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 § 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) 1 and 4-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhamu et al. (US 2018/0233747 A1, hereinafter Zhamu, cited by applicant) in view of Matsuyama et al. (WO 2016/157934 A1, hereinafter Matsuyama).
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 fails to specifically 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.
The invention of Matsuyama encompasses sodium-ion cell. Matsuyama teaches that a weight of negative active material layer is greater than 2 mg/cm2 or less than 8 mg/cm2 (P4).
In view of Matsuyama, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the invention of Zhamu to have a weight of the metal plating layer on the hole material layer is greater than 2 mg/cm2 or less than 8 mg/cm2, since Matsuyama teaches the advantage of using it, which is to ensure desired effects (P4).
Zhamu in view of Matsuyama does not explicitly teaches that a capacity decay rate of the aluminum battery is less than 5% per cycle.
However, Zhamu in view of Matsuyama and the claimed negative electrode structure has the same elements and material, a capacity decay rate of the aluminum battery of Zhamu in view of Matsuyama 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. The combination teaches wherein a specific surface area of the hole material layer is between 100 m2/g and 3000 m2/g (Zhamu, para. 19).
Re Claim 5. The combination 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 (Zhamu, para. 22).
Re Claim 6. The combination teaches wherein the metal plating layer is an aluminum metal plating layer (Zhamu, para. 21 & 67).
Re Claims 7 and 8. Zhamu in view of Matsuyama 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. The combination teaches wherein the metal plating layer is located between a positive electrode structure of the aluminum battery and the hole material layer (Zhamu, 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. The combination teaches wherein the positive electrode structure comprises an intercalation material (Zhamu, 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Newly cited reference, Matsuyama address the new limitations.
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.
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
5/21/2026
Prosecution Insights