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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 3-7, 10-14, and 16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 3-6, 10-13, and 16 present a subject matter where forming the metal oxide layer comprises both depositing the metal oxide layer in a vacuum deposition chamber using electron beam evaporation (EBE) from the third method and also spraying and spin-coating a metal nitrate salt onto the stainless steel current collector and heating the stainless steel current collector to a decomposition temperature of the metal nitrate salt from the first method.
[0039] of the specification states "although each of the embodiments is described above as having certain features, any one or more of those features described with respect to any embodiment of the disclosure can be implemented in and/or combined with features of any of the other embodiments, even if that combination is not explicitly described. In other words, the described embodiments are not mutually exclusive, and permutations of one or more embodiments with one another remain within the scope of this disclosure."
However, this does not reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention because it is not described how one of ordinary skill in the art would perform the first method with the third method to form the same metal oxide layer. Because each method separately results in a metal oxide layer formed onto the stainless steel current collector, combining two methods would result in two separate metal oxide layers on the current collector instead of the same metal oxide layer, and there is no description on combining two methods to form the same metal oxide layer.
As to claims 3-6, 10-13, and 16, in an effort to expedite prosecution, examiner interprets the corresponding independent claims to be without the limitation “wherein forming the metal oxide layer comprises depositing the metal oxide layer in a vacuum deposition chamber using electron beam evaporation (EBE)” as examiner believes the combination is not described in the specification.
Claims 7 and 14 present a subject matter where forming the metal oxide layer comprises both depositing the metal oxide layer in a vacuum deposition chamber using electron beam evaporation (EBE) from the third method and also electroplating from the second method.
[0039] of the specification states "although each of the embodiments is described above as having certain features, any one or more of those features described with respect to any embodiment of the disclosure can be implemented in and/or combined with features of any of the other embodiments, even if that combination is not explicitly described. In other words, the described embodiments are not mutually exclusive, and permutations of one or more embodiments with one another remain within the scope of this disclosure."
However, this does not reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention because it is not described how one of ordinary skill in the art would perform the second method with the third method to form the same metal oxide layer. Because each method separately results in a metal oxide layer formed onto the stainless steel current collector, combining two methods would result in two separate metal oxide layers on the current collector instead of the same metal oxide layer, and there is no description on combining two methods to form the same metal oxide layer.
As to claims 7 and 14, in an effort to expedite prosecution, examiner interprets the corresponding independent claims to be without the limitation “wherein forming the metal oxide layer comprises depositing the metal oxide layer in a vacuum deposition chamber using electron beam evaporation (EBE)” as examiner believes the combination is not described in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 3-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobori (US 2012/0009479), and further in view of Li (2020 IOP Conf. Ser.: Earth Environ. Sci. 514 042019), and Kaskel (US 2020/0099039).
Regarding claim 1, Kobori teaches a method for fabricating an anode ([0048]) electrode ([0041]), comprising:
providing a current collector ([0042]);
forming a metal oxide layer ([0042]) on the current collector.
Kobori does not teach that the current collector is stainless steel. Kobori also does not teach pouring molten lithium over the metal oxide layer.
However, Li teaches stainless steel mesh as an option for current collectors having a benefit of low cost, simple process, and large-scale production (3.4.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Kobori to use the stainless steel mesh of Li for the benefits of low cost, simple process, and large-scale production (Li: 3.4.).
Additionally, Kaskel teaches applying liquefied lithium to the mediator layer by a slot die ([0034]), with perforated metals as possible substrate materials ([0043]).
Therefore, it would also have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Kobori and Li to further include the step of Kaskel to apply liquefied lithium to the mediator layer by a slot die to deposit lithium on large areas while having low thickness (Kaskel: [0005]). Modified Kobori also teaches that increasing the electrode areas and having thinner electrode plates is known to decrease impedance (Kobori: [0011]), which would be achieved by including the method of Kaskel.
This addition is appropriate because the zinc nitrate (Kobori: [0136] [0137]) applied in modified Kobori as the metal salt was thermally decomposed into zinc oxide (Kobori: [0253]), which would be appropriate as the mediator layer for reacting with liquid lithium to form a mediating interface (Kaskel: [0045]).
Regarding claim 3, modified Kobori teaches forming the metal oxide layer comprises:
spin-coating (Kobori: [0151]) a metal nitrate salt (Kobori: [0042]) onto the stainless steel current collector; and
heating the stainless steel current collector to a decomposition temperature of the metal nitrate salt (Kobori: [0045]).
Regarding claim 4, modified Kobori teaches the metal nitrate salt is selected from a group consisting of zinc nitrate (Zn(NO3)3) (Kobori: [0136] [0137]).
Regarding claim 5, modified Kobori teaches forming the metal oxide layer comprises:
spraying (Kobori: [0151]) a metal nitrate salt (Kobori: [0042]) onto the stainless steel current collector; and
heating the stainless steel current collector to a decomposition temperature of the metal nitrate salt (Kobori: [0045]).
Regarding claim 6, modified Kobori teaches the metal nitrate salt is selected from a group consisting of zinc nitrate (Zn(NO3)3) (Kobori: [0136] [0137]).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobori (US 2012/0009479), Li (2020 IOP Conf. Ser.: Earth Environ. Sci. 514 042019), Kaskel (US 2020/0099039), and further in view of Kawakami (US 6432585).
Regarding claim 7, modified Kobori does not teach forming the metal oxide layer comprises electroplating the stainless steel current collector with the metal oxide layer.
However, Kawakami teaches forming the metal oxide layer comprises electroplating the stainless steel current collector with the metal oxide layer (Kawakami: 23).
Therefore, it would also have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of modified Kobori to use the electroplating method of Kawakami as an alternative for forming an electrode material layer having an average particle size and void ratio and density controlled as desired (Kawakami: 110).
Claim(s) 2 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobori (US 2012/0009479), Li (2020 IOP Conf. Ser.: Earth Environ. Sci. 514 042019), Kaskel (US 2020/0099039), and further in view of Han (US 2022/0344672).
Regarding claim 2, modified Kobori teaches the stainless steel current collector is selected from a group consisting of mesh.
Modified Kobori does not teach wherein forming the metal oxide layer comprises depositing the metal oxide layer in a vacuum deposition chamber using electron beam evaporation (EBE).
However, Han teaches forming the metal oxide layer comprises depositing the metal oxide layer in a vacuum deposition chamber using electron beam evaporation (EBE) (Han: [0056]).
Therefore, it would also have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of modified Kobori to use the electron beam evaporation method of Han as an alternative for improving the adhesive force of the interface between the primer coating layer and the electrode active material layer, prevent performance deterioration of the electrode, and improve productivity and processability of the electrode (Han: [0006], [0027], [0028]).
Regarding claim 8, modified Kobori does not teach forming the metal oxide layer comprises depositing the metal oxide layer in a vacuum deposition chamber (Han: [0056], electron beam evaporation is inherently performed in a vacuum deposition chamber).
However, Han teaches forming the metal oxide layer comprises depositing the metal oxide layer in a vacuum deposition chamber (Han: [0056], electron beam evaporation is inherently performed in a vacuum deposition chamber).
Therefore, it would also have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of modified Kobori to use the electron beam evaporation method of Han as an alternative for improving the adhesive force of the interface between the primer coating layer and the electrode active material layer, prevent performance deterioration of the electrode, and improve productivity and processability of the electrode (Han: [0006], [0027], [0028]).
Claim(s) 9-13 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobori (US 2012/0009479), and further in view of Li (2020 IOP Conf. Ser.: Earth Environ. Sci. 514 042019), Kaskel (US 2020/0099039), Kawakami (US 6432585), and Han (US 2022/0344672).
Regarding claim 9 and 16, Kobori teaches a method for fabricating a battery cell, comprising:
forming an anode ([0048]) electrode ([0041]) by:
providing a current collector ([0042]);
forming a metal oxide layer ([0042]) on the current collector by:
spin-coating ([0151]) a metal nitrate salt ([0042]) onto the current collector,
wherein the metal nitrate salt is zinc nitrate (Zn(NO3)3) ([0136] [0137]); and
heating the stainless steel current collector to a decomposition temperature of the metal nitrate salt ([0045]);
arranging a plurality of the anode electrode, a plurality of cathode electrodes, and separators in a predetermined sequence in an enclosure of a battery cell ([0027] to [0030]; a battery cell inherently can have a plurality of the anode electrode, a plurality of cathode electrodes, and separators, and any arrangement would result in a sequence).
Kobori does not teach that the current collector is a stainless steel mesh, foil, or expanded metal. Kobori also does not teach pouring molten lithium over the metal oxide layer.
However, Li teaches stainless steel mesh as an option for current collectors having a benefit of low cost, simple process, and large-scale production (3.4.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Kobori to use the stainless steel mesh of Li for the benefits of low cost, simple process, and large-scale production (Li: 3.4.).
Additionally, Kaskel teaches applying liquefied lithium to the mediator layer by a slot die ([0034]), with perforated metals as possible substrate materials ([0043]).
Therefore, it would also have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Kobori and Li to further include the step of Kaskel to apply liquefied lithium to the mediator layer by a slot die to deposit lithium on large areas while having low thickness (Kaskel: [0005]). Modified Kobori also teaches that increasing the electrode areas and having thinner electrode plates is known to decrease impedance (Kobori: [0011]), which would be achieved by including the method of Kaskel.
This addition is appropriate because the zinc nitrate (Kobori: [0136] [0137]) applied in modified Kobori as the metal salt was thermally decomposed into zinc oxide (Kobori: [0253]), which would be appropriate as the mediator layer for reacting with liquid lithium to form a mediating interface (Kaskel: [0044]).
Regarding claim 10, modified Kobori teaches forming the metal oxide layer comprises:
spin-coating (Kobori: [0151]) a metal nitrate salt (Kobori: [0042]) onto the stainless steel current collector; and
heating the stainless steel current collector to a decomposition temperature of the metal nitrate salt (Kobori: [0045]).
Regarding claim 11, modified Kobori teaches the metal nitrate salt is selected from a group consisting of zinc nitrate (Zn(NO3)3) (Kobori: [0136] [0137]).
Regarding claim 12, modified Kobori teaches forming the metal oxide layer comprises:
spraying (Kobori: [0151]) a metal nitrate salt (Kobori: [0042]) onto the stainless steel current collector; and
heating the stainless steel current collector to a decomposition temperature of the metal nitrate salt (Kobori: [0045]).
Regarding claim 13, modified Kobori teaches the metal nitrate salt is selected from a group consisting of zinc nitrate (Zn(NO3)3) (Kobori: [0136] [0137]).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobori (US 2012/0009479), Li (2020 IOP Conf. Ser.: Earth Environ. Sci. 514 042019), Kaskel (US 2020/0099039), and further in view of Kawakami (US 6432585).
Regarding claim 14, modified Kobori does not teach forming the metal oxide layer comprises electroplating the stainless steel current collector with the metal oxide layer.
However, Kawakami teaches forming the metal oxide layer comprises electroplating the stainless steel current collector with the metal oxide layer (Kawakami: 23).
Therefore, it would also have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of modified Kobori to use the electroplating method of Kawakami as an alternative for forming an electrode material layer having an average particle size and void ratio and density controlled as desired (Kawakami: 110).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobori (US 2012/0009479), Li (2020 IOP Conf. Ser.: Earth Environ. Sci. 514 042019), Kaskel (US 2020/0099039), and further in view of Han (US 2022/0344672).
Regarding claim 15, modified Kobori does not teach forming the metal oxide layer comprises depositing the metal oxide layer in a vacuum deposition chamber (Han: [0056], electron beam evaporation is inherently performed in a vacuum deposition chamber).
However, Han teaches forming the metal oxide layer comprises depositing the metal oxide layer in a vacuum deposition chamber (Han: [0056], electron beam evaporation is inherently performed in a vacuum deposition chamber).
Therefore, it would also have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of modified Kobori to use the electron beam evaporation method of Han as an alternative for improving the adhesive force of the interface between the primer coating layer and the electrode active material layer, prevent performance deterioration of the electrode, and improve productivity and processability of the electrode (Han: [0006], [0027], [0028]).
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 An Bach Phan whose telephone number is (571)272-7244. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7-3 ET.
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, Len Tran can be reached at (571)272-1184. 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.
/A.B.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/LEN TRAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights