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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because in Figure 1, step (106), the “Purge solbent” appears to be a typographical error and should recite “Purge solvent”. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The term “amd” appears to be a typographical error and should recite “and”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 9 and 19 are 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 9, the claim is confusing as to whether the inclusion of ammonia or hydrazine is in (1), (2) or both? Clarification is requested.
Regarding claim 19, the claim is confusing as to the “one or more filtration apparatuses” performing the claimed methods as the methods don’t appear to be applicable to separation of reacted and unreacted reagents? Clarification is requested. In addition, the term “the method” lacks antecedent basis.
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 1,18 and 19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1,11 and 12 of U.S. Patent No. 10,985,360 in view of Lopatin et al. (2010/0193365).
U.S. Patent No. 10,985,360 claims forming a SEI film on a lithium-ion battery electrode with the same steps of providing the lithium-ion battery electrode, transferring by conveyance apparatus to a first reaction chamber, exposing the active material with a first liquid solution comprising a first reagent to form a first partially coated layer, rising with a first rising solution to remove unreacted first reagent, transferring by a conveyor apparatus to a second chamber, exposing the partially reacted coated layer to a second liquid solution comprising a second reagent, rinsing with a second solution to remove unreacted second reagent and filtrating and recycling the first and second rinsing solutions and the first and second unreacted reagents back to the first and second rising solutions.
The difference being in the instant application a series of rollers for transferring and using separate rinsing chambers is recited while in U.S. Patent No. 10,985,360 the rinsing is performed in the first and second reaction chambers and no recitation of a series of rollers for transferring.
Lopatin et al. (2010/0193365) teaches using separate rising chambers between coating chambers in a continuous liquid coating process using a series of rollers (abstract, Figs. 4A,4B and [0091]-[0103]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified U.S. Patent No. 10,985,360 to utilize a series of rollers for transferring and using separate rinsing chambers as evidenced by Lopatin et al. (2010/0193365) with the expectation of producing similar success.
The claim recites “wherein the SEI does not contribute to inter-particle resistance” which would inherently be obtained as the processes and materials are the same.
Claims 1,18 and 19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 15-17 of U.S. Patent No. 11,961,991 in view of Lopatin et al. (2010/0193365).
U.S. Patent No. 11,961,991 claims forming a SEI film on a lithium-ion battery electrode with the same steps of providing the lithium-ion battery electrode, transferring by conveyance apparatus to a first reaction chamber, exposing the active material with a first liquid solution comprising a first reagent to form a first partially coated layer, rising with a first rising solution to remove unreacted first reagent, transferring by a conveyor apparatus to a second chamber, exposing the partially reacted coated layer to a second liquid solution comprising a second reagent, rinsing with a second solution to remove unreacted second reagent and filtrating and recycling the first and second rinsing solutions and the first and second unreacted reagents back to the first and second rising solutions.
The difference being in the instant application a series of rollers for transferring and using separate rinsing chambers is recited while in U.S. Patent No. 11,961,991 the rinsing is performed in the first and second reaction chambers and no recitation of a series of rollers for transferring.
Lopatin et al. (2010/0193365) teaches using separate rising chambers between coating chambers in a continuous liquid coating process using a series of rollers (abstract, Figs. 4A,4B and [0091]-[0103]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified U.S. Patent No. 11,961,991 to utilize a series of rollers for transferring and using separate rinsing chambers as evidenced by Lopatin et al. (2010/0193365) with the expectation of producing similar success.
Claims 1,18 and 19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 10,11,18 or 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,362,346 in view of Lopatin et al. (2010/0193365).
U.S. Patent No. 12,362,346 claims forming a SEI film on a lithium-ion battery electrode with the same steps of providing the lithium-ion battery electrode, transferring by conveyance apparatus to a first reaction chamber, exposing the active material with a first liquid solution comprising a first reagent to form a first partially coated layer, rising with a first rising solution to remove unreacted first reagent, transferring by a conveyor apparatus to a second chamber, exposing the partially reacted coated layer to a second liquid solution comprising a second reagent, rinsing with a second solution to remove unreacted second reagent and filtrating and recycling the first and second rinsing solutions and the first and second unreacted reagents back to the first and second rising solutions.
The difference being in the instant application a series of rollers for transferring and using separate rinsing chambers is recited while in U.S. Patent No. 12,362,346 the rinsing is performed in the first and second reaction chambers and no recitation of a series of rollers for transferring.
Lopatin et al. (2010/0193365) teaches using separate rising chambers between coating chambers in a continuous liquid coating process using a series of rollers (abstract, Figs. 4A,4B and [0091]-[0103]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified U.S. Patent No. 12,362,346 to utilize a series of rollers for transferring and using separate rinsing chambers as evidenced by Lopatin et al. (2010/0193365) with the expectation of producing similar success.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN K TALBOT whose telephone number is (571)272-1428. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday 7-4PM.
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 CLEVELAND can be reached at 571-272-1418. 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.
/BRIAN K TALBOT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights