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 claims 1-5, 9, 13 and 15-17 in the reply filed on 9/21/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 18-25, 27 and 29 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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 13 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 13 recites the limitation "the lithium metal powder". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as this claim depends upon claim 1.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chun et al. (US 5266098).
As to claim 1, Chun teaches a method for preparing a metal powder, in which an ultrasonic vibration is induced on a perforated membrane that is in contact with a liquid metal (col. 3 lines 32-60, Fig. 2).
As to claims 2-3, the metal is as claimed in col. 5 lines 63-67.
As to claim 4, the metal powder is in aerosol form in col. 2 lines 32-60 and as shown in Figure 3 using gas jest 74, for example.
As to claim 5, Figure 1 shows the powder being deposited directly onto a target.
As to claims 15-16, a piezo electric transducer is used to generate the ultrasonic vibration in the liquid metal that is in contact with the perforated membrane as shown in Figure 2, deposited on a substrate in Figure 1 or Figure 3 by spraying, col. 3 lines 32-60.
Claim(s) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ohtani et al. (US 2009/0317735 A1)
As to claim 1, Chun teaches a method for preparing a metal powder, in which an ultrasonic vibration is induced on a perforated membrane that is in contact with a liquid metal (para 0199, 0316, as shown in Figure 1.
As to claims 2-3, the metal is as claimed in para 200.
As to claim 4, the metal powder is in aerosol form para 0088.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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) 9, 13 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chun et al. (US 5266098) in view of Peng et al. (CN 109967750, citations taken from attached translation) and Zhuang et al. (CN 105336929, citations taken from attached translation).
Chun et al. does not teach using its process to make lithium powders. Peng has a similar process where a liquid metal is sonicated and made into a powder (abstract) and this metal is lithium in claim 3. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Chun to include lithium as one of its metals as taught by Peng as Peng teaches the art recognized suitability and utility of such and it would expand the applications of the Chun method/apparatus. Chun does not teach the lithium as a part of a battery or cathode/anode when deposited.
Zhuang begins with lithium in solution that is then sonicated to an aerosol that deposits on a substrate used in a battery in Embodiment 1. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Chun and Peng to include the lithium in solution and substrates as taught by Zhuang in order to apply their method/apparatus to battery fabrication.
Claim(s) 5, 9, 13 and 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohtani et al. (US 2009/0317735 A1) in view of Zhuang et al. (CN 105336929, citations taken from attached translation).
As to claims 5 and 15-17, Ohtani et al. teaches the features of these claims except for depositing the particles on a substrate. Zhuang teaches a similar solution based ultrasonic process that deposits its droplet on a substrate to make a battery layer in Embodiment 1. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Ohtani to include depositing its particles on a substrate as taught by Zhuang in order to make battery layers.
As to claims 9 and 13, Zhuang teaches lithium and solvent in Embodiment 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KELLY M GAMBETTA whose telephone number is (571)272-2668. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5:30.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at 571-272-5166. 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.
KELLY M. GAMBETTA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1718
/KELLY M GAMBETTA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights