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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 7-15 are pending.
Claim 7 is amended.
Claim 15 is added.
Status of Amendment
The amendment filed on November 13th, 2025 has been fully considered but does not place the application in condition for allowance.
Status of Rejections and Objections Pending the Office Action of August 25th, 2025
The 112(b) rejections are withdrawn in view of the Applicant's amendment.
The objections to the specification are withdrawn in view of the Applicant's amendment.
The 103 rejections of claims 7-14 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 maintained.
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 7, 8, 10, 11, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zaderko (US 2017/0260052 A1) and further in view of Burd (US 3,675,619).
Regarding 7, 8, 10, and 11, 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. 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. 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 claim 10) at a temperature of 550 ℃ for a duration of 2 hours (as required by claim 10, [0019]).
Zaderko does not teach that the tubular reactor needs to be vertically oriented (as required by claims 7, 8, 10, and 11) 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. Burd is analogous art because both Zaderko and Burd teach chemical coatings. Burd teaches the usage of a “quartz frit” (col 10, line 40) that may be “sufficiently porous to permit” the passage of fluorinated gas (col 7, lines 71-72) in a uniform manner (col 10, line 41). A uniform distribution of fluorinated gas allows the gas to flow in a uniform manner over the battery material which leads to a uniform fluorinated coating. A uniform coating allows the benefits of said coating throughout all of the material. 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 a porous frit to support the battery material to be fluorinated to ensure that the fluorinated gas flows uniformly over the battery material to achieve the benefits of the fluorinated coating throughout the entire surface of the battery material.
Regarding claim 14, Zaderko teaches the usage of Freon R-114, a hydrochlorofluorocarbon, as a fluorinating agent [0021].
Claims 9, 13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zaderko and Burd as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Munshi (US 6,664,006 B1) with evidence provided by Cho (US 2002/0182488 A1). Zaderko and Burd 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 and Burd because all 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 13) 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 claim 7.
Cho is analogous art to modified Zaderko because both teach chemical coatings. Cho teaches that the formation of a protective fluoride layer on a lithium metal anode helps to suppress “the growth of dendrites on the anode” [0006]. Cho continues to teach that “the LiF protective layer…may also be formed by subjecting…the anode surface in a fluorine-containing gas atmosphere” [0038]. Using the lithium metal anode in this process corresponds with providing metallic lithium as a battery material (as required by claims 9 and 15). 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 the lithium metal anode of Munshi in the method taught by modified Zaderko to achieve the benefits of suppressed dendrite formation as taught by Cho.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zaderko and Burd as applied to claim 7 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 and Burd teach the claimed method of preparing a fluorinated material, but do not teach the usage of a furnace. Zaderko-NPL is analogous art to Zaderko and Burd because all three 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 13th, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. On pages 8 and 9 of their remarks, the Applicant argues that Burd does not suggest the usage of the porous frit as a support for the battery material. The Examiner respectfully, however, holds the position that one or more of the porous frits could support a battery material and fluorinating gas that flows through the porous would be evenly distributed through the pores to ensure a uniform coating on the battery material. The ability/suitability for a frit to support a battery material coupled with the motivation to ensure a uniform distribution of gas over the surface of the battery material would have motivated a person of ordinary skill in the art to use Burd’s porous frit in Zaderko’s method.
On page 10, the Applicant argues that choosing a vertically oriented tubular reactor over a horizontally oriented reactor is not an obvious design choice. The Applicant supports their position with advantages mentioned in their specification, notably that a vertical-type reactor allows for smoother and more controlled gas flow. The Examiner’s position is that a well-designed horizontally oriented reactor could accomplish those same benefits. Furthermore, “[a]rguments presented by the applicant cannot take the place of evidence in the record. In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965) and In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705, 222 USPQ 191, 196 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Examples of statements which are not evidence and which must be supported by an appropriate affidavit or declaration include statements regarding unexpected results, commercial success, solution of a long-felt need, inoperability of the prior art, invention before the date of the reference, and allegations that the author(s) of the prior art derived the disclosed subject matter from the inventor or at least one joint inventor.” See MPEP 716.01 (C) (II).
The Applicant argues, on pages 10 and 11, that Zaderko’s disclosure is focused on obtaining surface-modified fluorine containing carbon materials. The Examiner agrees. However, Zaderko’s disclosure states that “The method…can be used for the production of sorbents, catalysts, catalyst supports, proton conductors and electrodes including that for lithium battery or fuel cells” [0001]. This statement opens the door to the possibilities of using Zaderko’s fluorination method to produce any kind of electrode, even electrodes comprising materials that are not carbon-based. Furthermore, Zaderko’s method offers an improvement over the prior art since the reactions occurred under “mild conditions” [0008] compared to contemporary methods that had low process productivity and involved “special instrumentation to create plasma” [0007]. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to use or modify Zaderko’s method in order to fluorinate any kind of battery material in order to avoid the difficulties stated above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights