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 with traverse of Group II in the reply filed on February 23rd, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the This is not found persuasive because the properties and parameters in claims 9-16 may be found in batteries and electrodes that are commonly made with processes that are completely different than the method .
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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.
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.
Claims 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tonchev (US 2013/0176699 A1) and further in view of Nowak (US 6025110 A).
Regarding claim 17, Tonchev discloses a method [0012] comprising forming a composition (i.e. the claimed donor material that forms a donor layer) on a transparent support ([0016], [0054], and [0078]) wherein the composition is adjacent and spaced apart from a receiving substrate ([0016] and [0051]). A laser beam, having a wavelength between 800 nm and 2000 nm [0077], then passes through the transparent support (transparent to 800-2000 nm light; [0078]) to eject portions of the composition to contact the receiving substrate [0050] and form a printed object [0073]. This printed object may form the claimed solid body with a multilayered structure [0073].
Tonchev teaches that a lithium-ion battery may be formed using their deposition method where the solid body may comprise a transition metal oxide [0096], a well-known electrode active material. Tonchev also teaches that the receiving substrate may be a metal foil [0032], and metal foils are well-known within the art to be current collectors. See MPEP 2144.03. Therefore, Tonchev teaches that their deposition method may deposit a coating comprising active material onto a current collector, forming an electrode.
Tonchev fails to teach the usage of processor to direct the laser beam. Nowak is analogous art to Tonchev because both teach the usage of lasers to irradiate a substrate which then causes material to be ejected from that substrate (Tonchev, abstract; Nowak, abstract). Nowak a controller of a laser that accurately tracks the two-dimensional position of the laser as it irradiates the transfer carrier to eject transfer material onto a receiver (abstract; column 4, lines 47-55). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to use Novak’s controller in Tonchev’s system to ensure that the laser is irradiating the appropriate position of the transparent support to achieve the desired ejection/deposition.
Regarding claim 18, Tonchev discloses a printed object (the claimed solid body) that is one of a plurality of spaced apart solid bodies on a receiving substrate as seen in the annotated figure below.
PNG
media_image1.png
681
953
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 19, by placing printed bodies in multiple locations (Fig. 1 above), Tonchev segments the solid body into more than one portion and the coating of the current collector comprises all of the printed bodies.
Regarding claim 20, Tonchev fails to explicitly disclose a step that comprises installing the formed electrode into a battery. Tonchev, however, teaches that electrodes formed using this deposition method may be used in lithium-ion batteries [0096]. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that electrodes must be installed in a battery in order for that battery to function. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to install Tonchev’s fabricated electrode into a battery.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Fernandez-Pradas (Laser-Induced Forward Transfer: A Method for Printing Functional Inks) discusses applications of laser-induced forward transfer, the method used by the Applicant, in areas beyond electronics such as tissue engineering (Section 5: Printing of Functional Materials).
Serra (Laser-Induced Forward Transfer: Fundamentals and Applications) discusses the technique at length and relevant underlying scientific principles.
Germain (Electrodes for microfluidic devices produced by laser induced forward transfer) teaches gold-based electrodes that they created using laser-induced forward transfer.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN K BLACKWELL-RUDASILL whose telephone number is (571)270-0563. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.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, Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at 571-272-3433. 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.
/R.B.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1722
/NIKI BAKHTIARI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1722
Prosecution Insights