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/Restrictions
The restriction requirement set forth in the communication mailed on 29 July 2026 erroneously grouped product-by-process Claim 12 with Group I (Claims 1-5). Because Claim 12 depends directly from process Claim 6, it incorporates all the limitations of non-elected Group II (Claims 6-11) pursuant to 35 USC 112(d). The restriction requirement is hereby corrected to place Claim 12 in Group II (Claims 6-12, drawn to the preparation processs and product made thereby). In view of Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (the negative electrode product of Claims 1-5), Claims 6-12 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a non-elected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed 20 August 2026.
Status of Claims
Claims 6-12 are withdrawn. Claims 1-5, as filed 28 March 2024, are examined herein. No new matter is included.
Claim Objection
Claim 2 includes the limitation “wherein the copper mesh has a pore area of 1×10–4 mm2 to 4×10–4 mm2.” Applicant is suggested to amend claim 2 to include “wherein the copper mesh has an average pore area of …”, for the purpose of clarity. Claim 3 includes the limitation “wherein a single copper wire in the copper mesh has a diameter of 1 mm to 2 mm”. If Applicant intends to claim that the average diameter of all of the copper wires in the copper mesh is 1mm to 2 mm, then Applicant is suggested to similarly amend claim 3. For the purpose of examination, the broadest reasonable interpretation of each claim is determined to include the average.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (CN110729529A, with paragraph numbering to the provided English translation.)
Regarding claim 1, Zhang teaches a lithium metal negative electrode ([0011], [0013], [0061], FIG. 4, composite negative electrode plate 200), comprising:
a substrate; ([0012],[0062] The porous negative electrode current collector layer 203 is a porous conductive metal plate, metal mesh)
lithium metal; ([0068] metallic lithium);
wherein: the substrate comprises a copper mesh; ([0067] copper [0070] metal mesh)
the copper mesh is plated with the lithium metal; ([0068] “metallic lithium is laminated onto the surface of the conductive metal plate by lamination or electroplating”).
Zhang does not explicitly teach within a single isolated embodiment compositing the lithium-plated copper mesh with a distinct fiber layer. However, Zhang teaches that the porous negative electrode current collector layer 203 can alternatively be formed of a conductive cloth comprising a mixture of metal wires and organic fiber filaments ([0071]). Furthermore, Zhang explicitly teaches constructing composite negative electrode sheets by laminating and compositing multiple porous current collector layers and functional active material/conductive layers together ([0072]; FIGS. 4,6). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to composite the lithium-plated copper mesh of Zhang with a fiber layer as a predictable combination of known prior art elements according to established methods to yield expected results (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 2, Zhang teaches all of the limitations as set forth above, and Zhang further teaches ([0073]) wherein the copper mesh has a pore size of 0.001 to 500 µm. (Creates a pore area of 7.8x10-13 mm2 to 0.19 mm2, encompassing the claimed range.)
At [0006] Zang contemplates the need for conductivity in electrode materials. Examiner believes that both lithium-ion conductivity (needed for lithium ions to access all parts of the negative electrode) and electron conductivity (needed for power output) are required. At [0007] Zhang contemplates the need for high power output and large capacity energy storage. Zhang does not explicitly teach a pore area of 1×10–4 mm2 to 4×10–4 mm2.
A person of ordinary skill would understand that as the pore in the copper mesh is made larger, the electrode will have less electrical conductivity, but if pores are made smaller, the electrode will have less ion diffusivity. Therefore, the person of ordinary skill would be motivated to optimize the pore size of the copper mesh to balance lithium-ion diffusivity with electrical conductivity, in order to obtain high power output and large capacity energy storage, with a reasonable expectation of selecting a value within the claimed range.
Regarding claims 3 and 5, Zhang teaches all of the limitations as set forth above, and Zhang further teaches ([0023]) the composite negative electrode thickness of 50-1200 µm. (1200 µm is equivalent to 1.2 mm). Examiner notes that if the electrode is made with a single layer of metal mesh and the coating layer is less than 100 µm on each side, then the copper wire of Zhang falls within the claimed range of 1 mm to 2 mm. However, Zhang does not explicitly teach a copper wire having a diameter of 1 mm to 2 mm.
At [0006] Zang contemplates the need for conductivity in electrode materials. Examiner believes that both lithium-ion conductivity (needed for lithium ions to access all parts of the negative electrode) and electron conductivity (needed for power output) are required. At [0007] Zhang contemplates the need for high power output and large capacity energy storage. A person of ordinary skill would understand that as the copper wire in the copper mesh is made larger, the electrode will have more electrical conductivity and improved mechanical properties, but less volume to intercalate lithium ions. At the wire is made smaller, the electrode will have more ion diffusivity and more room to store active material and intercalate lithium ions, but less electrical conductivity and lower mechanical properties. Therefore, the person of ordinary skill would be motivated to optimize the wire diameter of the copper mesh to balance lithium-ion diffusivity and storage capacity with electrical conductivity and mechanical properties, in order to obtain high power output and large capacity energy storage, with a reasonable expectation of selecting a value within the claimed range.
Because the positive porous current collector may be a conductive cloth made of a mixture of metal wires and organic fiber filaments, the selection of a fiber layer having a thickness of 1 mm to 2 mm (claim 5) is rendered obvious for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 4, Zhang teaches all of the limitations as set forth above. Zhang at FIG. 6 shows negative electrode sheet 200 comprising 2 instances of current collector layer 203 and 3 layers (202, 205) of electrode active material. At [0111]. Zhang contemplates “The composite positive electrode of this invention has at least two types of electrode material layers. … the composite positive electrode has at least two different energy storage mechanisms—a battery-type energy storage mechanism, a capacitor-type energy storage mechanism, or a battery-capacitor hybrid energy storage mechanism. … The battery cell can have the power and capacity characteristics of at least two material layers. Moreover, the internal resistance of the battery cell is not significantly related to the number of electrode material layers. This allows the thickness of the composite electrode sheet of the battery cell to be flexibly designed without increasing the polarization internal resistance of the battery. Therefore, the battery cell of the present invention has both high power density and high energy density.” FIG. 2 and [0090] shows tab 204 and terminal 502 connecting negative electrode layers together.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select 3 layers of Zhang’s current collector in order to balance the power and capacity characteristics of the least three material layers, with a reasonable expectation of successfully achieving both high power density and high energy density. The person of ordinary skill is further motivated to select the outermost layers comprising copper foil, because metal foil and metal mesh are taught interchangeably at [0067], therefore an inner copper mesh with an outer copper foil represents one of a finite number of identified, predictable potential solutions, thus rendering obvious wherein the substrate further comprises copper foils, the copper foils being connected to two sides of the copper mesh.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CLAIRE A RUTISER whose telephone number is (571)272-1969. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM M-F.
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, Jonathan Leong can be reached at 571-270-1292. 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.
CLAIRE A. RUTISER
Examiner
Art Unit 1751
/C.A.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/Haroon S. Sheikh/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1751
Prosecution Insights