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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I; Species 1, Subspecies A; Species 2, Subspecies C in the reply filed on June 18, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 16-20 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on June 18, 2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed October 28, 2024 has been placed in the application file and the information referred to therein has been considered as to the merits.
Drawings
The drawings received January 24, 2024 are acceptable.
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.
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) 1-15 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) comprises a plurality of cathode voxel layers (layers [414a], [414b]), 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) (note: no dilution seen in figs. 1A and 5A, thus reading on the elected species), and
wherein the plurality of cathode voxel layers has a total thickness of 20 micrometers to 500 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 range, thus renders it obvious; see MPEP §2144.05(I)).
As to claim 2, Yamazaki et al. teach the plurality of cathode voxel layers has a total thickness of 30 micrometers to 250 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 range).
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).
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 0192). 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).
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) comprises a plurality of cathode voxel layers (layers [414a], [414b]), 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) (note: no dilution seen in figs. 1A and 5A, thus reading on the elected species), and
wherein the plurality of cathode voxel layers has a total thickness of 20 micrometers to 500 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 range, thus rendering it obvious).
As to claim 10, Yamazaki et al. teach the plurality of cathode voxel layers has a total thickness of 30 micrometers to 250 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 range, thus rendering it 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).
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 0192). 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).
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).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2017/0058389 (Gayden et al.) teaches the voxel layers seen in fig. 2C.
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
Prosecution Insights