DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims Status.
This Office Action is responsive to the amendment filed on 04/28/2026. Claims 1-11 were pending. Claim 11 has been cancelled. Claims 1,5 and 7 have been amended. Claims 1-10 are now pending. Claims 1-10 are presented for examination. Applicant's arguments have been considered.
Response to Amendment
The rejection of claims 1-5 under 35 U.S.C. § 112 (b) set forth in the Office Action of 02/02/2026 is withdrawn in response to the Amendments filed on 04/28/2026.
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.
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 1-5 and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arthur et. al. Electrochemistry Communications 16 (2012) 103–106 in view of US 2015/0221930 to Manivannan (Manivannan) and further in view of US 20170373300 to Maeda (Maeda).
Regarding claims 1 and 2, Arthur discloses a battery (Title) comprising: a first electrode, a second electrode, wherein the first electrode (anode) comprises a current collector (copper foil, para 2.1) and an active material layer (Bi-film, para 3.1 ), the active material layer contains Bi as a main component of an active material (Bi-film, para 3.1). Since anode active material is metallic Bi, the density of the anode active material in fully discharged state is 9.8 g/cm3 (re claim 2, see supplemental material provided). Arthur does not expressly dispose an electrolyte layer located between the first electrode and the second electrode and wherein an active material layer located between the current collector and the electrolyte layer and wherein the battery is a lithium secondary battery.
Manivannan teaches a battery (para 2) and an electroless deposition of bismuth (Bi-film, interpreted as metallic Bi)) on brass (Abstract) or copper foil (para 47), Manivannan also teaches that that such foil can be used (para 39) as anode for lithium battery (para 2, 3, 14). Since anode active material is metallic Bi, the density of the anode active material in fully discharged state is 9.8 g/cm3 (re claim 2). Arthur in view Manivannan does not expressly dispose an electrolyte layer located between the first electrode and the second electrode and wherein an active material layer located between the current collector and the electrolyte layer (Fig. 5).
Maeda teaches a rechargeable lithium battery compassing between the first electrode and the second electrode and wherein an active material layer located between the current collector and the electrolyte layer (Abstract) the structure typical for lithium batteries. It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention taking into account disclosure Manivannan that Bi-coated copper foil is suitable as for lithium and magnesium battery anodes of use the Bi-coated copper foil of Arthur in view of Manivannan in the battery of Maeda in order to overcome rapid capacity decay of the anode during cycling.
Regarding claims 3 and 4, modified Arthur discloses the invention as discussed above as applied to claim 1 and incorporated therein. Since Bi-film of Arthur prepared by method substantially similar to that in the instant Application, X-ray structural parameters of the claimed active material are inherently present.
Alternatively, the X-ray diffraction pattern depicted in fig. 3 of Arthur appears to show peak intensities 1(1) and 1(2) falling within claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. MPEP 2144.05. It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the condition of electrodeposition based on date disclosed by Arthur in order to improve an energy density in the battery employing Bi-film anode.
Regarding claim 5 and 7, Arthur discloses wherein the active material layer contains a Bi simple substance (B-film, para 3.4).
Regarding claim 8, , modified Arthur discloses wherein the active material layer contains no electrolyte (Matsui, Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 9, modified Arthur discloses wherein the current collector contains Cu (Arthur , Cu-foil, para 2.1).
Regarding claim 10, modified Arthur discloses wherein the active material layer is a plating layer (electrodeposited) layer (Arthur, para 2.1).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arthur et. al. Electrochemistry Communications 16 (2012) 103–106 in view of US 2015/0221930 to Manivannan (Manivannan) and further in view of US 20170373300 to Maeda (Maeda) and further in view of US 20040018430 to Holman (Holman)
Regarding claim 6, modified Arthur discloses the invention as discussed above as applied to claim 1 and incorporated therein. Modified Arthur does not expressly disclose wherein the active material layer contains at least one selected from the group consisting of LiBi and Li3Bi.
Holman teaches an electrode (Title) for a lithium battery, wherein the electrode comprises LiBi and Li3Bi as anode active material (para 88).It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the negative electrode of modified Arthur with the LiBi or Li3Bi, as taught by Holman, because The use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods or products) in the same way is likely to be obvious and would improve Li-ion exchange. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, C.).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims -111 have been considered but are moot due to the new ground of rejection
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 ALEXANDER USYATINSKY whose telephone number is (571)270-7703. The examiner can normally be reached IFP.
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, Jonathan Leong can be reached at (571) 270-1292. 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.
/Alexander Usyatinsky/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1751
Prosecution Insights