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 1-21 are currently pending
Claims 1-4 and 15-21 have been previously withdrawn
Status of Objections and Rejections of the Office Action from 31 December 2025
The 103 rejections over Lee in view of Zhang and over Lee in view of Kim 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.
Claims 5, 7-10, and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee at el. (US 20210249716 A1), hereinafter Lee.
Regarding claim 5, Lee teaches a composition, in this case a preliminary network structure [0027], comprising an electrospun nonwoven layer [0094] comprising:
a substrate, in this case a base material [0097] or a carrier [0108]; and
a fiber deposited onto the substrate by electrospinning [0096], the fiber comprising:
a polymer [0037]; and
a plurality of nanoparticles dispersed on the polymer and distributed across the fiber, in this case a powder [0088], the plurality of nanoparticles having a particle size range from 0.01 µm to 0.5 µm, in this case preferably 100 nm to 1 µm [0088], each nanoparticle comprising a plurality of at least one compound species, in this case metal oxide powder and a catalyst [0107].
Lee is silent as to the fiber having an average diameter of less than 5 µm. However, Lee teaches the diameter of the 3D network structure after removal of the polymer as being 10 nm to 10 µm, preferably 200 nm to 400 nm [0021]. One of ordinary skill in the art would expect the diameter of the preliminary network structure to be slightly larger than the diameter of the 3D network structure due to the presence of the additional polymer. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would not expect the polymer to drastically alter the diameter of the preliminary network structure to the extent that it would not overlap with the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claims 7 and 8 Lee teaches the composition of claim 5, wherein the polymer comprises one or more polyamides, polysulfones, polyethers, polyesters, polyamines, polyalcohols, polyurethanes, polycarbonates, polyaromatics, photosensitive polymers, polyimides, polyacrylates, polyvinylidene difluoride, or a combination thereof, as required by claim 8 [0037], all of which are considered to also be binder polymers, as required by claim 7.
Regarding claims 9 and 10 Lee teaches the composition of claim 5, wherein the substrate is a current collector and comprises Cu foil, Al foil, Pt foil, Ni foil, a woven substrate, a nonwoven substrate, an artificial solid electrolyte interface, or a combination thereof, as required by claim 9 [0097], for use in an electrode assembly disposed within a battery, in this case a metal air battery as required by claim 10 [0104].
Regarding claim 12 Lee teaches the composition of claim 5, wherein the substrate forms a part of a catalyst assembly and comprises silicon dioxide, aluminum dioxide, ceramic, or combinations thereof, in this case the catalyst is supported in a carrier that may include an oxide carrier including at least one of Al or Si [0108].
Regarding claim 13 Lee teaches the composition of claim 12, wherein the at least one compound species comprises PbSe, AuPt, AuPd, PtPd, PtRu, PtAg, PtCu, FeRu, FeCu, FeRh, CuCe, AuCu, PtIr, NiCu, NiSn, NiAl, PtAl2, PtMg, PtSn, PtCo, PdCo, PdTi, PtRh, NiAu, RhAg, TiO2, NiO, or a combination thereof, in this case a catalyst including a platinum catalyst, a gold catalyst, a silver catalyst, a palladium catalyst, a ruthenium catalyst, a rhodium catalyst, osmium catalyst, manganese oxide, iron oxide, cobalt oxide, nickel oxide, or cobalt phthalocyanine [0107].
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Zhang et al. (WO 2021189472 A1), hereinafter Zhang.
Regarding claim 6 Lee teaches the composition of claim 5. Lee is silent as to the composition further comprising a second fiber layer. However, Zhang teaches a composition comprising:
a substrate, in this case a first pole piece (pg. 2, ¶ 6),
a plurality of fibers forming a first fiber layer, in this case a first layer of a first porous layer (pg. 3, ¶ 1), the first fibers comprising:
a first polymer, in this case polymer fibers (pg. 2, ¶ 7); and
a plurality of nanoparticles dispersed on the polymer and distributed across the fiber, in this case inorganic particles (pg. 2, ¶ 7), the plurality of nanoparticles having a particle size range from 0.01 µm to 0.5 µm, in this case 0.01 to 10 µm (pg. 2, ¶ 7, pg. 3, ¶ 2), each nanoparticle comprising a plurality of at least one compound species (pg. 3, ¶ 10),
the fiber having an average diameter of less than 5 µm, in this case 10 nm to 10 µm [0021].
the composition further comprising:
a second fiber layer comprising second fibers deposited onto the first fiber layer by electrospinning, in this case a second layer of the first porous layer (pg. 3, ¶ 1) with an obvious interface between layers (pg. 6, ¶ 8); the second fibers comprising:
a second polymer, in this case polymer fibers (pg. 2, ¶ 7); and
a second plurality of nanoparticles dispersed on the second polymer and distributed across the fiber, in this case inorganic particles (pg. 2, ¶ 7), the second plurality of nanoparticles having a particle size range from 0.01 m to 0.5 m, in this case 0.01 to 10 µm (pg. 2, ¶ 7, pg. 3, ¶ 2), each nanoparticle comprising a plurality of at least one compound species (pg. 3, ¶ 10). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Zhang is silent as to the first fiber layer having a solidity that is at least 1.1 times of a solidity of the second fiber layer. However, Zhang teaches the porosity of the first and second layers being 30% to 95% (pg. 3, ¶ 7). This is equivalent to a solidity of 5% to 70%, as defined in the instant specification (instant pg. 7, lines 18-19). Zhang further teaches the area close to the pole piece, the first layer, having a small pore size and the area far from the pole piece, the second layer, having a large pore size (pg. 4, ¶ 4). One of ordinary skill in the art would expect the porosity of the second layer to be larger than the porosity of the first layer. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to make the solidity of the first layer at least 1.1 times the solidity of the second layer.
Lee and Zhang are both considered to be equivalent to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of electrospun fibrous electrode coatings. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee to have two fiber layers of varying solidity, as taught by Zhang. Doing so would have allowed for stronger adhesion to the current collector and the ability to resist the piercing of the positive and negative particles as well as strong ion conductivity to improve the electrical performance of the electrochemical device (pg. 4, ¶ 4).
Claims 11 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Kim et al. (KR 20100045875 A), hereinafter Kim.
Lee teaches the composition of claims 5 and 9. Lee is silent as to the at least one compound species comprising LiCoO2, LiFePO4, LiMn204, LiNiO2, Li(NixMnyCoz)02, Li(NixAlyCoz)O2, or a combination thereof, wherein x + y + z = 1. Lee is further silent as to the composition further comprising a second plurality of nanoparticles with each nanoparticle comprising a second compound species different from the first compound species. However, Kim teaches an electrospun fiber composition wherein the at least one compound species comprises metal oxide nanoparticles including LiCoO2, LiFePO4, LiMn204, LiNiO2, and Li(NixMnyCoz)02, as required by claim 11, and wherein the nanoparticles may be a combination of the two (pg. 5, ¶ 4).
Lee and Kim are both considered to be equivalent to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of porous electrospun fiber layers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the one compound species of Lee to be the metal oxide nanoparticles or combination of metal oxide nanoparticles taught by Kim. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use, in this case using metal oxide nanoparticles or a combination of metal oxide nanoparticles as a compound species in electrospun fibers, supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 25 March 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Lee does not disclose a fiber that both comprises a polymer and has an average diameter of less than 5 µm because the taught fiber diameter refers to the diameter of a 3D network structure after the polymer has been removed. Examiner acknowledges that Lee is silent as to the diameter of the preliminary network structure before the removal of the polymer. However, Lee teaches the diameter of the 3D network structure after removal of the polymer as being 10 nm to 10 µm, preferably 200 nm to 400 nm, which overlaps with the claimed range of less than 5 µm. One of ordinary skill in the art would expect the diameter of the preliminary network structure to also overlap with the claimed range. In order to fall outside the claimed range the removed polymer would need to add 4600 nm to 4800 nm to the diameter of the fiber in the most preferred case, which is unlikely considering the preliminary network structure is taught to preferably comprise 70 to 80 wt% electrically conductive metal oxide [0091].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Zhang further teaches an electrospun fiber diameter of 0.1 nm to 10 µm.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 DUSTIN KENWOOD VAN KIRK whose telephone number is (703)756-4717. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm 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, 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.
/DUSTIN VAN KIRK/Examiner, Art Unit 1722
/ANCA EOFF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722
Prosecution Insights