DETAILED ACTION
This is the final office action for 18/523,574, filed 11/29/2023, which is a continuation of PCT/CN2022/105666, filed 7/14/2022, which claims priority to Chinese application CN202121615791.0, filed 7/15/2021.
Claims 1-12 are pending, and are considered herein.
In light of the claim amendments filed 8/24/2026, the objection to Claim 6 is withdrawn, the
rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are amended, the rejections under Rao and Sohn are withdrawn, and the rejections under Jiang are modified as necessitated by amendments to the claims.
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 .
Additional Prior Art
The Examiner wishes to apprise the Applicant of the following reference, which is not currently applied in a rejection.
U.S. Patent 6,181,545: This reference teaches a pressed electrode for a battery, wherein the active material is disposed on both sides of a mesh current collector and extends through the pores of the mesh current collector (Fig. 2, Example 1, columns 5-6).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 7 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 7 recites “the plurality of the metal wires” in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation, because there is no prior recitation of “metal wires” in Claim 1. The Examiner recommends amending Claim 7 to depend from Claim 4.
Claim 12 recites “an oxide (e.g. TiO2, Cr3O8, V2O5, or MnO2).” This limitation is indefinite, because it is unclear whether the exemplified compounds are required or optional.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 7, and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jiang, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/0040902 A1), as evidenced by Adachi, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2004/0009402 A1).
In reference to Claim 1, Jiang teaches a dry battery electrode plate (Fig. 4, paragraphs [0032]-[0033], with details shown in Fig. 3, paragraphs [0025]-[0030]).
The electrode plate of Jiang comprises a metal current collector 208, the metal current collector being provided with pores (Fig. 3).
The electrode plate of Jiang comprise a self-supporting electrode film 202 (paragraphs [0032]-[0033]).
The self-supporting electrode film comprising a first electrode film 202a and a second electrode film 202b, the first electrode film 202a being arranged on one side of the metal current collector 208, and the second electrode film 202b being arranged on the other side of the metal current collector facing away from the first electrode film (Fig. 4, paragraphs [0032]-[0033]).
Jiang teaches that the first electrode film 202a and the second electrode film 202b are configured to be press-fit connected by an external force (paragraph [0034]).
Jiang further teaches that the first electrode film 202a and the second electrode film 202b are attached to the metal current collector 208 and the first electrode film and the second electrode film being connected to each other at positions corresponding to the pores (paragraph [0032]).
Jiang teaches that the first electrode film 202a and the second electrode film 202b each includes at least an electrode material (i.e. silver vanadium oxide and graphite, paragraph [0033]), a conductive agent (i.e. carbon black), and a binder (i.e. PTFE, paragraph [0033]).
Evidentiary reference Adachi recognizes graphite as a negative electrode active material (paragraph [0056]). Therefore, the electrode material includes a positive electrode material (i.e. silver vanadium oxide) and a negative electrode material (i.e. graphite).
Jiang teaches that layers 202a and 202b are pressed into the mesh and contact each other through openings in the mesh (paragraph [0034]).
This disclosure teaches the limitations of Claim 1, wherein the first electrode film and second electrode film are formed by a dry process.
The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus or product. The determination of patentability is based upon the apparatus structure itself. The patentability of a product or apparatus does not depend on its method of production or formation. 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. See In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP § 2113).
In reference to Claim 2, Jiang teaches that a carbon layer is arranged on a surface of the metal current collector (paragraph [0031]).
In reference to Claim 3, Jiang teaches that a lithium metal layer 204 is arranged on (i.e. indirectly on) a surface of the metal current collector 208 (Fig. 2, paragraph [0024]).
In reference to Claim 4, the O.E.D. defines “wire” as “metal formed into a long, slender, flexible rod or strand.”
Therefore, it is the Examiner’s position that Jiang teaches that the metal current collector comprises a plurality of metal wires (i.e. metal strands), the plurality of metal wires are arranged in an array, and adjacent metal wires are spaced apart from each other (Fig. 3).
In reference to Claim 5, the O.E.D. defines “wire” as “metal formed into a long, slender, flexible rod or strand.”
Therefore, it is the Examiner’s position that Jiang teaches that the metal wires are arranged to intersect to form a network structure, and gaps are formed between the plurality of the metal wires to constitute the pores, and the pores are polygonal (Fig. 3).
In reference to Claim 7, Fig. 3 teaches that the plurality of the metal wires are arranged in parallel (i.e. some of the metal wires are arranged in parallel to each other), and the pore is formed between any two adjacent metal wires.
In reference to Claim 10, Jiang teaches that the metal current collector and the self-supporting electrode film are pressed together (paragraph [0034]).
This disclosure teaches the limitations of Claim 10, wherein “the metal current collector and the self-supporting electrode film are configured to be fixedly connected by hot rolling,” i.e. structurally capable of being connected together by hot rolling.
The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus or product. The determination of patentability is based upon the apparatus structure itself. The patentability of a product or apparatus does not depend on its method of production or formation. 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. See In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP § 2113).
In reference to Claim 11, Jiang teaches a battery, comprising the dry battery electrode plate according to claim 1 (Fig. 2, paragraphs [0023]-[0024]).
In reference to Claim 12, Jiang teaches that the positive electrode material is an oxide (i.e. silver vanadium oxide, paragraph [0033]) and the negative electrode material is a carbon material (i.e. graphite) (paragraph [0033]).
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 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang, et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/0040902 A1), as evidenced by Adachi, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2004/0009402 A1), and in view of Sohn, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0020954 A1).
In reference to Claim 6, Jiang teaches that the pores have several sides (Fig. 3).
Jiang does not teach that a length of the several sides is 5-500 microns.
To solve the same problem of providing a mesh current collector for a positive electrode for a lithium battery, wherein the mesh electrode has pores with several sides (Sohn, Fig. 12), Sohn teaches that suitable pores sizes for such electrodes include a range of 1/32-0.005 inches (i.e. 127-794 microns, Table 1).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have formed the mesh electrode of Jiang to have a pore size in the range of 1/32-0.005 inches, based on Sohn’s disclosure that this is a suitable pore size range for such electrodes.
Forming the mesh electrode of Jiang to have a pore size in the range of 1/32-0.005 inches teaches that a length range of the several sides is 5 μm to 500 μm.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 I. in the instant case, the claimed range of 5 μm to 500 μm overlaps with the taught range of 127 μm to 794 μm.
In reference to Claim 8, Jiang does not teach that a spacing between adjacent metal wires is 5-500 microns.
To solve the same problem of providing a mesh current collector for a positive electrode for a lithium battery, (Sohn, Fig. 12), Sohn teaches that suitable pores sizes/wire spacings for such electrodes include a range of 1/32-0.005 inches (i.e. 127-794 microns, Table 1).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have formed the mesh electrode of Jiang to have a wire spacing in the range of 1/32-0.005 inches, based on Sohn’s disclosure that this is a suitable pore size/wire spacing range for such electrodes.
Forming the mesh electrode of Jiang to have a wire spacing in the range of 1/32-0.005 inches teaches that a spacing between adjacent metal wires is 5 μm to 500 μm.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 I. in the instant case, the claimed range of 5 μm to 500 μm overlaps with the taught range of 127 μm to 794 μm.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang, et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/0040902 A1), as evidenced by Adachi, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2004/0009402 A1).
In reference to Claim 9, Jiang teaches that the thickness of the mesh structure of his current collector is 0.001-0.005 inches, i.e. 25-127 microns (paragraph [0031]).
This disclosure teaches that a diameter (i.e. thickness) of the metal wire is 1 μm to 100 μm.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 I. in the instant case, the claimed range of 1 μm to 100 μm overlaps with the taught range of 25-127 μm.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not fully persuasive.
The arguments regarding the objection the objection to Claim 6 are persuasive; this objection is withdrawn.
The arguments regarding the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are largely persuasive; the rejections have been amended in light of the amendments. It is noted that the rejection of Claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is maintained. This claim has not been amended in the manner described in the arguments.
The arguments regarding the rejections under Rao and Sohn are persuasive; these rejections are withdrawn.
The arguments regarding the rejections under Jiang are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that Jiang does not properly teach the amended limitations of Claim 1.
This argument is not persuasive. The Examiner respectfully maintains the position that Jiang teaches the amended limitations of Claim 1, as follows:
Jiang teaches that the first electrode film 202a and the second electrode film 202b each includes at least an electrode material (i.e. silver vanadium oxide and graphite (paragraph [0033])), a conductive agent (i.e. carbon black), and a binder (i.e. PTFE) (paragraph [0033]).
Evidentiary reference Adachi recognizes graphite as a negative electrode active material (paragraph [0056]). Therefore, the electrode material includes a positive electrode material (i.e. silver vanadium oxide) and a negative electrode material (i.e. graphite).
Jiang teaches that layers 202a and 202b are pressed into the mesh and contact each other through openings in the mesh (paragraph [0034]).
This disclosure teaches the limitations of Claim 1, wherein the first electrode film and second electrode film are formed by a dry process.
The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus or product. The determination of patentability is based upon the apparatus structure itself. The patentability of a product or apparatus does not depend on its method of production or formation. 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. See In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP § 2113).
Conclusion
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 SADIE WHITE whose telephone number is (571)272-3245. The examiner can normally be reached 6am-2:30pm 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, Allison Bourke, can be reached at 303-297-4684. 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.
/SADIE WHITE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1721
Prosecution Insights