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 .
Applicant has amended the claims to delete a member of a Markush group and require two metal compounds of specified materials. The amendments find support in the original filing. No new matter is presented.
New/amended grounds of rejection are below set forth in response to the amended claims citing to different prior art.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 7/23/2026 has been entered.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of 18724065 and 18720040 co-pending applications has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
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, 6-10 and 12-14 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chu et al (CA 2940129C)
Regarding claims 1, 6-10 and 12-14:
Chu et al (CA 2940129C) discloses method and products such as a slurry for use in battery electrodes comprising a binder and modified guaran (Abstract)
The slurry comprises water (i.e. optional carrier of claims 1 and 11, water of claim 7 and 8 ) and further comprises anode/cathode active material and an epoxy resin (meeting claim 1 for a resin and claim 11 for resin and claim 6 for epoxy resin) The cathode material includes lithium nickel manganese cobalt oxide or lithium manganese oxide (See claims 1-2) (meeting the limitations of claim 1 for mixture of lithium nickel manages cobalt oxide and lithium manganese oxide)(See reference claims 1-2) [0025]
The reference defines comprising to include one or more or at least one [0013] as such using both lithium nickel manganese cobalt oxide and lithium manganese oxide is encompassed by the language of the prior art.
Where using both lithium nickel manganese cobalt oxide and lithium manganese oxide is obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention as both are used for the same purpose and one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention could readily envisage same as they are claimed in the prior art for the same purpose. There being no preference expressed between lithium manganese cobalt oxide and lithium manganese oxide using them in 1:1 would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention.
"It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art." In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980) (citations omitted) (Claims to a process of preparing a spray-dried detergent by mixing together two conventional spray-dried detergents were held to be prima facie obvious.). See also In re Crockett, 279 F.2d 274, 126 USPQ 186 (CCPA 1960) (Claims directed to a method and material for treating cast iron using a mixture comprising calcium carbide and magnesium oxide were held unpatentable over prior art disclosures that the aforementioned components individually promote the formation of a nodular structure in cast iron.); and Ex parte Quadranti, 25 USPQ2d 1071 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992) (mixture of two known herbicides held prima facie obvious).
The epoxy resin is in an aqueous dispersion comprising a surfactant including salts of orthophosphate, poly phosphate esters adducts, imidazoline, amide etc. [0060]
The slurry is applied to a current collector to for a film/coating thereon (See reference claims 65-67) (meeting claims 12-13)
The composition may be a film comprising epoxy resin and The cathode material includes lithium nickel manganese cobalt oxide or lithium manganese oxide (See claims (meeting the limitations of claim 1 for mixture of lithium nickel manages cobalt oxide and lithium manganese oxide)(See reference claims 34-35) and may be applied to copper current collectors [0076] The current collector can be made of materials such as aluminum steel zinc and combinations thereof [0062] (meeting claim 14)
The slurry is dried [0066-0067] to form a dry film [0077] the film formed has a thickness of 15 – 30 microns (see claim 54 reference as such the components thereof must be no larger than 30 microns meeting the limitation for powdered components in the composition) (meeting the limitations for powder coating of claim 10)
The composition comprises the electrolyte mixture of solvents and lithium salts [0095]
See par [00898] for polymer and solvent and 1/3 Li(NiMnCo)2) commercially available from BASF and water and 1/3 NMC
No chromium is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 5, 11 and 15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. While no ranges are taught by the prior art, the purpose and function of the prior art would not support a range of the claimed components. There is no motivation to alter the teachings of the prior art to include the limitations of the instant claims absent impermissible hindsight.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 PAMELA HL WEISS whose telephone number is (571)270-7057. The examiner can normally be reached M-Thur 830 am-700 pm.
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, Coris Fung can be reached at (571) 270-5713. 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.
/PAMELA H WEISS/ Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1732
Prosecution Insights