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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Fig. 5 the y-axis label “Relative capacity [%]” obscures the y-axis values.
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.
Claim Objections
Claims 17, 28 and 30 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 17 and 28 lines 21 and 21, respectively, recite “meoporous layer” which appears to be a typo and should read “mesoporous layer”.
Claim 30 lines 1-2 recites “a anode” which appears to be a typo and should read “an anode”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 16-32 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.
Claims 17 and 28, lines 21-22 and 21-22, respectively, recite the limitation “wherein the mesoporous layer is free of binder and has a porosity of between 20% and 60% by volume, preferably between 25% and 50%” which renders the meaning of the claims indefinite. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claims, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claims 18-27 and 29-32 are rejected as being dependent upon above rejected claims 17 and 28.
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.
Claim(s) 17-21 and 25-32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugnaux US20040131934A1 in view of Gaben US20150104713A1.
Regarding claim 17, Sugnaux discloses a method for manufacturing an electrochemical device (Sugnaux, [0015]), the method comprising: forming a porous electrode by:
(a) providing a substrate (Sugnaux, [0079]) and a colloidal suspension or a paste comprising aggregates or agglomerates of monodisperse primary nanoparticles (Sugnaux, [0050], [0092]), of at least one active electrode material (Sugnaux, [0050]), the monodisperse primary nanoparticles having an average primary size of less than 50 nm and the aggregates or agglomerates having an average size above 50 nm (Sugnaux, [0050]), which significantly overlap with and touch the claimed ranges having an average primary diameter of between 2 nm and 60 nm, said aggregates or agglomerates having an average diameter of between 100 nm to 200 nm, the Courts have held that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) and similarly a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2144.05,
wherein the substrate is a substrate acting as an electric current collector or an intermediate substrate (Sugnaux, [0074]),
(b) depositing a layer is from said colloidal suspension or said paste provided on at least one face of said substrate using one of: electrophoresis, ink-jet printing, doctor blade coating, roll coating, curtain coating, dip-coating, or slot-die coating (Sugnaux, [0079], [0086]),
(c) drying the deposited layer, before or after separating said layer from the intermediate substrate, (Sugnaux, [0086]) then heat treating the dried layer under an oxidizing atmosphere(Sugnaux, [0062]), and then consolidating the heat treated layer by pressing and/or heating to obtain a mesoporous layer (Sugnaux, [0064-0065]), the examiner notes the limitation includes optional language that is not required,
(d) depositing a coating of an electronically conductive material on and inside the pores of said mesoporous layer (Sugnaux, [0065]),
wherein the mesoporous layer has a porosity of between 30% to 70%, by mass to surface measurements (Sugnaux, [0104]) which overlaps with and touches the claimed range of between 20% and 60% by volume, preferably between 25% and 50%, the Courts have held that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) and similarly a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985), see MPEP 2144.05,
and pores with an average diameter of less than 50 nm (Sugnaux, [0026], [0039]), the examiner notes that this is merely a restatement of the layer being a mesoporous layer, as “mesoporous” defines a porous material with a predominant pore size in the range of from 2 nm to 50 nm, according to the definition of International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC) (Sugnaux, [0026]).
Sugnaux additionally discloses wherein the thermal treatment temperature is between 70° C. and 240° C (Sugnaux, [0062]), wherein the substrate comprises multiple layers (Sugnaux, [0082]) and wherein it is well known in the art that when amorphous microporous, sub-micron-size materials are used the interior connectivity of the particles is poor and therefore requires a binder and/or a conducting binder within the electrode fabrication mixture (Sugnaux, [0007]), that for brittle inflexible films most of the accessible porosity of the electrode is clogged by the compressed binder (Sugnaux, [0011]) and wherein the method comprises adding binder in a proportion not to isolate the particles from each other or to block the pores, but in a quantity sufficient to produce a percolating interconnected network extending throughout the layer (Sugnaux, [0076]). Sugnaux however does not explicitly disclose wherein the mesoporous layer is free of binder.
In a method for manufacturing a porous electrode for an electrochemical device (Gaben, [0098]) Gaben teaches providing a substrate, the substrate comprises an intermediate substrate (Gaben, [0188], Fig. 4a, 61 strippable polymer film) in order to protect the surface of the substrate (Gaben, [0188]), and a colloidal suspension or a paste that includes aggregates or agglomerates of monodisperse primary nanoparticles (Gaben, [0156]), depositing a layer from the colloidal suspension or paste on at least one face of the substrate via at least one of electrophoresis (Gaben, [0138], [0143]), drying the deposited layer (Gaben, [0151]) and then consolidating the heat treated by pressing and/or heating (Gaben, [0156]), the thermal treatment temperature is between 180° C. and 400° C (Gaben, [0160]) and depositing a coating of an electronically conductive material (Gaben, [0055-0056]), wherein the porosity is less than 30% (Gaben, [0211]). The active electrode material is selected from the group consisting of LiMn2O4, LiCoO2, LiNiO2, LiMn1,5Ni0,5O4, LiMn1,5Ni0,5-xXxO4 oxides (where x is selected from among Al, Fe, Cr, Co, Rh, Nd, other rare earths and in which 0<x<0.1), LiFeO2, LiMn1/3Ni1/3Co1/3O4, LiFePO4, LiMnPO4, LiCoPO4, LiNiPO4, Li3V2(PO4)3 phosphates, all lithium forms of the following chalcogenides: V2O5, V3O8, TiS2, TiOySz, WOySz, CuS, CuS2 (Gaben, [0043-0046]), Li4Ti5O12 (Gaben, [0120]) and Li2O-Nb2O5- (Gaben, [0122-0127]).
Gaben further teaches wherein the electrode layer is free of binder in order that the lack of any large quantities of organic compounds in the deposit can limit or even prevent risks of crazing or the appearance of other defects in the deposit during drying steps (Gaben, [0138]). Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the electrode layer of Sugnaux wherein the mesoporous layer is free of binder thereby the lack of any large quantities of organic compounds in the deposit can limit or even prevent risks of crazing or the appearance of other defects in the deposit during drying steps.
Regarding claim 18, modified Sugnaux also teaches wherein said mesoporous layer has a specific surface of between 0.1 m2/g to 500 m2/g (Sugnaux, [0050]) which significantly overlaps with the claimed range of between 10 m2/g and 500 m2/g. The Courts have held that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) and similarly a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985), see MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 19, modified Sugnaux further teaches wherein said mesoporous layer has a thickness of between 4-20 µm (Sugnaux, [0086], [0104]), which overlaps with the claimed range of 4 µm and 400 µm. The Courts have held that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976), see MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 20, modified Sugnaux additionally teaches wherein when said substrate is an intermediate substrate (Gaben, [0188], Fig. 4a, 61 strippable polymer film), said layer is separated from said intermediate substrate before or after drying to form a porous plate (Sugnaux, [0038], Fig. 3B, porous electrode 50, metal current collector 54; Gaben, Figs. 4b-c, 61 strippable polymer film, metal film 62, electrode 63), the examiner notes that the substrate is removed, satisfying the limitation, and the porous electrode on the substrate satisfies the claim limitations as there are no further metes and bounds to distinguish the claimed porous plate from that taught by modified Sugnaux of a plate comprising a porous electrode and a substrate.
Regarding claim 21, modified Sugnaux also teaches wherein when said colloidal suspension or paste comprises organic additives, said dried layer is heat treated under an oxidizing atmosphere (Sugnaux, [0062]).
Regarding claim 25, modified Sugnaux further teaches wherein the at least one active electrode material is selected from the group consisting of LiMn2O4 (Sugnaux, [0088]; Gaben, [0043-0046]), LiCoO2 (Sugnaux, [0107]; Gaben, [0043-0046]), LiNiO2, LiMn1,5Ni0,5O4, LiMn1,5Ni0,5-xXxO4 oxides (where x is selected from among Al, Fe, Cr, Co, Rh, Nd, other rare earths and in which 0<x<0.1), LiFeO2, LiMn1/3Ni1/3Co1/3O4, LiFePO4, LiMnPO4, LiCoPO4, LiNiPO4, Li3V2(PO4)3 phosphates, all lithium forms of the following chalcogenides: V2O5, V3O8, TiS2, TiOySz, WOySz, CuS, CuS2 Gaben, ([0043-0046]).
Regarding claim 26, modified Sugnaux additionally teaches wherein the at least one active electrode material is selected from the group consisting of TiO2 (Sugnaux, [0086]), Li4Ti5O12 (Gaben, [0120]) and Li2O-Nb2O5- (Gaben, [0122-0127]).
Regarding claim 27, modified Sugnaux also teaches wherein the electrochemical device is a electrochemical device selected from a group formed by photovoltaic cells (Sugnaux, [0022]) and lithium ion batteries with a capacity greater than 1 mAh (Sugnaux, [0071], [0087]), the examiner notes that the given a gram of active material the capacity would be 266.67 mAh and that only 0.00375g of active material would be required to obtain a 1 mAh capacity, as related through the art known equation E(mWh/g) = C(mAh) * V(V).
Regarding claim 28, Sugnaux discloses a method for manufacturing a lithium ion battery having a capacity greater than 1 mAh (Sugnaux, [0015], [0071], [0087]), the examiner notes that the given a gram of active material the capacity would be 266.67 mAh and that only 0.00375g of active material would be required to obtain a 1 mAh capacity, as related through the art known equation E(mWh/g) = C(mAh) * V(V), the method comprising: forming a porous electrode by:
(a) providing a substrate (Sugnaux, [0079]) and a colloidal suspension or a paste comprising aggregates or agglomerates of monodisperse primary nanoparticles (Sugnaux, [0050], [0092]), of at least one active electrode material (Sugnaux, [0050]), the monodisperse primary nanoparticles having an average primary size of less than 50 nm and the aggregates or agglomerates having an average size above 50 nm (Sugnaux, [0050]), which significantly overlap with and touch the claimed ranges having an average primary diameter of between 2 nm and 60 nm, said aggregates or agglomerates having an average diameter of between 100 nm to 200 nm, the Courts have held that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) and similarly a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2144.05,
wherein the substrate is a substrate acting as an electric current collector or an intermediate substrate (Sugnaux, [0074]),
(b) depositing a layer is from said colloidal suspension or said paste provided on at least one face of said substrate using one of: electrophoresis, ink-jet printing, doctor blade coating, roll coating, curtain coating, dip-coating, or slot-die coating (Sugnaux, [0079], [0086]),
(c) drying the deposited layer, before or after separating said layer from the intermediate substrate, (Sugnaux, [0086]) then heat treating the dried layer under an oxidizing atmosphere(Sugnaux, [0062]), and then consolidating the heat treated layer by pressing and/or heating to obtain a mesoporous layer (Sugnaux, [0064-0065]), the examiner notes the limitation includes optional language that is not required,
(d) depositing a coating of an electronically conductive material on and inside the pores of said mesoporous layer (Sugnaux, [0065]),
wherein the mesoporous layer has a porosity of between 30% to 70%, by mass to surface measurements (Sugnaux, [0104]) which overlaps with and touches the claimed range of between 20% and 60% by volume, preferably between 25% and 50%, the Courts have held that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976), see MPEP 2144.05,
and pores with an average diameter of less than 50 nm (Sugnaux, [0026], [0039]), the examiner notes that this is merely a restatement of the layer being a mesoporous layer, as “mesoporous” defines a porous material with a predominant pore size in the range of from 2 nm to 50 nm, according to the definition of International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC) (Sugnaux, [0026]).
Sugnaux additionally discloses wherein the thermal treatment temperature is between 70° C. and 240° C (Sugnaux, [0062]), wherein the substrate comprises multiple layers (Sugnaux, [0082]) and wherein it is well known in the art that when amorphous microporous, sub-micron-size materials are used the interior connectivity of the particles is poor and therefore requires a binder and/or a conducting binder within the electrode fabrication mixture (Sugnaux, [0007]), that for brittle inflexible films most of the accessible porosity of the electrode is clogged by the compressed binder (Sugnaux, [0011]) and wherein the method comprises adding binder in a proportion not to isolate the particles from each other or to block the pores, but in a quantity sufficient to produce a percolating interconnected network extending throughout the layer (Sugnaux, [0076]). Sugnaux however does not explicitly disclose wherein the mesoporous layer is free of binder.
In a method for manufacturing a porous electrode for an electrochemical device (Gaben, [0098]) Gaben teaches providing a substrate, the substrate comprises an intermediate substrate (Gaben, [0188], Fig. 4a, 61 strippable polymer film) in order to protect the surface of the substrate (Gaben, [0188]), and a colloidal suspension or a paste that includes aggregates or agglomerates of monodisperse primary nanoparticles (Gaben, [0156]), depositing a layer from the colloidal suspension or paste on at least one face of the substrate via at least one of electrophoresis (Gaben, [0138], [0143]), drying the deposited layer (Gaben, [0151]) and then consolidating the heat treated by pressing and/or heating (Gaben, [0156]), the thermal treatment temperature is between 180° C. and 400° C (Gaben, [0160]) and depositing a coating of an electronically conductive material (Gaben, [0055-0056]), wherein the porosity is less than 30% (Gaben, [0211]). The active electrode material is selected from the group consisting of LiMn2O4, LiCoO2, LiNiO2, LiMn1,5Ni0,5O4, LiMn1,5Ni0,5-xXxO4 oxides (where x is selected from among Al, Fe, Cr, Co, Rh, Nd, other rare earths and in which 0<x<0.1), LiFeO2, LiMn1/3Ni1/3Co1/3O4, LiFePO4, LiMnPO4, LiCoPO4, LiNiPO4, Li3V2(PO4)3 phosphates, all lithium forms of the following chalcogenides: V2O5, V3O8, TiS2, TiOySz, WOySz, CuS, CuS2 (Gaben, [0043-0046]), Li4Ti5O12 (Gaben, [0120]) and Li2O-Nb2O5- (Gaben, [0122-0127]).
Gaben further teaches wherein the electrode layer is free of binder in order that the lack of any large quantities of organic compounds in the deposit can limit or even prevent risks of crazing or the appearance of other defects in the deposit during drying steps (Gaben, [0138]). Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the electrode layer of Sugnaux wherein the mesoporous layer is free of binder thereby the lack of any large quantities of organic compounds in the deposit can limit or even prevent risks of crazing or the appearance of other defects in the deposit during drying steps.
Regarding claims 29 and 30, modified Sugnaux also teaches wherein the porous electrode comprises a cathode and an anode (Sugnaux, [0071]).
Regarding claim 31, modified Sugnaux further teaches further comprising impregnating said porous electrode with an electrolyte (Sugnaux, [0048]) that includes phase carrying lithium ions selected from the group formed of:
an electrolyte composed of at least one aprotic solvent and at least one lithium salt (Sugnaux, [0087]),
an electrolyte composed of at least one ionic liquid and at least one lithium salt (Sugnaux, [0112]),
a polymer made ionically conductive by adding at least one lithium salt, and a polymer made ionically conductive by adding a liquid electrolyte, either in the polymer phase or in a mesoporous structure (Sugnaux, [0103], [0105]).
Regarding claim 32, modified Sugnaux additionally teaches wherein the lithium-ion battery has a capacity greater than 1 mAh (see claim 28 above).
Claim(s) 22-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugnaux US20040131934A1 in view of Gaben US20150104713A1, as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Xiao US20150180023A1.
Regarding claim 22, modified Sugnaux teaches all of the claim limitations as set forth above including wherein the at least one active electrode material is selected from the group consisting of LiMn2O4 (Sugnaux, [0088]; Gaben, [0043-0046]), LiCoO2 (Sugnaux, [0107]; Gaben, [0043-0046]), LiNiO2, LiMn1,5Ni0,5O4, LiMn1,5Ni0,5-xXxO4 oxides (where x is selected from among Al, Fe, Cr, Co, Rh, Nd, other rare earths and in which 0<x<0.1), LiFeO2, LiMn1/3Ni1/3Co1/3O4, LiFePO4, LiMnPO4, LiCoPO4, LiNiPO4, Li3V2(PO4)3 phosphates, all lithium forms of the following chalcogenides: V2O5, V3O8, TiS2, TiOySz, WOySz, CuS, CuS2 (Gaben, [0043-0046]), wherein the at least one active electrode material is selected from the group consisting of TiO2 (Sugnaux, [0086]), Li4Ti5O12 (Gaben, [0120]) and depositing, on and inside the pores of the mesoporous layer, a coating of an electronically conductive material such as a metal oxide (Sugnaux, [0065]) using methods such as sputtering (physical vapor deposition, PVD). Sugnaux however does not disclose wherein the electronically conductive material comprises carbon.
In a method for manufacturing an electrode Xiao teaches wherein the at least one active electrode material is selected from the group consisting of LiMn2O4, LiNiO2, LiCoO2, LiV2O5, LiMn1.5Ni0.5O4, LiFePO4 (Xiao, [0038]) wherein the at least one active electrode material is selected from the group consisting of a titanium based oxide such as Li4Ti5O12 (Xiao, [0039]) and depositing a coating of an electronically conductive material such as a metal oxide (Xiao, [0054]) using methods such as PVD or atomic layer deposition (ALD) including a precursor of the electronically conductive material and then transforming the precursor into the electronically conductive material (Xiao, [0061]) in order to deposit or grow ultrathin films on a surface (Xiao, [0061]) and a single atomic layer of the surface coating material may be bound to the electrode surface, thereby providing a monoatomic coating (Xiao, [0064]). Xiao additionally teaches wherein the electronically conductive material comprises a carbon-rich compound, such as ethylene based conductive polymers (Xiao, [0080]) in order to significantly suppress or eliminate gas generation (Xiao, [0058]). Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Sugnaux with the teaching of Xiao wherein the electronically conductive material comprises carbon and wherein depositing the electronically conductive material is conducted by: atomic layer deposition ALD technique and then transforming the precursor into the electronically conductive material thereby depositing or growing ultrathin films on a surface and significantly suppressing or eliminating gas generation.
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugnaux US20040131934A1 in view of Gaben US20150104713A1 and Xiao US20150180023A1, as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Armand US20100065787A1.
Regarding claim 24, modified Sugnaux teaches all of the claim limitations as set forth above including wherein the at least one active electrode material is selected from the group consisting of lithium and a metal comprising Mn and Co (Sugnaux, [0088], [0107]; Gaben, [0043-0046]; Xiao, [0038]) or lithium metal phosphates (e.g., LiFePO4) (Gaben, [0043-0046]; Xiao, [0038]) wherein the electronically conductive material comprises a carbon-rich compound, such as ethylene based conductive polymers (Xiao, [0080]). Modified Sugnaux however does not teach wherein the precursor includes a polysaccharide, and transforming the precursor into the electronically conductive material is conducted by pyrolysis under an inert atmosphere.
In a method for manufacturing an electrode Armand teaches wherein the at least one active electrode material is selected from the group consisting of lithium and a metal comprising Mn and Co (Armand, [0080]) and LiFePO4 (Armand, [0085]). Armand further teaches wherein the precursor includes a carbon-rich compound, such as ethylene based conductive polymers and a polysaccharide (Armand [0062]), and transforming the precursor into the electronically conductive material is conducted by pyrolysis under an inert atmosphere (Armand, [0050]) in order to allow its distribution, preferably homogeneously, throughout (Armand, [0061]). Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of modified Sugnaux with the teaching of Armand wherein he precursor comprises a carbon-rich compound that includes a polysaccharide, and transforming the precursor into the electronically conductive material is conducted by pyrolysis under an inert atmosphere thereby allowing its distribution, preferably homogeneously, throughout.
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 17-32 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 18-37 of copending Application No. 17996345 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because.
Claims 18-37 of 17996345 are directed toward, inter alia, a method for manufacturing a porous electrode for an electrochemical device, the method comprising: (a) providing a substrate and a colloidal suspension or a paste that includes aggregates or agglomerates of monodisperse primary nanoparticles, of at least one active electrode material, having an average primary diameter of between 2 nm and 60 nm, the aggregates or agglomerates having an average diameter of between 100 nm to 200 nm; (b) depositing a layer from the colloidal suspension or paste on at least one face of the substrate via at least one of electrophoresis, a printing method and preferably ink-jet printing or flexographic printing; (c) drying the deposited layer, heat treating the dried layer under an oxidizing atmosphere, and then consolidating the heat treated by pressing and/or heating to obtain a mesoporous layer; and (d) depositing, on and inside the pores of the mesoporous layer, a coating of an electronically conductive material, which significantly overlap with the claimed invention of the Instant application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Visco US6887361B1 (discloses an electrophoretic method of manufacturing a mesoporous electrode for use in a fuel cell),
Braun US20100068623A1 (discloses a method of manufacturing a porous electrode comprising electrophoretic methods),
Gaben US20140308576A1 (discloses a similar method for manufacturing a porous electrode),
Bouyer US20140339085A1 (discloses a similar method for manufacturing a porous electrode).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JARED HANSEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4590. The examiner can normally be reached 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, Matthew Martin can be reached at (571)270-7871. 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.
/JARED HANSEN/Examiner, Art Unit 1728
/MATTHEW T MARTIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1728