DETAILED ACTION
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 Invention II, claims 2-8 drawn to a cathode comprising a 1st additive comprising nickel-coated carbon fibers and further comprising a 2nd additive comprising nickel-filamentary branching structures in the reply filed on filed 11-20-2025 is acknowledged.
Claim 5 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11-20-2025.
Claims 1 and 9-18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11-20-2025.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because in Fig 4, reference characters "34" and "38" are pointing to different lines shown in the Fig.4, but they are the same because the metal-coated fibers (38) are additives (34). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawing of Fig. 4 is objected to because the numbers “14”, “34” and “38” are shown on the figure more than one time. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered, and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because in Fig 5, reference characters "34" and "38" are pointing to different lines shown in the Fig. 5, but they are the same because the metal-coated fibers (38) are additives (34). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because in Fig 5, reference characters "40" and "42" are both pointing to the same line shown in the Figure, but they are the same because the conductive filamentary structures (42) are high aspect ratio conductors (40). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawing of Fig. 5 is objected to because the numbers “34”, “38”, “40” and “42” are shown on the figure more than one time. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered, and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawing of Fig. 7 is objected to because the numbers “18”, “34” and “38” are shown on the figure more than one time. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered, and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because in Fig 8, reference characters “34”, "40", "42" AND “34”, “38” are pointing to the same line shown in the Figure. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawing of Fig. 8 is objected to because the numbers “18”, “34”, “38”, “40 and “42” are shown on the figure more than one time. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered, and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: In [0077], additive(s) 34 versus metal-coated fibers 38 needs to be corrected because metal-coated fibers 38 are additives 34. In [0077], conductive filamentary structure 42 versus high aspect ratio conductors 40 needs to be corrected because conductive filamentary structure 42 are high aspect ratio conductors 40. In [0077], it is unclear what is the difference between additive(s) 34 versus high aspect ratio conductors 40 versus conductive filamentary structure because of Fig. 8.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: In [0001], the specification needs to be updated to cite that US Application 17/340,063 is now US Patent 11,527,756.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 2-4, 6 and 8 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3 of U.S. Patent No. 11,527,756. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because U.S. Patent No. 11,527,756 claims in claim 1, a cathode with enhanced electrical conductivity comprising an active base comprising a lithium ion phosphate active material [teaching claim 3] and at least one additive dispersed within the active base material creating a dispersed mixture, the at least one additive comprising a 1st additive comprising a plurality of nickel-CVD coated fibers [teaching a plurality of metal (Ni) coated fibers, claims 2, 4 and 6] having a diameter from 3-20 µm, a nickel coating thickness between 0.1-3 µm and a fiber length of 0.1-1.0 mm [teaching the exact same attributes]; and the 1st additive is dispersed into the active phase cathode material in a loading weight range of 1-15% of the active base cathode material [teaching claim 8]. U.S. Patent No. 11,527,756 claims in claim 2 the exact same fibers of instant claim 6. U.S. Patent No. 11,527,756 claims in claim 3, wherein the cathode further comprises a 2nd additive comprising conductive nickel-filamentary branching structures [teaching claim 3] selected from the group consisting of branching nickel powder and nickel nanostrands.
Claim 7 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3 of U.S. Patent No. 11,527,756 in view of application 18/079,821 or application 18/079,825. U.S. Patent No. 11,527,756 claims the claimed invention as claimed above except for specifically teaching that the metal coated fiber is precision chopped to a desired length such that the metal coated fibers range within + 10% of the desired length. Application 18/079,821 claims in claim 1, a cathode with enhanced electrical conductivity comprising an active cathode material comprising a lithium ion phosphate and a combination of additives comprising a 1st additive of metal coated precision chopped fibers (PCF) and a 2nd additive of conductive nickel filamentary branching structures wherein the combination of additives dispersed within the active cathode material creating a dispersed mixture has a total loading weight range of 1-10% of the active cathode material. Application 18/079,821 claims in claims 2 and 5-6 wherein the 1st additive PCF comprises 5% of the loading weight and claims in claims 5-6, that the total loading weight range is 2.5-7.5% of the active cathode material. Application 18/079,821 claims in claim 7, that the 1st additive comprising nickel coated precision chopped fiber. Application 18/079,825 claims in claim 1, a cathode with enhanced electrical conductivity comprising an active cathode material comprising a lithium ion phosphate and a combination of additives comprising a 1st additive of metal coated precision chopped fibers (PCF) and a 2nd additive of conductive nickel filamentary branching structures wherein the combination of additives dispersed within the active cathode material creating a dispersed mixture has a total loading weight range of 1-10% of the active cathode material. Application 18/079,825 claims in claims 2 and 5-6 wherein the 1st additive PCF comprises 5% of the loading weight and claims in claims 5-6, that the total loading weight range is 2.5-7.5% of the active cathode material. Application 18/079,825 claims in claim 7, that the 1st additive comprising nickel coated precision chopped fiber. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Ni metal coated precision chopped fibers (PCF) instead of nickel-coated fibers as the additive because applications 18/079,821 and 18/079,825 each claim that this is known as explained above and one would expect therefore that these additive materials would function in a similar way and give similar results.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 2-4 and 6-8 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.
Claim 2 is rejected because a cathode does not include an electrolyte so the phrases “An active base cathode material having a voltage potential as against the electrolyte” and “having an galvanic potential ‘as against the electrolyte’,… such that the galvanic potential of the metal against the electrolyte is less than the operating voltage of the battery” does not further add any value to the claimed cathode. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 2-4 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu et al. “Effects of fibrous nickel additives on the electrochemical properties of LiFePO4 cathode for lithium-ion battery” in view of Ferment et al. (US 6,143,445). Zhu et al. teaches an olivine structured LiFePO4 [teaching cathode base material, claim 2] as the cathode material for the lithium-ion battery owing to its abundant and environmentally friendly sources and excellent safety, but its poor electronic conductivity and ionic conductivity between the LiFePO4/FePO4 interface can result in large initial capacity lost and poor rate capability. Efforts have been made to overcome the inherent limitations of LiFePO4 including combination with various kinds of conductive carbonaceous materials such as carbon powders, graphene, carbon nanotubes, etc. but the interconnection between conductive additives was demanded to fully percolate from the current collector surfaces to the outermost active particle layer and form long range conductive networks. It has been found that porous nickel fibers with low aspect ratio as conducted additives could improve the electrochemical performance of LiFePO4 cathodes. Zhu et al. teaches that highly conductive nickel additives [teaching nickel filamentary branching structures, claim 3] can enhance the electronic conductivity of LiFePO4 when the fiber content is present at 10 wt %. Zhu et al. teaches in Figure 1, a cathode comprising LiFePO4 active particles with nickel filamentary branching structures and carbon.
PNG
media_image1.png
278
309
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Zhu et al. teaches the claimed cathode comprising lithium-iron phosphate and comprising conductive nickel filamentary branching structures additives but does not teach adding additives comprising nickel-coated fibers having a diameter of 3-20 µm, a nickel coating thickness of 0.1-3 µm and fiber length of 0.1-1.0 mm. Ferment et al. teaches in claim 1, a positive electrode comprising a composite electrode material comprising an active material, a carbon powder, a binder and chopped up electrically conductive metallized fibers. Ferment et al. teaches in column 2, lines 59-67, that the electroconductive fibers may be carbon fibers [claims 2 and 6], which have been metallized in any well-known manner such as by spraying, sputtering, vacuum deposition, dip coating, electroplating or electroless metal plating and the metal coating may be of any suitable materials such as aluminum, nickel [thus teaching nickel-coated carbon fibers, claims 2 and 4] or other materials selected to be compatible with the components of the battery or device. Ferment et al. teaches in column 3, lines 1-4, that the fibers after coating with metal or chopped into small pieces and then mixed into an electrode slurry which includes the active material, the carbon powder and the binder. Ferment et al. teaches in column 3 lines 17-29, that the presence of the chopped metallized fibers [claim 7] markedly improves the electrical conductivity of the electrode. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include precision chopped nickel coated carbon fibers [teaching the 1st additive comprising nickel coated fibers which are precision chopped] to the cathode material taught by Zhu et al. because Ferment et al. teaches that the presence of the chopped metallized fibers markedly improves the electrical conductivity of the electrode. Ferment et al. teaches the claimed cathode conductive metallized fibers teaching that they are chopped into small pieces except does not specifically specify that the carbon fibers has a length of from 0.1 mm to 1.0 mm, a metal coating thickness between 0.1 µm and 3 µm and having a combined diameter of from 3 µm to 20 µm. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use carbon fibers having a length of from 0.1 mm to 1.0 mm, a metal coating thickness between 0.1 µm and 3 µm and having a combined diameter of from 3 µm to 20 µm [teaching the physical characteristics of the 1st additive], since it has been held that where general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art and discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05. Ferment et al. teaches the claimed cathode conductive metallized fibers teaching that they are chopped into small pieces but does not specifically teach that the desired length of the metal-coated fiber range is within + 10% of the desired length from 0.1 mm to 1.0 mm as claimed in claim 7. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use metal coated fibers in the range within + 10% of the desired length of 0.1 mm to 1.0 mm, since it has been held that where general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art and discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bernard et al. (6,335,120) teaches in column 3, line 61 to column 4, line 6, that the term particle is attended to mean a very small amount of material, the 3 spatial dimensions of which are the same order of magnitude, defined by an average dimension D1. The shape of the conductive particles can be spherical, quasi-spherical or completely irregular. Preferably, the conductive particles have an average dimension D1 less than or equal to D/20, D being the average diameter of the grains of the active material and more preferably D1 is less than or equal to D/100. The conductive particles can be nickel and powder of a transition metal compound such as Co, CoO, etc. Bernard et al. teaches in column 4, line 7-30, that fiber is a very small amount of material, one spatial dimension of which is large compared to the other two, defined by an average transverse dimension D2 and an average length L2 where the conductive fibers have an average transverse dimension D2 less than or equal to D and an average length L2 greater than or equal to 25 times of the value of D2 and the conductive fibers are carbon fibers coated with nickel. In addition, D1 is less than or equal to 0.1 µm and D2 is less than or equal to 2 µm and the proportion of the conductive material in the paste is in a range of 3-15% by weight of the active material. Bernard et al. teaches in column 4, lines 26-30, that the paste can also contain at least one compound chosen from Zn compounds, yttrium compounds and calcium compounds in powder form. Bernard et al. teaches in claims 1 and 7, a nickel electrode containing a conductive support in the paste comprising electrochemically active material containing nickel hydroxide and comprises a conductive material chosen from conductive particles and conductive fibers. Bernard et al. teaches in claims 11-12, that the conductive fibers are chosen from carbon fibers, metal fibers and metal coated fibers in the amount of 3-15% by weight of the active material.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Laura Weiner whose telephone number is (571)272-1294. The examiner can normally be reached 9 am-5 pm EST M-F.
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, Tong Guo can be reached at 571-272-3066. 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.
/LAURA S. WEINER/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1723
/Laura Weiner/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723