DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
1. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after allowance or after an Office action under Ex Parte Quayle, 25 USPQ 74, 453 O.G. 213 (Comm'r Pat. 1935). Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/23/2026 has been entered.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Priority
2a. All of the prior art references applied below are intervening references between the filing date of the instant US application 18/343,767 (filed 6/29/2023) and the document to which priority is claimed (PCT/CN2021/114156) (filed 8/23/2021) which is not in the English language.
To perfect and be accorded the effective filing date of the non-English language foreign application (i.e., the PCT/CN2021/114156 application) is a manner in which to obviate all of the applied references as being considered “prior art.” In order to do so, an English language translation of the non-English language foreign application (PCT/CN2021/114156) is required, wherein the translation must be that of the certified copy (of the foreign application as filed) submitted together with a statement that the translation of the certified copy is accurate. See MPEP §§ 215 and 216. See also MPEP 2304.01(c).
2b. The Examiner cannot file a certified copy of the PCT/CN2021/114156 document within the file wrapper; proof of submission and that it was timely filed is also required in order to 1) perfect the claim to the foreign priority document as outlined above, or 2) be eligible for the exceptions outlined below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
3. 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.
4. Claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 9-14, 16-17, 19-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Zhou et al. (WO 2023/025104) (published Mar. 02 2023; copy provided) (using US 2024/0154218 as an English-language translation).
With respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1): It is noted that the reference is outside the one year grace period prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention (currently June 29th, 2023). Thus, it does not appear Applicant may rely on the exception under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)(A) to overcome this rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) given it is outside the one year grace period (see MPEP § 2153.01). Applicant may rely on the exception under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)(B) by providing evidence of a prior public disclosure via an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.130(b) (see MPEP § 2153.02).
With respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2): The applied reference has a sole common inventor (Zhijun Guo) and common assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
Regarding claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 9-14, 16-17, 19-24, Zhou teaches and illustrates an identical construct as that claimed. Of note is that both the instant application and the WO '104 both claim priority to the same document of PCT/CN2021/11156. Accordingly, given the identical parent application, the instantly claimed subject matter and that of WO '104 as applied would appear to be inherent.
5. Claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 9-14, 16-17, 19-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fang et al. (CN 215988974) (machine translation provided; original document copy provided by Applicant) (published March 08 2022).
It is noted that while appearing to have identical inventors to the instant application, the applicant/assignee listed (Ningde Era New Energy Science and Tech Stock Limited Company) is not the same as that for the instant application (Contemporary Amperex Technology (Hong Kong) Limited).
With respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1): It is noted that the reference is outside the one year grace period prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention (currently June 29th, 2023). Thus, it does not appear Applicant may rely on the exception under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)(A) to overcome this rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) given it is outside the one year grace period (see MPEP § 2153.01). Applicant may rely on the exception under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)(B) by providing evidence of a prior public disclosure via an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.130(b) (see MPEP § 2153.02).
Regarding claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 9-14, 16-17, 19-24, Fang teaches and illustrates an identical construct as that claimed (see entire document).
6. Claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 9-14, 16-17, 19-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chai et al. (CN 218769959) (original copy provided by Applicant; using US 2023/0344097 as an English language translation) (published March 08 2022).
With respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1): It is noted that the reference is outside the one year grace period prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention (currently June 29th, 2023). Thus, it does not appear Applicant may rely on the exception under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)(A) to overcome this rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) given it is outside the one year grace period (see MPEP § 2153.01). Applicant may rely on the exception under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)(B) by providing evidence of a prior public disclosure via an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.130(b) (see MPEP § 2153.02).
Regarding claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 9-14, 16-17, 19-24, Chai teaches and illustrates an identical construct as that claimed. Of note is that both the instant application and the CN '959 both claim priority to the same document of PCT/CN2021/11156. Accordingly, given the identical parent application, the instantly claimed subject matter and that of WO '104 as applied would appear to be inherent.
7. Claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 9-14, 16-17, 19-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fang et al. (CN 215578764) (machine translation provided; original copy provided by Applicant) (published Jan 18 2022).
With respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1): It is noted that the reference is outside the one year grace period prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention (currently June 29th, 2023). Thus, it does not appear Applicant may rely on the exception under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)(A) to overcome this rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) given it is outside the one year grace period (see MPEP § 2153.01). Applicant may rely on the exception under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)(B) by providing evidence of a prior public disclosure via an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.130(b) (see MPEP § 2153.02).
Regarding claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 9-14, 16-17, 19-24, Fang teaches and illustrates an identical construct as that claimed (see entire document).
8. Claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 9-14, 16-17, 19-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Chai et al. (WO 2023/025108) (published Mar. 02 2023; copy provided) (using US 2023/0344097 as an English-language translation).
With respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1): Applicant may rely on the exception under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)(A) to overcome this rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) by a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application, and is therefore not prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1). Alternatively, applicant may rely on the exception under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)(B) by providing evidence of a prior public disclosure via an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.130(b).
With respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2): The applied reference has a sole common inventor (Zhijun Guo) and common assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
Regarding claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 9-14, 16-17, 19-24, Chai teaches and illustrates an identical construct as that claimed (see entire document).
Allowable Subject Matter
9. The prior indication of allowable subject matter and allowance of the claims is vacated in view of the rejections made above.
Conclusion
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMANDA J BARROW whose telephone number is (571)270-7867. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am - 6pm CST.
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, Ula Ruddock can be reached at (571) 272-1481. 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.
/AMANDA J BARROW/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729