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 Claims 1-13 in the reply filed on 5/18/26 is acknowledged.
Claims 14-18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 5/18/26.
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.
Claim 1 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.
Claim 1 is vague and indefinite because it is not clear if only step 3 is optional, or if both steps 3 and 4 are optional due to the optionally language in line 7. A similar issue exists with the use of “can” in line 13 making unclear if the reactants react or not.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu (CN103928704B) in view of Ueda (WO 2022009830A1).
Claims 1-3, 10-11
Xu teaches a method for protecting battery components comprising a positive plate electrode, negative plate electrode, and isolating separation membrane (pg. 3). The battery components are placed in a reaction cavity, vacuumized to at least 90 kPa and then subjected to PE-ALD to deposit the protective layer (Id.). In a particular example for depositing alumina, a first reactant is TMA is introduced into the reaction cavity for 0.3 seconds, the reaction cavity is purged with N2, a second reactant is oxygen plasma is introduced into the reaction cavity, and the reaction cavity is purged with N2, repeat until the desired layer thickness is achieved (Id.). Xu does not explicitly state the increase in pressure due to the introduction of the reactants nor the time for keeping the second reactant in the reaction cavity. However, these are merely ordinary process variables that would have been selected or routinely optimized in the course of implementing this PE-ALD process. In particular, the pressures are related to the amount of reactant added to the reaction chamber and amounts are needed to allow for coverage and saturation of the substrate and the time is related to the time necessary to convert the aluminum precursor into alumina.
Xu does not teach a top cap assembly.
However, Ueda teaches a top cap assembly for a battery (abstract) that is desirably coated with a protective film such as an alumina film deposited by ALD (pg. 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to practice the method of Xu and include the top cap assembly of Ueda such that both the electrode assembly and top cap assembly are coated simultaneously. It would have been desirable to perform this process simultaneously rather than separately in order to gain overall process efficiency.
Claim 4:
Xu teaches a temperature of 70°C (pg. 4).
Claims 5-6:
Xu teaches repeating the cyclic process 19 times (pg. 4). It is noted that claim 6 is not currently written in a way that excludes steps 3-4 from the first repeats.
Claim 8:
The cyclic and repeated nature of the process results in prior cycles acting as pretreatment for subsequent cycles.
Claim 9:
Ueda teaches components that reasonably read on the claimed “tabs” and “adapter plates” such as element 60 and element 54. The nature of a vapor deposition process is to deposit on all surfaces.
Claim 12:
Xu teaches a thickness of 1.4 nm (pg. 4).
Claim 13:
Xu teaches post-treatment thermal annealing at 80°C in vacuum (pg. 4). Since this will not be a perfect vacuum, it will contain the elements found in air, such as nitrogen.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu (CN103928704B) in view of Ueda (WO 2022009830A1) in view of Chiang (US 2009/0061646 A1).
Previously cited prior art is discussed above but does not teach the carrier gas. However, Chiang teaches ALD wherein carrier gasses such as argon are used to carry the reactants into the reaction chamber [0047]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include argon as the carrier gas in order to carry the reactants into the reaction chamber.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEX A ROLLAND whose telephone number is (571)270-5355. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6:30.
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 5712721234. 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.
/ALEX A ROLLAND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights