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 .
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.
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(s) 1 and 4-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0313617 to Yushin (“Yushin”).
Regarding claims 1, 4, 5, 7-11, 14-16 Yushin discloses lithium-ion batteries comprising anode, cathode, separator and electrolyte that may be used in modules that power electronic devices. Yushin at paragraph [0046]. The anode, separator, and cathode are stacked in that order and rolled to form a traditional jellyroll electrode assembly. Id. at paragraph [0048]. In some embodiments, Yushin discloses using layered current collectors for both anode and cathode where an inner polymeric core is coated on both sides by a metal. For the cathode, the metal chosen is aluminum, and its thickness may range from 0.1-4 microns and the polymer support has a thickness of 2-12 microns. Id. at paragraph [0129]. Positive electrode active material is applied to the cathode collector and negative electrode active material is applied to the anode collector.
The electrolyte system of Yushin includes LiPF6 salt in addition to one or more other salts. In particular, the combination of LiPF6 and LiFSI (lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl) imide – corresponding to x = 1 and R1 and R2 each a fluorine atom) in a 1:1 ratio are disclosed as being beneficial. Although percentage amounts of each salt in the electrolyte are not disclosed, the Office finds that absent a showing of unexpected results choice of salt amount is within the ordinary skill in the art to ensure an electrolyte having sufficient ion transport properties while maintaining viscosity and other required properties.
Further regarding claim 6, although Yushin does not disclose a bonding force between its polymer and metal the Office notes that Yushin discloses similar materials as those used by Applicant. Moreover, Yushin discloses that a challenge of layered collector/active material systems in jelly roll structures is delamination due to the need to roll into/against a tight radius. Thus, Yushin discloses a reason to ensure the bonding force between the support and metal are sufficient, and because the materials are similar to those used by Applicant, it is found that the claimed range is achievable.
Further regarding claim 12 and 13, Yushin discloses that other salts may be included in the electrolyte composition, including the additives listed in claim 12 (see at least difluorophosphate and difluorooxalate borate), where the amount is considered to be nothing more than the result of routine experimentation to balance the desired properties (freezing point, melting point, viscosity, ionic conductivity, etc.) of the electrolyte solution. Id. at paragraph [0136].
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-4 and 7-16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,424,618. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because although no single claim of the ‘618 overlaps completely with a pending claim, all subject matter claimed in the present claims is claimed in various combinations in the claims of the ‘618 patent.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WYATT P MCCONNELL whose telephone number is (571)270-7531. The examiner can normally be reached 9am to 5pm M-F.
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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at 571-272-1330. 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.
/WYATT P MCCONNELL/ Examiner, Art Unit 1727
Prosecution Insights