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 .
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 1-20 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over allowed claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent application No. 18/619,122 (U.S. Patent No. N/A at the present time) in view of Keum et al. (US 2025/0273813) and Blanchard (US 2026/0204732).
Regarding claims 1, 8 and 14, Keum discloses a battery comprising:
a lithium-based rechargeable battery cell (54) assembly (see para [0038]) including a casing (see para [0005], [0008]-[0011], [0015]-[0019]) having a coating applied to an interior surface thereof (i.e., in the serpentine (monolithic) channel wherein the interior wall of the housing forms part of the channel).
Keum does not disclose wherein the coating is a sulfidolytic coating; nor the battery a sulfur containing lithium-based battery, the battery including a cell, having an anode, a cathode, and an electrolyte therebetween, nor wherein the coating is configured to precipitate hydrogen sulfide gas responsive to moisture ingress in the cathode such that the sulfidolytic coating exudes sulfur dioxide and water into the casing.
Applicant’s application 18/619,122 (hereafter Zhou) discloses wherein the battery (and/or battery pack) is a sulfur-containing lithium-based rechargeable battery (see claims 1 and 9), wherein the monolith includes channels coated with a sulfidolytic catalyst (see claims 1, 6 and 7), wherein the coating is configured to to precipitate hydrogen sulfide gas responsive to moisture ingress in the cathode such that the sulfidolytic coating exudes sulfur dioxide and water (see claim 1).
The combination of Keum and Zhou does not disclose wherein the SO2 and water are released into the casing.
Blanchard discloses gas built up in the housing/battery may be released external to the battery of a portion of housing (see para [0011]-[0018], [0107]-[0109]).
Wherein a battery including a cathode, anode, and electrolyte is a well-known expedient in the art. See MPEP § 2144.03.
The court has held it would be obvious to combine prior art elements (i.e., as disclosed by Keum, Zhou, Blanchard and knowledge in the art) according to known methods wherein the result is predictable. See MPEP § 2143.
Regarding claims 8 and 14, comprising coating on opposite sides of casing would be obvious as the Court has held it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to choose between a finite number of identified, predictable solutions i.e., interior walls of the casing/housing, to pursue the known options with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claims 2, 9, and 15, modified Zhous discloses a battery of claim 1 wherein the sulfidolytic coating includes a catalyst material (see Zhou claims 6 and 7).
Regarding claims 3, 10 and 16, modified Zhou discloses a battery of claim 2 wherein the catalyst material is selected from a group comprising Ni/Ce, Cu/Zeolite, Fe/Zeolite, and combinations thereof (see claims 6 and 7).
Regarding claims 4, modified Zhou discloses a battery of claim 1 wherein the electrolyte is selected from a group comprising inorganic solid electrolyte, solid polymer electrolyte, and composite polymer electrolyte (see claim 8)
Regarding claims 5 and 6, modified Zhou discloses a battery of claim 1 wherein the casing is a composite; is polymer-based is a well-known expedient in the art. See MPEP § 2144.03. See obvious discussion of claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, modified Zhou discloses a battery of claim 1. Wherein limitation that the sulfidolytic coating is applied using atomic layer deposition, vapor deposition, or 3D printing is a product-by-process limitation. The catalyst coating of Zhou is able to be formed by the recited limitation.
Regarding claim 11, modified Zhou discloses a battery pack of claim 8 wherein the sulfur-containing lithium-based rechargeable battery cell assemblies include a solid electrolyte (see claim 8).
Regarding claim 12, modified Zhou discloses a battery pack of claim 8. The limitation wherein the sulfidolytic coating is applied using atomic layer deposition, vapor deposition, or 3D printing is a product-by-process limitation. The coating of Zhou is able to be formed by the recited process.
Regarding claim 13, modified Zhou discloses a battery pack of claim 8, further comprising an enclosure around the stack configured to permit selective venting of sulfur dioxide and water (see Zhou claim 1, Blanchard para [0001]-[0017]).
Regarding claim 17, modified Zhou discloses a battery of claim 14 wherein the electrolyte is selected from a group comprising inorganic solid electrolyte, solid polymer electrolyte, and composite polymer electrolyte (see claim 8).
Regarding claim 18, modified Zhou discloses a battery of claim 14. The limitation wherein the coating is applied using atomic layer deposition, vapor deposition, or 3D printing is a product-by-process limitation. The coating of Zhou is able to be formed by the process recited.
Regarding claims 19 and 20, modified Zhou discloses a battery of claim 14. Wherein the battery is a pouch cell or is packaged with a plurality of battery cell assemblies defining a stack are well-known expedients in the art. See MPEP § 2144.03. See obviousness discussion of claims 1 and 14.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-19 are allowable over the prior art,
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art does not disclose the accumulative limitation of the independent claims. Specifically, the prior art does not disclose a exchange/conversion coating or structure that comprises a catalyst that hydrolyzes hydrogen sulfide to sulfur dioxide and water, that is then discharged from the battery. Within the NPL search, there is art that teaches away from such a conversion, i.e. hydrogen sulfide to sulfur dioxide, as SO2 can poison materials and must be scrubbed before discharge. The inventors utilize the monolith structure coated with a catalyst in the event there is water egress into the battery. The inventors have solved this problem wherein the generated hydrogen sulfide is converted into SO2 then is discharged into a casing. I consulted with Maria Laios, a senior primary examiner and trainer in the battery art, to verify she was not aware of art that would read on this technology.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAYNE L MERSHON whose telephone number is (571)270-7869. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 to 6:00 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, Allison Bourke can be reached at (303) 297-4684. 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.
JAYNE L. MERSHON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1721
/JAYNE L MERSHON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1721
Prosecution Insights