DETAILED ACTION
Notice to Applicant
Claims 18-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected apparatus, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 2026-06-18.
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1-17 are examined herein.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: “Mode” is capitalized for no reason. Claim 13 is objected to because it says LiFP6 instead of LIPF6Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 4, the limitation “the anode has a specific capacity in a lithium ion electrochemical cell after 30 charge and discharge cycles that is at least 50% greater than a solid anode of the same material” is indefinite because it is unclear what the conditions are for testing such an attribute. It is unclear to what extent this is just a natural property of the claimed limitations already found in claim 1, or whether this further delimits the claim, and, if so, what additional positive structural feature is responsible for the claimed attribute. The claim has been interpreted broadly to refer to an anode having the features of claim 1.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saleh (Saleh et al. “Three-dimensional microarchitected materials and devices using nanoparticle assembly by pointwise spatial printing.” Sci. Adv. 2017, 3:e1601986, 3 March 2017) in view of Li (Li et al. “A hybrid three-dimensionally structured electrode for lithium-ion batteries via 3D printing.” Materials and Design 119 (2017) 417-424) and Wei (Wei et al. “3D Printing of Customized Li-Ion Batteries with Thick Electrodes.” Adv. Mater. 2018, 30, 1703027).
Regarding Claim 1, Saleh teaches:
a method of preparing a three-dimensional open cell lattice produced through droplet-based printing comprising a plurality of unit cells defined by a plurality of unit cells defined by a plurality of porous, interconnected, silver trusses having a diameter from over 20 microns to on the order of 50 microns or more (Figs. 5-6), and periodicity of between 2 microns and 500 microns per unit cell with a truss porosity >1% (Fig. 3, abstract, page 4, ad supplementary materials § S4) including a microelectrode (Fig. 6b)
PNG
media_image1.png
374
572
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05 [R-5]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select any portion of the disclosed ranges of Saleh since it discloses the same utility throughout the disclosed ranges.
wherein the component thickness is controllable up to a height of at least 500 microns (Fig. 6)
Saleh does not explicitly teach:
use of the 3d architecture as an electrode in an electrochemical device, formed by positioning a liquid electrolyte comprising conventional carbonates with conventional lithium salts, a polyolefin separator between the porous anode and a cathode as claimed
wherein the three-dimensional open cell lattice comprises a thickness from about 250 to about 450 microns
Li, however, from the same field of invention, regarding 3d printed batteries, teaches a printed electrode in a lithium-ion battery with a commercial polyolefin separator and a liquid ethylene carbonate electrolyte containing LiPF6 (p. 418). Li teaches printed electrode thickness(es) of 100-400 microns (p. 419) with higher achieve thicknesses thanks to the 3d printed porosity of the microstructure. Li also teaches conventionally known cathode materials, including lithium transition metal oxides. Wei, meanwhile, also directed towards 3d printed customized Li-Ion batteries, teaches thickness varying from 100 microns to 1mm, including examples with e.g. 400 microns (Fig. 4, etc.). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05 [R-5]). Given that Saleh does not explicitly teach the electrode thickness of an actual cell, despite suggesting use in a lithium-ion cell, it would have been obvious to look towards other conventional cell structures and electrode thicknesses for similar porous, 3d printed anodes, such as the substantially overlapping ranges disclosed in Li and Wei.
Regarding Claim 2, Saleh teaches:
wherein the component comprises a fullness fraction (volume %) in some embodiments of 27% (page 3 column 2)
Regarding Claims 3 and 5, Saleh teaches:
columnar trusses, as well as other shapes (Figs. 5-6)
Saleh teaches substantially similar trusses forming substantially similar scaffold electrodes as those claimed. Saleh is therefore deemed to meet the claimed “at least 1 mode of deformation). Insofar as Applicant argues that these properties are not inherent in at least some of the materials taught or rendered obvious by Saleh, the claim should be considered to be rejected under § 112 for lack of enablement commensurate in scope with the claim. The claim is broadly directed towards a method of forming an anode with metal trusses in a layer-by-layer deposition technique that appears to be substantially similar to that taught in Saleh. The limited number of examples disclosed in the instant specification cannot be taken to enable the breadth of the claim as written, if a substantially similar method and product, like that disclosed in Saleh, does not reliably reproduce those properties, absent Applicant pointing out some critical structural feature delineated in the claims that would distinguish the claimed product.
Regarding Claim 4, Saleh teaches:
substantially the same kind of 3d porous structures as the instantly claimed, which would be expected to result in the claimed improvement in comparison to e.g. solid silver or other lithium-alloy forming materials
Regarding Claim 6, Saleh teaches:
silver (abstract, etc.)
Regarding Claims 7-8, Saleh teaches:
sintered trusses that are at least 1% porous (Fig. 5)
Regarding Claim 9, Saleh teaches:
polyhedral cells (Figs. 5-6)
Regarding Claims 10-11, Saleh teaches:
an arbitrary number of repeated cells within the 6 orders of magnitude claimed (Figs. 5-6)
periodicity of a few hundred microns (p. 3)
Regarding Claim 12, Saleh teaches:
use in a lithium-ion cell, which would be expected to be at least partially coated with lithium upon cycling, as was conventional in the art
Regarding Claims 13-17, Li and Wei render obvious:
conventional carbonate electrolytes with LiPF6 (see experimental sections)
use of PE and PP composite separators, as was commercially available
assembly into multiple lithium ion cells for a battery pack that is charged
The claimed carbonate electrolytes, separators, and assembly into multi-cell battery package was thoroughly conventional in the art. See, e.g. the IDS documents cited 2024-01-23 for evidence of this. Use of commercially available materials and conventional battery components would have been obvious. Applying a charger to a rechargeable battery is obvious. Use of a known technique to improve similar devices, methods, or products in the same way, and applying a known technique to a known device, method, or product ready for improvement to yield predictable results has been found to be obvious. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Dignan, whose telephone number is (571) 272-6425. The examiner can normally be reached from Monday to Friday between 10 AM and 6:30 PM. If any attempt to reach the examiner by telephone is unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tiffany Legette, can be reached at (571)270-7078. Another resource that is available to applicants is the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR). Information regarding the status of an application can be obtained from the (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAX. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, please feel free to contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). Applicants are invited to contact the Office to schedule an in-person interview to discuss and resolve the issues set forth in this Office Action. Although an interview is not required, the Office believes that an interview can be of use to resolve any issues related to a patent application in an efficient and prompt manner.
/MICHAEL L DIGNAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights