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 Arguments
The objection of claim 8 is withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed August 12th, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that Miyamae et al. explicitly teaches away from using spot/pillar shaped projections and explicitly discloses in Comparative Example 2 (Fig. 7) that spot shaped protrusions cause non-uniform spacing and localized pressure, resulting in severe deteriorated cycle characteristics and the Applicant lists paragraphs [0006], [0013]-[0016] and [0093] and “Table” to support this assertion (Remarks, pages 7-8). The Examiner respectfully contends that this does not appear to be explicitly disclosed in the cited paragraphs and it is unclear how it is disclosed explicitly or implicitly anywhere else in Miyamae et al. Per paragraph [0015], Figure 7 is a schematic cross-sectional view of a negative electrode according to an embodiment of the present disclosure and Comparative Example 2 pertains to a stripe-like protrusion (para. [0120]) and “spot-like” protrusions appear to be discussed only in paragraphs [0053] and [0054]. However, Miyamae et al. does explicitly state “The projection of each of the protrusions on the first surface is not limited. The projection of each protrusion may be, for example, line-like as described above or spot-like” (para. [0053]). Thus, rather than discouraging the use of spot-like protrusions, Miyamae et al. states they may be used. The Examiner respectfully contends that listing an advantage of a line-like projection (i.e., Miyamae et al., “may be line-like in order to make it easy to hold the separator and reduce the likelihood of the nonaqueous electrolyte being distributed unevenly”, para. [0053]) does not constitute teaching away. See In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553, 31 USPQ2d 1130, 1132 (Fed. Cir. 1994), In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201, 73 USPQ2d 1141, 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2004), UCB, Inc. v. Actavis Labs, UT, Inc., 65 F.4th 679, 692, 2023 USPQ2d 448 (Fed. Cir. 2023) and Schwendimann v. Neenah, Inc., 82 F.4th 1371, 1381, 2023 USPQ2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2023).
The Applicant argues that the claimed geometry results in more pillars to disperse restraining pressure which reduces cell expansion accompanying lithium metal deposition and as such, the resulting superior suppression of cell expansion constitutes unexpected results and the Applicant refers to paragraphs [0216]-[0226] of the published specification for support (Remarks, pages 8-9). The Examiner respectfully contends that the paragraphs (of US 20240170737A1) appear to compare two examples having an aspect ratio of about 0.27 and 0.45 to a porous body, a fabric and a mesh (see table of Fig. 10) and the specification does not appear to have a comparison to other aspect ratios outside the claimed range nor does data appear to be provided near a ratio of 0.1 or 1.0 and It is well-settled that, to establish unexpected results over a claimed range, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range. See In re Hill, 284 F.2d 955, 128 USPQ 197 (CCPA 1960). No such comparison is present in the instant specification, and thus this argument is not persuasive.
Also, it is noted that the published specification states “each of the plurality of electrically-insulating pillars may have an aspect ratio of 1 or less” (see para. [0009]) to prevent the pillar from coming off of the surface (see para. [0014]) and the aspect ratio is discussed in paragraphs [0009]-[0014] and [0075] without mentioning cell expansion or restraining pressure.
Applicant’s other arguments with respect to claims 1-2 and 4-9 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 6 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyamae et al. (US 20190372153) in view of Ito et al. (previously attached translation of JP 6921437B2) and Sugiyama et al. (US 2005074671) and/or Ito et al. (US 20090280407) hereinafter “S Ito et al.”
Regarding claim 1, Miyamae et al. discloses a lithium metal secondary battery shown below:
PNG
media_image1.png
837
874
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Miyamae et al. discloses the lithium metal secondary battery (Abstract) comprises: a positive electrode (positive electrode 11); a negative electrode (negative electrode 12); and an electrolyte (para. [0001]), wherein the negative electrode includes a negative electrode current collector (current collector 34 with conductive sheet 342, para. [0101]) and a protrusion layer (protrusions 341, Fig. 7),
the protrusion layer is placed on a surface of the negative electrode current collector (Fig. 1 and Fig. 7),
the protrusion layer includes a plurality of electrically-insulating protrusions (protrusions either have a layer of insulating material 341a as shown in Fig. 2 and Fig. 3 or “The protrusions may be composed entirely of an insulative material”, para. [0021]), each of the plurality of electrically-insulating protrusions extends in a direction heading from the surface of the negative electrode current collector toward the positive electrode (as indicated in Fig. 5 and shown above, the protrusions extend from both sides of the negative electrode current collector in the direction of the positive electrode), lithium ions are dissolved in the electrolyte (para. [0043]), a charging reaction of the negative electrode is a deposition reaction of a lithium metal (para. [0043]) occurring in a gap (space 35, Fig. 7, para. [0102]) between the electrically-insulating protrusions (Fig. 7), and a discharging reaction of the negative electrode is a dissolution reaction of the lithium metal (para. [0043]) occurring in the gap (para. [0102]).
Miyamae et al. does not expressly disclose that the protrusions are pillars.
However, Ito et al. discloses a lithium secondary battery (para. [0010]), having a positive electrode (para. [0009]), a negative electrode (para. [0009]), an electrolyte (para. [0008]) and Ito et al. discloses that protrusions (spacers, para. [0024]) are placed on the surface of a negative electrode current collector (current collector 110) and Ito et al. teaches the protrusions may have different shapes (Figs. 2-4) and may be pillars (Fig. 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Miyamae et al. wherein the protrusions are pillars.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to select a pillar shape and thereby produce the expected result of providing a projection with a height taller than the lithium metal layer and which provides adequate contact area with the current collector and reduces changes in volume of the electrode (Ito et al., pars. [0008]-[0009], Miyamae et al., para. [0019]). See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Miyamae et al. does not expressly disclose the aspect ratio.
However, Miyamae et al. states the size of the protrusions is not limited (para. [0058]) and Sugiyama et al. discloses pillars (dots 3) on an electrode current collector (collector 1, Fig. 2) and Sugiyama et al. teaches an aspect ratio of 0.1 or more and 1 or less in that Sugiyama et al. teaches an overlapping range (a height of 1-500 µm, such as 2-15 µm, para. [0024], and a diameter of less than 500 µm, para. [0029], such as using a 10 µm height and 40 µm diameter, para. [0029]).
Likewise, S Ito et al. discloses pillars (primary projections 22) on a current collector (current collector 20, Fig. 2A,B) and S Ito et al. also teaches an aspect ratio of 0.1 or more and 1 or less in that S Ito et al. teaches an overlapping range (height of 30 μm or less, para. [0111], diameter of 2 to 200 μm, para. [0112]) and reasonably discloses a ratio between 0.1 and 1 (Fig. 2B) as shown below (diameter is larger than height and reasonably falling within the claimed range):
PNG
media_image2.png
556
866
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Miyamae et al. wherein each of the plurality of electrically-insulating pillars has an aspect ratio of 0.1 or more and 1 or less, and the aspect ratio is determined by the following equation (F-1): AR =H/D (F-1), where AR represents the aspect ratio, H represents a height of the electrically-insulating pillar, and D represents a diameter of the electrically-insulating pillar.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to select known dimensions in order to produce the expected result of providing a projection with a height taller than the lithium metal layer and which provides adequate contact area with the current collector and reduces changes in volume of the electrode (Ito et al., pars. [0008]-[0009], Miyamae et al., para. [0019], S Ito et al., para. [0013], Sugiyama et al., Abstract).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the proportions taught by Sugiyama et al. or S Ito et al. at least overlap the instantly claimed proportions and therefore are considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, particularly in view of the fact that:
“The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.” See In re Peterson, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (CAFC 2003) and MPEP 2144.05.
Assuming, arguendo, that the aspect ratio is not disclosed by the combined teaching of the above-cited references, the examiner has found that the specification contains no disclosure of any unexpected results arising therefrom, and that as such the parameters are arbitrary and therefore obvious. Such unsupported limitations cannot be a basis for patentability, because where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen parameters or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen parameters/variables are critical. See In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990) and MPEP 2144.05(III).
With respect to the limitation of the aspect ratio, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have provided the apparatus of Miyamae et al. with the dimensions recited in the instant claims, which are now considered at most an optimum choice, lacking any disclosed criticality.
Regarding claim 6, Miyamae et al. discloses, wherein the pillar layer has a gap rate from 50 to 95%, and the gap rate is determined by the following equation (F-2):
PNG
media_image3.png
163
511
media_image3.png
Greyscale
where P0 represents the gap rate, S0 represents an area of a region on which the pillar layer is placed, within an area of the negative electrode current collector, and S1 represents a total area to which the plurality of electrically-insulating pillars are adhered in that Miyamae et al. teaches an overlapping range (0.2%-70%, para. [0035] corresponding to a gap rate of about 30-99%) or otherwise Ito et al. teaches an overlapping range (0.2%-10%, para. [0008], corresponding to a gap rate of about 90-99%).
Likewise, Sugiyama et al. also discloses a gap rate of 50-95% (para. [0030]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Miyamae et al. wherein the pillar layer has a gap rate of 50-95%.
The person of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to select a gap rate to provide sufficient releasing of stress by volume change due to intercalation/detachment of Li (Sugiyama et al., para. [0030]).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the proportions taught by the above-cited references at least overlap the instantly claimed proportions and therefore are considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, particularly in view of the fact that:
“The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.” See In re Peterson, supra and MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 8, Miyamae et al. discloses a method of charging and discharging (charge/discharge, para. [0021]) a lithium metal secondary battery (Abstract), the method comprising:
(a) charging a lithium metal secondary battery (Abstract); and (b) discharging the lithium metal secondary battery (para. [0023]), wherein the lithium metal secondary battery comprises a positive electrode (positive electrode 11), a negative electrode (negative electrode 12), and an electrolyte (para. [0001]), the negative electrode includes a negative electrode current collector (current collector 34 with conductive sheet 342, para. [0101]) and a protrusion layer (protrusion 341, Fig. 7), the protrusion layer is placed on a surface of the negative electrode current collector (Fig. 1 and Fig. 7), the protrusion layer includes a plurality of electrically-insulating protrusions (protrusions either have a layer of insulating material 341a as shown in Fig. 2 and Fig. 3 or “The protrusions may be composed entirely of an insulative material”, para. [0021]), each of the plurality of electrically-insulating protrusions extends in a direction heading from the surface of the negative electrode current collector toward the positive electrode (as indicated in Fig. 5 and shown above, the protrusions extend from both sides of the negative electrode current collector in the direction of the positive electrode), lithium ions are dissolved in the electrolyte (para. [0043]), the above (a) includes deposition of a lithium metal (para. [0043]) in a gap (space 35, Fig. 7, para. [0102]) between the electrically-insulating protrusions, and the above (b) includes dissolution of the lithium metal (para. [0043]) in the gap.
Miyamae et al. does not expressly disclose that the protrusions are pillars.
However, Ito et al. discloses a lithium secondary battery (para. [0010]), having a positive electrode (para. [0009]), a negative electrode (para. [0009]), an electrolyte (para. [0008]) and Ito et al. discloses that protrusions (spacers, para. [0024]) are placed on the surface of a negative electrode current collector (current collector 110) and Ito et al. teaches the protrusions may have different shapes (Figs. 2-4) and may be pillars (Fig. 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Miyamae et al. wherein the protrusions are pillars.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to select a pillar shape and thereby produce the expected result of providing a projection with a height taller than the lithium metal layer and which provides adequate contact area with the current collector and reduces changes in volume of the electrode (Ito et al., pars. [0008]-[0009], Miyamae et al., para. [0019]). See In re Dailey, supra.
Miyamae et al. does not expressly disclose the aspect ratio.
However, Miyamae et al. states the size of the protrusions is not limited (para. [0058]) and Sugiyama et al. discloses pillars (dots 3) on an electrode current collector (collector 1, Fig. 2) and Sugiyama et al. teaches an aspect ratio of 0.1 or more and 1 or less in that Sugiyama et al. teaches an overlapping range (a height of 1-500 µm, such as 2-15 µm, para. [0024], and a diameter of less than 500 µm, para. [0029], such as using a 10 µm height and 40 µm diameter, para. [0029]).
Likewise, S Ito et al. discloses pillars (primary projections 22) on a current collector (current collector 20, Fig. 2A,B) and S Ito et al. also teaches an aspect ratio of 0.1 or more and 1 or less in that S Ito et al. teaches an overlapping range (height of 30 μm or less, para. [0111], diameter of 2 to 200 μm, para. [0112]) and reasonably discloses a ratio between 0.1 and 1 (Fig. 2B) as shown above for claim 1 (diameter is larger than height and reasonably falling within the claimed range).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Miyamae et al. wherein each of the plurality of electrically-insulating pillars has an aspect ratio of 0.1 or more and 1 or less, and the aspect ratio is determined by the following equation (F-1): AR =H/D (F-1), where AR represents the aspect ratio, H represents a height of the electrically-insulating pillar, and D represents a diameter of the electrically-insulating pillar.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to select known dimensions in order to produce the expected result of providing a projection with a height taller than the lithium metal layer and which provides adequate contact area with the current collector and reduces changes in volume of the electrode (Ito et al., pars. [0008]-[0009], Miyamae et al., para. [0019], S Ito et al., para. [0013], Sugiyama et al., Abstract).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the proportions taught by Sugiyama et al. or S Ito et al. at least overlap the instantly claimed proportions and therefore are considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, particularly in view of the fact that:
“The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.” See In re Peterson, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (CAFC 2003) and MPEP 2144.05.
Assuming, arguendo, that the aspect ratio not disclosed by the combined teaching of the above-cited references, the examiner has found that the specification contains no disclosure of any unexpected results arising therefrom, and that as such the parameters are arbitrary and therefore obvious. Such unsupported limitations cannot be a basis for patentability, because where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen parameters or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen parameters/variables are critical. See In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990) and MPEP 2144.05(III).
With respect to the limitation of the aspect ratio, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have provided the apparatus of Miyamae et al. with the dimensions recited in the instant claims, which are now considered at most an optimum choice, lacking any disclosed criticality.
Regarding claim 9, the combined teaching of the above-cited references for claim 8 disclose wherein the lithium metal becomes deposited so as to extend in mesh form in a plan view in that the lithium will be deposited on conductive surfaces and the pillars made of insulative material will have little or no lithium (Miyamae et al., pars. [0020]-[0021]) such that the deposition pattern of lithium in the plan view will have a mesh pattern where the lithium extends toward the positive electrode.
Claims 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyamae et al. (US 20190372153) in view of Ito et al. (previously attached translation of JP 6921437B2) and Sugiyama et al. (US 2005074671) and/or Ito et al. (US 20090280407) hereinafter “S Ito et al.” as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Nakai et al. (US 20050142447).
Regarding claim 2, Miyamae et al. does not expressly disclose resist material.
However, Nakai et al. discloses a lithium secondary battery with a negative electrode (Abstract) having non-storing protrusions (protrusions 4) on the current collector (current collector 2, Fig. 12A) and Nakai et al. further teaches that the protrusions are formed of a resist material (photosensitive resin, pars. [0042] and [0093], organic compound for photolithography, para. [0044]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Miyamae et al. wherein each of the plurality of electrically-insulating pillars includes a resist material.
The person of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to select a known material based on its suitability for its intended use. See MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding claim 4, Miyamae et al. discloses an overlapping height for the protrusions (para. [0038]), but does not expressly disclose a diameter for a pillar, but Ito et al. also discloses the protrusions may have a height which overlaps with the claimed height (50-300 µm, para. [0008], which overlaps the claimed 1-100 µm) and Ito et al. teaches that the diameter is 30 µm for one example (para. [0061]), but is otherwise silent to a diameter range.
However, Nakai et al. discloses a lithium secondary battery with a negative electrode (Abstract) having non-storing protrusions (protrusions 4) on the current collector (current collector 2, Fig. 12A) and Nakai et al. further teaches that the protrusions may have a diameter of 200 µm (para. [0090]).
Likewise, Sugiyama et al. discloses overlapping ranges for the height and diameter (pars. [0024] and [0029]) as does S Ito et al. (pars. [0018] and [0112]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Miyamae et al. wherein each of the plurality of electrically insulating pillars have a diameter from 100-300 µm and a height from 1-100 µm.
The person of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to select a height and diameter to provide adequate space in the electrode, provide a height taller than the lithium metal deposits and a diameter to provide for adequate coverage area on the current collector (Ito et al., pars. [0008]-[0009]).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the proportions taught by the above-cited references overlap the instantly claimed proportions and therefore are considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, particularly in view of the fact that:
“The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.” See In re Peterson, supra.
Assuming, arguendo, that the height and diameter are not disclosed by the combined teaching of the above-cited references, the examiner has found that the specification contains no disclosure of any unexpected results arising therefrom, and that as such the parameters are arbitrary and therefore obvious. Such unsupported limitations cannot be a basis for patentability, because where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen parameters or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen parameters/variables are critical. See In re Woodruff, supra.
With respect to the limitation of the pillar height and diameter, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have provided the apparatus of Miyamae et al. with the dimensions recited in the instant claims, which are now considered at most an optimum choice, lacking any disclosed criticality.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyamae et al. (US 20190372153) in view of Ito et al. (previously attached translation of JP 6921437B2) and Sugiyama et al. (US 2005074671) and/or Ito et al. (US 20090280407) hereinafter “S Ito et al.” as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Teruhisa et al. (Applicant provided JP 2020017362).
Regarding claim 5, Miyamae et al. discloses the electrolyte includes a solvent and a solute where the solute includes an imide salt (para. [0083)] and the solvent comprises a halogenated ether (para. [0085]), but does not explicitly disclose the solvent includes a hydrofluoroether.
However, Teruhisa et al. discloses a lithium secondary battery wherein the electrolyte includes a solvent and a solute (imide salt, para. [0019]) where the solvent includes hydrofluoroether (Abstract, para. [0024]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Miyamae et al. wherein the electrolyte includes a solvent and a solute, the solvent includes a hydrofluoroether, and the solute includes an imide salt.
The person of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to use a hydrofluoroether to improve battery cycle characteristics (Teruhisa et al., para. [0024]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyamae et al. (US 20190372153) in view of Ito et al. (previously attached translation of JP 6921437B2) and Sugiyama et al. (US 2005074671) and/or Ito et al. (US 20090280407) hereinafter “S Ito et al.” as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Nakai et al. (US 20050142447) and Yamazaki et al. (US 20100209784).
Regarding claim 7, the above-cited references for claim 1 disclose a method of producing a negative electrode for the lithium metal secondary battery according to claim 1 (see comments for claim 1 above), the method comprising: (a) preparing the negative electrode current collector (Miyamae et al., such as a current collector formed of a conductive material for lithium deposition, pars. [0020]-[0021]).
The above-cited references for claim 7 do not disclose forming a resist layer by placing a resist material on the surface.
However, Nakai et al. discloses a lithium secondary battery with a negative electrode (Abstract) having non-storing protrusions (protrusions 4) on the current collector (current collector 2, Fig. 12A) and Nakai et al. further teaches that the protrusions are formed of a resist material (photosensitive resin, para. [0093], organic compound for photolithography, para. [0044]) on a surface of the current collector (para. [0093]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Miyamae et al. wherein the method includes forming a resist layer by placing a resist material on the surface of the negative electrode current collector.
The person of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to form the pillars using a known material based on its suitability for its intended use. See MPEP 2144.07.
The above-cited references do not expressly disclose forming the pillar layer by selectively removing a part of the resist layer.
However, Yamazaki et al. discloses forming protrusions (projections 125) for a negative electrode by selectively removing material (etching, pars [0013]-[0014]).
Further, Sugiyama et al. discloses forming structures (dots 3) on an electrode current collector (collector 1, Fig. 2) using a resist layer where structures are formed by removing resist material (“non-exposed portion is dissolved and removed by etching processing”, para. [0041]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Miyamae et al. wherein the method includes forming the pillar layer by selectively removing a part of the resist layer.
The person of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to use known processes for forming structures on current collectors.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Sumihara et al. (US 20090202908) discloses pillars on a current collector.
Sumihara et al. (US 20100167111) discloses pillars on a current collector.
Kashiwagi et al. (US 20100129711) discloses pillars on a 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 PATRICK M MCCARTY whose telephone number is (571)272-4398. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9:00 AM - 5:00 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, Claire Wang can be reached at 571-270-1051. 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.
/P.M.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1774
/CLAIRE X WANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1774
