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
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.
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.
Claims 1 and 3-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang et al. (US 20210381115 A1) in view of Trassl (US 20240021776 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Kang teaches a manufacturing method of a lithium battery negative electrode, comprising: providing an electroplating equipment (Figures 6A & 6B), wherein the electroplating equipment has a drying chamber (682), and, an electroplating wheel set (633); disposing a copper foil (611); transporting the copper foil (611) via the electroplating wheel set (611) to form a lithium metal layer on the copper foil, and the copper foil and the lithium metal layer form a copper-lithium composite metal layer (618), and a film sticking wheel set; and transporting the copper-lithium composite metal layer and attaching a protective film (685) to the copper-lithium composite metal layer via the film sticking wheel set (wheel above device (685)) (as illustrated) (para. [0044]).
Kang fails to teach wherein the drying chamber comprises an electroplating tank and fails to teach disposing a copper foil (611) in the drying chamber similar to the drying chamber (Figure 2, 110) instantly claimed. Trassl teaches the need to handle lithium in an inert gas atmosphere or a dry room due to it being unstable and highly reactive with a variety of substances such as air, oxygen, nitrogen and carbon dioxide (para. [0006]). Therefore, operating and containing the electroplating apparatus of Kang in an inert atmosphere within a room comprising chamber walls would read on the instantly recited limitations of “a drying chamber, wherein the drying chamber comprises an electroplating tank”.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for the invention to operate and contain the electroplating apparatus of Kang in a room comprising a dry room or an inert atmosphere, as taught by Trassl, in order to prevent lithium from reacting with substances such as air, oxygen, nitrogen and carbon dioxide.
With respect to claim 3, Kang teaches wherein the drying chamber further comprises a copper foil supply device (606) and a protective film (685) supply device, the copper foil supply device (606) is connected to the electroplating wheel set (633), and the protective film supply device (685) is connected to the film sticking wheel set (wheel above device (685)) (as illustrated) (para. [0044]).
With respect to claim 4, Kang teaches wherein a material of the protective film comprises a polyimide film, a polyester film (polymer), or a water and gas barrier film (para. [0044]).
With respect to claim 5, Kang teaches wherein the drying chamber further comprises a drying device (682), and the drying device is configured to remove an organic solvent on the copper-lithium composite metal layer.
With respect to claim 6, Kang teaches wherein the drying device comprises an air knife, a roller, an infrared heater, or a combination thereof (para. [0044]).
With respect to claim 8, Kang teaches wherein the protective film (685) at least completely covers a surface of the lithium metal layer (609) (para. [0044]).
With respect to claim 9, Kang teaches wherein the protective film (685) is directly in contact with the lithium metal layer (609) and the copper foil (as illustrated) (para. [0044]).
With respect to claim 10, Kang teaches wherein an electroplating solution in the electroplating tank comprises a lithium salt and an organic solvent (para. [0007]), and the lithium salt comprises lithium hexafluorophosphate, lithium hexafluoroborate, lithium bis(trifluoromethylsulfonate)amide, or a combination thereof, and the organic solvent comprises ethylene carbonate, propylene carbonate, dimethyl carbonate, glycol dimethyl ether, dimethyl ether, or a combination thereof (para. [0007]-[0009]).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang et al. (US 20210381115 A1) in view of Trassl (US 20240021776 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of KR 20130027484 A (to Ryoichi) – translation attached.
With respect to claim 2, Kang discloses all claim limitations as set forth above including wherein the electroplating tank (620) comprises a first electrode (631), and the electroplating wheel set (633) comprises: a first guide wheel (633) and a second guide wheel (633) disposed in the electroplating tank (620), wherein the first guide wheel (633) and the second guide wheel (633) are configured so that the copper foil (611) in the electroplating tank (620) is parallel to the first electrode (631) (as illustrated); and a first conductive wheel (690) and a second conductive wheel (690) disposed outside the electroplating tank (620). Kang teaches a second electrode inside the tank but fails to teach wherein the first conductive wheel (690) and the second conductive wheel (690) are used as second electrodes. Ryoichi teaches an electroplating tank (12) wherein a conductive wheel (7) is positioned outside of the tank (12) and wherein the conductive wheel (7) is used as a second electrode as an alternative to using a second electrode inside the tank.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for the invention to use the outside wheels in Kang as second electrodes, as taught by Ryoichi, as an alternative option to using a second electrode inside the tank.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAITY V CHANDLER whose telephone number is (571)272-8520. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00AM-6:00PM.
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, BASIA RIDLEY can be reached at 571-272-1453. 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.
/KAITY V CHANDLER/ 5/30/2026Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights