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 .
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendment received September 22, 2026:
Claims 2 and 10 have been canceled as per Applicant’s request. Claims 1, 3-9, and 11-20 are pending with claims 16-20 withdrawn as being drawn to an unelected invention.
The previous prior art references are relied upon; however changes regarding the interpretation/embodiments have been made in light of the amendment. All changes to the rejection are necessitated by the amendment. Thus the action is final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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(s) 1-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2022/248968/ US 2024/0258497 (Yamazaki et al.). (Note: US 2024/0258497 is relied upon as the English translation for the corresponding WO document, as both pertain to the same PCT. Both references apply under different dates.).
As to claim 1, Yamazaki et al. teach a vehicle, comprising:
an electric motor [1304] (fig. 48C; para 0738); and
a battery pack (first batteries [1301a, 1301b], second battery [1311]) electrically coupled to the electric motor [1304]), wherein the battery pack comprises an electrochemical cell comprising:
a cathode (positive electrode) [410];
an anode (negative electrode) [430]; and
an electrolyte [420] located between the cathode and the anode (fig. 24; para 0322-0323);
wherein the cathode (electrode with active material, as seen in figs. 1A and 5A (para 0170; para 0191) comprises a plurality of cathode voxel layers (layers [414a], [414b], [414c] as seen in fig. 5A, with additional layers between [414a] and [414b] as well as between [414b] and [414c] (five-layered structure with the medium particle diameter layers with the aforementioned placement, not shown in the figures), wherein each of the cathode voxel layers comprises a plurality of cathode voxels, and the plurality of cathode voxel layers is disposed on a cathode current collector [413] (figs. 1A, 5A, 24; para 0124, 0191 (five-layered structure)) (note: no dilution seen in figs. 1A and 5A, thus reading on the elected species), and
wherein individual thickness of layers [414a], [414b], [414c] are 1-20 micrometers, 10-200 micrometers, and 1-20 micrometers, respectively (para 0176, 0180, 0181). Accordingly the thickness of three layers ranges from 12 to 240 micrometers.
Although, Yamazaki et al. do not teach the thickness medium particle layers – and thus does not specifically teach that the plurality of voxel layers has a total thickness of 250-500 micrometers – such a limitation would at the very least be obvious over the teaching of Yamazaki et al. As Yamazaki et al.’s teaching of the other discrete layers are 10-200 micrometers or 1-20 micrometers, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the medium particle layers to have similar sizes – at the very least between 1-200 micrometers, due to the fact that this is the general sizing of the layers given within Yamazaki et al. (although not explicitly applied to the medium particle layers). Accordingly, at the very least, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect Yamazaki et al.’s 5-layered structure (set forth in para 0191) to have a thickness that overlaps the claimed range, as individual thickness of layers [414a], [414b], [414c] are 1-20 micrometers, 10-200 micrometers, and 1-20 micrometers, and the medium particle layer thicknesses would be expected to be at the very least between 1-200 micrometers. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was effectively filed (as applicable to AIA applications) to have the plurality of voxel layers with a total thickness of 250-500 micrometers in light of the general sizing of the layers given within Yamazaki et al. (although not explicitly applied to the medium particle layers; as Yamazaki et al. teach that layers [414a], [414b], [414c] are 1-20 micrometers, 10-200 micrometers, and 1-20 micrometers, respectively (para 0176, 0180, 0181), which would apply to a general size range applied to the medium particle size layers). Additionally, a change in size (regarding the thickness of the medium particle layers) to maintain performance is held to be obvious by the Office; see MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A) (overlapping ranges obvious; see MPEP §2144.05(I)).
As to claim 3, Yamazaki et al. teach cathode voxel layer of the plurality of cathode voxel layers independently has a thickness of 10 micrometers to 120 micrometers (individual thickness of layers [414a], [414b], [414c] are 1-20 micrometers, 10-200 micrometers, and 1-20 micrometers, respectively (para 0176, 0180, 0181; figs. 1A, 5A)) (overlapping claimed ranges). Additionally, as rendered obvious above, the medium particle size layers would at the very least have a thickness between 1-200 micrometers (see the rejection to claim 1 for full details; incorporated herein but not reiterated herein for brevity’s sake.)
As to claim 4, Yamazaki et al. teach the plurality of cathode voxel layers comprises: a first plurality of cathode voxel layers disposed on the cathode current collector [413]; and
a second plurality of cathode voxel layers disposed on the first plurality of cathode voxel layers (modified version of fig. 5A with a 5-layered structure – small particle layer (first layer [414a]), medium particle layer 1, large particle layer (second layer [414b]), medium particle layer 2, small particle layer (third layer [414c]) (para 0191). The above 5 layers can be split into 2 or 3 layers to constitute the first plurality of cathode voxel layers disposed on the cathode current collector and the second plurality of cathode voxel layers disposed on the first plurality of cathode voxel layers.
Individual thickness of layers [414a], [414b], [414c] are 1-20 micrometers, 10-200 micrometers, and 1-20 micrometers, respectively (para 0176, 0180, 0181). Thus, cathode voxel layer of the first plurality of cathode voxel layers independently has a thickness of 10 micrometers to 20 micrometers, and cathode voxel layer of the second plurality of cathode voxel layers independently has a thickness of 20 micrometers to 30 micrometers, as associated with layers [414a], [414b], [414c] (overlapping ranges).
Accordingly, Yamazaki et al. do not teach that the medium particle layer of the first plurality of cathode voxel layers has a thickness of 10-20 micrometers, or that the medium particle layer of the second plurality of cathode voxel layers has a thickness of 20-30 micrometers.
However, as Yamazaki et al.’s teaching of all other discrete layers overlaps both 10 micrometers to 20 micrometers, and 20 micrometers to 30 micrometers (via [414a], [414b], [414c] are 1-20 micrometers, 10-200 micrometers, and 1-20 micrometers, respectively (para 0176, 0180, 0181), at the very least would suggest that the first plurality of cathode voxel layers has a thickness of 10-20 micrometers, and that the medium particle layer of the second plurality of cathode voxel layers has a thickness of 20-30 micrometers due to the fact that this is the general sizing of the layers given within Yamazaki et al. (although not explicitly applied to the medium particle layers). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was effectively filed (as applicable to AIA applications) to have the first plurality of cathode voxel layers has a thickness of 10-20 micrometers, and the medium particle layer of the second plurality of cathode voxel layers has a thickness of 20-30 micrometers in light of the general sizing of the layers given within Yamazaki et al. (although not explicitly applied to the medium particle layers; as Yamazaki et al. teach that layers [414a], [414b], [414c] are 1-20 micrometers, 10-200 micrometers, and 1-20 micrometers, respectively (para 0176, 0180, 0181), which overlaps the ranges given). Additionally, a change in size (regarding the thickness of the medium particle layers) to maintain performance is held to be obvious by the Office; see MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A).
Note: At this point, the structure of Yamazaki et al. would not retain the total thickness of the independent claim. However, as Yamazaki et al. teach of 2, 3, and 5 layered structures, the inclusion of more layers with the same as set forth in Yamazaki et al. would be obvious, as it would merely be a duplication of parts. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have more layers such that a thickness of 250-500 micrometers is achieved, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. Also see MPEP §2144.04(VI)(B).
As to claim 5, Yamazaki et al. teaches the claimed invention, and thus meets the product-by process limitations of claim 5 (the cathode is prepared by: providing a donor foil; providing a carrier substrate disposed adjacent to the donor foil; providing an optical system; providing a current collector defined by an X-Y plane; activating the optical system to generate a laser beam through the donor foil and the carrier substrate to create a first plurality of cathode voxels; collecting the first plurality of cathode voxels on the current collector to form one or m re first cathode voxel layers; activating the optical system to generate a laser beam through the donor foil and the carrier substrate to create a second plurality of cathode voxels; and collecting the second plurality of cathode voxels on the one or more first cathode voxel layers to form one or more second cathode voxel layers), as the process of making does not limit the product claimed.
“[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.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985)(citations omitted).
“The Patent Office bears a lesser burden of proof in making out a case of prima facie obviousness for product-by-process claims because of their peculiar nature” than when a product is claimed in the conventional fashion. In re Fessmann, 489 F.2d 742, 744, 180 USPQ 324, 326 (CCPA 1974). Once the Examiner provides a rationale tending to show that the claimed product appears to be the same or similar to that of the prior art, although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product. In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Ex parte Gray, 10 USPQ2d 1922 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989). See MPEP section 2113.
As to claim 6, Yamazaki et al. teaches the claimed invention, and thus meets the product-by process limitations of claim 6 (the cathode is further prepared by curing the one or more first cathode voxel layers before forming the one or more second cathode voxel layers) as the process of making does not limit the product claimed.
“[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.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985)(citations omitted).
“The Patent Office bears a lesser burden of proof in making out a case of prima facie obviousness for product-by-process claims because of their peculiar nature” than when a product is claimed in the conventional fashion. In re Fessmann, 489 F.2d 742, 744, 180 USPQ 324, 326 (CCPA 1974). Once the Examiner provides a rationale tending to show that the claimed product appears to be the same or similar to that of the prior art, although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product. In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Ex parte Gray, 10 USPQ2d 1922 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989). See MPEP section 2113.
As to claim 7, Yamazaki et al. teach the first plurality of cathode voxels comprises a first set of cathode voxels (a layer of medium particles (adjacent (first layer [414a] (of small particles)) and a second set of cathode voxels (first layer [414a] (of small particles)), and the second plurality of cathode voxels comprises a third set of cathode voxels (second layer [414b] (of large particles)) and a fourth set of cathode voxels (another adjacent layer of medium particles (which is also next to third layer [414c] (of small particles))) (fig. 5A; para 0191),
wherein the first set of cathode voxels are spaced apart from the second set of cathode voxels along the X-Y plane, or the first set of cathode voxels at least partially overlap with the second set of cathode voxels along the X-Y plane (partial overlap (elected species) of layers shown in 5A (due to unevenness in layers), and would have the same structure if the medium particle structure was present (even if not shown in fig. 5A)), and
wherein the third set of cathode voxels are spaced apart from the fourth set of cathode voxels along the X-Y plane, or the third set of cathode voxels at least partially overlap with the fourth set of cathode voxels along the X-Y plane (partial overlap (elected species) of layers shown in 5A (due to unevenness in layers), and would have the same structure if the medium particle structure was present (even if not shown in fig. 5A)).
As to claim 8, Yamazaki et al. teach the first set of cathode voxels have a first thickness in a Z-direction perpendicular to the X-Y plane, the second set of cathode voxels have a second thickness in a Z-direction perpendicular to the X-Y plane, the third set of cathode voxels have a third thickness in a Z-direction perpendicular to the X-Y plane, the fourth set of cathode voxels have a fourth thickness in a Z-direction perpendicular to the X-Y plane (fig. 5A; para 0191).
Yamazaki et al. do not teach that the first thickness is greater than the second thickness, and the third thickness is greater than the fourth thickness.
However, Yamazaki et al. teach individual thickness of layers [414a], [414b], [414c] are 1-20 micrometers, 10-200 micrometers, and 1-20 micrometers, respectively (para 0176, 0180, 0181; fig. 5A). As seen in the teaching, the larger particle layer has a greater thickness in that smaller particle layer. At the very least, Yamazaki et al. would suggest the first thickness is greater (layer with medium particles) than the second thickness (layer with small particles, first layer [414a]), and the third thickness (second layer [414b] with large particles) is greater than the fourth thickness (layer with medium particles) due to the fact that general sizing ratios of the layers given within Yamazaki et al. (larger particles layer has a larger thicknesses than a smaller particle layer) (although no thickness is specifically given to the medium particle layers). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was effectively filed (as applicable to AIA applications) to have the first thickness is greater than the second thickness, and the third thickness is greater than the fourth thickness in light of the general sizing of the layers given within Yamazaki et al. (although not explicitly given to the medium particle layers; as Yamazaki et al. teach that layers with larger particles have larger thicknesses than layers with smaller particles (para 0176, 0180, 0181). Additionally, a change in size (regarding the thickness of the medium particle layers) to maintain performance is held to be obvious by the Office; see MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A).
As to claim 9, Yamazaki et al. teach an electrochemical cell comprising:
a cathode (positive electrode) [410];
an anode (negative electrode) [430]; and
an electrolyte [420] located between the cathode and the anode (fig. 24; para 0322-0323);
wherein the cathode (electrode with active material, as seen in figs. 1A and 5A (para 0170; para 0191) comprises a plurality of cathode voxel layers (layers [414a], [414b], [414c] as seen in fig. 5A, with additional layers between [414a] and [414b] as well as between [414b] and [414c] (five-layered structure with the medium particle diameter layers with the aforementioned placement, not shown in the figures), wherein each of the cathode voxel layers comprises a plurality of cathode voxels, and the plurality of cathode voxel layers is disposed on a cathode current collector [413] (figs. 1A, 5A, 24; para 0124, 0191 (five-layered structure)) (note: no dilution seen in figs. 1A and 5A, thus reading on the elected species), and
wherein individual thickness of layers [414a], [414b], [414c] are 1-20 micrometers, 10-200 micrometers, and 1-20 micrometers, respectively (para 0176, 0180, 0181). Accordingly the thickness of three layers ranges from 12 to 240 micrometers.
Although, Yamazaki et al. do not teach the thickness medium particle layers – and thus does not specifically teach that the plurality of voxel layers has a total thickness of 250-500 micrometers – such a limitation would at the very least be obvious over the teaching of Yamazaki et al. As Yamazaki et al.’s teaching of the other discrete layers are 10-200 micrometers or 1-20 micrometers, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the medium particle layers to have similar sizes – at the very least between 1-200 micrometers, due to the fact that this is the general sizing of the layers given within Yamazaki et al. (although not explicitly applied to the medium particle layers). Accordingly, at the very least, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect Yamazaki et al.’s 5-layered structure (set forth in para 0191) to have a thickness that overlaps the claimed range, as individual thickness of layers [414a], [414b], [414c] are 1-20 micrometers, 10-200 micrometers, and 1-20 micrometers, and the medium particle layer thicknesses would be expected to be at the very least between 1-200 micrometers. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was effectively filed (as applicable to AIA applications) to have the plurality of voxel layers with a total thickness of 250-500 micrometers in light of the general sizing of the layers given within Yamazaki et al. (although not explicitly applied to the medium particle layers; as Yamazaki et al. teach that layers [414a], [414b], [414c] are 1-20 micrometers, 10-200 micrometers, and 1-20 micrometers, respectively (para 0176, 0180, 0181), which would apply to a general size range applied to the medium particle size layers). Additionally, a change in size (regarding the thickness of the medium particle layers) to maintain performance is held to be obvious by the Office; see MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A) (overlapping ranges obvious; see MPEP §2144.05(I)).
As to claim 11, Yamazaki et al. teach cathode voxel layer of the plurality of cathode voxel layers independently has a thickness of 10 micrometers to 120 micrometers (individual thickness of layers [414a], [414b], [414c] are 1-20 micrometers, 10-200 micrometers, and 1-20 micrometers, respectively (para 0176, 0180, 0181; figs. 1A, 5A)) (overlapping claimed ranges). Additionally, as rendered obvious above, the medium particle size layers would at the very least have a thickness between 1-200 micrometers (see the rejection to claim 9 for full details; incorporated herein but not reiterated herein for brevity’s sake.)
As to claim 12, Yamazaki et al. teach the plurality of cathode voxel layers comprises: a first plurality of cathode voxel layers disposed on the cathode current collector [413]; and
a second plurality of cathode voxel layers disposed on the first plurality of cathode voxel layers (modified version of fig. 5A with a 5-layered structure – small particle layer (first layer [414a]), medium particle layer 1, large particle layer (second layer [414b]), medium particle layer 2, small particle layer (third layer [414c]) (para 0191). The above 5 layers can be split into 2 or 3 layers to constitute the first plurality of cathode voxel layers disposed on the cathode current collector and the second plurality of cathode voxel layers disposed on the first plurality of cathode voxel layers.
Individual thickness of layers [414a], [414b], [414c] are 1-20 micrometers, 10-200 micrometers, and 1-20 micrometers, respectively (para 0176, 0180, 0181). Thus, cathode voxel layer of the first plurality of cathode voxel layers independently has a thickness of 10 micrometers to 20 micrometers, and cathode voxel layer of the second plurality of cathode voxel layers independently has a thickness of 20 micrometers to 30 micrometers, as associated with layers [414a], [414b], [414c] (overlapping ranges).
Accordingly, Yamazaki et al. do not teach that the medium particle layer of the first plurality of cathode voxel layers has a thickness of 10-20 micrometers, or that the medium particle layer of the second plurality of cathode voxel layers has a thickness of 20-30 micrometers.
However, as Yamazaki et al.’s teaching of all other discrete layers overlaps both 10 micrometers to 20 micrometers, and 20 micrometers to 30 micrometers (via [414a], [414b], [414c] are 1-20 micrometers, 10-200 micrometers, and 1-20 micrometers, respectively (para 0176, 0180, 0181), at the very least would suggest that the first plurality of cathode voxel layers has a thickness of 10-20 micrometers, and that the medium particle layer of the second plurality of cathode voxel layers has a thickness of 20-30 micrometers due to the fact that this is the general sizing of the layers given within Yamazaki et al. (although not explicitly applied to the medium particle layers). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was effectively filed (as applicable to AIA applications) to have the first plurality of cathode voxel layers has a thickness of 10-20 micrometers, and the medium particle layer of the second plurality of cathode voxel layers has a thickness of 20-30 micrometers in light of the general sizing of the layers given within Yamazaki et al. (although not explicitly applied to the medium particle layers; as Yamazaki et al. teach that layers [414a], [414b], [414c] are 1-20 micrometers, 10-200 micrometers, and 1-20 micrometers, respectively (para 0176, 0180, 0181), which overlaps the ranges given). Additionally, a change in size (regarding the thickness of the medium particle layers) to maintain performance is held to be obvious by the Office; see MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A).
Note: At this point, the structure of Yamazaki et al. would not retain the total thickness of the independent claim. However, as Yamazaki et al. teach of 2, 3, and 5 layered structures, the inclusion of more layers with the same as set forth in Yamazaki et al. would be obvious, as it would merely be a duplication of parts. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have more layers such that a thickness of 250-500 micrometers is achieved, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. Also see MPEP §2144.04(VI)(B).
As to claim 13, Yamazaki et al. teaches the claimed invention, and thus meets the product-by process limitations of claim 13 (the cathode is prepared by: providing a donor foil; providing a carrier substrate disposed adjacent to the donor foil; providing an optical system; providing a current collector defined by an X-Y plane; activating the optical system to generate a laser beam through the donor foil and the carrier substrate to create a first plurality of cathode voxels; collecting the first plurality of cathode voxels on the current collector to form one or m re first cathode voxel layers; activating the optical system to generate a laser beam through the donor foil and the carrier substrate to create a second plurality of cathode voxels; and collecting the second plurality of cathode voxels on the one or more first cathode voxel layers to form one or more second cathode voxel layers), as the process of making does not limit the product claimed.
“[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.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985)(citations omitted).
“The Patent Office bears a lesser burden of proof in making out a case of prima facie obviousness for product-by-process claims because of their peculiar nature” than when a product is claimed in the conventional fashion. In re Fessmann, 489 F.2d 742, 744, 180 USPQ 324, 326 (CCPA 1974). Once the Examiner provides a rationale tending to show that the claimed product appears to be the same or similar to that of the prior art, although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product. In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Ex parte Gray, 10 USPQ2d 1922 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989). See MPEP section 2113.
As to claim 14, Yamazaki et al. teach the first plurality of cathode voxels comprises a first set of cathode voxels (a layer of medium particles (adjacent (first layer [414a] (of small particles)) and a second set of cathode voxels (first layer [414a] (of small particles)), and the second plurality of cathode voxels comprises a third set of cathode voxels (second layer [414b] (of large particles)) and a fourth set of cathode voxels (another adjacent layer of medium particles (which is also next to third layer [414c] (of small particles))) (fig. 5A; para 0191),
wherein the first set of cathode voxels are spaced apart from the second set of cathode voxels along the X-Y plane, or the first set of cathode voxels at least partially overlap with the second set of cathode voxels along the X-Y plane (partial overlap (elected species) of layers shown in 5A (due to unevenness in layers), and would have the same structure if the medium particle structure was present (even if not shown in fig. 5A)), and
wherein the third set of cathode voxels are spaced apart from the fourth set of cathode voxels along the X-Y plane, or the third set of cathode voxels at least partially overlap with the fourth set of cathode voxels along the X-Y plane (partial overlap (elected species) of layers shown in 5A (due to unevenness in layers), and would have the same structure if the medium particle structure was present (even if not shown in fig. 5A)).
As to claim 15, Yamazaki et al. teach the first set of cathode voxels have a first thickness in a Z-direction perpendicular to the X-Y plane, the second set of cathode voxels have a second thickness in a Z-direction perpendicular to the X-Y plane, the third set of cathode voxels have a third thickness in a Z-direction perpendicular to the X-Y plane, the fourth set of cathode voxels have a fourth thickness in a Z-direction perpendicular to the X-Y plane (fig. 5A; para 0191).
Yamazaki et al. do not teach that the first thickness is greater than the second thickness, and the third thickness is greater than the fourth thickness.
However, Yamazaki et al. teach individual thickness of layers [414a], [414b], [414c] are 1-20 micrometers, 10-200 micrometers, and 1-20 micrometers, respectively (para 0176, 0180, 0181; fig. 5A). As seen in the teaching, the larger particle layer has a greater thickness in that smaller particle layer. At the very least, Yamazaki et al. would suggest the first thickness is greater (layer with medium particles) than the second thickness (layer with small particles, first layer [414a]), and the third thickness (second layer [414b] with large particles) is greater than the fourth thickness (layer with medium particles) due to the fact that general sizing ratios of the layers given within Yamazaki et al. (larger particles layer has a larger thicknesses than a smaller particle layer) (although no thickness is specifically given to the medium particle layers).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was effectively filed (as applicable to AIA applications) to have the first thickness is greater than the second thickness, and the third thickness is greater than the fourth thickness in light of the general sizing of the layers given within Yamazaki et al. (although not explicitly given to the medium particle layers; as Yamazaki et al. teach that layers with larger particles have larger thicknesses than layers with smaller particles (para 0176, 0180, 0181). Additionally, a change in size (regarding the thickness of the medium particle layers) to maintain performance is held to be obvious by the Office; see MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed September 22, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to claim 1 (and claim 9 similar to claim 1), Applicant argues Yamazaki et al. do not teach that the plurality of cathode voxel layers has a total thickness of 250-500 micrometers (as figs. 1A teaches layers with 1-20 and 10-200 micrometers; and fig. 5A teaches layers that are 1-20, 10-200, and 1-20 micrometers).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Yamazaki et al. teaches a five-layered structure (set forth in para 0191). With the teachings set forth above, the claimed invention would be obvious. The reasoning has been set forth in the rejection above, and reiterated herein for clarity’s sake:
“Although, Yamazaki et al. do not teach the thickness medium particle layers – and thus does not specifically teach that the plurality of voxel layers has a total thickness of 250-500 micrometers – such a limitation would at the very least be obvious over the teaching of Yamazaki et al. As Yamazaki et al.’s teaching of the other discrete layers are 10-200 micrometers or 1-20 micrometers, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the medium particle layers to have similar sizes – at the very least between 1-200 micrometers, due to the fact that this is the general sizing of the layers given within Yamazaki et al. (although not explicitly applied to the medium particle layers). Accordingly, at the very least, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect Yamazaki et al.’s 5-layered structure (set forth in para 0191) to have a thickness that overlaps the claimed range, as individual thickness of layers [414a], [414b], [414c] are 1-20 micrometers, 10-200 micrometers, and 1-20 micrometers, and the medium particle layer thicknesses would be expected to be at the very least between 1-200 micrometers. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was effectively filed (as applicable to AIA applications) to have the plurality of voxel layers with a total thickness of 250-500 micrometers in light of the general sizing of the layers given within Yamazaki et al. (although not explicitly applied to the medium particle layers; as Yamazaki et al. teach that layers [414a], [414b], [414c] are 1-20 micrometers, 10-200 micrometers, and 1-20 micrometers, respectively (para 0176, 0180, 0181), which would apply to a general size range applied to the medium particle size layers). Additionally, a change in size (regarding the thickness of the medium particle layers) to maintain performance is held to be obvious by the Office; see MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A) (overlapping ranges obvious; see MPEP §2144.05(I)).”
Thus, the argument is not persuasive, and the rejection of record is maintained.
Applicant argues that the dependent claims are distinct from the prior art of record for the same reason as the independent claim.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The rejection with respect to the independent claim has been maintained, and thus the rejections to the dependent claims are maintained as well.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 EUGENIA WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-4942. The examiner can normally be reached a flex schedule, generally Monday-Thursday 5:00 -7:30 (AM) and 9:45-3:15 ET.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
/EUGENIA WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
