CTNF 18/505,884 CTNF 86438 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim Objections Claims 1, 5, and 6 are objected to because of the following informalities: In claims 1, 5, and 6, the Examiner suggests using the plural form of “nanotube”. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-3 and 5-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN109786665 A (“Li”; citations taken from machine translation provided by Applicant) . Regarding claims 1 and 12, Li discloses a negative electrode sheet used in lithium batteries ([0002]), which are known to contain a positive electrode and non-aqueous electrolyte (reads on claim 12). Li teaches a silicon-carbon negative electrode sheet, comprising a negative electrode current collect and a silicon-carbon negative electrode active layer coated on the surface of the negative electrode current collector ([0041]). Li teaches the negative electrode current collector is copper foil or carbon-coated copper foil ([0043]). In the case of carbon-coated copper foil, the carbon would read on the claimed first layer. Li teaches a silicon-carbon negative electrode active layer includes the following components: carbon material, carbon, lithium titanate double-coated silicon material, and carbon nanotube, inter alia ([0042]). The first carbon material is at least one of natural graphite and artificial graphite ([0043]; reads on claim 11). The carbon nanotube is at least one of single-walled carbon nanotubes, multi-walled carbon nanotubes, and surface-modified carbon nanotubes ([0043]; reads on claim 5). Further regarding claim 1 and with regard to claims 2 and 3, Li teaches a carbon-coated copper foil and a silicon-carbon negative electrode active layer coated on the surface of the negative electrode current collector, but Li is silent as to the ratio of the thickness of the first layer and second layer. However, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to determine the optimal thickness ratio or thickness of each layer through routine optimization, since the properties of each component are well known. As to claim 6, Li does not teach carbon nanotubes in a range of 0.5 to 5 wt.% of the second layer. However, the properties of carbon nanotubes are well understood in the art. Therefore, determining the optimal amount of carbon nanotubes could be determined through routine optimization. As to claim 7, Li teaches SiOx double coated with carbon and lithium titanate ([0046]. As to claim 8, Si-C composites of silicon and amorphous carbon are well known in the art. As to claim 9, various forms of LTO are well known in the art, including the claimed Chemical Formula 1. As to claim 10, Li does not teach the claimed mixing ratio. However, the properties of LTO and Si are well known in the art. Thus, determining a mixing ratio could be determined through routine experimentation . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li as applied above, and further in view of Paik et al. (“Paik”, US 2022/0263084 A1) . Regarding claim 4, Li does not teach the LTO has an aspect ratio of about 8:1 to about 2:1. However, Paik depicts in 1b, 2b, and 3, the LTO being in the form of nanorods and nanofibers ([0060], which appear to be in the claimed range. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to use LTO in known forms effective for lithium secondary batteries, as taught by Paik ([0060]). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL H. LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-2548. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00. 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, Michael Orlando can be reached at 5712705038. 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. DANIEL H. LEE Primary Examiner Art Unit 1746 /DANIEL H LEE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746 Application/Control Number: 18/505,884 Page 2 Art Unit: 1746 Application/Control Number: 18/505,884 Page 3 Art Unit: 1746 Application/Control Number: 18/505,884 Page 4 Art Unit: 1746 Application/Control Number: 18/505,884 Page 5 Art Unit: 1746
Prosecution Insights