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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed November 14th 2025 has been entered. Claims 1, 2, 7, 12, 16, & 18 remain pending in the application. Claims 13-15 & 17 were cancelled by the Applicant. Therefore the 112(a) rejections of Claims 13 & 14 have been withdrawn. The 112(a) rejections of Claims 1 & 2 have been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendments. The 112(b) rejections of Claims 1 & 2 are maintained as the amendments to the claims do not overcome the rejections. The arguments to the 102 rejection of the claims in view of Kimura have been fully considered however are not persuasive, therefore the rejection has been maintained.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 7, 12, 16, & 18 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.
Claim 1 recites “performing a thermal reduction treatment…at a temperature higher than or equal to 120°C and lower than or equal to 180°C”. Claim 1 previously recited “performing a heat treatment…at a temperature higher than or equal to 120°C and lower than or equal to 140°C”. Amended Claim 1 later recites “wherein the temperature of the thermal reduction treatment is higher than the temperature of the heat treatment”. When the temperature of the thermal reduction treatment is 120°C, it cannot then be higher than the temperature of the heat treatment, and therefore cannot meet the claim limitation “wherein the temperature of the thermal reduction treatment is higher than the temperature of the heat treatment”. Thus the claim is indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 7 & 16, as they depend from Claim 1, are also indefinite.
Claim 2 recites “performing a thermal reduction treatment…higher than or equal to 120°C and lower than or equal to 180°C”. Claim 2 previously recited “performing a heat treatment…at a temperature higher than or equal to 120°C and lower than or equal to 140°C”. Amended Claim 2 later recites “wherein the temperature of the thermal reduction treatment is higher than the temperature of the heat treatment”. When the temperature of the thermal reduction treatment is 120°C, it cannot then be higher than the temperature of the heat treatment, and therefore cannot meet the claim limitation “wherein the temperature of the thermal reduction treatment is higher than the temperature of the heat treatment”. Thus the claim is indefinite. Appropriate correction is required. Claims 12 & 18, as they depend from Claim 2, are also indefinite.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 7, 12, 16, & 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kimura et al. US 2015/0207148 A1. Further evidence provided by Maria et al. “Effect of the TrFE Content on the Crystallization and SSA Thermal Fractionation of P(VDF-co-TrFE) Copolymers”.
Regarding Claim 1, Kimura discloses a method for producing a graphene electrode [0403-0408], comprising,
Applying a mixture (slurry) to a current collector [0404]
Wherein a mixture (slurry) comprises an active material (carbon-coated LiFeO4 [0403]), a conductive additive comprising a graphene compound (graphene oxide [0403]), a binder comprising PVDF [0403], and a dispersion medium (NMP [0403])
a drying treatment on the applied mixture at a temperature of 80°C to obtain an electrode layer [0404], which falls within the claimed range
In regards to the temperature of the drying treatment, the Examiner directs Applicant to MPEP 2131.03 I. In the case where the prior art “discloses a point within the claimed range, the prior art anticipates the claim”. UCB, Inc. v. Actavis Labs. UT, Inc., 65 F.4th 679, 687, 2023 USPQ2d 448 (Fed. Cir. 2023). Accordingly, the temperature disclosed in Kimura anticipates the claimed range set forth in Claim 1. See MPEP 2131.03 I.
a heat treatment following the drying treatment on the electrode layer at a temperature of 120°C to obtain a heat-treated electrode layer [0404], which falls within the claimed range
Kimura discloses that the electrode can be made by drying the slurry then heating to a higher temperature for a longer period of time under a reduced pressure [0348], thus Kimura discloses that the heat treatment is performed in a vacuum.
chemically reducing the graphene using a reducing agent to obtain a chemically-reduced electrode layer (reduction reaction using ascorbic acid [0407])
a thermal reduction treatment following the chemical reduction treatment on the chemically-reduced electrode layer [0407] at a temperature of 170°C, which meets the claim limitations
Regarding Claim 2, similarly to Claim 1, Kimura discloses a method for producing a graphene electrode [0403-0408], comprising,
Applying a mixture (slurry) to a current collector [0404]
Wherein a mixture (slurry) comprises an active material (carbon-coated LiFeO4 [0403]), a conductive additive comprising a graphene compound (graphene oxide [0403]), a binder comprising PVDF [0403], and a dispersion medium (NMP [0403])
a drying treatment on the applied mixture at a temperature of 80°C to obtain an electrode layer [0404], which falls within the claimed range
In regards to the temperature of the drying treatment, the Examiner directs Applicant to MPEP 2131.03 I. In the case where the prior art “discloses a point within the claimed range, the prior art anticipates the claim”. UCB, Inc. v. Actavis Labs. UT, Inc., 65 F.4th 679, 687, 2023 USPQ2d 448 (Fed. Cir. 2023). Accordingly, the temperature disclosed in Kimura anticipates the claimed range set forth in Claim 1. See MPEP 2131.03 I.
a heat treatment following the drying treatment on the electrode layer at a temperature of 120°C to obtain a heat-treated electrode layer [0404], which falls within the claimed range
Kimura further discloses that the drying treatment is 2 minutes, and the following heat treatment is 4 minutes [0404], thus Kimura discloses that the heat treatment is performed for a longer time than the drying treatment.
Kimura discloses that the electrode can be made by drying the slurry then heating to a higher temperature for a longer period of time under a reduced pressure [0348], thus Kimura discloses that the heat treatment is performed in a vacuum.
chemically reducing the graphene using a reducing agent to obtain a chemically-reduced electrode layer [0407]
a thermal reduction treatment following the chemical reduction treatment on the chemically-reduced electrode layer [0407] at a temperature of 170°C, which meets the claim limitations
Regarding Claims 7 & 12, Kimura discloses that the graphene compound is reduced graphene oxide [0100, 0177]. In the instant specification, Applicant states that “graphene oxide that is reduced is also referred as reduced graphene oxide (RGO)…RGO refers to a compound obtained by reducing graphene oxide” [0141]. Kimura discloses that graphene oxide is reduced to form reduced graphene oxide [0100, 0177], thus Kimura discloses that the graphene compound is reduced graphene oxide.
Regarding Claims 16 & 18, Kimura discloses that the heat treatment is performed at 120°C [0404], and previously discloses that the binder used is PVDF [0403]. As evidenced by Maria et al., PVDF crystallizes at 120°C [Page 3 “Results and Discussion” & shown in Figure 1a], thus Kimura’s disclosed temperature of 120°C meets the limitation as being at or above the temperature of binder crystallization. Further, the instant specification states that the temperature of the heat treatment is selected such that the binder is partially crystallized but not dissolved [0059], and accordingly the preferable temperature range for the heat treatment is 120-140°C [0061]. Additionally, the instant specification uses PVDF as the binder [0183] and 130°C as the temperature for the heat treatment in the example [0185]. As evidenced and supported by the specification, when PVDF is used as the binder, 130°C is a suitable temperature for the heat treatment wherein the PVDF is crystallized and not dissolved (i.e. 130°C is thus lower than the temperature at which PVDF is dissolved). Kimura discloses a temperature lower than that of the instant specification (120°C), and thus Kimura discloses that the heat treatment is performed at a temperature that is higher than or equal to the crystallization temperature of the binder (as evidenced by Maria) and lower than or equal to the dissolution temperature of the binder (as evidenced by the instant specification).
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that Kimura does not disclose that the heat treatment is performed in a vacuum. Examiner respectfully points out that as stated in the rejection above, Kimura discloses a method of forming an electrode wherein a drying step is performed at a lower temperature which is then followed by a heating step performed at a higher temperature than the drying step and for longer than the drying step and can occur in a reduced atmosphere [0151, 0348]. Thus Kimura discloses that the heat treatment is performed in a vacuum. Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, this argument is unpersuasive.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANNA E GOULD whose telephone number is (571)270-1088. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, Jeffrey T. Barton can be reached at (571) 272-1307. 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.
/A.E.G./Examiner, Art Unit 1726
/JEFFREY T BARTON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1726 23 January 2026