DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claims 1-18 and 20-21 are pending.
Claims 1-7 and 21 are withdrawn from consideration.
Claim 19 is cancelled.
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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II, claims 8-18 and 20 in the reply filed on 29 June 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1-7 and 21 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: the hyphens (x4) may more appropriately be deleted. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: the term “deposition” (line 10) may more appropriately be written as “electrodeposition”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: the term “deposited material” may be more appropriately stated as “electrodeposited material”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “and this solution” should more appropriately written as “and the solution” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: the term “the deposition” may be more appropriately written as “the electrodeposition”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 8-18 and 20 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.
Regarding claim 8, claim 8 recites the limitation "the porous material" in lines 17-18. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The paragraph initially starts with “wherein the isolated porous material…”. The claim also includes a porous wall structure and a porous surface layer. It is unclear what difference, if any, there is between the porous material, isolated porous material and/or the additional porous elements of the claim. Th claim ends by stating “wherein the porous material is an isolated porous material”. It is unclear if this is restating the isolated porous material at the beginning of the paragraph or some other scenario.
Regarding claim 10, claim 10 recites the limitation "the surface layer" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear which layer or surface is being referred to.
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.
Claim(s) 8-15, 17-18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (“3-D network pore structures in copper foams by electrodeposition and hydrogen bubble templating mechanism”, ECS, 162, 8, D365-D370, 2015) in view of Jeon et al. (US 2022/0052347).
Regarding claims 8 and 20, Zhang discloses a method of forming copper foams with various pore structures (abstract) (= method of manufacturing an isolated porous material), comprising the steps of:
Providing a copper sheet (D366, left column, 1st paragraph) (= providing a substrate);
Performing deposition at 2 A/cm2 to realize multilayered porous structures of copper using a hydrogen bubbling template technique (D366, left column, 1st paragraph) (= forming a porous surface layer on the substrate by electrodeposition using dynamic bubble templating).
Regarding the pore sizing, Zhang discloses that a layered configuration can be formed including smaller pores at the lower layer and larger pores at the upper layer (= wherein the diameter of the primary pores gradually increases across its thickness dimension while their number decreases in its thickness dimension). Zhang discloses pore structural features including average sizes of the pores at the top layer on the samples obtained at different deposition times (Results and Discussion, page D366, left column, “Effects of deposition time on hydrogen bubble evolution”). Zhang discloses average pore size including 32.37, 40.33, 52.88, 74.22 microns (= primary pores). As depicted in Figure 1 of Zhang, the foam structure also includes smaller pores within the copper structure with an estimated sizing based on Figure 1 of less than 10 microns (= secondary pores).
Zhang differs from the instant claim in that Zhang fails to disclose applying an electrically conductive intermediate layer on at lest part of a surface of the substrate.
In the same or similar field of forming a 3D porous network (abstract), Jeon discloses a method comprising a substrate (100) with a multilayered structure including a Ti layer and an Au layer as the conductive layer [0035]. Jeon discloses forming a 3D porous current collector (140) including copper and utilizing a technique such as electroplating [0057]. Jeon discloses etching the Ti layer after formation of the 3D porous current collector thereby dissolving the Ti layer so that the substrate (100) may be separated from the 3D porous current collector (140) [0068].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce a method comprising applying an electrically conductive intermediate layer because Jeon discloses forming a Ti layer (or Au layer) on a surface of a substrate, subsequently forming a 3D porous network and thereafter dissolving by etching the Ti layer to release the 3D porous network from the substrate and to produce a free-standing 3D porous network. Regarding the claimed “isolated” the instant claim states that the isolated porous material is obtained by the removal of the intermediate layer. Since Jeon removes the intermediate Ti layer, the teachings of Zhang in view of Jeon disclose the porous material as isolated. Regarding claim 20, the method of Zhang in view of Jeon discloses the claimed method therefore the porous material is obtained.
Regarding claim 9, claim 9 appears to additionally add that a porous wall structure is present that is defining and separating primary pores. The 3D foam copper structure of Zhang provides a wall that defines and separates the primary pores (Figure 1).
Regarding claim 10, it is unclear what comparison is being made since it is unclear which surface or layer is being referred to. Jeon discloses the layer as being any of Ti or Au for example [0035]. Zhang discloses the porous network comprising copper.
Regarding claim 11, Jeon discloses removal by etching and dissolving [0068].
Regarding claim 12, Zhang discloses electrodepositing copper (abstract).
Regarding claim 13, Zhang discloses the substrate comprising copper and the foam comprising copper (Experimental) (= same material).
Regarding claim 14, Zhang discloses a solution comprising copper sulfate and sulfuric acid (D366).
Regarding claim 15, Zhang discloses the electrodepositing at 2 A/cm2 (D366). Zhang does not disclose the electrodepositing in voltages, however, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the same or similar predictable result of electrodepositing copper using a voltage greater than 4.
Regarding claim 17, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect that the method of Zhang in view of Jeon would not result in the change to the pore distribution or sizing because Jeon discloses selectively removing Ti layer in the presence of copper for example.
Regarding claim 18, Jeon discloses washing and drying the porous network [0093]. One of ordinary skill would recognize that a post-treatment process would be carried out such as washing with water. The claimed “low surface tension liquid” is relative and does not specify a specific material.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (“3-D network pore structures in copper foams by electrodeposition and hydrogen bubble templating mechanism”, ECS, 162, 8, D365-D370, 2015), in view of Jeon et al. (US 2022/0052347) and in further view of Osowiecki et al. (WO 2018/172894).
Regarding claim 16, Zhang discloses the porous surface layer comprising copper (abstract) and the solution including copper sulfate and sulfuric acid (Experimental). Jeon discloses the intermediate layer comprising Ti (e.g. 100 nm [0089]) or Au [0068].
Zhang in view of Jeon fails to disclose the intermediate layer comprising zinc.
Osowiecki discloses an electroforming [0002] method comprising forming a first primer layer (12) as a sacrificial layer (15) and wherein the layer may be formed of any materials such as titanium, zinc or aluminum [0130]. Osowiecki discloses the layer as a release layer (Figures 3-4) [0026], [0037], [0057].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce a method comprising zinc as the intermediate layer because Osowiecki discloses utilizing zinc as a release layer. One of ordinary skill in the art would expect the same or similar result of separating an electroplating structure from a substrate by simply substituting the titanium layer of Jeon with the zinc layer of Osowiecki. Osowiecki discloses in the same field of endeavor that zinc and titanium are art recognized equivalents. Regarding the claimed thickness, the thickness of Jeon is close enough to the claimed range that one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the same or similar predictable result.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Karroubi et al. “Highly porous scaffolds for Ru-based microsupercapactior electrodes using hydrogen bubble templated electrodeposition”, Energy Storage Materials, 47, 2022, 134-140.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEFANIE S WITTENBERG whose telephone number is (571)270-7594. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:00 am -4:00 pm 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, Luan Van can be reached at (571) 272-8521. 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.
/Stefanie S Wittenberg/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1795
Prosecution Insights