SYSTEM AND METHODS RELATING TO INTERPENETRATING MULTI-ELECTRODES AND FABRICATION THEREOF FOR ELECTROCHEMICAL DEVICES
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 8/8/2023 and 10/14/2024 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 § 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 12, 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for a polymer, does not reasonably provide enablement for a type of polymer. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims.
This is a scope of enablement rejection. One of ordinary skill in the art would have to engage in undue experimentation in order to make and use applicants claimed invention. See, In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 8 USPQ2d 1400 (Fed. Circ. 1988); see also, MPEP § 2164.01. MPEP 2164.01(a) sets forth the following factors, summarized from In re Wands, which should be considered when determining whether the claimed invention would require undue experimentation. The factors are as follows:
(A) the breadth of the claims; (B) the nature of the invention; (C) the state of the prior art; (D) the level of one of ordinary skill; (E) the level of predictability in the art; (F) the amount of direction provided by the inventor; (G) the existence of working examples; (H) and the quality of experimentation needed to make and use the invention based on the content of the disclose.
The factors are addressed in order. As to factor A, the claim broadly recites printing the first and second beam-like structures from a polymer or that the first and second structures are initially from a polymer, wherein this polymer could be at least a thousand different possible combinations. No specific examples of the workability of any other polymer or polymeric material are given. Therefore, this factor militates against a finding of enablement.
As to factors B and E, the field of material science is an unpredictable art. Thus the formulation of compounds containing different elements from those that have been optimized experimentally may present different problems. In addition, the formulation of polymer materials requires different chemical formulations. It is not as simple as mixing each component into a beaker. As such one of ordinary skill in the art would not know what problems might arise when formulating an active material using the elements for which applicants have not presented experimental data to support. This factor militates against a finding of enablement.
As to factor C, the closest prior arts of record are vast being that the limitation of “a polymer” is itself a broad limitation. As such, this factor militates against finding of enablement.
As to factor D, the level of ordinary skill in the art would be a person holding a bachelors degree in chemical engineering, material science, or chemistry. This factor does not weigh for or against a finding of enablement.
As to factors F and G, the applicant’s specification provides no examples of a polymer.
As to factor H, because of the unpredictability of the material science field, one of ordinary skill in the art would have to perform experimentation on each and every combination of the thousands possible. Such a degree of testing is undue experimentation. This factor militates against a finding of enablement.
Claim 19 is also rejected under 35 USC 112(a) for its dependence on claim 18.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 8, 9, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the triply periodic minimal surface". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 is also rejected under 35 USC 112(b) for its dependence on claim 8.
Claims 18-20 recite the limitation “the first and second beam-like structures”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 14, 16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Poonia et al. (US 2023/0163276 A1).
Regarding claims 14 and 20, Poonia et al. teach a method for forming a multi-electrode electrochemical apparatus using an additive manufacturing system (Paragraph 0108; Claim 1 disclose a flow battery system having first and second electrodes comprising lattice structures. The lattice is manufactured using additive layer manufacturing.), the method comprising:
printing first and second structures such that the first and second have portions thereof which form an interpenetrating configuration within a defined 3D volume, and without physically contacting one another within the defined 3D volume (Figs. 7 and 8, element 34 disclose lattice structures for the electrodes. Paragraph 0108 discloses they are formed using 3D printing.); and
plating the first and second structures with first and second materials, respectively (Claim 1 discloses the lattice structures comprise a coating made of metal.).
Regarding claim 16, Poonia et al. teach the method of claim 14, wherein printing the first and second structures comprises printing at least one of the first and second structures as a triply periodic minimal surface structure (Paragraphs 0009; 0088).
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.
Claims 1-4, 7, 8, 10,11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2013/0149580 A1) and further in view of Duoss et al. (US 2017/0149083 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kim et al. teach a multi-electrode electrochemical apparatus (Abstract discloses a first and second electrode.), the apparatus comprising:
a first beam-like structure, the first beam-like structure forming a first electrode (Fig. 1A, element 10 discloses a first electrode having a beam or rod-like shape. Further, Fig. 1B shows the first electrode, element 10, comprises an active material layer, element 12, coating a current collector core, element 11.);
a second structure having a second material coating, the second structure forming a second electrode (Fig. 1A, element 20 discloses a second electrode which spirally surrounds element 10. Further, Fig. 1B shows the second electrode, element 20, comprises an active material layer, element 22, coating a current collector core, element 21).
However, Kim et al. do not teach wherein the first and second structures being configured in an interpenetrating fashion within a defined 3D space to form an electrochemical apparatus, and without physical contact at any point within the defined 3D space.
Duoss et al. teach an electrical energy storage apparatus which forms an interpenetrating, three-dimensional structure (Fig. 1, element 10). The structure may have a first non-planar channel filled with an anode material to form an anode, and a second non-planar channel adjacent the first non-planar channel filled with a cathode material to form a cathode (Abstract). Portions of all of the anode material layers (Fig. 2, element 16) may be connected by an electrically conductive material layer or sheet (Fig. 1, element 24). Portions of all of the cathode material layers (Fig. 2, element 20) may be connected by a separate electrically conductive material layer or sheet (Fig. 1, element 26).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Kim with Duoss in order to improve surface area.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Kim and Duoss et al. teach the apparatus of claim 1. Further, Kim et al. teach wherein the first beam-like structure comprises a beam-like lattice structure of interconnected beam-like elements (Paragraph 0033 discloses a plurality of first electrode fibers.).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Kim and Duoss et al. teach the apparatus of claim 1. Further, Kim et al. teach wherein the first beam-like structure comprises a plurality of parallel arranged beam-like elements interconnected at least at one end thereof (Paragraph 0034 disclose the first electrode fibers, element 10 in fig. 1, can be connected to an electrode tab to provide an external electrode having a positive or negative polarity with respect to an external circuit.).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Kim and Duoss et al. teach the apparatus of claim 3. Further, Kim et al. teach wherein the second structure comprises a plurality of curving, parallel arranged beam-like elements that wrap around ones of the beam-like elements of the first beam-like structure (Paragraph 0033; Fig. 1A, element 20 discloses a second electrode which spirally surrounds element 10, the beam or rod-like first electrode fiber. Further, Fig. 1B shows the second electrode, element 20, comprises an active material layer, element 22, coating a current collector core, element 21).
Regarding claims 7 and 8, the combination of Kim and Duoss et al. teach the apparatus of claim 1. Further, Duoss et al. teach wherein the second structure comprises a triply periodic minimal surface; wherein the triply periodic minimal surface comprises a gyroid triply periodic minimal surface (Paragraph 0029).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Kim with Duoss in order to improve surface area.
Regarding claims 10 and 11, the combination of Kim and Duoss et al. teach the apparatus of claim 1. Further, Kim et al. teach wherein at least one of the first or second material coatings is metal; wherein at least one of the first or second material coatings is at least one of copper or nickel (Paragraphs 0039-0040 disclose that the active material layers, elements 12 and 22 in figure 1B, can comprise nickel.).
Claims 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poonia et al. (US 2023/0163276 A1) as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (US 2013/0149580 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Poonia et al. teach the method of claim 14. However, while Poonia et al. disclose the structure having a plurality of interconnected elements forming a lattice structure (Paragraphs 0007; 0079), they do not disclose wherein printing the first and second structures comprises printing at least one of the first and second structures as a beam-like structure.
Kim et al. teach an electrode assembly having fiber-shaped structures, and a battery including the same. According to one embodiment of the present invention, the electrode assembly comprises: a first electrode having one or two or more first fiber-shaped structures that have either a positive or negative pole; and a second electrode having one or two or more second fiber-shaped structures that have a different polarity from the structures and enclose said first structures in a spiral manner (Abstract; Fig. 1A, element 10 discloses a first electrode having a beam or rod-like shape. Further, Fig. 1B shows the first electrode, element 10, comprises an active material layer, element 12, coating a current collector core, element 11.);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Poonia with Kim in order to improve energy density.
Regarding claim 17, Poonia et al. teach the method of claim 14. However, while Poonia et al. teach printing the first and second structures (Paragraph 0108; Claim 1), they do not teach wherein the first structure has a plurality of parallel extending rods, and the second structure as a plurality of spiral curving rods which wrap around the plurality of parallel extending rods.
Kim et al. teach wherein the second structure comprises a plurality of curving, parallel arranged beam-like elements that wrap around ones of the beam-like elements of the first beam-like structure (Paragraph 0033; Fig. 1A, element 20 discloses a second electrode which spirally surrounds element 10, the beam or rod-like first electrode fiber. Further, Fig. 1B shows the second electrode, element 20, comprises an active material layer, element 22, coating a current collector core, element 21. Further, paragraph 0033 discloses that a plurality of each of elements 10 and 20 can occur.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Poonia with Kim in order to improve energy density.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 6, and 13 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the subject matter of claims 5, 6, and 13 is not disclosed in the prior art of record. Further modifying the prior art with the subject of these claims would in fact teach away from the prior art inventions and not present a prima facie case of obviousness.
Claim 9 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL S GATEWOOD whose telephone number is (571)270-7958. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:30.
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 Tavares-Crockett 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.
/DANIEL S GATEWOOD, Ph. D/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729 March 11th, 2026