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 .
Election/Restriction
1. Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-8, drawn to an electrode, classified in H01M10/0525.
II. Claims 9-15, drawn to a method of forming an electrode, classified in H01M4/139.
III. Claims 16-20, drawn to an electrode slurry, classified in H01M4/621.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions I and II are related as process of making and product made. The inventions are distinct if either or both of the following can be shown: (1) that the process as claimed can be used to make another and materially different product or (2) that the product as claimed can be made by another and materially different process (MPEP § 806.05(f)). In the instant case the product as claimed could be made by another and materially different process such as cutting microchannels in the electrode.
Inventions I and III are directed to related products. The related inventions are distinct if: (1) the inventions as claimed are either not capable of use together or can have a materially different design, mode of operation, function, or effect; (2) the inventions do not overlap in scope, i.e., are mutually exclusive; and (3) the inventions as claimed are not obvious variants. See MPEP § 806.05(j). In the instant case, the inventions as claimed have a materially different design as an electrode is not an electrode slurry and therefore they have materially different designs and modes of operation. Furthermore, the inventions as claimed do not encompass overlapping subject matter and there is nothing of record to show them to be obvious variants.
Inventions II and III are related as combination and subcombination. Inventions in this relationship are distinct if it can be shown that (1) the combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed for patentability, and (2) that the subcombination has utility by itself or in other combinations (MPEP § 806.05(c)). In the instant case, the combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed because the method could use a different electrode slurry using different components. The subcombination has separate utility such as for use to make different electrode or in a different manufacturing method of making an electrode such as a spray coating method.
The examiner has required restriction between combination and subcombination inventions. Where applicant elects a subcombination, and claims thereto are subsequently found allowable, any claim(s) depending from or otherwise requiring all the limitations of the allowable subcombination will be examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. See MPEP § 821.04(a). Applicant is advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
Group I would not be searched in the same way as Group II or III and would require a search in at least H01M10/0525 as well as a unique keyword search. Group II would not be searched the same as Group I or III and would instead require a search in at least H01M4/139 as well as a unique keyword search. Group III would not be searched the same way as Group I and II and would require a search in at least H01M4/621 as well as a unique keyword search.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
During a telephone conversation with Ruijie Zhang on 09/10/2026 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I, claims 1-8. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 9-20 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined.
In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 05/01/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
3. Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, the recitation “the electrode material containing microchannels and depth of microchannels is less than thickness of the electrode material” in claim 1, lines 3-5 should read “the electrode material containing microchannels and a depth of the microchannels is less than a thickness of the electrode material”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
4. 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.
5. Claim(s) 1, 4, and 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sun et al. (Pub. No. CN 115207268 A).
Regarding claim 1, Sun teaches an electrode (thick electrode, see [0013]), comprising: a current collector (electrode current collector, see [0013]); and an electrode material (semi-solid coating, see [0013]) coupled to the current collector (electrode current collector, see [0013] where the slurry is applied and dried onto the current collector), the electrode material (semi-solid coating, see [0013]) containing microchannels (grooves, see [0016], see [0017] they are applied via micron-level grooving) and depth of microchannels (10-100% of thickness of semi-solid coating, see [0032], see [0072] provides an example of the trench depth of 80% of the thickness) is less than thickness (100-1000 microns, see [0021], see [0072] provides an example of the trench depth of 80% of the thickness) of the electrode material (semi-solid coating, see [0013]).
Regarding claim 4, Sun teaches wherein diameter (width of each slot, see [0030]) of the microchannels is from about 50 μm to about 150 μm (50-200 microns, see [0030] which overlaps the range, and further see [0072] provides a specific example where the groove width is 90 microns which falls within the claimed range).
Regarding claim 6, Sun teaches wherein the electrode (thick electrode, see [0013]) has a specific discharge capacity (discharge specific capacity, see Table 1) of at least about 90 mAh/g at a current rate of about 3 C (greater than 103 mAh/g, see Table 1 where all specific Examples have a discharge capacity of greater than 103 mAh/g at 3C at 25oC have a specific discharge capacity of 103 mAh/g or greater, and at 0oC, see Example 1, 5, 7, 2, 9, 3, and 4 all include a specific discharge capacity of greater than 90 mAh/g).
Regarding claim 7, Sun teaches wherein the electrode (thick electrode, see [0013]) has an areal mass loading of at least about 10 mg/cm.sup.2 (100-1000 g/m.sup.2, see [0020], which is equal to 10 mg/cm.sup.2 to 100 mg/cm.sup.2).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
7. Claim(s) 3, 5 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun et al. (Pub. No. CN 115207268 A).
Regarding claim 3, Sun fails to explicitly teach wherein the depth of the microchannels is from about 50 μm to about 150 μm.
However, Sun does teach wherein the thickness of the electrode material (semi-solid coating, see [0013]) is 200 microns (200 microns, see [0021]), and wherein the depth of the microchannels (grooves, see [0016], see [0017] they are applied via micron-level grooving) is from 50 μm to about 150 μm (20 microns to 200 microns, see [0032] where the depth of the grooves is 10-100% of the thickness, therefore 0.1*200 = 20 microns, and 1*200 = 200 microns).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Sun such that the thickness of the semi-solid coating is 200 microns thick as Sun teaches it is known in the art to do so (see [0021] of Sun), and further it would have been obvious to modify the depth of the grooves to stay within the claimed range of 50 to 150 microns as Sun teaches an overlapping range of depth and a prima facie case of obviousness exists “in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” (MPEP 2144.05.I), further Sun teaches groove depth is a result effective variable of thickness of the semi-solid coating (see [0032] where the depth of the groove is 10-100% of thickness of the electrode). Further Sun teaches that modifications can be made (see [00115] of Sun).
Regarding claim 5, Sun fails to teach explicitly wherein diameter of the microchannels is about 120 μm and depth of the microchannels is about 71 μm.
However, Sun does teach wherein the diameter (width of each slot, see [0030]) of the microchannels is about 120 μm (50-200 microns, see [0030]) and wherein the thickness of the electrode material (semi-solid coating, see [0013]) is 200 microns (200 microns, see [0021]), and wherein the depth of the microchannels (grooves, see [0016], see [0017] they are applied via micron-level grooving) is about 71 μm (20 microns to 200 microns, see [0032] where the depth of the grooves is 10-100% of the thickness, therefore 0.1*200 = 20 microns, and 1*200 = 200 microns).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Sun such that the width of the microchannels is about 120 microns as Sun teaches an overlapping range and a prima facie case of obviousness exists “in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” (MPEP 2144.05.I). Further, Sun teaches width of the grooves is a result effective variable of improvement of porosity, liquid phase transport of electrolyte, retention rate of high-rate discharge capacity (see [00110] of Sun). Further Sun teaches that modifications can be made (see [00115] of Sun).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Sun such that the thickness of the semi-solid coating is 200 microns thick as Sun teaches it is known in the art to do so (see [0021] of Sun), and further it would have been obvious to modify the depth of the grooves to be about 71 microns as Sun teaches an overlapping range of depth and a prima facie case of obviousness exists “in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” (MPEP 2144.05.I), further Sun teaches groove depth is a result effective variable of thickness of the semi-solid coating (see [0032] where the depth of the groove is 10-100% of thickness of the electrode). Further Sun teaches that modifications can be made (see [00115] of Sun). Further it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is a relative recitation of relative dimensions, the claimed device is not considered patentable over the prior art.
Regarding claim 8, Sun fails to explicitly teach wherein the thickness of the electrode material is equal to or less than about 250 μm.
However, Sun does teach wherein the thickness of the electrode material (semi-solid coating, see [0013]) is equal to or less than about 250 μm (200 microns, see [0021]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Sun such that the thickness of the semi-solid coating is 200 microns thick as Sun teaches it is known in the art to do so (see [0021] of Sun). Further Sun teaches that modifications can be made (see [00115] of Sun).
8. Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun et al. (Pub. No. CN 115207268 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Oura et al. (Pub. No. US 20220344659 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Sun fails to teach wherein the electrode material has a hydrophilic surface with a water contact angle equal to or less than about 60°.
However, Sun does teach wherein the electrode (thick electrode, see [0013]) is a negative electrode (negative thick electrodes, see [0022]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Sun such that the thick electrode is a negative thick electrode as Sun teaches it is known in the art to do so (see [0022] of Sun). Further Sun teaches that modifications can be made (see [00115] of Sun).
Oura teaches wherein the electrode material (second layer 46, Fig. 2, see [0041]) has a hydrophilic surface (see [0041] where the water contact angle is 40o or less, therefore it is considered hydrophilic) with a water contact angle equal to or less than about 60° (40oC or less, see [0041]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Sun such that the surface of the semi-solid coating has a water contact angle of 40o or less as taught by Oura to facilitate infiltration of the electrolyte solution into the inside of the negative electrode and improve charge/discharge cycle characteristic (see [0041] of Oura). Further Sun teaches that modifications can be made (see [00115] of Sun).
Conclusion
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOUGLAS CALEB MARROQUIN whose telephone number is (571)272-0166. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30-5:00 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, Tiffany Legette can be reached at 571-270-7078. 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.
/DOUGLAS C MARROQUIN/Examiner, Art Unit 1723 /TIFFANY LEGETTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights