DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
1. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
3. In response to the amendment received on 4/20/2026:
Claims 1-10 are pending in the current application. Claims 1-10 have been amended.
The previous prior art-based rejections have been overcome in light of the amendment. All changes made to the rejection are necessitated by the amendment.
Claim Interpretation
4. All “wherein” clauses are given patentable weight unless otherwise noted. Please see MPEP 2111.04 regarding optional claim language.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. Claims 1, 3, 6, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang CN109742320 in view of Sato US PG Publication 2005/0064291.
Regarding Claims 1-5, Zhang discloses an aluminum battery comprising a negative electrode structure comprising a metal substrate (three dimensional porous aluminum anode material such as nickel foam, paras 0010-0012, 0024, meeting Claim 2) necessarily having a first surface and a second surface opposite to each other, a positive electrode (cathode, para 0014, 0022), and an electrolyte comprising aluminum chloride (paras 0014, 0021) (see entire disclosure and especially paragraphs cited above, and see 2nd English translation for clear use of AlCl3 in the battery electrolyte examples). Zhang fails to specifically disclose wherein the negative electrode structure includes a plurality of bumps, disposed on the first surface, wherein a size range of the bumps is between 5 µm and 500 µm and fails to disclose the bump shapes and type of arrangements (re: Claims 4 and 5). However, in a similar field of endeavor of rechargeable battery design using aluminum negative electrode material, Sato teaches that using protrusions having a height of e.g. 1 µm to 100 µm (para 0032) on the surface of a negative electrode substrate such as a current collector (forming the protrusions from the same material as the current collector, para 0028) can help prevent electrode material from peeling off the current collector in the event that the electrode material (such as aluminum) expands (see entire disclosure and especially paras 0024-0032). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to include a plurality of bumps formed of nickel (same material as the substrate of Zhang, meeting Claim 3) and the bumps comprising polygonal or circular columns (Figs 4B-4I all have polygonal or circular columns as part of the bump designs, meeting Claim 4) and disposed in an array arrangement (meeting Claim 5), disposed on the first surface of the substrate of Zhang, said bumps having a height of e.g. 1 µm to 100 µm (which overlaps and therefore is obvious over the claimed range of 5 µm and 500 µm) because Sato teaches that this design can help prevent electrode material from peeling off the current collector in the event that the electrode material (such as aluminum) expands during the battery charge/discharge process.
Regarding Claim 6, Zhang does not specifically disclose wherein a thickness range of the metal substrate is between 10 µm and 500 µm. However, Sato discloses that a desirable thickness of substrate/collector for use with the taught bumps/protrusions is e.g. 12 µm (para 0081) and so it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to design the battery of Zhang and Sato such that a thickness range of the metal substrate is between 10 µm and 500 µm because Sato teaches that a thickness useful with the taught bumps and protrusions having the claimed height (described above) is e.g. 12 µm. Further, the size of an article is not a matter of invention. See In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (see MPEP § 2144.04). A change in proportion or relative dimension is obvious in the absence of unexpected results. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
6. Claims 7-8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang CN109742320 in view of Sato US PG Publication 2005/0064291, as applied to Claim 1, and further in view of Brewer US PG Publication 2021/0057757 as evidenced by https://www.engineering.com/how-to-make-any-battery-a-3d-battery/.
Regarding Claims 7 and 10, Zhang modified by Sato discloses the claimed battery as described in the rejection of Claim 1, which is incorporated herein in it entirety. Zhang discloses wherein the substrate is a three dimensional porous aluminum material having high porosity such that it has a skeleton similar to wires of a metal mesh, para 0008) but Zhang modified by Sato fails to specifically disclose wherein the battery further comprises a plurality of holes, wherein each hole runs through the first surface to the second surface, or where the holes are polygonal an/or circular (addressing Claim 10). However, in a similar field of endeavor, Brewer discloses a negative electrode comprising a 3-dimensional metal substrate (current collector) 603a-603h exemplified by nickel mesh or copper mesh having a thickness of from at least 1 µm, and e.g up to 100 µm (para 0038) and having a first surface and a second surface opposite to each other (Fig. 6A-H, paras 0127-0130, 0137-0142); and a plurality of bumps (electrically conductive structures) 604a-h/704a which can be circular columns (tubes, circular cross-section, Figs 6A-H/7, especially 604-f, 704-a, 704-c, paras 0043-0044) disposed on the first surface (exemplified by nickel and copper), wherein a size range (height) of the bumps is at least 1 µm, and e.g up to 100 µm (para 0042) which overlaps the claimed range of 5 µm to 500 µm (see entire disclosure and especially Figs 1-7 and paras 0035-0046, 0127-0130, 0137-0142), and discloses wherein the current collector is a Ni or Cu mesh structure (as explained above), and the skilled artisan would understand that a mesh material necessarily has e.g. polygonal holes (meeting Claim 10) that would extend from (run through) one surface to the opposing surface. See image below from https://www.engineering.com/how-to-make-any-battery-a-3d-battery/.
PNG
media_image1.png
221
703
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Brewer discloses mesh as just one example of a 3-dimensional structure (similar to the foam of Zhang) that provides the beneficial current collector design and it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use the metal mesh of Brewer instead of the metal foam of Zhang modified by Sato because Brewer teaches that such a mesh structure can support protrusions for supporting active material of an anode and the combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.). The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
Regarding Claim 9, the skilled artisan would understand that the holes of the mesh metal substrate/current collector of Brewer would be distributed around the bumps since the bumps could not be INSIDE the holes and so it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to design the metal substrate of Zhang modified by Sato and Brewer such that the holes are disposed around the bumps since this is necessarily the design of Brewer and the mere rearrangement of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
7. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang CN109742320 in view of Sato US PG Publication 2005/0064291 and Brewer US PG Publication 2021/0057757, as applied to Claim 7, and further in view of Kim US PG Publication 2015/0125756.
Regarding Claim 8, Zhang modified by Sato and Brewer discloses the negative electrode of Claim 7, the rejection of which is incorporated herein in its entirety. Zhang modified by Sato and Brewer fails to specifically disclose a size range of the holes of the mesh metal substrate such that the range is between 10 µm and 500 µm. However, in a similar field of endeavor of electrode design using mesh current collectors, Kim teaches that a metal mesh current collector is beneficially designed to have thickness between 1 µm to 500 µm and hole size between metal mesh patterns is e.g. 1 µm to 3 mm (see entire disclosure and especially e.g. Fig 1 and paras 0152-0154). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to design the electrode of Zhang modified by Sato and Brewer such that the holes running through the first to the second surface of the metal substrate are sized in a range of between 10 µm and 500 µm because Kim teaches that such a current collector metal substrate in a battery is designed to have any appropriate size of holes falling in the range of 1 µm to 3 mm, and in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of "about 1-5%" while the claim was limited to "more than 5%." The court held that "about 1-5%" allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (Claim reciting thickness of a protective layer as falling within a range of "50 to 100 Angstroms" considered prima facie obvious in view of prior art reference teaching that "for suitable protection, the thickness of the protective layer should be not less than about 10 nm [i.e., 100 Angstroms]." The court stated that "by stating that 'suitable protection' is provided if the protective layer is 'about' 100 Angstroms thick, [the prior art reference] directly teaches the use of a thickness within [applicant's] claimed range."). Similarly, a prima facie 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. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of "having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium" as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium.).
Response to Arguments
8. Applicant's arguments with respect to the claims are based on the claims as amended. The amended claims have been addressed in the new rejection above.
Conclusion
9. 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LISA S PARK whose telephone number is (571)270-3597. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 5:30a to 3p Eastern Time.
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 on 5712721481. 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.
/LISA S PARK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights