RESPONSE TO AMENDMENT
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 .
Amendments to the claims, filed 06/15/2026, have been entered in the above identified application.
Claims 1-15 and 21-22 are pending in the application.
Claims 16-20 are cancelled in the application.
WITHDRAWN OBJECTIONS/REJECTIONS
The objections to the drawing made of record in the office action mailed 04/01/2026 have been withdrawn due to corrected drawing sheet being provided in the response filed 06/15/2026.
The 35 U.S.C. §112 rejection of the claims 2,6, 8-9, 11, 13 and 15 made of record in the office action mailed on 04/01/2026 have been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment in the response filed 06/15/2026.
The 35 U.S.C. §103 rejection of the claims 1-3, 6, 7, 9-12, 14 and 15 made of record in the office action mailed on 04/01/2026 have been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment/argument in the response filed 06/15/2026.
The 35 U.S.C. §103 rejection of the claim 4 made of record in the office action mailed on 04/01/2026 have been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment/argument in the response filed 06/15/2026.
The 35 U.S.C. §103 rejection of the claim 5 made of record in the office action mailed on 04/01/2026 have been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment/argument in the response filed 06/15/2026.
The 35 U.S.C. §103 rejection of the claim 8 made of record in the office action mailed on 04/01/2026 have been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment/argument in the response filed 06/15/2026.
The 35 U.S.C. §103 rejection of the claim 13 made of record in the office action mailed on 04/01/2026 have been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment/argument in the response filed 06/15/2026.
Claim Objections
Claim 14 objected to because of the following informalities: “claim 1” has been added and struck out in line 1 of claim 14 . Appropriate correction is required.
REJECTIONS
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 10, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moon (US PG Pub. 2020/0099058 A1) in view of Burckel (US Pat. 8349547 B1), Go (Nanocrevasse-rich carbon fibers…metal anodes) and Chen (Lithiophilicity chemistry of heteroatom-doped carbon...).
Regarding claim 1 Moon discloses a method of manufacturing a lithium metal negative electrode for a battery that cycles lithium ions (para. 0007, 0024), the method comprising:
(a) forming a photosensitive material layer on a surface (para. 0063, 0108) of a metal substrate (copper) that is electrically conductive (para. 0070-0071);
(b) positioning a mask (photomask) over the metal substrate and the photosensitive material layer (para. 0063, 0108), the mask including a plurality of apertures (circular opening) extending therethrough. The portion of the photosensitive material layer aligned with the portion of the mask which doesn’t have circular openings constitutes the covered region and the circular openings constitutes the plurality of uncovered regions which corresponds to the plurality of apertures in the mask (para. 0063, 0108);
(c) exposing the uncovered regions of the photosensitive material layer to radiation (para. 0063, 0108);
(d) removing the uncovered regions of the photosensitive material layer from the metal substrate (para. 0109). Moon’s step of removal of the first photomask which was irradiated with UV would leave a metal substrate including a decorated region corresponding to the covered region of the photosensitive material layer, i.e. the portion of the mask which does not have the circular openings, and a plurality of bare regions corresponding to the uncovered regions of the photosensitive material layer (para. 0108-0109) i.e., the region exposed to UV radiation.
(e) removing the plurality of bare regions from the metal substrate by etching (para. 0109)
Moon fails to disclose (f) pyrolyzing the photosensitive material layer remaining on the surface of the metal substrate to remove functional groups therefrom and transform the photosensitive material layer into a pyrolyzed carbon layer, the metal substrate and the pyrolyzed carbon layer together defining a current collector having a first major surface defined by the pyrolyzed carbon layer, an opposite second major surface defined by the metal substrate, and a plurality of perforations extending therethrough and defined by wall surfaces extending from the first major surface to the second major surface thereof, the plurality of perforations extending entirely through the pyrolyzed carbon layer and the metal substrate such that the wall surfaces are defined by both the pyrolyzed carbon layer and the metal substrate.
Moon discloses a metal substrate in the form of a copper foil having first major surface and a second major surface (opposing two sides) and the plurality of perforations penetrate through the thickness of the copper foil and connecting openings formed on the opposed sides i.e., plurality of perforations extending from the first major surface to the second major surface. (abstract, para. 0106, figure 1, 3).
Burckel discloses a method to fabricate lithographically defined microporous carbon structure for electrochemical electrodes (col. 2, lines 22-25, abstract, figure 1).
Burckel discloses The method comprises depositing a carbon-containing photoresist onto a Substrate, lithographically defining a microporous structure in the deposited photoresist, developing the lithographically defined photoresist, (col. 4, lines 49-55, figure 1) and pyrolyzing the developed photoresist in a reducing atmosphere of hot forming gas to provide a porous carbon structure (col 4, lines 62-64). Burckel further discloses both negative and positive photoresist can also be pyrolyzed with similar results (col. 7, lines 37-40). Burckel discloses during pyrolysis, the functional groups (non-carbon species) in the resist polymer backbone are removed, while the bulk of the carbon remains (col. 4, lines 31-33, col. 6, lines 45-48). Burckel discloses the resultant pyrolyzed carbon resembles glassy carbon consisting of mostly amorphous carbon with small graphitic sp2 and diamond-like sp3 regions (col.7, lines 1-3) and the carbon thus formed are conducting (col. 4, lines 37-38). Therefore, Burckel teaches pyrolyzing patterned photosensitive material to convert it into an electrically conductive carbon structure with functional groups being removed.
Burckel further discloses the microporous carbon structure can be functionalized with metal nanoparticles (col.2 lines 29-31) and the porous carbon electrodes enables high surface area with uniform and controllable dimensions, providing enormous flexibility to tailor electrodes toward specific applications. The electrodes are rugged, electrically conductive and show excellent electro chemical behavior (col. 2, lines 42-48).
The combination of Moon and Burckel would discloses the metal substrate and the pyrolyzed carbon layer together defining a current collector having a first major surface defined by the pyrolyzed carbon layer, an opposite second major surface defined by the metal substrate, and a plurality of perforations extending therethrough and defined by wall surfaces extending from the first major surface to the second major surface thereof, the plurality of perforations extending entirely through the pyrolyzed carbon layer and the metal substrate such that the wall surfaces are defined by both the pyrolyzed carbon layer and the metal substrate.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date, to modify Moon by retaining and pyrolyzing the photosensitive material remaining on the substrate as taught by Burckel rather than stripping it. The modification would result in the metal substrate and the pyrolyzed carbon layer together defining a current collector having a first major surface defined by the pyrolyzed carbon layer, an opposite second major surface defined by the metal substrate, and a plurality of perforations extending therethrough and defined by wall surfaces extending from the first major surface to the second major surface thereof, the plurality of perforations extending entirely through the pyrolyzed carbon layer and the metal substrate such that the wall surfaces are defined by both the pyrolyzed carbon layer and the metal substrate. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the combination in this manner to arrive at a lithium negative electrode consisting of a metal substrate with a carbon layer electrically conductive and show excellent electro chemical behavior.
Moon in view of Burckel fails to disclose step (g) forming a lithophilic surface on the pyrolyzed carbon layer by heating the current collector in an oxygen-containing environment
Go discloses modifying carbon to be used as lithium metal anode in battery (abstract, page 1504, para. 1-2) and to enhance its affinity for molten Lithium (page 1505, para. 1). Go discloses heat treatment of carbon in oxygen-containing environment (ambient air, SI, page 1, para. 1-Experimental section) to form carbon surface exhibiting enhanced lithophilic (wettability) surface by introducing oxygen-containing functional groups (page 1507, col. 2, para. 2) and confirmed by XPS data (page. 1507, col. 2, para. 2). Go further discloses the heat treated carbon has excellent chemical properties resulting in strong adhesion between Li and carbon scaffold (page 1510, col. 2, para. 2). Go attributes the enhanced wettability in part to changing chemical properties i.e., introducing oxygen containing functional group on the surface. As a result, it effectively acts as a host scaffold for lithium metal (alkali metal, page. 1505, col.1, para. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date, to modified method of moon by to adding the step of heating the current collector in order to make the pyrolyzed carbon surface lithophilic as taught by Go. The modification would result in the metal substrate and the pyrolyzed carbon layer having a lithophilic surface together defining a current collector having a first major surface defined by the pyrolyzed carbon layer with lithophilic surface, an opposite second major surface defined by the metal substrate, and a plurality of perforations extending therethrough and the plurality of perforations extending entirely through the pyrolyzed carbon layer with lithophilic surface and the metal. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to heat the modified negative electrode of Moon in oxygen -containing environment to arrive at a lithium negative electrode consisting of a metal substrate with a carbon layer having a lithophilic surface having excellent chemical properties resulting in strong adhesion between Li metal and Carbon.
Regarding step (h) Moon discloses applying lithium to the current collector (para. 0115)
Modified method of Moon fails to disclose lithium chemically bonds to the lithophilic surface on the pyrolyzed carbon layer.
Chen discloses a systematic first-principles calculation study of the lithophilic chemistry of heteroatom- doped carbon frameworks for lithium metal anodes (abstract, page 1, col. 2 para. 3) . The O-containing functional groups on carbon create lithophilic surface and lithium forms a chemical bond with the oxygen atom (electronegative site) to form lithium bonds (page 2, para. 1 figure 1). Chen et al. further discloses a strong interaction of lithium with carboxylic group (aO, page 4. para.2 figure 2C) and the Li-O bond length of 1.79 Å (page 4. para.2) and a binding energy (ranging from -2.35 to-2.86 eV, page 3, col. 2, para. 1) which shows the lithium forms chemical bond with the electronegative species (oxygen) present on the surface. Therefore, Chen discloses chemical bonding between lithium and oxygen-containing functional group associated with a lithophilic carbon surface. Chen further discloses an appropriate introduction of heteroatom into carbon hosts is beneficial to reduce the Li nucleation overpotential and thus render a uniform Li deposition at the lithophilic sites (page 3, col. 2, para. 1 and page 4, col.1, para 1).
The modified lithium negative electrode of Moon would form chemical bonds between Lithium and the oxygen on the lithophilic surface on the pyrolyzed carbon layer after applying lithium in step (h) as taught by Chen. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the combination to arrive at a lithium negative electrode consisting of a metal substrate with a carbon layer with a lithophilic surface which bonds to lithium via chemical bond to reduce the Li nucleation overpotential and thus render a uniform Li deposition at the lithophilic sites.
Regarding claim 3, Moon discloses exposing the uncovered regions of the
photosensitive material layer to UV light (para. 0063).
Regarding claim 4, Moon discloses wherein the uncovered regions of the photosensitive material layer are removed from the surface of the metal substrate in step (d) by immersing it in a liquid developer (NaOH and H2O, para. 0109) and subsequently removing the photoresist layer existing on a part to be etched. Thus, moon teaches that radiation exposed regions of the photosensitive material are rendered removable by a liquid developer and are removed from the surface of the metal substrate by the liquid developer.
Regarding claim 7, Moon fails to disclose the pyrolyzed carbon layer formed on the surface of the metal substrate ins step (f) comprises by weight, greater than 95 % carbon
Burckel discloses during pyrolysis, the non-carbon species in the resist polymer backbone are removed, while the bulk of the carbon remains (col. 4, lines 31-33, col. 6, lines 45-48). Burckel discloses the resultant pyrolyzed carbon resembles glassy carbon consisting of mostly amorphous carbon with Small graphitic sp2 and diamond-like sp3 regions (col.7, lines 1-3). Burckel further discloses the degree of carbonization is a function of the pyrolysis temperature, which affects the DC conductivity (Col.4, lines 35-37). Therefore, Burckel establishes degree of carbonization and removal of non-carbon species during pyrolysis as result -effective variables for improving the conductivity of resulting pyrolyzed carbon.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated for the modified method of Moon to have the degree of carbonization as disclosed by Burckel to improve conductivity. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to have arrived at the claimed 95 % carbon.
Regarding claim 10, Moon discloses applying a solid lithium metal layer to the current collector (para. 0115)
Regarding claim 11, Moon discloses plurality of perforation on the metal substrate and the diameter of the perforations formed on one side of the electrolytic copper foil is 67.5 μm, the diameter of the pores formed on the other side copper foil was 81 μm overlapping with the claimed range (para. 0111). MPEP 2144.05 (I)
Claims 2 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moon (US PG Pub. 2020/0099058 A1) in view of Burckel (US Pat. 8349547 B1), Go (Nanocrevasse-rich carbon fibers…metal anodes) and Chen (Lithiophilicity chemistry of heteroatom-doped carbon...) as applied to claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 10 and 11 above, and further in view of Ranganathan (Photoresist‐Derived Carbon for Microelectromechanical..).
Moon, Burckel, Go and Chen are relied upon as described above.
Regarding claim 2, modified Moon fails to disclose the photosensitive material layer comprises on an atomic basis greater than or equal to 40% carbon.
Ranganathan et al. discloses a photosensitive material (positive photoresist AZ
4330) that is spin coated on to a substrate (silicon wafer) and pyrolysis of the coated photoresist (abstract, page 282, col. 1, para 3). Ranganathan et al. discloses using a photoresist (AZ4330, page 277, col. 1, para. 4) which is a DNQ/novalac resin (SDS- Safety data sheet) positive photoresist material similar to the photosensitive material used by the applicant as disclosed in the instant specification (para. 0050) which has a repeat structural unit of cresol-formaldehyde polymer combined with a diazonaphthoquinone sensitizer both of which has more than 40% carbon on an atomic basis. Ranganathan further discloses the pyrolysis of the photoresist films permits photolithographic fabrication of carbon electrode devices and also appears to yield a carbon film with a smooth surface and unusual surface chemistry (abstract, page 282, col. 1, para 3).
It would have been obvious to use the positive photoresist in the method of making the negative electrode of Moon as taught by Ranganathan. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use the photosensitive material taught by Ranganathan because of its photolithographic pattern ability followed by conversion of the retained photoresist into carbon.
Regarding claim 6, Ranganathan et al. discloses a photosensitive material (positive photoresist AZ 4330) that is spin coated on to a substrate (silicon wafer) and then (f) pyrolyzing at 600- 1100oC in forming gas to produce conductive carbon film with electrical and electrochemical properties (abstract, Page 278, col. 2, para. 1). There by removing of functional groups which is indicated by the measured weight loss during pyrolysis (page 278, col. 1, para. 4, figure 1). Ranganathan further discloses when studied as a function of treatment temperature, the O/C ratio for pyrolyzed photoresist decreased greatly from the unpyrolyzed value, and decreased slowly between 600-1000 oC. (page 279, col. 2, para. 2)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective
filing date, to use method of manufacture of a negative electrode as disclosed by modified Moon to pyrolyze the photosensitive material layer at 600 -1100 oC as taught by Ranganathan. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to pyrolyze the photosensitive material to the arrive at a lithium negative electrode consisting of a metal substrate with patterned carbon layer having no functional groups present and suitable for electrochemical applications.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moon (US PG Pub. 2020/0099058 A1) in view of Burckel (US Pat. 8349547 B1), Go (Nanocrevasse-rich carbon fibers…metal anodes) and Chen (Lithiophilicity chemistry of heteroatom-doped carbon...) as applied to claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 10 and 11 above, and further in view of Lu (CN 109713311B, for prior art discussion see cited machine translation)
Moon, Burckel, Go and Chen are relied upon as described above.
Regarding claim 5, Moon discloses a metal substrate that is made of
copper (para. 0070, 0107).
Modified method of Moon fails to disclose electrochemical etching for step (e).
Lu discloses a current collector with a micro-nano structure and a preparation method thereof for a negative electrode of a battery (abstract, n0006). The method involves the method for coating photoresist on a copper sheet, then exposing by using a pattern on a mask plate, the pattern on the resist then etched on the copper sheet (para. n0022, n0027). Lu further discloses using electrochemical etching to form micro-nano structure pattern on the metal substrate (para. n0030). Lu discloses for deeper pits electrochemical etching can be carried out (para. n0030, n0063).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective
filing date, to use method of manufacture of a negative electrode as disclosed by modified Moon to use electrochemical etching at step (e) as taught by Lu. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use electrochemical etching in step (e) to control the depth of the perforations formed on the metal substrate.
Claims 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moon (US PG Pub. 2020/0099058 A1) in view of Burckel (US Pat. 8349547 B1), Go (Nanocrevasse-rich carbon fibers…metal anodes) and Chen (Lithiophilicity chemistry of heteroatom-doped carbon...) as applied to claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 10 and 11 above and further in view of Donner et al. (Fabrication of Optically Transparent...).
Moon, Burckel, Go and Chen are relied upon as described above.
Regarding claim 8, Moon discloses the metal substrate has a thickness of 5 μm to 300 μm, thereby overlapping with the claimed range of greater than or equal to 1 micrometer and less than or equal to 4 millimeter (MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Modified method of Moon fails to discloses the pyrolyzed carbon layer has a thickness of greater than or equal to 10 nanometers and less than or equal to 100 nanometers.
Donner et al. discloses carbon-based optically transparent electrodes (C-OTEs) fabricated by pyrolysis at 1000°C of the photosensitive material (photoresist AZ 4330) on a quartz substrates yield optically transparent carbon films that have thicknesses ranging between 10 and 80 nm (abstract, page 2816 - col. 1, Table). Donner discloses such carbon coatings are mechanically robust, amorphous carbon coatings that are
optically transparent at thicknesses less than ~80 nm (page. 2817, col.1 para. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, modify the method of manufacture of a negative electrode as disclosed by Moon, Burckel, Go and Chen to have a carbon layer that has thickness of greater than or equal to about 10 nanometers and less than or equal to about 100 nanometer as taught by Donner et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the carbon thickness within the range claimed on a copper substrate yielding mechanically robust carbon film electrodes.
Claims 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moon (US PG Pub. 2020/0099058 A1) in view of Burckel (US Pat. 8349547 B1), Go (Nanocrevasse-rich carbon fibers…metal anodes) and Chen (Lithiophilicity chemistry of heteroatom-doped carbon...) as applied to claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 10 and 11 above, and further in view of Spahr (US PG Pub. 2015/0079477 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Go discloses heat treating a PAN-based carbon scaffold at 500 oC for four hours under ambient air which is an oxygen-containing environment (SI, page 1, para. 1-Experimental section). The temperature of heating falls within the claimed temperature range of 200-600 oC. (MPEP 2144. 05 (I)). Go discloses the heating removes sizing agents and creates strong adhesion between lithium and produces a surface having enhanced affinity towards lithium by introducing oxygen-containing functional groups (page 1507, col. 2, para. 2) and confirmed by XPS data (page. 1507, col. 2, para. 2).
Go fails to teach the oxygen containing reactive groups are covalently bonded to the carbon layer.
Spahr discloses surface modification of carbon (graphite) materials used in negative electrodes in lithium -ion batteries. Spahr further discloses heating the
graphite in an oxygen -containing process gas at temperatures ranging from 500-
1100oC (para. 0038) resulting in surface modification of carbon by introducing carbonyl, carboxyl and hydroxyl group (para. 0035, 0138, Table 4). Since carbon has a valency of
four and the carboxyl and/or hydroxyl groups are being bonded to the surface of carbon
layer it would necessarily result in covalent bonds. Spahr the negative electrode exhibits an improved irreversible capacity, reversible discharge capacity or cycle life compared to the untreated material (para. 0010).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
invention for the modified method of Moon to include surface modification of the pyrolyzed carbon on the current collector where in the oxygen-containing reactive groups covalently bonded to the carbon layer as taught by Spahr. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the method of Moon to improve negative electrode exhibits an improved irreversible capacity, reversible discharge capacity or cycle life compared to the untreated material.
Claims 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moon (US PG Pub. 2020/0099058 A1) in view of Burckel (US Pat. 8349547 B1), Go (Nanocrevasse-rich carbon fibers…metal anodes) and Chen (Lithiophilicity chemistry of heteroatom-doped carbon...) as applied to claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 10 and 11 above and further in view of Arunkumar (US PG Pub. 202200280063 A1).
Moon, Burckel, Go and Chen are relied upon as described above.
Regarding claim 12, as discussed with respect to claim 1, modified method of Moon discloses lithium is applied to the metal substrate the current collector in step (h). Modified method of Moon fails to disclose lithium extends into the plurality of perforations from the first major surface to the second major surface of the current collector.
Arunkumar discloses a method of manufacturing a lithium metal anode by laminating an alkali metal foil onto a porous current collector which has holes extending through the collector, wherein the laminating includes forming extruded portions of the alkali metal foil that extend through the openings from the first side to the second side (para. 0005, 0052). Arunkumar discloses alkali metal foil may also be formed from lithium (para. 0117), porous current collector can be formed from variety of material such as Copper (para. 0117) and the porous current collector can be made by photo-lithography (para. 0148). Arunkumar discloses during lamination, the roll mill or other lamination process may be designed and configured to apply a sufficient pressure to extrude the alkali metal foil through the openings in the porous metal foil such that the alkali metal nearly or completely fills the holes of the perforated foil (para. 0124) to ensure good electrical contact between them and the lamination step is sufficient to cause the extruded end of lithium foil to extend from the first major surface to the second major surface of the current collector.(para. 0133) Arunkumar discloses the cycle performance of cells with perforated copper can be better it due to a better electrical contact with the laminated lithium (the thicker 16 um perforated copper is embedded deeper inside the lithium foil), which increases the lithium utilization in the cell. (para. 0143).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, modify the method of manufacture of a negative electrode as disclosed by the combination of Moon, Burckel, Go and Chen to have lithium extend into the plurality of perforations from the first major surface to the second major surface of the current collector as taught by Arunkumar. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make modification to the method to improve cycle performance of the cells.
Claims 13 -14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moon (US PG Pub. 2020/0099058 A1) in view of Burckel (US Pat. 8349547 B1), Go (Nanocrevasse-rich carbon fibers…metal anodes) and Chen (Lithiophilicity chemistry of heteroatom-doped carbon...) as applied to claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 10 and 11 above and further in view of Arunkumar (US PG Pub. 202200280063 A1) and Dadheech (US PG Pub. 20190237758 A1).
Regarding claim 13, modified method of moon fails to disclose the lithium metal negative electrode is defined by the lithium chemically bonded to the lithophilic surface on the pyrolyzed carbon layer and extending into the plurality of perforations in the current collector, and wherein the lithium metal negative electrode has a thickness of greater than or equal to 1 micrometer and less than or equal to 30 micrometers.
Dadheech discloses a lithium metal battery comprising a lithium-based negative electrode formed by applying lithium to surface treated metal current collector (para. 007). Dadheech further discloses the lithium metal layer disposed in the metal substate has a thickness of greater than or equal to about 1 μm to less than or equal to about 75 μm (para 0022). Dadheech further discloses the metal substrate (current collector foil) has a thickness greater than or equal to about 2 μm or equal to about 30 μm (para. 0013, 0073). Dadheech discloses forming a negative electrode which has a thin well adhered lithium layer on the current collector (para. 0054). As discussed above with respect to claim 8, Donner discloses a carbon layer fabricated by pyrolysis at 1000 °C of a photosensitive material (photoresist AZ 4330) has thicknesses ranging between 10 and 80 nm (abstract, page 2816, col. 1, Table 1). Thus, the negative electrode formed by the combination of Moon, Burckel, Go, Chen Arunkumar, Dadheech and Donner would yield a negative electrode in the thickness range as claimed by the applicant.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective
filing date, modify the method of manufacture of a negative electrode as disclosed by the combination of Moon, Burckel, Go, Chen and Arunkumar to have a thickness as taught by Donner and Dadheech. The modification would result in the lithium metal negative electrode is defined by the lithium chemically bonded to the lithophilic surface on the pyrolyzed carbon layer and extending into the plurality of perforations in the current collector, and wherein the lithium metal negative electrode has a thickness of greater than or equal to 1 micrometer and less than or equal to 30 micrometers. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the electrode thickness in this range to get a negative electrode which has a thin well adhered lithium layer on the current collector.
Regarding claim 14, Moon discloses assembling the lithium metal negative electrode into a battery (para. 00116). The negative electrode obtained by the modified method of the combination of Moon, Burckel, Go, Chen and Arunkumar as discussed above with respect to claims 1, 12 and 13 could be assembled into a battery disclosed by Moon.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moon (US PG Pub. 2020/0099058 A1) in view of Burckel (US Pat. 8349547 B1), Go (Nanocrevasse-rich carbon fibers…metal anodes) and Chen (Lithiophilicity chemistry of heteroatom-doped carbon...) as applied to claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 10 and 11 above, and further in view of Spahr (US PG Pub. 2015/0079477 A1).
Moon, Burckel, Go, Chen and Spahr are relied upon as described above
Regarding claim 15, modified method of Moon discloses all the limitations from step (a) to (g) and further as discussed above with respect to claim 9, Spahr discloses surface modification of carbon introduces carbonyl, carboxyl and hydroxyl group (para. 0035, 0138, Table 4). Since carbon has a valency of four and the carboxyl and/or hydroxyl groups are being bonded to the surface of carbon layer it would necessarily result in covalent bonds. Spahr the negative electrode exhibits an improved irreversible capacity, reversible discharge capacity or cycle life compared to the untreated material (para. 0010).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
invention for the modified method of Moon to include surface modification of the pyrolyzed carbon on the current collector where in the oxygen-containing reactive groups covalently bonded to the carbon layer as taught by Spahr. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the method of Moon to improve negative electrode exhibits an improved irreversible capacity, reversible discharge capacity or cycle life compared to the untreated material.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moon (US PG Pub. 2020/0099058 A1) in view of Burckel (US Pat. 8349547 B1), Go (Nanocrevasse-rich carbon fibers…metal anodes) and Chen (Lithiophilicity chemistry of heteroatom-doped carbon...) as applied to claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 10 and 11 above, and further in view of Kassegne (US PG Pub. 2016/0073920).
Moon, Burckel, Go, and Chen are relied upon as described above
Regarding claim 21, modified method of Moon fails to disclose heating the photosensitive material layer in a hydrogen-containing environment at a temperature of from 900 degrees Celsius to 1000 degrees Celsius for 6 hours to 24 hour.
Burckel discloses pyrolyzing the developed photoresist in a reducing atmosphere of hot forming gas to provide a porous carbon structure (col 4, lines 62-64) as discussed with respect to claim 1 step (f). Burckel fails to disclose the pyrolysis temperature of from 900 degrees Celsius to 1000 degrees Celsius for 6 hours to 24 hour .
Kassegne discloses a method of making a microelectromechanical system includes patterning a polymer precursor, a carbon-containing material or a combination thereof onto a surface, a substrate, at least one layer or a combination there of; and pyrolyzing the polymer precursor, a carbon-containing material or a combination thereof in order to form a glassy carbon material (abstract). Kassegne discloses lithography and pyrolyzing a photoresist on a silicon substrate (para. 0034, 0054, figure 18) in vacuum or a forming gas (95% N2 and 5% H2) atmosphere (para. 0064) and a pyrolysis temperature of 900oC and 1000oC (para. 0065). Kassegne discloses experimenting with differing maximum pyrolysis temperatures and pyrolysis durations (para. 0017, figure 1). Kassegne discloses to tailor the mechanical, electrical, and electromechanical properties the pyrolysis conditions, such as maximum temperature, duration of pyrolysis, and ramp rate were varied (para. 0011, 0048). Although Kesegne does not explicitly disclose maintaining the pyrolysis temperature at 900-1000oC for the claimed 6-24 hour period, Kessegne establishes the pyrolysis time as a result effective variable affecting the properties of the resulting photoresist derived carbon. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to control the duration of pyrolysis in the claimed range to obtain the desired properties of the resulting photoresist derived carbon disclosed by Kessegne. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to have arrived at the claimed pyrolysis temperature from 900-1000 oC for 6 hours to 24 hours to achieve a resulting photoresist derived carbon with suitable characteristics.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moon (US PG Pub. 2020/0099058 A1) in view of Burckel (US Pat. 8349547 B1), Go (Nanocrevasse-rich carbon fibers…metal anodes) and Chen (Lithiophilicity chemistry of heteroatom-doped carbon...) as applied to claims 1 3, 4, 7, 10 and 11 above, and further in view of Kunii (US Pat. 5228911) .
Moon, Burckel, Go, and Chen are relied upon as described above
Regarding claim 22, modified method of Moon fails to disclose heating the current collector in an oxygen containing environment at a temperature 427.5 oC to 472.5 oC for 0.5 hrs. to 2 hours.
Kunni discloses the surface oxidation of graphite flaky particles can be accomplished by heating in an oxygen-containing atmosphere at, e.g., 200-500 C. for 0.15-15 hours, preferably 0.25-3 hours (col 2, lines 44-47). -500 C. for 0.15-15 hours, preferably 0.25-3 hours overlapping with the claimed ranges (MPEP 2144. 05 (I)). This heat treatment increases the number of carboxyl groups and phenolic hydroxyl groups on the surface of graphite flaky particles. How ever, excessive heat treatment at a higher temperature and for a longer time than specified above gives rise to surface irregularities and pores on the surface of graphite flaky particles which make them brittle (col. 2, lines 47-53)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
invention for the modified method of Moon to include surface modification of the pyrolyzed carbon on the current collector as taught by Kunni. The modification would result in heating the current collector in an oxygen-containing environment in the disclosed range. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the method of Moon to obtain a carbon surface with less surface irregularities and pores.
ANSWERS TO APPLICANT’S ARGUMENTS
Applicant’s arguments in the response filed 06/15/2026 regarding the Drawings of record have been considered but are moot since the objection have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments in the response filed on 06/15/2026 regarding the 35 U.S.C. §112 of claims 2, 6, 8-9, 11, 13 and 15 of record have been considered but are moot since the rejection have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments (A) in the response filed on 06/15/2026 regarding the 35 U.S.C. §103 of Claim 1-3, 6-7, 9-12, and 14-15 of record have been considered but are moot due to the new grounds of rejection.
Applicant’s arguments (B) in the response filed on 06/15/2026 regarding the 35 U.S.C. §103 of Claim 4 of record have been considered but are moot due to the new grounds of rejection.
Applicant’s arguments (C) in the response filed on 06/15/2026 regarding the 35 U.S.C. §103 of Claim 5 of record have been considered but are moot due to the new grounds of rejection.
Applicant’s arguments (D) in the response filed on 06/15/2026 regarding the 35 U.S.C. §103 of Claim 8 of record have been considered but are moot due to the new grounds of rejection.
Applicant’s arguments (E) in the response filed on 06/15/2026 regarding the 35 U.S.C. §103 of Claim 13 of record have been considered but are moot due to the 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 ISWARYA MATHEW whose telephone number is (571)272-9515. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM - 3:00 PM.
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, ALICIA CHEVALIER can be reached at (571) 272-1490. 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.
/I.M./
Iswarya MathewExaminer, Art Unit 1788
08/21/2026
/ALEXANDRE F FERRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1788
Prosecution Insights