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 Status
Claims 1, 14, and 19 have been amended; support is found in paragraph 5-6, 9, 32, 36-37,39, original claims 12 and 18 and Figures 7A-7B.
Claims 10-12 and 18 have been cancelled.
Claims 20-22 have been added. No new matter has been added.
Claims 1-9, 13-17, and 19-22 are currently pending and have been examined on the merits in this office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1-3, 7-9 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adair et al. (US 2019/0207205 A1) in view of Sakaguchi (JP 2004228059 A).
Regarding claim 1, Adair discloses a method for manufacturing an anode electrode for a battery cell, comprising:
Providing a current collector (Figure 6; [0051] negative electrode current collector formed of a metal mesh);
Forming a layer on the current collector to create a coated current collector (Figure 6; [0051] coating a negative electrode current collector to have a thin metal chalcogenide layer 232),
Wherein the layer includes one of a metal and a metal oxide that is not miscible in molten lithium ([0005-0006] metal chalcogenide layer may be a metal oxide such as copper oxide); and
Immersing the coated current collector in molten lithium to coat the coated current collector (Figure 6; [0051-0052] coating a negative electrode current collector to have a thin metal chalcogenide layer 232, and may be placed in contact with molten lithium to coat the metal chalcogenide layer and current collector layer).
Adair discloses forming a metal layer on the current collector, however, is silent with immersing the current collector in one of a molten metal and a molten metal oxide for form the layer on the current collector.
Sakaguchi discloses a negative electrode for a secondary battery and manufacturing method and analogous with the instant invention as being within the same field of endeavor of battery cells. Sakaguchi discloses the use of a molten metal for creating an electrode ([0027]). Sakaguchi further discloses wherein an coating the surface can be done to apply a metal coating by a plating bath in which the electrode is placed into the plating bath to be covered by the metal ([0028]) and Sakaguchi discloses this method as an alternative for coating the electrode.
Therefore, it would have been obvious in view of a skilled artisan to incorporate the plating bath of Sakaguchi such that the current collector is immersed in a plating bath made of a molten metal or a molten metal oxide to form a coating layer onto the current collector as taught by Sakaguchi. The resulting modification would render obvious all the claim limitations of claim 1 as the plating bath can be used to coat the molten metal onto the current collector.
Regarding claim 2, modified Adair discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Adair further discloses wherein the current collector comprises a mesh current collector ([0051] Figure 6; metal mesh current collector made of copper; [0006]).
Regarding claim 3, modified Adair discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Adair further discloses wherein the current collector is made of copper, stainless steel, nickel and alloys thereof ([0051] Figure 6; metal mesh current collector made of copper; [0006], [0036] other collector materials can be nickel, iron, stainless steel and alloys thereof).
Regarding claims 7-8, modified Adair discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Adair further discloses wherein the one of the metal and the metal oxide is selected from the group consisting of Zinc, nickel, bismuth, tin and germanium and oxides thereof ([0038] metal chalcogenide layer can comprise a transition metal chalcogenide such as an oxide, sulfide and/or selenide of copper, nickel, iron and/or titanium). The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07).
Regarding claim 9, modified Adair discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Adair further discloses wherein the layer is electrochemically deposited on the current collector ([0045] metal chalcogenide layer can be coated or deposited on the current collector; [0051-0052]).
Regarding claim 13, Adair discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Adair further discloses wherein the layer has a thickness in a range from 5 nm to 200 nm ([0009] 1-500 nm). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claims 14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adair et al. (US 2019/0207205 A1) in view of Sakaguchi (JP 2004228059 A) and Xiao et al. (US 2015/0280228 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Adair discloses a method for manufacturing an anode electrode, comprising:
Providing a mesh current collector made of a material selected from a group consisting of copper, stainless steel, and nickel (Figure 6; [0051] negative electrode current collector formed of a metal mesh; [0051] Figure 6; metal mesh current collector made of copper; [0006], [0036] other collector materials can be nickel, iron, stainless steel and alloys thereof);
Forming a layer on the current collector to create a coated current collector (Figure 6; [0051] coating a negative electrode current collector to have a thin metal chalcogenide layer 232),
Wherein the layer includes one of a metal and a metal oxide that is selected from a group consisting of Nickel, zinc, bismuth, tin, germanium and oxides thereof ([0038] metal chalcogenide layer can comprise a transition metal chalcogenide such as an oxide, sulfide and/or selenide of copper, nickel, iron and/or titanium) and has a thickness in a range from 5 nm to 200 nm ([0009] 1-500 nm); and
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07).
Adair is silent with respect to wherein the layer is laser deposited onto the mesh current collector.
Xiao discloses a lithium compensation layer for a fuel cell or battery and is analogous with the instant invention as being within the same field of endeavor of batteries. Xiao discloses wherein a coating layer can be deposited onto the current collector to coat the current collector such as by physical vapor deposition, pulsed laser deposition or other suitable approaches ([0044-0045]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious in view of a skilled artisan to incorporate the teaching of Xiao such that pulsed laser deposition is used to coat the metal chalcogenide layer onto the current collector that reads as the layer that is coated onto the mesh current collector as a known method for depositing layers onto current collectors as taught by Xiao.
Modified Adair discloses forming a metal layer on the current collector, however, is silent with immersing the current collector in one of a molten metal and a molten metal oxide for form an additional layer on the coated current collector.
Sakaguchi discloses a negative electrode for a secondary battery and manufacturing method and analogous with the instant invention as being within the same field of endeavor of battery cells. Sakaguchi discloses the use of a molten metal for creating an electrode ([0027]). Sakaguchi further discloses wherein an coating the surface can be done to apply a metal coating by a plating bath in which the electrode is placed into the plating bath to be covered by the metal ([0028]) and Sakaguchi discloses this method as an alternative for coating the electrode.
Therefore, it would have been obvious in view of a skilled artisan to incorporate the plating bath of Sakaguchi such that the current collector is immersed in a plating bath made of a molten metal or a molten metal oxide to form a coating layer onto the coated current collector as taught by Sakaguchi. The resulting modification would render obvious all the limitations of the coated mesh current collector being coated as the plating bath can be used to coat the molten metal onto the coated current collector. The resulting modifications would render obvious all the claim limitations of claim 14.
Regarding claim 20, modified Adair discloses all the claim limitations of claim 14. Xiao further discloses wherein the layer is pulsed laser deposited onto the mesh current collector (Xiao [0044-0045], see rejection of claim 14).
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adair et al. (US 2019/0207205 A1) in view of Sakaguchi (JP 2004228059 A) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Mortensen (US 2017/0244106 A1).
Regarding claim 4, modified Adair discloses all the claim limitations of claim 2. Adair discloses a mesh current collector, however, is silent with respect to the collector including a plurality of first and second wires overlapping each other to form the current collector.
Mortensen discloses a current collector for a battery and is analogous with the instant invention as being within the same field of endeavor of battery cells. Mortensen discloses a wire mesh current collector made by interweaving a plurality of wires (Abstract; [0005] and Figure 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious in view of a skilled artisan to modify the mesh current collector of Adair such that the mesh current collector is made by interweaving a plurality of first and second wires to form the mesh current collector taught by Mortensen. Thus the mesh current collector through the modification can be made by interweaving a first and second wire and thus would read on the claim limitations of claim 4.
Regarding claim 5, modified Adair discloses all the claim limitations of claims 4. Adair further discloses wherein the plurality of first wires and the plurality of second wires have a thickness in a range from 4-100 micrometers thick ([0009] negative electrode current collector may have a thickness between 8-150 micrometers and thus through the combination the plurality of first and second wires would have a thickness between 4-100 micrometers as the wires make up the current collector having the thickness between 4-100 micrometers). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adair et al. (US 2019/0207205 A1) in view of Sakaguchi (JP 2004228059 A) and Xiao et al. (US 2015/0280228 A1) as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Mortensen (US 2017/0244106 A1).
Regarding claim 15, modified Adair discloses all the claim limitations of claim 14. Adair discloses a mesh current collector, however, is silent with respect to the collector including a plurality of first and second wires overlapping each other to form the current collector.
Mortensen discloses a current collector for a battery and is analogous with the instant invention as being within the same field of endeavor of battery cells. Mortensen discloses a wire mesh current collector made by interweaving a plurality of wires (Abstract; [0005] and Figure 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious in view of a skilled artisan to modify the mesh current collector of Adair such that the mesh current collector is made by interweaving a plurality of first and second wires to form the mesh current collector taught by Mortensen. Thus the mesh current collector through the modification can be made by interweaving a first and second wire and thus would read on the claim limitations of claim 4.
Regarding claim 16, modified Adair discloses all the claim limitations of claims 15. Adair further discloses wherein the plurality of first wires and the plurality of second wires have a thickness in a range from 4-100 micrometers thick ([0009] negative electrode current collector may have a thickness between 8-150 micrometers and thus through the combination the plurality of first and second wires would have a thickness between 4-100 micrometers as the wires make up the current collector having the thickness between 4-100 micrometers). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adair et al. (US 2019/0207205 A1) in view of Sakaguchi (JP 2004228059 A), and Mortensen (US 2017/0244106 A1) as applied to claim 4, and further in view of Goebel (US 4,565,752 A).
Regarding claim 6, modified Adair teaches all the claim limitations of claim 4. Mortensen further teaches wherein gaps are provided between the plurality of wires, however, is silent with respect to wherein the current collector includes 100 to 300 openings per square inch between the plurality of first wires and the plurality of second wires.
Goebel discloses an electrochemical cell having a wound electrode structure and is analogous with the instant invention as being within the same field of endeavor of batteries. Goebel discloses a current collector having a mesh structure formed by weaving wires to form a lattice that has 125 openings per square inch to allow for a specific porosity to be formed in the electrode (Col. 2 line 30- Col. 3 line 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious in view of a skilled artisan to modify the weaving of the wires to form a current collector having a plurality of openings such as between 100 to 300 openings per square inch to obtain a specific porosity to allow ions to flow through the current collector. The resulting modification would render obvious all the claim limitations of claim 6 as a skilled artisan can adjust the number of openings per square inch to obtain a desired porosity for the current collector.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adair et al. (US 2019/0207205 A1) in view of Sakaguchi (JP 2004228059 A), Xiao et al. (US 2015/0280228 A1) and Mortensen (US 2017/0244106 A1) as applied to claim 15, and further in view of Goebel (US 4,565,752 A).
Regarding claim 17, modified Adair teaches all the claim limitations of claim 15. Mortensen further teaches wherein gaps are provided between the plurality of wires, however, is silent with respect to wherein the current collector includes 100 to 300 openings per square inch between the plurality of first wires and the plurality of second wires.
Goebel discloses an electrochemical cell having a wound electrode structure and is analogous with the instant invention as being within the same field of endeavor of batteries. Goebel discloses a current collector having a mesh structure formed by weaving wires to form a lattice that has 125 openings per square inch to allow for a specific porosity to be formed in the electrode (Col. 2 line 30- Col. 3 line 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious in view of a skilled artisan to modify the weaving of the wires to form a current collector having a plurality of openings such as between 100 to 300 openings per square inch to obtain a specific porosity to allow ions to flow through the current collector. The resulting modification would render obvious all the claim limitations of claim 17 as a skilled artisan can adjust the number of openings per square inch to obtain a desired porosity for the current collector.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adair et al. (US 2019/0207205 A1) in view of Sakai et al. (US 2012/0040246 A1).
Regarding claim 19, Adair discloses an anode electrode for a battery cell, comprising:
A mesh current collector made of a material selected from a group consisting of copper, stainless steel, and nickel (Figure 6; [0051] negative electrode current collector formed of a metal mesh; [0051] Figure 6; metal mesh current collector made of copper; [0006], [0036] other collector materials can be nickel, iron, stainless steel and alloys thereof);
A layer arranged on the mesh current collector (Figure 6; [0051] coating a negative electrode current collector to have a thin metal chalcogenide layer 232),
Wherein the layer includes one of metal and metal oxide that is selected from a group consisting of nickel, zinc, bismuth, tin, germanium and oxides thereof ([0038] metal chalcogenide layer may comprise an oxide of copper, nickel, Fe or titanium) and has a thickness in a range from 5 nm to 200 nm ([0038] thickness of the metal chalcogenide layer may have a thickness in the range of 1 nm to 500 nm); and
A lithium layer formed from molten lithium coating the layer (Figure 6; [0051-0052] coating a negative electrode current collector to have a thin metal chalcogenide layer 232, and may be placed in contact with molten lithium to coat the metal chalcogenide layer and current collector layer). Examiner notes that the phrase “formed from molten lithium coating the layer” is deemed to be a product by process limitation and thus is not given patentable weight for a product claim as long as the structure of the product is present. In the instant case, a lithium layer is formed and thus reads on the claimed limitation. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07).
Adair is silent with respect to the layer being made of bismuth, tin or germanium as Adair discloses a Nickel , copper, iron or titanium layer.
Sakai discloses a fiber electrode for secondary batteries and is analogous with the instant invention as being within the same field of endeavor of battery cells. Sakai further discloses wherein a negative electrode can be coated with a coating layer formed of at least Fe, Mo, Co, Ni, Cr, Cu, In, Sb and Bi on the current collector (Abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious in view of a skilled artisan to use a Bismuth coating layer as the layer that coats the current collector as taught by Sakai as Sakai discloses wherein Nickel and Bismuth are equivalent coating materials and thus would have been obvious to use a bismuth coating material instead of the nickel coating material. Thus all the claim limitations of claim 19 are rendered obvious through the modification.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21 and 22 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claim 21 contain the limitations “connecting the current collector to a negative terminal of a power supply when the current collector is immersed in one of the molten metal and the molten metal oxide; and connecting one of the molten metal and the molten metal oxide to a positive terminal of the power supply”. The prior art fails to teach nor render obvious this limitation in which a connection is made while immersed in the molten metal/metal oxide material. The prior art used in the updated rejection fails to teach nor render obvious the limitation as claimed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the amended claims overcome the rejection of record. The rejection has been updated taking into account applicant’s remarks and amendments and thus the arguments are moot in view of the updated rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Johnson (US 2018/0083318 A1)-discloses a reinforce battery package with sealed anode chamber wherein a coating layer can be formed through laser deposition onto the current collector.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Adam J Francis whose telephone number is (571)272-1021. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 7 am-4 pm EST.
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, Matthew Martin can be reached at (571)270-7871. 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.
/ADAM J FRANCIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Prosecution Insights