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 I, a battery cathode comprising 1-12 in the reply filed on 10-20-2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 13-18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 10-20-2025.
Drawings
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 both 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 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. 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 8, reference characters “34”, "40", "42" AND “34”, “38” are both 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.
Specification
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 11,427,756. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Objections
Claims 1-14 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 is objected to because the claim should cite “a loading weight range of 1% up to10%”. Claims 6, 9 and 12 are objected to because the claim should cite “the loading weight range is 2.5% up to 7.5%.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 2-3 and 7-12 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 it is unclear how nickel powder can comprise nickel-filamentary branching structures because nickel powder is known to consist of fine, discrete particles which are granular (spherical) while nickel fiber refers to long, thin strands that offer 3D networks forming intricate, interconnected strands, Claims 7-9 are rejected because the claims depend from claim 2, Claim 3 is rejected because it is unclear what is “type 255 powder”. Claims 10-12 are rejected because the claims depend from claim 3.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhu et al. “Effects of fibrous nickel additives on the electrochemical properties of LiFePO4 cathode for lithium-ion battery”. Zhu et al. teaches in the abstract that highly conductive nickel additive can enhance the electronic conductivity of LiFePO4 when the fiber content is present at 10 wt % [teaching claims 1 and 4-5]. Zhu et al. teaches on pages 10601-10602, that the morphologies of nickel fibers [branching] are shown in figure 3(a). Zhu et al. teaches adding nickel fibers to a cathode material comprising LiFePO4 with different fiber content as shown in Table 1, teaching adding a nickel-fiber loading of 4% [specifically teaching claims 1 and 4-6] and 8% [specifically teaching claims 1 and 4-6] to the active material. Zhu et al. teaches on page 10598, that it has been found that porous nickel fibers with low aspect ratio is conducted additives could improve the electrochemical performance of LiFePO4 cathodes. Figure 3 (a) shows nickel fibers having a length of 2-5 micrometres and a diameter of 0.1-0.5 micrometres. This kind of fiber has a porous structure with specific surface area of 25.8 m2/g, could be in favor of the combination between LiFePO4, additives and current collector surfaces and enhance the electronic conduction ability of the whole LiFePO4 electrode during charge/discharge process. 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 and 4-6 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and, 3-6 of copending Application No.18/079,821 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Application No.18/079,821 claims in claim 1, a battery cathode with enhanced electrical conductivity for use in a battery, the battery cathode comprising: an active base cathode material comprising lithium iron phosphate; and a 1st additive and a 2nd additive comprising conductive nickel filamentary branching structures comprising nanostrands which is also dispersed within the active base cathode material in a loading weight range 1% of up to 10% of the active base cathode materials. Application No.18/079,821, claims in claim 3, wherein the 2nd additive of nanostrands comprise 2.5% and claims in claim 4 wherein the nanostrands comprise 5% of the loading weight of the active base battery cathode material. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-6 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 3-6 of copending Application No. 18/079,825 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Application No.18/079,825 claims in claim 1, a battery cathode with enhanced electrical conductivity for use in a battery, the battery cathode comprising: an active base cathode material comprising lithium iron phosphate; and a 1st additive and a 2nd additive comprising conductive nickel filamentary branching structures comprising branching nickel powder which is also dispersed within the active base cathode material in a loading weight range 1% of up to 10% of the active base cathode materials. Application No.18/079,825 claims in claim 3, wherein the 2nd additive of branching nickel powder comprise 2.5% and claims in claim 4 wherein the branching nickel powder comprise 5% of the loading weight of the active base battery cathode material. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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