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 in the reply filed on 08/17/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 6-7 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 01/22/2024 and 08/19/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 2 recites “has been carried out a pretreatment” in Line 6 is grammatically defective. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 2 is 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. Fluorination to 3V is not precisely defined, is the 3V the potential of the AL4C3 electrode, the full cell voltage, a cutoff voltage reached during discharge or a constant potential maintained for a particular period. Clarification is required.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Stiller et al. (US 20160115600 A1), hereinafter "Stiller".
In regard to Claim 1, Stiller et al. discloses fluoride salts for electrode materials and a specific example of aluminum carbide provided for electrochemical use (Stiller, Example 8, [0146]). It is noted, the claim is directed to a compound and structurally complete product, aluminum carbide and the preamble "A negative electrode active material for a fluoride-ion battery" amounts to nothing more than intended use of said product as it does not impart a structural limitation (see MPEP §2111.02) and further, the discovery of a previously unrecognized property or use of an existing composition does not make the composition itself new (see MPEP§ 2112).
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stiller et al. (US 20160115600 A1), hereinafter "Stiller" as applied to claim 1 above in view of Warren et al. (US 20210151755 A1), hereinafter "Warren", Clemens et al. (Reconsidering Anode Materials for Fluoride-Ion Batteries – The Unexpected Roles of Carbide Formation, ChemRXIV, pgs 1-18, 12/2022), hereinafter "Clemens" and Zhang et al. (Study of Cu-based Cathode Materials for High-energy All-solid-state Fluoride-ion Batteries, Thesis for PHD, pgs 1-170, 03/2022), hereinafter "Zhang". Stiller, Warren, Clemens and Zhang are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely metal carbides.
In regard to Claim 2, It is noted that the specification provides no XRD, XPS or compositional definition for the pretreated material and claim 2 therefore resembles a product-by-process claim which patentability generally depends on the resulting structure, not merely on the recited manufacturing history (see MPEP §2113).
Stiller et al. discloses the compound of claim 1, aluminum fluoride with fluoride salts as electrode materials. Warren et al. discloses a fluoride-ion battery comprising a composition for forming a negative electrode active material layer for a fluoride-ion battery comprising metal carbides (Warren, [0082], Examples 3-5), but Warren is silent as to the carbide comprising aluminum carbide.
However, the skilled artisan would be well aware of many combinations of metal carbides which would be obvious to try, as evidenced by Clemens et al. which discloses beneficial anode active materials for fluoride-ion batteries which include metal carbides and aluminum carbide as a potential metal carbide material (Clemens, Figure 5, Table S1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide aluminum carbide as a metal carbide anode material for a fluoride-ion battery as investigated in Clemens et al. as the metal carbide of Warren et al. as doing so would give the skilled artisan the reasonable expectation of success and as doing so would amount to nothing more than a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
While Warren et al. performs fluorination pretreatment on a fluoride-ion anode comprising a metal carbide (Warren, Example 3), it is silent as to the technique used to perform the pretreatment as being carried out to 3 V (vs. Pb/PbF2). However, the skilled artisan would be well aware of different techniques to perform fluorination pretreatment as evidenced by Zhang et al. which discloses fluorination pretreatment (activation) on a fluoride-ion cell carried out to 3 V (vs. Pb/PbF2) (Zhang, pg 127, 133, Figure 6.2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide the fluorination pretreatment of the fluoride-ion metal carbide anode disclosed in Warren using the technique taught in Zhang as doing so would be obvious to try for the skilled artisan and as doing so would amount to nothing more than applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stiller et al. (US 20160115600 A1), hereinafter "Stiller" as applied to claim 1 above in view of Warren et al. (US 20210151755 A1), hereinafter "Warren" and Clemens et al. (Reconsidering Anode Materials for Fluoride-Ion Batteries – The Unexpected Roles of Carbide Formation, ChemRXIV, pgs 1-18, 12/2022), hereinafter "Clemens". Stiller, Warren and Clemens are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely metal carbides.
In regard to Claims 3-5, Stiller et al. discloses the compound of claim 1, aluminum fluoride and fluoride salts as electrode materials. Warren et al. discloses a fluoride-ion battery comprising a composition for forming a negative electrode active material layer for a fluoride-ion battery comprising metal carbides (Warren, [0082], Examples 3-5), but Warren is silent as to the carbide comprising aluminum carbide.
However, the skilled artisan would be well aware of many combinations of metal carbides which would be obvious to try, as evidenced by Clemens et al. which discloses beneficial anode active materials for fluoride-ion batteries which include metal carbides and aluminum carbide as a potential metal carbide material (Clemens, Figure 5, Table S1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide aluminum carbide as a metal carbide anode material for a fluoride-ion battery as investigated in Clemens et al. as the metal carbide of Warren et al. as doing so would give the skilled artisan the reasonable expectation of success and as doing so would amount to nothing more than a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Takeshi et al. (JP 2020194697 A) which discloses a fluoride-ion battery with charge/discharge at 3.0 V (vs Pb / PbF 2) (Takeshi, Charge/Discharge Test).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH MAX OTERO whose telephone number is (571)272-2559. The examiner can normally be reached M-F Generally 7:30-430.
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, Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at (571) 270-3879. 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.
/K.M.O./Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/JONATHAN CREPEAU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights