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 Group I, claims 1-20 in the reply filed on 4/8/26 is acknowledged.
Claim 21 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected method of making, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1, 3, 10, 12, 15-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cuisinier (US 2020/0259207 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Cuisinier discloses an apparatus comprising: an anode current collector coated with a layer of sulfurized polyacrylonitrile (SPAN) (paragraph 19). The anode active material is not necessarily present as stated in the claim; thus, features of the active material are not given patentable weight.
Regarding claim 3, Cuisinier discloses that Li2S would be present in the coating (paragraph 2).
Regarding claims 10 and 12, Cuisinier discloses that the coating comprises carbon black (paragraph 19).
Regarding claims 15 and 16, the anode active material is not necessarily present as stated in the claims; thus, features of the active material are not given patentable weight.
Regarding claim 17, Cuisinier discloses a cathode and electrolyte (paragraph 19).
Regarding claim 18, Cuisinier discloses that a liquid electrolyte (paragraph 20).
Regarding claim 20, Cuisinier discloses that the cathode active material is formed on a base (current collector) and includes magnesium, aluminum, lithium with an adjacent separator (paragraph 19) of polypropylene (paragraph 20).
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.
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.
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.
Claims 2, 6, 7, 9, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cuisinier as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Liu (US 2022/0149353 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Cuisinier does not disclose the particle size of the SPAN. Liu—in an invention for an anode with SPAN framework—discloses SPAN particle sizes of 50-500 nm (Table 1). Liu discloses that due to the protective effect of the three-dimensional framework structure, side reactions of between Li and electrolyte are reduced, and the cycle life is greatly prolonged compared with ordinary lithium tablets (paragraph 107). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to utilize the features of the SPAN material of Liu for the coating of Cuisinier for its disclosed advantages.
Regarding claims 6 and 7, Cuisinier discloses that that the intercalated metal is lithium oxide (claim 6) and a particle size of 1-100 microns (Table 1).
Regarding claim 9, Liu disclose a 1:3 ratio of lithium oxide to SPAN (Table 1).
Regarding claim 11, Cuisinier discloses that the coating comprises carbon black (paragraph 19); carbon black is amorphous. Liu discloses that the carbon is 1-10 nm (paragraph 38).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cuisinier and Liu as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Kakiage (US 2023/0238511 A1).
The instant specification states that both Nb2O5 and TiO2 are pseudo-capacitive oxides having lithiophilicity (instant paragraph 71). Neither Cuisinier nor Liu discloses Nb2O5 or TiO2. Kakiage—in an invention for anodes having sulfur-modified polyacrylonitrile—discloses using sulfur-modified polyacrylonitrile and a lithium-titanium oxide (paragraph 10) to provide a battery having a high electric capacity at the time of high-speed charge and discharge and is excellent in high-temperature stability (paragraph 19). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to add titanium oxide to the anode of Cuisinier and Liu to improve the battery’s characteristics as disclosed in Kakiage.
Claims 4, 5, 13, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cuisinier as applied to claims 1, 10, and 17 above, and further in view of Eng (US 2022/0302453 A1).
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Cuisinier does not disclose a fluoride binder. Eng—in an invention for a battery utilizing SPAN—discloses a weight ratio of SPAN to carbon to PVDF of 7:2:1 (paragraph 117). Eng discloses that the polymer binder of the electrode functions to bind the carbonized composite and conductive carbon to form a solid electrode (paragraph 77). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to utilize the features of the SPAN material of Eng for the coating of Cuisinier for its disclosed advantages.
Regarding claim 13, Eng discloses that the carbon is present as 20-50 wt% of the composite (paragraph 47).
Regarding claim 19, Eng discloses a solid electrolyte (paragraph 5) comprising sulfur (paragraph 124).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cuisinier as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhou (CN 111864191 A). Citations for Zhou are directed to the attached machine translation.
Cuisinier discloses that the separator is 25 microns (paragraph 20) but that the thickness of the anode coating. Zhou—in an invention for an anode with SPAN—discloses an anode 38-416 microns thick (claim 4). Zhou discloses that sulfur-polyacrylonitrile has high specific capacity, low cost, rich raw material resource, good safety, it will not produce the polysulfide compound, and it is friendly to the environment (paragraph 37). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to utilize the features of the SPAN material of Zhou for the coating of Cuisinier for its disclosed advantages.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IMRAN AKRAM whose telephone number is (571)270-3241. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9a-5p.
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, Basia Ridley can be reached at 571-272-1453. 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.
/IMRAN AKRAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights