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 in the reply filed on 07/09/2026 is acknowledged.
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.
Claims 14 and 19 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.
Regarding claim 14, it is not clear what the solvent group is intended to be limited to as proper language would reflect a “ a group consisting of carbonate ester and
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the carbon coating" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Objections
Claim 13 objected to because of the following informalities: “comprising electrolyte” in line 1. Appropriate correction 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)(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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 9, 13, 14, 16, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Dasgupta et al (WO 2023/84457).
Regarding claim 1, Dasgupta teaches a battery including a separator between an anode and a cathode (0012; 0094; figures 1A-1B). The anode is a lithium metal on a current collector (0026-0027). The cathode include LiFePO4 (0044) and a current collector (0068). Figure 1B shows a stack of cells including multiple anodes, cathodes, and separators. The separator is taught to include a coating layer (0070).
Regarding claim 2, Dasgupta teaches the anode current collector to be a mesh of copper or stainless steel (0061).
Regarding claim 4, Dasgupta teaches the separator to include a structural support taught to be PVDF, polyimide, or cellulose (0060 and 0071).
Regarding claim 9, Dasgupta teaches the cathode to include 90 wt% LiFePO4; 5 wt% of a conductive carbon additive; and 5 wt% of a PVDF binder (0027).
Regarding claim 13, Dasgupta teaches the electrolyte to include a lithium salt, a solvent, and an additive (0013-0014).
Regarding claim 14, Dasgupta teaches the electrolyte to include lithium hexafluorophosphate and LiTFSI (0013). Dasgupta teaches the electrolyte to include a solvent including a carbonate ester or ether (0014).
Regarding claim 16, Dasgupta teaches a battery including a separator between an anode and a cathode (0012; 0094; figures 1A-1B). The anode is a lithium metal on a current collector (0026-0027). The cathode include LiFePO4 (0044) and a current collector (0068). Figure 1B shows a stack of cells including multiple anodes, cathodes, and separators. The separator is taught to include a coating layer (0070). Dasgupta teaches the anode current collector to be a mesh of copper or stainless steel (0061). Dasgupta teaches the separator to include a structural support taught to be PVDF, polyimide, or cellulose (0060 and 0071). Dasgupta teaches separator coating layer to be a ceramic layer including alumina (0070-0071 and 0087). Dasgupta teaches the electrolyte to include a lithium salt, a solvent, and an additive (0013-0014).
Regarding claim 17, Dasgupta teaches the cathode to include 90 wt% LiFePO4; 5 wt% of a conductive carbon additive; and 5 wt% of a PVDF binder (0027).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 5-8, 11, 12, 15, 18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dasgupta et al (WO 2023/84457).
Regarding claim 5, Dasgupta teaches separator coating layer to be a ceramic layer including alumina and having a thickness of 5-40 µm (0070-0071 and 0087).
Dasgupta and the claims differ in that Dasgupta does not teach the exact same proportions as recited in the instant claims. However, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the compositional proportions taught by Dasgupta overlap the instantly claimed proportions and therefore are considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, particularly in view of the fact that;
“The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve
upon what is already generally known provides the
motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of
percentage ranges is the optimum combination of
percentages”, In re Peterson 65 USPQ2d 1379 (CAFC 2003).
Also, In re Geisler 43 USPQ2d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (CCPA 1976); In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549, 553 (CCPA 1974) and MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 6, Dasgupta teaches the anode current collector to be a mesh of copper or stainless steel (0061).
Dasgupta does not explicitly teach the mesh being in a range from 50-400 mesh, as claimed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to utilize a mesh of any size, such as the claimed range, insofar as the mesh is performing the same function as the current collector and therefore an ordinarily skilled artisan would have considered it obvious to try the instantly claimed mesh size, without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 7, Dasgupta teaches the anode as discussed above.
Dasgupta does not explicitly teach the thickness and width of the anode.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to utilize any anode thickness and width, such as the claimed range, insofar as the anode is performing the same function and is materially the same as the instantly claimed anode, and therefore an ordinarily skilled artisan would have considered it obvious to try the instantly claimed anode size, without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 8, Dasgupta teaches the separator to have a thickness of 5-40 µm and a porosity of 20-80% (0024-0026).
Dasgupta and the claims differ in that Dasgupta does not teach the exact same proportions as recited in the instant claims. However, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the compositional proportions taught by Dasgupta overlap the instantly claimed proportions and therefore are considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, particularly in view of the fact that;
“The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve
upon what is already generally known provides the
motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of
percentage ranges is the optimum combination of
percentages”, In re Peterson 65 USPQ2d 1379 (CAFC 2003).
Also, In re Geisler 43 USPQ2d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (CCPA 1976); In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549, 553 (CCPA 1974) and MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 11, Dasgupta teaches the cathode to include 90 wt% LiFePO4; 5 wt% of a conductive carbon additive; and 5 wt% of a PVDF binder (0027).
Dasgupta does not explicitly teach utilizing a PTFE binder, as claimed.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to use PTFE as a binder, as it is an extremely well known binder in the art and an ordinarily skilled artisan would have found it obvious to try without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 12, Dasgupta teaches the cathode to include 90 wt% LiFePO4; 5 wt% of a conductive carbon additive; and 5 wt% of a PVDF binder (0027).
Dasgupta does not explicitly teach utilizing a carbon additive type, as claimed.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to use any conductive carbon additive, such as those instantly claimed, as they are extremely well-known conductive carbon additives in the art and an ordinarily skilled artisan would have found it obvious to try without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 15, Dasgupta teaches the battery, as discussed above.
Dasgupta does not explicitly teach the N/P ratio, as claimed.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to recognize that as the battery of Dasgupta is structurally and materially the same, a similar N/P ratio would be expected.
Regarding claim 18, Dasgupta teaches the separator to have a thickness of 5-40 µm and a porosity of 20-80% (0024-0026).
Dasgupta and the claims differ in that Dasgupta does not teach the exact same proportions as recited in the instant claims. However, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the compositional proportions taught by Dasgupta overlap the instantly claimed proportions and therefore are considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, particularly in view of the fact that;
“The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve
upon what is already generally known provides the
motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of
percentage ranges is the optimum combination of
percentages”, In re Peterson 65 USPQ2d 1379 (CAFC 2003).
Also, In re Geisler 43 USPQ2d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (CCPA 1976); In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549, 553 (CCPA 1974) and MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 20, Dasgupta teaches the cathode to include 90 wt% LiFePO4; 5 wt% of a conductive carbon additive; and 5 wt% of a PVDF binder (0027).
Dasgupta does not explicitly teach utilizing a carbon additive type, as claimed.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to use any conductive carbon additive, such as those instantly claimed, as they are extremely well-known conductive carbon additives in the art and an ordinarily skilled artisan would have found it obvious to try without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 10 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dasgupta et al (WO 2023/84457) as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of Zaghib et al (US 2010/0327223).
Regarding claim 10, Dasgupta teaches the cathode to include 90 wt% LiFePO4; 5 wt% of a conductive carbon additive; and 5 wt% of a PVDF binder (0027).
Dasgupta does not explicitly teach the LiFePO4 to include a carbon coating.
Zaghib teaches a lithium iron phosphate cathode active material including a thin layer of carbon deposit on the particle surface wherein the carbon deposit is 0.5-2.5 wt% (0002, 0016, and 0043). The carbon deposit is taught to improve conductivity (0093).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to utilize the carbon coating of Zaghib with the active material of Dasgupta in order to improve conductivity.
Regarding claim 19, Dasgupta teaches the cathode to include 90 wt% LiFePO4; 5 wt% of a conductive carbon additive; and 5 wt% of a PVDF binder (0027).
Dasgupta does not explicitly teach utilizing a PTFE binder, as claimed.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to use PTFE as a binder, as it is an extremely well known binder in the art and an ordinarily skilled artisan would have found it obvious to try without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success.
Dasgupta does not explicitly teach the LiFePO4 to include a carbon coating.
Zaghib teaches a lithium iron phosphate cathode active material including a thin layer of carbon deposit on the particle surface wherein the carbon deposit is 0.5-2.5 wt% (0002, 0016, and 0043). The carbon deposit is taught to improve conductivity (0093).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to utilize the carbon coating of Zaghib with the active material of Dasgupta in order to improve conductivity.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAH A SLIFKA whose telephone number is (571)270-5838. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5:30pm EST.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
/SARAH A. SLIFKA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759 September 1, 2026
Prosecution Insights