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
Claims 16-20, withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 2/10/2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 7/25/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Priority
The Application Date Sheet contains a typographical error regarding the application 14714160 and instead reads 14417160. Please submit a new ADS with the corrected information.
Drawings
Color photographs and color drawings are not accepted in utility applications unless a petition filed under 37 CFR 1.84(a)(2) is granted. Any such petition must be accompanied by the appropriate fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(h), one set of color drawings or color photographs, as appropriate, if submitted via the USPTO patent electronic filing system or three sets of color drawings or color photographs, as appropriate, if not submitted via the via USPTO patent electronic filing system, and, unless already present, an amendment to include the following language as the first paragraph of the brief description of the drawings section of the specification:
The patent or application file contains at least one drawing executed in color. Copies of this patent or patent application publication with color drawing(s) will be provided by the Office upon request and payment of the necessary fee.
Color photographs will be accepted if the conditions for accepting color drawings and black and white photographs have been satisfied. See 37 CFR 1.84(b)(2).
The drawings are objected to because Figures 1A thru 12C, and 26 thru 28 are either in color or greyscale and not in black and white as per 37 CFR 1.84(b)(2). This has caused them to be unclear and difficult to read. 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.
Specification
The spacing of the lines of the specification is such as to make reading difficult. New application papers with lines 1 1/2 or double spaced (see 37 CFR 1.52(b)(2)) on good quality paper are required. A reformatted 1 ½ or double-spaced specification should be resubmitted.
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract is less than 50 words and does not fully sum. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: An insuff.
Appropriate correction is required.
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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.
Claims 21-24, 26-30, 32, 36 and 44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20150155538 A1, TANG et al. in view of US 20100055572 A1, PARK et al.
Regarding claims 21-24, 26-30, 32, 36 and 44. TANG [title] discloses a battery, comprising:
[0014] a first electrode, called a cathode coupled with a first current collector;
[0014] a second electrode, called an anode coupled with a second current collector and having an opposite polarity as the first electrode;
[0014] a separator, called an electrical insulating layer interposed between the first electrode and the second electrode; and
[0014] a safe layer, called an insulating layer interposed between the first electrode and the first current collector, [0267] the safe layer responding to being exposed to a target temperature by at least undergoing an increase in electrical resistivity to form a high-resistance gap between the first electrode and the first current collector, this gap is referred to as swelling, the safe layer including
(i) [0143] Table 1 discloses 12% which anticipates the instantly claimed range of 1-20% a binder as per claim 44 with [0060] poly(acrylic acid) (PAA) and/or a PAA-based material satisfying the limitations of claims 21, 22, 26, 27, 32, and 44
(ii) [0194] Table 1 discloses 26% and 62% which anticipates the instantly claimed range of 10-95% (5-95% for claim 29) by weight of an alumina-based nano sized ceramic powder containing [0041] alumina and/or alumina derivatives, satisfying the limitations of claims 21, 24, 26, 29, 30, 36 and 44
TANG does not disclose a safe layer that includes conductive nano particles.
PARK [title] discloses An Electrochemical Energy Storage Device With High Capacity And High Power Using Conductive Polymer Composite
PARK [0021] discloses that “the conductive inorganic nanoparticles preferably have a nano-scaled size in order to improve the dispersibility of the inorganic particles in a conductive polymer. For example, in the case of spherical conductive particles, the particles may have a diameter of 0.1.about.500 nm, and preferably of 0.1.about.100 nm.” Satisfying the limitations of claims 21 and 26.
PARK [0061] discloses a mixture of the conductive nano particles in the form of carbon nanotubes in a 2 wt % mixture with the binder satisfying the limitations of claims 23, 28, and 44.
PARK [0022] discloses “when the conductive inorganic particles have a nano-scaled size, they have an increased surface area per weight. Such an increase in surface area is followed by an increase in flow paths through with electrons can move in an electrode, resulting in improvement of high-output characteristics of an electrochemical device.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use conductive nano particles as taught by PARK in the insulating layer of TANG in the instantly claimed range in order to improve the high-output characteristics of an electrochemical device.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20090162750 A1, KAWAKAMI et al.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAWRENCE LA RAIA III whose telephone number is (703)756-5441. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thur 6:00am-4:00pm.
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.
LAWRENCE LA RAIA III
Examiner
Art Unit 1727
/L.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1727
/BARBARA L GILLIAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1727