DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-20 are pending in the application, with claim 20 currently withdrawn. New grounds of rejection have been added as a result of the amendment to the claims submitted 6/9/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rogren (US 2018/0034038) in view of Du et al. (US 2023/0095801).
Regarding claim 1, Rogren discloses in Figs 1-3, a method for manufacturing ([0042]-[0045], [0042] reproduced below for convenience) a current collector (refs 12, 14) for an electrode ([0049], refs 10a, b) of a battery cell (ref 1), comprising: forming the current collector (refs 12, 14) using a metal 3D printing process ([0042]-[0045]); defining L layers ([0042]-[0045], collector layers defined, Fig 2A) of the current collector (refs 12, 14), where L is an integer greater than zero ([0042]-[0045], Fig 2A) during the 3D printing ([0042]-[0045]) of the current collector (refs 12, 14); and defining a lattice structure ([0042]-[0045], lattice explicitly mentioned) in at least one of the L layers ([0042]-[0045]) of the current collector (refs 12, 14) during the 3D printing ([0042]-[0045]) of the current collector (refs 12, 14).
Rogren does not explicitly disclose a first horizontal leg of a first one of the L layers of the current collector has a greater thickness than a second horizontal leg of a second one of the L layers of the current collector, and a first vertical leg of the first one of the L layers of the current collector has a greater thickness than a second vertical leg of the second one of the L layers of the current collector. However, the change in the thickness of the 3D printed layers is not considered to confer patentability to the claims. Du et al. (see [0003], [0354], [0359], [0362]) teaches that it was known in the art at the time of the invention that varying thickness of the 3D printed layers will vary the battery energy density. Therefore the battery energy density is a variable that can be modified, among others, by varying the thickness of the 3D printed layers. For that reason, the thickness of the 3D printed layers, would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed. As such, without showing unexpected results, the thickness of the 3D printed layers cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the thickness of the 3D printed layers in the method of Rogren as taught by Du et al. to obtain the desired battery energy density (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding claim 2, modified Rogren discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the metal 3D printing process prints ([0042]-[0045]) at least a portion of the current collector (refs 12, 14) using one or more materials selected from a group consisting of copper and nickel ([0074]).
Regarding claim 3, modified Rogren discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses at least one of the L layers includes a planar layer (Fig 2A depicts planar layers), wherein at least another one of the L layers (Fig 2A depicts planar layers) is printed ([0042]-[0045], [0070]) on the planar layer (Fig 2A depicts planar layers).
Regarding claim 4, modified Rogren discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the current collector has a thickness in a range from 200 nm – 50 microns ([0073]), which overlaps the instant claimed range of 10 – 300 microns. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549.
Regarding claim 5, modified Rogren discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the metal 3D printing process comprises electrochemical additive manufacturing (ECAM) ([0042]-[0045]).
Regarding claim 6, modified Rogren discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the current collector comprises (refs 12, 14) an anode current collector ([0042]) and the metal 3D printing process prints ([0042]-[0045]) the current collector (refs 12, 14) using copper ([0074]).
Regarding claim 7, modified Rogren discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the current collector (refs 12, 14) includes a planar layer (Fig 2A, [0070]) and the lattice structure includes a first lattice structure ([0042]-[0045], Fig 2A) printed ([0042]-[0045]) on one side (Fig 1 depicts multi layers) of the planar layer and a second lattice structure ([0042]-[0045], Fig 2A) printed on an opposite side (Fig 1 depicts multi layers) of the planar layer (Fig 2A, [0070]).
Regarding claim 8, modified Rogren discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses coating ([0042]-[0045]) the current collector (refs 12, 14) with an active material layer ([0042]-[0045]) to form one of an anode electrode ([0042]-[0043]) and a cathode electrode ([0044]-[0045]).
Regarding claim 9, modified Rogren discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses at least one of pressing and heating ([0065], [0071], both listed) the current collector and the active material layer ([0065]-[0071]).
Regarding claim 10, modified Rogren discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the metal 3D printing process prints ([0042]-[0045]) at least a portion of the current collector (refs 12, 14) using two or more metals ([0074]) selected from a group consisting of copper, nickel, and/or alloys thereof ([0074]).
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rogren (US 2018/0034038) in view of Du et al. (US 2023/0095801) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Herle et al. (US 2019/0190000).
Regarding claims 11-13, Rogren discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above but does not explicitly disclose the current collector is printed on a substrate, wherein the substrate is selected from a group consisting of a polymer layer, and a metal thin film foil.
Herle et al. discloses in Figs 1-3, a method of making a battery ([0029]) including 3D printing a collector on a polymer or metal thin film foil substrate ([0030]). This configuration enhances the functionality and thus overall performance of the collector ([0030]).
Herle et al. and Rogren are analogous since both deal in the same field of endeavor, namely, 3D printing battery structures.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the 3D printing of Rogren including utilizing 3D printing on a metal thin film foil to enhance the functionality and thus overall performance of the collector structure and battery.
Claims 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rogren (US 2018/0034038) in view of Du et al. (US 2023/0095801) and Herle et al. (US 2019/0190000) and further in view of Hwang et al. (US 2017/0040605).
Regarding claim 14, Rogren discloses in Figs 1-3, a method for manufacturing ([0042]-[0045], [0042]) a current collector (refs 12, 14) for an electrode ([0049], refs 10a, b) of a battery cell (ref 1), comprising: forming the current collector (refs 12, 14) using a metal 3D printing process ([0042]-[0045]); during the 3D printing ([0042]-[0045]) of the current collector (refs 12, 14), defining L layers ([0042]-[0045], collector layers defined, Fig 2A) of the current collector (refs 12, 14), where L is an integer greater than zero ([0042]-[0045], Fig 2A) during the 3D printing ([0042]-[0045]) of the current collector (refs 12, 14), defining a lattice structure ([0042]-[0045], lattice explicitly mentioned) in at least one of the L layers ([0042]-[0045]) in at least one of the L layers of the current collector (refs 12, 14).
Rogren does not explicitly disclose a first horizontal leg of a first one of the L layers of the current collector has a greater thickness than a second horizontal leg of a second one of the L layers of the current collector, and a first vertical leg of the first one of the L layers of the current collector has a greater thickness than a second vertical leg of the second one of the L layers of the current collector. However, the change in the thickness of the 3D printed layers is not considered to confer patentability to the claims. Du et al. (see [0003], [0354], [0359], [0362]) teaches that it was known in the art at the time of the invention that varying thickness of the 3D printed layers will vary the battery energy density. Therefore the battery energy density is a variable that can be modified, among others, by varying the thickness of the 3D printed layers. For that reason, the thickness of the 3D printed layers, would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed. As such, without showing unexpected results, the thickness of the 3D printed layers cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the thickness of the 3D printed layers in the method of Rogren as taught by Du et al. to obtain the desired battery energy density (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Rogren also does not explicitly disclose the current collector is printed on a substrate.
Herle et al. discloses in Figs 1-3, a method of making a battery ([0029]) including 3D printing a collector on a polymer or metal thin film foil substrate ([0030]). This configuration enhances the functionality and thus overall performance of the collector ([0030]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the 3D printing of Rogren including utilizing 3D printing on a metal thin film foil to enhance the functionality and thus overall performance of the collector structure and battery.
Rogren also does not explicitly disclose dissolving the substrate.
Hwang et al. discloses in Figs 1-6, a method of making a battery collector ([0021]). The method includes 3D printing ([0057]) the collector material utilizing a mold (equivalent to the substrate of the instant claim) which is subsequently dissolved ([0057]). This enhances battery collector structural integrity and performance ([0022]).
Rogren and Hwang et al. are analogous since both deal in the same field of endeavor, namely, 3D printing in batteries.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the substrate dissolving disclosed by Hwang et al. into the method of Rogren to enhance the battery collector structural integrity and performance.
Regarding claim 15, modified Rogren discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the metal 3D printing process prints ([0042]-[0045]) at least a portion of the current collector (refs 12, 14) using one or more materials selected from a group consisting of copper and nickel ([0074]).
Regarding claim 16, modified Rogren discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses at least one of the L layers includes a planar layer (Fig 2A depicts planar layers), wherein at least another one of the L layers (Fig 2A depicts planar layers) is printed ([0042]-[0045], [0070]) on the planar layer (Fig 2A depicts planar layers).
Regarding claim 17, modified Rogren discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the metal 3D printing process comprises electrochemical additive manufacturing (ECAM) ([0042]-[0045]).
Regarding claim 18, modified Rogren discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses coating ([0042]-[0045]) the current collector (refs 12, 14) with an active material layer ([0042]-[0045]).
Regarding claim 19, modified Rogren discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses at least one of pressing and heating ([0065], [0071], both listed) the current collector and the active material layer ([0065]-[0071]), to form one of an anode electrode ([0042]-[0043]) and a cathode electrode ([0044]-[0045]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-19 have been considered but are moot in view of new grounds 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 KENNETH J DOUYETTE whose telephone number is (571)270-1212. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8A - 4P EST.
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, Basia Ridley can be reached at 571-272-1453. 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.
/KENNETH J DOUYETTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights