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 with traverse of claims 1-6, 13, and 14 in the reply filed on 16 April 20226 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there would not be a significant burden on the Office to search and examine each of the identified inventions. This is not found persuasive because the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification, and the inventions require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries).
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 13, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou et al. (CN 108183222 A, hereinafter “Zhou”; listed in the IDS filed 7 February 2025; using Applicant’s submitted translation for citations).
Regarding claim 1, Zhou teaches a carbon fiber lithium supplement film (see [0028]), comprising a carbon fiber and a lithium supplement agent embedded in the carbon fiber (see [0028] and [0055]), a diameter of the carbon fiber is 450 nm-850 nm (300-500 nm, see [0028]), and a mass percentage the lithium supplement agent in the carbon fiber lithium supplement film is 40%-80.5% (more than 60%, see [0028]). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 2, Zhou is silent to wherein a thickness of the carbon fiber lithium supplement film is 2 μm-10 μm. If the thickness of the carbon fiber supplement was too thin, it would not provide the benefit of improving the overall specific mass capacity of the electrode (Zhou: see [0032]). On the other hand, if the carbon fiber supplement was too thick, it may decrease overall battery capacity. Therefore, there must be an optimal thickness of the carbon fiber lithium supplement film and it would have within the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to discover through routine experimentation. See MPEP §2144.05(II).
Regarding claim 3, Zhou is silent to wherein a conductivity of the carbon fiber lithium supplement film is 40 S∙cm−1-130 S∙cm−1. If the conductivity of the carbon fiber lithium supplement film is too low, its presence would not provide any added benefit. On the other hand, if the conductivity of the fiber lithium supplement film is too high, then it would take up excessive space in the battery and decrease overall battery capacity. Therefore, there must be an optimal conductivity of the carbon fiber lithium supplement film and it would have within the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to discover through routine experimentation. See MPEP §2144.05(II).
Regarding claim 4, Zhou teaches wherein the lithium supplement agent is in the form of a particle (see [0023] and [0055]), and a particle size of the particle Dv50≤850 nm (see [0023] and [0055] – as the particle size is 80-100 nm, it must follow that the Dv50 is ≤850 nm).
Regarding claim 5, Zhou is silent to wherein an areal density of the carbon fiber lithium supplement film is 0.8 mg/cm2-3 mg/cm2. If the areal density of the carbon fiber lithium supplement film is too low, its presence would not provide any added benefit. On the other hand, if the conductivity of the fiber lithium supplement film is too high, then it would take up excessive space in the battery and decrease overall battery capacity. Therefore, there must be an optimal areal density of the carbon fiber lithium supplement film and it would have within the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to discover through routine experimentation. See MPEP §2144.05(II).
Regarding claim 13, Zhou teaches a secondary battery (see [0032]), comprising the carbon fiber lithium supplement film according to claim 1 (see rejection for claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 14, Zhou teaches a power consumption device, comprising the secondary battery according to claim 13 (see rejection for claim 13).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shi et al. (US 2023/0030959; hereainfter “Shi”).
Regarding claim 6, Zhou teaches wherein the lithium supplement is lithium titanate (see [0028] and [0055]), but is silent to wherein the lithium supplement agent is one or more of Li5FeO4, Li6CoO4, Li2O and Li2S.
Shi teaches the anode in secondary batteries may include Li4Ti-5O12 (lithium titanate) and lithiated sulfur (including Li2S) (see [0070]). Thus, Shi teaches that Li2S is a known alternative to lithium titanate.
In view of Shi’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the carbon fiber lithium supplement film of Zhou to substitute Li2S for lithium titanate, as taught by Shi, because the two lithium materials were art recognized equivalents at the time the invention was filed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN HA whose telephone number is (571)270-5934. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00 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, Keith Walker can be reached at 571-272-3458 . 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.
/S.S.H/Examiner, Art Unit 1735 15 May 2026
/KEITH WALKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1735
Prosecution Insights