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 .
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 21-22, 24-25, 28, 30-31, 33-35, and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ota et al. (US20120115035A1).
Regarding claim 21, Ota discloses an electrode (See annotated Fig. 13 below, positive electrode 61 or negative electrode 62) for a mono- or multivalent ion battery (Fig. 13, lithium battery 60), comprising a three-dimensional network of metal fibers ([0090] three-dimensional net-like aluminum porous body), wherein the metal fibers are directly in contact to one another ([0087] aluminum skeletons contacting with each other), and an active material (Fig. 13, positive electrode layer 64 or negative electrode layer 66), wherein the network of metal fibers has a thickness in the range of 200 µm to 5 mm ([0271] thickness of 500 µm).
PNG
media_image1.png
326
802
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 22, Ota discloses the electrode (See annotated Fig. 13 above, positive electrode 61 or negative electrode 62) according to claim 21 wherein the thickness of the three-dimensional network of metal fibers is in a range of greater than 500 µm ([0090] thickness of the whole aluminum porous body may be set to 800 µm or more).
Regarding claim 24, Ota discloses the electrode (See annotated Fig. 13 above, positive electrode 61 or negative electrode 62) according to claim 21. Ota also discloses that the porosity of the three-dimensional network is in the range of 90 vol% to 99.5 vol% ([0271] porosity of 97%). A porosity of 97% corresponds to a volume fraction of 3%. Therefore, a volume fraction of metal fibers in the three-dimensional network of metal fibers is necessarily equal to or greater than 0.075 vol% .
Regarding claim 25, Ota discloses the electrode (See annotated Fig. 13 above, positive electrode 61 or negative electrode 62) according to claim 21 wherein the porosity of the three-dimensional network is in the range of 90 vol% to 99.5 vol% ([0271] porosity of 97%).
Regarding claim 28, Ota discloses the electrode (See annotated Fig. 13 above, positive electrode 61 or negative electrode 62) according to claim 21 wherein the spatial orientation of the metal fibers is at least partially ordered ([0097] preparation of porous resin shaped body and [0098] urethane foam is preferred because of uniformity of pores).
Regarding claim 30, Ota discloses the electrode (See annotated Fig. 13 above, positive electrode 61 or negative electrode 62) according to claim 21 wherein the metal fibers are directly sintered to one another at points of contact between the metal fibers (([0087] aluminum skeletons contacting with each other are melted to be bonded to each other).
Regarding claim 31, Ota discloses the electrode (See annotated Fig. 13 above, positive electrode 61 or negative electrode 62) according to claim 21 wherein the metal fibers contain at least aluminum, combinations of the foregoing and alloys containing one or more of the foregoing ([0090] aluminum porous body).
Regarding claim 33, Ota discloses the electrode (See annotated Fig. 13 above, positive electrode 61 or negative electrode 62) according to claim 21 wherein the metal fibers consist of aluminum or an aluminum alloy ([0090] aluminum porous body).
Regarding claim 34, Ota discloses a battery (See annotated Fig. 13 above, lithium battery 60), comprising an electrode (Fig. 13, positive electrode 61 or negative electrode 62), the electrode comprising a three-dimensional network of metal fibers, wherein the metal fibers are directly in contact to one another ([0087] aluminum skeletons contacting with each other), and an active material (Fig. 13, positive electrode layer 64 or negative electrode layer 66), wherein the network of metal fibers has a thickness in the range of 200 µm to 5 mm ([0090] thickness of the whole aluminum porous body may be set to 800 µm or more).
Regarding claim 35, Ota discloses the battery (See annotated Fig. 13 above, lithium battery 60) according to claim 34 wherein the battery is a lithium ion battery, a sodium ion battery, a calcium ion battery, potassium ion battery, an aluminum ion battery, a zinc ion battery, and/or a dual ion battery ([0171] suitable for lithium secondary battery).
Regarding claim 37, Ota discloses the battery (See annotated Fig. 13 above, lithium battery 60) according to claim 34 wherein the metal fibers consist of aluminum or an aluminum alloy ([0090] aluminum porous body).
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 26, 29, 32, and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ota et al. (US20120115035A1) as applied to claim 21 above.
Regarding claim 26, Ota discloses the electrode (See annotated Fig. 13 above, positive electrode 61 or negative electrode 62) according to claim 21 wherein the metallic fibers have a width of 100 µm or less and a thickness of 50 µm or less ([0089] small-cell-diameter regions is preferably 50 µm or more and 300 µm or less). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05
Ota is analogous prior art to the current invention because it is concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely metal network electrodes.
Regarding claim 29, Ota discloses the electrode (See annotated Fig. 13 above, positive electrode 61 or negative electrode 62) according to claim 21. Ota also discloses the network of metal fibers has a thickness in the range of 200 µm to 5 mm ([0090] thickness of the whole aluminum porous body may be set to 800 µm or more), the metal fibers contain at least aluminum, combinations of the foregoing and alloys containing one or more of the foregoing ([0090] aluminum porous body), the porosity of the three-dimensional network is in the range of 90 vol% to 99.5 vol% ([0271] porosity of 97%), and the metal fibers are directly sintered to one another at points of contact between the metal fibers (([0087] aluminum skeletons contacting with each other are melted to be bonded to each other.
Ota does not explicitly disclose the density of the points of contact is in a range of 1 mm-3 to 5000 mm-3.
Due to the substantial similarity of network of metal fibers and properties of the prior art reference and the instant application, a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would find it obvious that prior art reasonably overlaps with the range of the instant application and thus find it obvious to routinely select overlapping portions of a density of the points of contact such that it satisfies the range of 1 mm-3 to 5000 mm-3.
Regarding claim 32, Ota discloses the electrode (See annotated Fig. 13 above, positive electrode 61 or negative electrode 62) according to claim 21 but does not disclose that the metal fibers consist of copper or a copper alloy. Ota discloses, however, in a Japanese unexamined patent publication No. 8-170126 that the metal fibers in a porous body of an electrode can also consist of copper or a copper alloy. ([0006] metal (such as copper)).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the aluminum metal network in the electrode ([0090] aluminum porous body) of Ota such that the metal in the metal network is copper ([0006] metal (such as copper)) because copper is listed as a known alternative metal used in the metal network. MPEP 2143(I)(B) substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is well within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 36, Ota discloses the battery (See annotated Fig. 13 above, lithium battery 60) according to claim 34 but does not disclose that the metal fibers consist of copper or a copper alloy.
Ota discloses, however, in a Japanese unexamined patent publication No. 8-170126 that the metal fibers in a porous body of an electrode can also consist of copper or a copper alloy. ([0006] metal (such as copper)).
Ota is analogous prior art to the current invention because it is concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely metal network electrodes.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the aluminum metal network in the electrode ([0090] aluminum porous body) of Ota such that the metal in the metal network is copper ([0006] metal (such as copper)) because copper is listed as a known alternative metal used in the metal network. MPEP 2143(I)(B) substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is well within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ota et al. (US20120115035A1) as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Archer et al. (US20200335767A1).
Regarding claim 23, Ota discloses the electrode (See annotated Fig. 13 above, positive electrode 61 or negative electrode 62) according to claim 21 but does not disclose that the electric conductivity of the network of metal fibers is equal to or greater than 1 x 105 S/m Oda also does not disclose copper as the metal fibers in the metal network.
Ota discloses, however, in a Japanese unexamined patent publication No. 8-170126 that the metal fibers in a porous body of an electrode can also consist of copper or a copper alloy. ([0006] metal (such as copper)).
Ota is analogous prior art to the current invention because it is concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely metal network electrodes.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the aluminum metal network in the electrode ([0090] aluminum porous body) of Ota such that the metal in the metal network is copper ([0006] metal (such as copper)) because copper is listed as a known alternative metal used in the metal network. MPEP 2143(I)(B) substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is well within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art.
Archer discloses an electrode with a copper 3-dimensional matrix comprising a plurality of porous regions in which the electric conductivity of the network of metal fibers is equal to or greater than 1 x 105 S/m ([0053] copper foams and the like and [0054] conductivity of 1 to 108 S/m). Archer also discloses that the porous, electronically conductive matrixes are able to support a desirable loading of active material particles ([0044]).
Ota and Archer are analogous prior art to the current invention because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely metal network electrodes.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have known that the copper in the metal fiber network of Ota necessarily has a certain conductivity and to utilize an embodiment of the metal fiber such that the electric conductivity of the network of metal fibers is equal to or greater than 1 x 105 S/m as taught by Archer in order to support a desirable loading of active material particles. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ota et al. (US20120115035A1) as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Hackner et al. (EP3598526A1).
Regarding claim 27, Ota discloses the electrode (See annotated Fig. 13 above, positive electrode 61 or negative electrode 62) according to claim 21 but does not disclose that the spatial orientation of the metal fibers is unordered.
Hackner discloses an electrode with a metal three-dimensional structure in which the spatial orientation of the metal fibers is unordered ([0023] unordered network). Hackner also discloses that an unordered network has a good electrical conductivity in every direction as well as being easier to produce compared to an ordered network ([0023]).
Ota and Hackner are analogous prior art to the current invention because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely metal network electrodes.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the metal fibers in the metal network of Ota such that the spatial orientation of the metal fibers is unordered as taught by Hackner in order to have a good electrical conductivity in every direction as well as being easier to produce compared to an ordered network.
Claims 38-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ota et al. (US20120115035A1), and further in view of Hosoe et al. (US20160079006A1).
Regarding claim 38, Ota discloses a battery (See annotated Fig. 13 above, lithium battery 60) comprising an electrode (Fig. 13 above, positive electrode 61 or negative electrode 62) comprising a three-dimensional network of metal fibers ([0090] three-dimensional net-like aluminum porous body), wherein the metal fibers are directly in contact to one another ([0087] aluminum skeletons contacting with each other), and an active material (Fig. 13, positive electrode layer 64 or negative electrode layer 66), wherein the network of metal fibers has a thickness in the range of 200 µm to 5 mm ([0090] thickness of the whole aluminum porous body may be set to 800 µm or more). Ota does not disclose an electric machine comprising the battery.
Hosoe discloses an electrode with a three-dimensional network metal porous body for a battery in which an electric machine comprises the battery ([0281] vehicle)
Ota and Hosoe are analogous prior art to the current invention because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely metal network electrodes.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have utilized the electrode of Ota in the electric machine of Hosoe, with the reasonable expectation that the battery would be used in a larger medium such as the vehicle as taught by Hosoe.
Regarding claim 39, Hosoe discloses the electric machine according to claim 38 but does not disclose that the battery provides power to a circuit of the electric machine.
It would have been well within the ambit for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have utilized the battery of Ota in the electric machine of Hosoe such that it provides power to a circuit of the electric machine because the electric vehicle ([0281]) necessarily has circuits to which power is supplied from the battery.
Regarding claim 40, Hosoe discloses the electric machine according to claim 38, wherein the electric machine is an electric vehicle ([0281] vehicle).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hoshino et al. (US20120094142A1) discloses an aluminum three-dimensional metal sintered network structures in a current collector [0086].
Chen et al. (US20190097240A1) discloses an electrode with a metal network structure [0026].
Prochazka et al. (US20150086848A1) discloses a lithium accumulator with a perforated metal strip in the form of metal network, expanded metal, or perforated metallic foil [0029].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAN N TRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-0183. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 7:30am-5pm.
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, Susan Leong can be reached at 5702701487. 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.
/DAN NGUYEN TRAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1754
/JAMES M ERWIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725 06/10/2026
Prosecution Insights