a binder resin is applied to the copper wires to form a porous layer of particles of electrode material which are resin-bonded to each other and to the wires (Para. [0019]) (i.e. wherein the current collector is coated with an interface layer configured to at least attach to the active material particles).
Regarding Claim 5, Liu et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Liu et al. further teaches particles of conductive carbon (i.e. a conductivity additive) are dispersed in a binder solution or dispersion (such as PVDF) and applied to the copper wires (Para. [0012], [0013]) (i.e. wherein the current collector is coated with at least one of a conductivity additive and a polymer binder).
Regarding Claim 7, Liu et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Liu et al. further teaches the copper wires (Fig. 1A, #106) (i.e. the 3D porous structure) includes nodes established by pore walls defining the void spaces and the 3D structure has variable size porosity (see also Fig. 1A).
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.
Claims 6, 8 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (US 2018/0287164). as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhu et al. (US 2014/0248543A).
Regarding Claim 6, Liu et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Liu et al. further teaches particles of active anode material are applied to the copper wires (Para. [0013]) (i.e. wherein the current collector is pre-coated with the active material particles)
Liu et al. does not teach the pre-coated active material particles are provided in one of a wet carbon-silicon electrode slurry, solid particles, a polymer coating mixed with silicon particles or a solid lithium form.
Zhu et al. further teaches a graphite-Si-binder composite can be formed into a lithium-ion battery anode by using traditional battery slurry coating techniques (Para. [0167])) (i.e. wherein the current collector is pre-coated with active material particles and the pre-coat active material particles are provided in a wet carbon-silicon electrode slurry).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the graphite-Si-binder composite slurry as taught by Zhu for its use as an anode active material in a lithium secondary battery with the anode active material of Liu et al., as combing equivalents known for the same purpose is prima facie obvious. It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose. See MPEP §2144.06(I).
Regarding Claim 8, Liu et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Liu et al. further teaches the copper wires (Fig. 1A, #106) (i.e. 3D porous structure) are characterized by a porosity defined by the pore walls (see Fig. 1A).
Liu et al. does not teach wherein the 3D porous structure is characterized by a porosity gradient defined by pore walls gradually increasing in thickness with increasing proximity to the electrode substrate and thereby configured to support comparatively higher energy density loading proximate to the electrode substrate.
However, Zhu et al. teaches a LIB (i.e. lithium-ion battery) anode (Para. [0012]) (i.e. an electrode for a rechargeable battery cell) comprising discrete nanostructures deposited on a substrate (Para. [0013]) (i.e. an electrode substrate) (Fig. 2D, #216) wherein the nanostructures comprise nanospikes (Para. [0057]) wherein the pore walls gradually increase in thickness with increasing proximity to the electrode substrate (see Fig. 2D, #220).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the copper wires of Liu et al. to incorporate the teaching of nanospike shaped wires as taught by Zhu et al., as such a structure exhibits a high surface area for lithiation and a high surface area bound to the substrate (Para. [0105]). Thus, the natural result of the combination of Liu et al. as modified by Zhu et al. would result in a porosity gradient defined by the pore walls gradually increasing in thickness with increasing proximity to the electrode substrate and thereby configured to support comparatively higher energy density loading proximate to the electrode substrate.
Regarding Claim 20, Liu et al. teaches an anode electrode for a lithium-ion battery (Para. [0024], [0025]) (i.e. an electrode for a rechargeable cell), comprising a copper collector foil (Fig. 1, #100) (i.e. an anode substrate), and a field of copper wires (Fig. 1A, #106) integrally bonded to the surface of the current collector (i.e. an anode current collector fixed to the electrode substrate and having a three-dimensional (3D) porous structure defining enclosed void spaces (see Fig. 1A), wherein active electrode material is applied to the copper wire-containing surfaces of the copper foil and the particles of anode material (i.e. active material) occupy the spaces between the copper wires (Para. [0012], [0013]) (i.e. active material particles arranged within the void spaces) and the anode materials are capable of intercalating lithium during cell charging (i.e., wherein the charging of the battery cell reversibly deposits transient ions onto the active material particles and thus, inherently expand the active material particles into the void spaces of the 3D porous structure) and de-intercalating lithium ions during discharge (Para. [0024]) (i.e. discharging the battery cell extracts the transient ions from the active material particles, and thus, the active material inherently contracts out of the void of the 3D porous structure). An inherent feature does not need to be recognized by the art at the time of the invention, but only that the subject matter is in fact inherent in the prior art reference. See MPEP §2112(II).
Liu et al. further teaches the copper wires (Fig. 1A, #106) (i.e. the 3D porous structure) includes nodes established by pore walls defining the void spaces and the 3D structure has variable size porosity (see also Fig. 1A).
Liu et al. does not teach wherein the 3D porous structure is characterized by a porosity gradient defined by pore walls gradually increasing in thickness with increasing proximity to the electrode substrate and thereby configured to support comparatively higher energy density loading proximate to the electrode substrate.
However, Zhu et al. teaches a LIB (i.e. lithium-ion battery) anode (Para. [0012]) (i.e. an electrode for a rechargeable battery cell) comprising discrete nanostructures deposited on a substrate (Para. [0013]) (i.e. an electrode substrate) (Fig. 2D, #216) wherein the nanostructures comprise nanospikes (Para. [0057]) wherein the pore walls gradually increase in thickness with increasing proximity to the electrode substrate (see Fig. 2D, #220).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the copper wires as taught by Liu et al. to incorporate the teaching of nanospike shaped wires as taught by Zhu et al., as such a structure exhibits a high surface area for lithiation and a high surface area bound to the substrate (Para. [0105]). Thus, the natural result of the combination of Liu et al. as modified by Zhu et al. would result in a porosity gradient defined by the pore walls gradually increasing in thickness with increasing proximity to the electrode substrate and thereby configured to support comparatively higher energy density loading proximate to the electrode substrate.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (US 2018/0287164) in view of Zhu et al. (US 2014/0248543A) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of in view of Jones et al. (US 2022/0209245).
Regarding Claim 9, Liu et al. as modified by Zhu et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 8 as explained above
Liu et al. does not explicitly teach a coating applied to pore walls having a constant thickness.
However, Jones et al. teaches an electrode which may be a negative electrode (Para. [0159]) a conformal coating comprising electrochemically active material and a binder present on a surface of a porous electrical current collector (Para. [0015]) wherein the conformal coating has relatively uniform thickness (Para. [0016]) (i.e. wherein the pore walls include a coating applied thereto and having a constant thickness).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the pore walls Liu et al. to incorporate the teaching of a coating applied to pore walls having a uniform (i.e. constant) thickness, as it would provide uniform charge density across the electrode which is favored (Para. [0033]).
Claim 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (US 2018/0287164) in view of Zhu et al. (US 2014/0248543A) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Loveness et al. (US 2022/0020979).
Regarding Claim 10, Liu et al. as modified by Zhu et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 8 as explained above
Liu et al. does not explicitly teach a coating applied to pore walls having a varying thickness.
However, Loveness et al. teaches a lithium ion electrode comprising nanowires rooted to substrate (Para. [0011]) wherein an electrochemically active material coats a nanostructured template wherein the active material layer may have a varying thickness (Para. [0013]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Liu et al. to incorporate the teaching of a coating applied to pore walls having a varying thickness as taught by Loveness et al., as such a variation/distribution of thickness results in less swelling and stress during lithiation, which is beneficial from an electrochemical cycling perspective (Para. [0099]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed December 19, 2025 have been fully considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the combination of the references being used in the current rejection in light of the amendment.
Applicant’s arguments are drawn to a previous prior art combination and thus, are not persuasive in light of the newly cited prior art.
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 ARMINDO CARVALHO JR. whose telephone number is (571)272-5292. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30a.m.-5p.m..
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, Ula Ruddock can be reached at 571 272-1481. 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.
/ARMINDO CARVALHO JR./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729