DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. 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 . Claim (s) 1-5 and 8 -22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiang (U.S. Patent Publication 2003/0082446) in view of Lahiri (U.S. Patent 9166230) . Regarding claims 1 , 2, 9, 10 and 16 -18 , Chiang discloses a lithium ion battery comprising: a reticulated anode 12 and a reticulated cathode 14, each having protrusions 28 and complementary indentations 26 that are separated from each other by an electrolyte matrix 16 (separator), wherein the structures are interdigitated so that the cathode protrusions extend into spaces between the anode protrusions (Paragraphs 0046, 0052 and Figs. 3B, 3C). Chiang also discloses that the anode can comprise a carbon material (Paragraph 0070). As to claim 3, Chiang teaches that the electrodes can be regularly spaced (Paragraph 0054, Figs. 3B and 3C). Regarding claim 4, Chiang shows in Figs. 3B and 3C that the anode and cathode are about the same size, which would mean that the spacing between the anode structures would be equal to the structures themselves, making the volume percent of the spacing 50%. As to claim 5, Chiang shows in Figs. 3B and 3C that the electrodes are monolithic structures. Regarding claim 8, Chiang teaches that different types of carbon can be used for an anode (Paragraph 0044, 0070). Regarding claims 11 and 19, Chiang shows in Fig. 3C that the anode 12 comprises a base at the bottom with a plurality of parallel sheets attached to the base and extending perpendicularly to the base with spaces in between the s hee ts when the cathode protrusions extend into. Chiang fails to disclose that the anode comprises silicon, that the anode comprises a plurality of sheets joined to form an accordion structure, a honeycomb structure, a sheet joined to itself to form a ribbon candy structure, and a first and a second ribbon candy structure attached to one another. Regarding claims 12-14 and 20-22, Lahiri discloses a three-dimensional assembly of alternating cathode and anodes protruding from the same backplane, wherein the electrodes can have the shape of pillars, plates, circles, waves, a honeycomb structure and spirals (Col. 3, Lines 28-44 and Figs. 2A-2D). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that round, straight and combinations of shapes can be used for the electrodes and that accordion and ribbon candy structures could easily be created. As to claim 15, it is clear from Fig. 2D that adjacent wave-type anode structures can be joined together. Regarding claims 1 and 16, Lahiri teaches that the anodes can comprise graphite and silicon (Col. 4, Lines 61-63). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention that the reticulated electrodes of Chiang could be formed into different shapes, such as honeycomb, accordion and ribbon candy structures, because Lahiri teaches that interdigitated electrodes can be made into round, straight and a combination of the two to form many different types of structures. It also would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the anode of Chiang could include silicon in addition to carbon because Lahiri teaches that common anodes include a combination of a carbon material and silicon. Claim(s) 6 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiang (U.S. Patent Publication 2003/0082446) in view of Lahiri (U.S. Patent 9166230) as applied to claim s 1-5 and 8-22 above, and further in view of KR Publication 2000-0016884 . The teachings of Chiang and Lahiri have been discussed in paragraph 3 above. Chiang and Lahiri fail to disclose that a conductive tab is coupled to the anode structure, and that a metal sheet covers the anode and conductive tab, wherein the metal sheet comprises a mesh structure with voids. KR Publication 2000-0016884 discloses a nickel-hydrogen battery comprising a negative electrode with a nickel tab 3 connected to a terminal and attached to a negative electrode plate 5, wherein the tab is attached to the negative electrode plate via a buffer member 13, which is a nickel mesh (Abstract, Paragraphs 0015, 0016). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention that the anode of Chiang could include a tab because KR Publication 2000-0016884 teaches that tabs are commonly used to allow for energy to pass through the battery to devices using the battery. It also would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the tab and the anode could be coated in a metal mesh because KR Publication 2000-0016884 teaches that this reduces the internal resistance of the battery. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT BRITTANY L RAYMOND whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-6545 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Friday 9 am-6 pm . Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-3433 . 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. FILLIN "Examiner Stamp" \* MERGEFORMAT BRITTANY L. RAYMOND Primary Examiner Art Unit 1722 /BRITTANY L RAYMOND/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722