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 .
Specification
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 § 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 2, 3 and 9 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 2 recites the limitation "the blending amount of electrically conductive material" in line 2 of the claim, however, it is unclear whether the blending amount is with respect to the weight of the nonwoven fabric or the total weight of the pasting paper, either of said interpretation would read on the claimed invention. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Therefore, claim 2 is rejected.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the blending amount of electrically conductive material" in line 2 of the claim, however, it is unclear whether the blending amount is with respect to the weight of the nonwoven fabric or the total weight of the pasting paper, either of said interpretation would read on the claimed invention. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Therefore, claim 3 is rejected.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the reinforcing materials" in line 2 of the claim, however, it is unclear whether the weight percentages are with respect to the weight of the nonwoven fabric or to the total weight of the pasting paper, either of said interpretation would read on the claimed invention. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Therefore, claim 9 is rejected.
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.
Claims 1-6 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ketzer et al, US 20150099189 A1 (as cited in IDS) and Clement, US 20190181506 A1.
Regarding Claim 1, Ketzer teaches a nonwoven fiber mats (reinforcement mats), corresponding to the pasting paper of the claim, that can be used to reinforce lead-acid batteries, with an electrically conductive surface that enhances electron flow [Ketzer, 0006]. The reinforcement mats may include a combination of electrically insulative fibers and a conductive material [Ketzer, 0032]. However, Ketzer is silent to teach the average fiber diameter of the nonwoven fabric being 2.0 μm or less or the coefficient of variation of sheet resistivity of the nonwoven fabric including the electrically conductive material distributed in a non-uniform manner in the nonwoven fabric is 0.03 or more.
Clement teaches a pasting paper comprising a non-woven fabric including a combination of fiber type advantageous for pasting paper [Clement, 0016], wherein the average particle diameter is greater than or equal to 1 μm [Clement, 0007].
"[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)
Moreover, according to MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lieinside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim,541F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir.1990).
While neither Ketzer nor Clement explicitly teach the nonwoven fabric with a coefficient of variation of sheet resistivity of the nonwoven fabric including the electrically conductive material distributed in a non-uniform manner in the nonwoven fabric is 0.03 or more, Ketzer teaches the reinforcement mats, which include a combination of electrically insulative fibers and a conductive material with an electrical resistance greater than about 1 million ohms per square feet, the sheet resistance [Ketzer, 0032], furthermore, when a non-metal conductive material coated mat is used, the electrons do not have to go through the electrode spot, and rather the electrons can flow freely on the conductive surface of the mater, which is more beneficial [Ketzer, 0039], wherein the conductive layer may be formed on one or more sides of the reinforcement mat by applying the conductive material to at least one surface of the mat or throughout the reinforcement mat [Ketzer, 0058], and the majority of the conductive material is positioned atop the surface of the reinforcement mat [Ketzer, 0060], furthermore, the conductive material may be applied to the glass fibers/reinforcement mat, wherein the conductive fibers are disposed at least partially within and/or entangled with the fiber mat [Ketzer, 0087] indicating a non-uniform distribution of the conductive material. Clement teaches the pasting paper may have any suitable electrical resistance, and in some embodiments, the pasting paper may have an electrical resistance of greater than or equal to 5 milliΩ·cm2 [Clement, 0064]. Furthermore, the materials taught by Ketzer, include electrically insulative fibers such as glass fibers, polyolefin fibers, polyester fibers, and the like [Ketzer, 0032], and the electrically conductive material may include conductive polymers (e.g., polyanilines), carbon material (e.g., carbon black, activated carbon, graphite, carbon nanofibers, carbon nanotubes, graphene, CNS (carbon nanostructure)), and the like [Ketzer, 0033], are the same as those taught in the instant specification [instant specification, 0012 & 0013]. Thus based on MPEP 2112.01, Part II, "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. Therefore, nonwoven fabric of Ketzer and Clement should have a coefficient of variation of sheet resistivity of the nonwoven fabric including the electrically conductive material distributed in a non-uniform manner in the nonwoven fabric is 0.03 or more. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) Moreover, according to MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lieinside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim,541F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir.1990).
Regarding Claim 2, modified Ketzer teaches the pasting paper for a lead-acid battery of claim 1, wherein the reinforcement mats include a binder that includes the conductive material comprises about 5% to 45% by weight of the mats [Ketzer, 0037]. Table 1 of Ketzer shows six reinforcement sample mats utilizing graphene as the electrically conductive material that is present between 8.9% and 17.3% [Ketzer, 0094], and Table 2 of Ketzer shows six reinforcement sample mats utilizing carbon nanotubes (CNS) as the electrically conductive material that is present, without binder, between 15% and 25% [Ketzer, 0097].
Regarding Claim 3, modified Ketzer teaches the pasting paper for a lead-acid battery of claim 1, wherein the reinforcement mats include a binder that includes the conductive material comprises about 5% to 45% by weight of the mats [Ketzer, 0037]. Table 1 of Ketzer shows six reinforcement sample mats utilizing graphene as the electrically conductive material that is present between 8.9% and 17.3% [Ketzer, 0094], and Table 2 of Ketzer shows six reinforcement sample mats utilizing carbon nanotubes (CNS) as the electrically conductive material that is present, without binder, between 15% and 25% [Ketzer, 0097].
Regarding Claim 4, modified Ketzer teaches the pasting paper for a lead-acid battery of claim 1, wherein the conductive material may include conductive fibers, such as carbon nanotubes (CNS), because carbon nanotubes have a high electrical conductivity and inertness to sulfuric acid [Ketzer, 0033], indicating it maintains is physical and chemical form, corresponding to the acid-resistant requirement of the claim, furthermore, the nonwoven fiber may may also include an acid resistant binder material [Ketzer, 0011].
Regarding Claim 5, modified Ketzer teaches the pasting paper for a lead-acid battery of claim 4, wherein the conductive material may further include carbon fibers with a fiber length of between 8mm to 12 mm and an average diameter of between 6 μm to 10 μm [Ketzer, 0013].
While modified Ketzer teaches the carbon fiber length between 8 mm to 12 mm, which slightly greater than the claim 6 mm, according to MPEP 2144.05 (I), 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).
Regarding Claim 6, modified Ketzer teaches the pasting paper for a lead-acid battery of claim 5, wherein the conductive material may further include carbon fibers with a fiber length of between 8mm to 12 mm and an average diameter of between 6 μm to 10 μm [Ketzer, 0013].
While modified Ketzer teaches the carbon fiber length between 8 mm to 12 mm, which slightly greater than the claim 6 mm, according to MPEP 2144.05 (I), 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).
Regarding Claim 8, modified Ketzer teaches the pasting paper for a lead-acid battery of claim 1, wherein the nonwoven fiber mat may include a mixture of course glass fibers [Ketzer, 0011].
Regarding Claim 9, modified Ketzer teaches the pasting paper for a lead-acid battery of claim 1, wherein a wetting component may added to bond the glass fibers of the mat together [Ketzer, 0042], and the wetting component may be a fiber, including cellulose or polyester [Ketzer, 0045], wherein the instant specification states a heat-fusible organic fiber is polyester[ [instant specification, 0020] , wherein the cellulose may be present 10 to 40% of the reinforcement mat [Ketzer, 0089], however, modified Ketzer is silent to teach on a sulfuric acid-soluble material contained in an amount of 5% by weight or less.
Clement teaches least a portion of the cellulose fibers may dissolve upon exposure to an electrolyte, such as sulfuric acid, such as a 1.28 spg sulfuric acid, specifically 0 wt% to 80 wt%, of the cellulose fiber dissolve after storage in a 1.28 spg sulfuric acid solution [ Clement, 0066], therefore 5% by weight or less of the material may be contained as required by the claim.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify Ketzer to include the dissolution of cellulose as taught by Clement because such modification would result in a pasting paper suitable for lead-acid batteries [Clement, 0073].
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ketzer et al, US 20150099189 A1 (as cited in IDS) and Clement, US 20190181506 A1 as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Wertz et al, US 20180175392 A1 (as cited in IDS).
Regarding Claim 7, modified Ketzer teaches the pasting paper for a lead-acid battery of claim 1, but is silent to teach on the electrically conductive material being a PAN-based carbon fiber.
Wertz teaches on a battery component that may comprise one or more additives such as activated carbon and/or conductive carbon, wherein non-limiting example of the conductive carbon additive include carbon black, acetylene black, graphite, carbon PAN, conductive carbon fibers, and carbon nanotubes [Wertz, 0076], wherein the additive may be incorporated into the fiber layer [Wertz, 0077].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify Ketzer to include the carbon PAN taught by Wertz because it is well-known to use PAN carbon as an electrically conductive material in batteries and electrochemical devices. Further, a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results supports prima facie obviousness determination (MPEP 2143, I, B).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LILIAN ALICE ODOM whose telephone number is (703)756-1959. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9AM - 5PM EST.
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, NIKI BAKHTIARI can be reached at (571) 272-3433. 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.
/LILIAN ALICE ODOM/Examiner, Art Unit 1722
/NIKI BAKHTIARI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1722
Prosecution Insights