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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 8/30/23 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance (for Office Action of Taiwan Counterpart Application), as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 3 recites that the weight of the metal plating layer on the hole material layer is less than 100 mg/cm2, which can be less than 2 mg/cm2, which is outside of the claimed range of claim 2, which claim 3 is depending on.
Claim 10 recites that the negative electrode structure comprises an intercalation material.
However, the specification discloses that the positive electrode structure comprises an intercalation material (para. 13 & 32). It is unclear whether the negative or positive electrode structure has an intercalation material. The examiner will interpret the limitation as the positive electrode structure, which is consistent with the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 3-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhamu et al. (US 2018/0233747 A1, hereinafter Zhamu, cited by applicant).
Re Claim 1. Zhamu teaches a negative electrode structure, applied to an aluminum battery (title, intended use), comprising:
a hole material layer (Fig. 2B, anode current collector, para. 21 & 67); and
a metal plating layer (anode active layer, para. 21 & 67), located on the hole material layer (Fig. 2B), such that a capacity decay rate of the aluminum battery is less than 5% per cycle.
Zhamu does not explicitly teaches that a capacity decay rate of the aluminum battery is less than 5% per cycle.
However, Zhamu and the claimed negative electrode structure has the same elements and material, a capacity decay rate of the aluminum battery of Zhamu would also be less than 5% per cycle.
When the reference discloses all the limitations of a claim except a property or function, and the examiner cannot determine whether or not the reference inherently possesses properties which anticipate or render obvious the claimed invention but has basis for shifting the burden of proof to applicant as in In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP 2112- 2112.02.
Re Claim 4. Zhamu teaches wherein a specific surface area of the hole material layer is between 100 m2/g and 3000 m2/g (para. 19).
Re Claim 5. Zhamu teaches wherein a material of the hole material layer comprises natural graphite, artificial graphite, graphene, carbon black, soft carbon, hard carbon, mesophase graphite carbon microspheres (para. 22).
Re Claim 6. Zhamu teaches wherein the metal plating layer is an aluminum metal plating layer (para. 21 & 67).
Re Claims 7 and 8. Zhamu does not disclose that the metal plating layer is electroplated on the hole material layer by an ionic liquid wherein the ionic liquid comprises an aluminum salt-based ionic liquid.
However, the limitations are product-by-process limitations, which do not affect the patentability of the claimed negative electrode structure.
[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. See MPEP 2113.
Re Claim 9. Zhamu teaches wherein the metal plating layer is located between a positive electrode structure of the aluminum battery and the hole material layer (Fig. 2B).
In addition, a positive electrode structure is not a part of the claimed negative electrode structure. Therefore, the spatial relationship between the metal plating layer and the positive electrode structure does not affect the patentability of the claimed negative electrode structure.
Re Claim 10. Zhamu teaches wherein the positive electrode structure comprises an intercalation material (para. 34).
In addition, a positive electrode structure is not a part of the claimed negative electrode structure. Therefore, a material of the positive electrode structure does not affect the patentability of the claimed negative electrode structure.
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.
Claim(s) 2 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhamu.
Zhamu does not teach that a weight of the metal plating layer on the hole material layer is greater than 2 mg/cm2 or less than 100 mg/cm2.
However, one would perform routine experimentation to find out the optimum weight of the metal plating layer for a desired battery capacity and cyclability.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
The rejections above rely on the references for all the teachings expressed in the text of the references and/or one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably understood from the texts. Only specific portions of the texts have been pointed out to emphasize certain aspects of the prior art, however, each reference as a whole should be reviewed in responding to the rejection, since other sections of the same reference and/or various combinations of the cited references may be relied on in future rejections in view of amendments.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN E YOON whose telephone number is (571)270-5932. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9 AM- 5 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, Keith Walker can be reached at 571-272-3458. 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.
/KEVIN E YOON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735
1/29/2026