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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 May 12th, 2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 8-17 are pending.
Claims 8-15 are amended.
Claims 16 and 17 are added.
Claim 7 is cancelled.
Status of Amendment
The amendment filed on May 12th, 2026 has been fully considered but does not place the application in condition for allowance.
Status of Rejections and Objections Pending the Office Action of May 12th, 2026
The 103 rejections of claims 8-14 over Zaderko (US 2017/0260052 A1) in view of Burd (US 3,675,619 A), Munshi (US 6,664,006 B1), Cho (US 2002/0182488 A1), and/or Zaderko-NPL (Fluoroalkylated nanoporous carbons: Testing as a supercapacitor electrode) are withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s amendment.
The 103 rejection of claim 7 is moot because claim 7 is cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed May 12th, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant continues to argue that the vertical orientation of the tubular reactor is not an obvious design choice over the horizontal orientation of the prior art. The previous Office Action of record addresses those arguments; they will not be repeated here.
The arguments regarding the usage of Burd (US 3675619) as a secondary reference are moot because the grounds of rejection set forth below do not include Burd.
Claim Objections
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 17 has a period after “CHF3”. The period should not be there. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Regarding claim 8, it states that the gas flow is oriented vertically in the vertically oriented tube reactor. Claim 16, the claim upon which claim 8 depends, requires that the gas flow “floods in the inner volume…in a vertical direction” which is an alternate manner of stating the same phenomenon. Therefore, claim 8 fails to further limit the subject matter of claim 16.
Regarding claim 15, it states that the battery material has a composition described by a formula including lithium or sodium. Claim 16, the claim upon which claim 15 depends, requires that the claimed battery material comprises lithium or sodium. Therefore, claim 15 fails to further limit the subject matter of claim 16.
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 14 and 17 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claims 14 and 17 recites the broad recitation hydrofluorocarbons (HCFs), and the claim also recites "C which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation because CHF3 is a specific example of hydrofluorocarbons. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
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.
Claims 8-11 and 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zaderko (US 2017/0260052 A1) and further in view of Cao (US 2019/0214641 A1) and Munshi (US 6,664,006 B1) with evidence provided by Cho (US 2002/0182488 A1).
Regarding claims 8-10, and 13-17, Zaderko teaches a method of preparing a nanometer-sized surface fluorinated battery material comprised of inserting carbon nanotubes [0021] into a tubular reactor [0013]. Those nanotubes were then “heated in purged Ar gas at the flow rate of 50 ml/min to 450 ℃” [0019]; argon is an inert gas (as required by claims 16 and 17). Zaderko does not explicitly teach a first gas supply line, but it is necessary to have a gas line to create an inert gas atmosphere in a tubular flow reactor (as required by claims 16 and 17). Zaderko continues to teach treating the battery material with a mixture of a fluorinating agent and argon with a “flow rate of Freon gas of 35 ml/min” (as required by claims 10, 16, and 17) at a temperature of 550 ℃ for a duration of 2 hours (as required by claims 10, 16, and 17; [0019]) This Freon gas could be Freon R-114, a hydrochlorofluorocarbon [0021] as required by claims 14 and 17.
Zaderko does not teach that the tubular reactor needs to be vertically oriented (as required by claims 8, 11, 16, and 17) but absent objective evidence to the contrary, the orientation of the tubular reactor is an obvious design choice. See 2144.04 (VI) (C).
Zaderko is silent on the explicit creation or existence of non-atmospheric conditions at the time of inserting the battery material into the reactor onto the support frit, but their process heats the material in purged argon gas [0019], which represents “an absence of atmospheric conditions”. The broadest reasonable interpretation of Zaderko’s disclosure includes an interpretation of which the purged argon is present, i.e., an absence of atmospheric conditions, at the time of the battery material’s insertion.
Zaderko teaches the usage of a “quartz cup” that is filled with activated carbon but is silent on its porosity. Cao is analogous art to Zaderko because both discuss batteries (Zaderko, [0001]; Cao, title). Cao teaches the usage of a quartz cup with a porous frit to hold substrate particles as gas flows through a vessel [0090], as required by claims 16 and 17. Cao’s cup is suitable for Zaderko’s intended use. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to use Cao’s cup in Zaderko’s method because Cao’s cup is suitable to be used. See MPEP 2144.07.
Zaderko and Cao teach the claimed method of preparing a fluorinated material that “can be used for the production of…electrodes including that for lithium battery or fuel cells” [0001], including anodes, but do not teach the usage of metallic lithium. Munshi is analogous art to Zaderko because both teach the usage of chemical coatings. Munshi teaches the usage of an “ultra-thin lithium anode” (as required by claim 13) comprised of a lithium metal layer (as required by claim 9) that may be 0.1 µm and a metallized polymer substrate. The metallized polymer substrate may be comprised of a 0.5 µm thick polymer layer and a 0.01 µm metallization layer (col 13, lines 55-59). The total thickness of such a battery material would be 0.61 µm thick, which corresponds to 610 nanometers and satisfies the nanometer size requirements of claims 13, 16, and 17.
Regarding claim 11, Zaderko teaches that the tubular reactor is cooled down with argon gas to room temperature [0019].
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zaderko, Cao, Munshi, and Cho as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Zaderko (Fluoroalkylated nanoporous carbons: Testing as a supercapacitor electrode). Zaderko’s article will be henceforth referred to as Zaderko-NPL. Zaderko modified by Cao, Munshi, and Cho teach the claimed method of preparing the fluorinated material of claim 16, but do not teach the usage of a furnace. Zaderko-NPL is analogous art to Zaderko because both teach chemical deposition methods. Zaderko-NPL teaches the usage of mounting a tubular reactor “in a horizontal tube furnace” (page 883, section 2.2). The claimed furnace is a vertical tube furnace, but absent objective evidence to the contrary, changing the orientation of the furnace is an obvious design choice. See MPEP 2144.04 (VI) (C). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to place the tubular reactor of Zaderko and Burd in the tube furnace of Zaderko-NPL as a matter of design choice.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN K BLACKWELL-RUDASILL whose telephone number is (571)270-0563. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m.
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.
/R.B.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1722
/ANCA EOFF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722
