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 .
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.
Claim 1 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 9 and 14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,381,199, hereby referred to as Chen `199. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Claim 9 of Chen `199 teaches:
a bonding structure comprising a first roller, a second roller, and a third roller (Claim 1 - the roller pressing mechanism comprises a first calendering roller, a first laminating roller, and a second laminating roller), a lithium ribbon comprising two first surfaces opposite each other in a width direction of the lithium ribbon and a second surface facing the second roller (Claim 1 - the lithium is in the form of a strip and can thus be viewed as a having two first surfaces (edges of the strip) and a second surface facing the second roller), and a coater disposed upstream of the bonding mechanism in a running direction of the lithium ribbon to simultaneously coat the second surface and at least one of the first surfaces with a release agent (Claim 1 - the at least one first coating mechanism precedes the roller pressing mechanism and is configured to apply a coating layer on a surface of the lithium strip; Claim 9 - The at least one first coating mechanism comprises two first coating mechanisms and each apply a coating layer on one of two surfaces of the lithium strip, and the two first coating mechanisms each accommodate a release agent).
Although Claim 9 of Chen `199 does not specify how the device is used, Claim 14 teaches that: the first roller and the second roller are used to roll the lithium ribbon, with the rolled lithium adhering to the second roller (Claim 14 - drawing the lithium strip coating with the coating layer into between a first calendering roller and a first laminating roller, wherein the first calendering roller and the first laminating roller rotate and thin the lithium strip, and the lithium strip is adhered to a roller surface of the first laminating roller) and the second roller and the third roller are used to bond the lithium ribbon adhering the to the second roller to the substrate (Claim 14 - the first laminating roller and the second laminating roller roll the electrode plate and the lithium strip on the roller surface of the first laminating roller, to laminate the lithium strip to the surface of the electrode plate).
Claims 1 and 13 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 13 (claims dated 12/25/2025) of copending Application No. 18/530,930 (reference application), hereby referred to as Chen `930. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Claim 1 of Chen `930 teaches:
a bonding structure comprising a first roller, a second roller, and a third roller (lines 2, 3, and 6), the first roller and the second roller being used to roll the lithium ribbon, with the rolled lithium adhering to the second roller (lines 3-4), the second roller and the third roller being used to bond the lithium ribbon adhering the to the second roller to the substrate (lines 6-7), the lithium ribbon comprising two first surfaces opposite each other in a width direction of the lithium ribbon and a second surface facing the second roller (lines 4-5 and 10-11), and
a coater disposed upstream of the bonding mechanism in a running direction of the lithium ribbon to simultaneously coat the second surface and at least one of the first surfaces with a release agent (lines 8-9 and 12-13)
Regarding Claim 13 of the present application, Claim 13 of Chen `930 teaches a method comprising feeding a lithium ribbon between a first roller and a second roller to roll the lithium ribbon by means of the first roller and the second roller, with the roller lithium ribbon adhering to the second roller (lines 2-4), and the lithium ribbon comprising two first surfaces opposite each other in a width direction (lines 4-5) of the lithium ribbon and a second surface facing the second roller (lines 11-12), feeding the substrate between the second roller and a third roller to bond the lithium ribbon adhering to the second roller to the substrate by means of the second roller and the third roller (lines 6-8), and coating the second surface and at least one of the first surfaces with a release agent, by means of a coater, in a running direction of the lithium ribbon and upstream of the first roller and the second roller (lines 9-10 and 13-16).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-12 objected to because of the following informalities: in line 13 of Claim 1 (based on the provided line numbers), “the bonding mechanism” should read “the bonding structure” to maintain consistency. Appropriate correction is required.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting (see Double Patenting above), but would be otherwise allowable.
Claim 2-12 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art does not teach or suggest the limitations of Claim 1, specifically “a coater disposed upstream of the bonding mechanism… to simultaneously coat the second surface and at least one of the first surfaces with the release agent”.
The closest prior art is Chen (CN 207558931 U, cited in the 1/7/2025 IDS, machine translation provided), which teaches a prelithiation device comprising: a bonding structure comprising a first roller, a second roller, and a third roller, which are sequentially disposed adjacent to each other (Claim 1, Fig. 1 – parts 11, 12, and 13). The first roller and the second roller are used to roll the lithium ribbon, with the rolled lithium ribbon adhering to the second roller (0013). The lithium ribbon comprises two first surfaces opposite each other in a width direction of the lithium ribbon and a second surface facing the second roller (Fig. 4 – part L: the surface contacting the second roller can be viewed as the second surface and the side surfaces not contacting a roller can be viewed as the two first surfaces). A coater is dispersed upstream of the bonding structure in a running direction of the lithium ribbon to coat the second surface with a release agent (Claim 1, Fig. 1 – parts 4, 41, 42, and S).
Chen does not teach that the coater coats either of the two first surfaces with a release agent.
Leblanc (US 20160177210 A1) teaches lubricant for the lamination of lithium sheets (Title) using rollers (0013). However, the lubricant is applied to the rollers instead of being coated onto the surfaces of the lithium sheet (0013).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZIHENG LU whose telephone number is (703)756-1077. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 - 5 ET.
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, Nicholas Smith can be reached at (571) 272-8760. 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.
/ZIHENG LU/ Examiner, Art Unit 1752
/NICHOLAS A SMITH/ Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752
Prosecution Insights