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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/18/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are currently pending;
Claims 13, 15, and 20 are currently withdrawn;
Claim 1-2 are currently amended.
Status of Objections and Rejections Pending Since the Office Action of 12/19/2025
The claim objections are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment;
The art rejections are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment and
arguments.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 03/18/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-12, 14, and 16-19 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of 12/19/2025 has been withdrawn.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-2 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2 of U.S. Patent No. 12,642,735 in view of Horie et al. (JP-2022002171-A), hereinafter Horie.
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,642,735 claims an electric power storage device, comprising: at least one electric carbon fiber component; the at least one electric carbon fiber component, wherein a portion of the electric carbon fiber component is configured as a structural carbon fiber battery, the structural carbon fiber battery including one or more energy storage devices, each of the one or more energy storage devices having: at least one anode core of a continuous carbon fiber, wherein the continuous carbon fiber is a plurality of carbon filaments bundled together, an electrolyte arranged on the at least one continuous carbon fiber core, wherein the electrolyte includes an electrolyte precursor coating solution containing a lithium salt, a polymer or monomer which solvates lithium ion, a gel or elastomer matrix oligomer, a UV sensitive cross-linking agent, and a plasticizer, and a cathode layer arranged to the at least one continuous carbon fiber core on the electrolyte, wherein the cathode layer is particles of a cathode active material embedded in a matrix of a conductive polymer; and at least one interface terminal electrically connected to the structural carbon fiber battery, the at least one interface terminal for outputting power from the structural carbon fiber battery.
The claims of U.S. Patent No. 12,642,735 fails to claim a protective cover configured to protect from impact including the at least one electric carbon fiber component. Instead, claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,642,735 claims motion action portion that includes a frame constructed of carbon fiber composite. However, it would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art that the carbon fiber component/battery of U.S. Patent No. 12,642,735 could be utilized in a protective cover configured to protect from impact such as in Horie. Horie teaches a protective cover configured to protect from impact including at least one electric carbon fiber component (fig. 9; [0123]-[0124] helmet which inherently protects from impact with a hemispherical battery structure built into the helmet shell; includes carbon fiber in the battery with the anode active material in [0069] and in the conductive filler of the current collectors in [0042] and [0067]). Therefore, it would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art that the carbon fiber composite configured as a structural carbon fiber battery including one or more energy storage devices of U.S. Patent No. 12,642,735 could be utilized in a protective cover configured to protect from impact such as in Horie. Doing so is a simple substitution with predictable results. Further, batteries including carbon fiber components ensure a high degree of flexibility allowing for application in curved surfaces such as protective covers/helmets (Horie [0005]).
Regarding claim 2, claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 12,642,735 claims an electric power storage device, comprising: at least one electric carbon fiber component; the at least one electric carbon fiber component, wherein a portion of the electric carbon fiber component is configured as a structural carbon fiber battery, the structural carbon fiber battery including one or more energy storage devices, wherein each of the one or more energy storage devices having a laminate structure with: at least one anode core of a plurality of continuous carbon fibers, wherein each continuous carbon fiber is a plurality of carbon filaments bundled together, an electrolyte coating arranged on the plurality of continuous carbon fibers, wherein the electrolyte includes an electrolyte precursor coating solution containing a lithium salt, a polymer or monomer which solvates lithium ion, a gel or elastomer matrix oligomer, a UV sensitive cross-linking agent, and a plasticizer, a cathode layer arranged to the at least one anode core of the plurality of continuous carbon fibers on the electrolyte coating, and at least one interface terminal electrically connected to the structural carbon fiber battery, the at least one interface terminal for outputting power from the structural carbon fiber battery.
The claims of U.S. Patent No. 12,642,735 fails to claim a protective cover configured to protect from impact including the at least one electric carbon fiber component. Instead, claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,642,735 claims motion action portion that includes a frame constructed of carbon fiber composite. However, it would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art that the battery of U.S. Patent No. 12,642,735 could be utilized in a protective cover configured to protect from impact such as in Horie. Horie teaches a protective cover configured to protect from impact including at least one electric carbon fiber component (fig. 9; [0123]-[0124] helmet which inherently protects from impact with a hemispherical battery structure built into the helmet shell; includes carbon fiber in the battery with the anode active material in [0069] and in the conductive filler of the current collectors in [0042] and [0067]). Therefore, it would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art that the carbon fiber composite configured as a structural carbon fiber battery including one or more energy storage devices of U.S. Patent No. 12,642,735 could be utilized in a protective cover configured to protect from impact such as in Horie. Doing so is a simple substitution with predictable results. Further, batteries including carbon fiber components ensure a high degree of flexibility allowing for application in curved surfaces such as protective covers/helmets (Horie [0005]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-12, 14, and 16-19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MADISON L KYLE whose telephone number is (571)272-0164. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9 AM - 5 PM 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, Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at (571) 272-3433. 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.
/M.L.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1722
/ANCA EOFF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722
Prosecution Insights