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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the communication filed on 11/11/25. Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are not found persuasive. Claims 21-28, 30-39 and 41-42 are pending. New claims 41-42 are withdrawn from consideration.
This Action is FINAL, as necessitated by amendment.
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claims 41 and 42 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: the new claims each recite “and whose temperature has been raised to at least 70°C during formation of the film” and “the solvent being a remainder of a measured amount of solvent combined with the electrode active material and the one or more binders during formation of the film”.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 41-42 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 16/874,502, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application. Claim 21 recites “the electrode active material having an exposed surface that is unblocked by the one or more binders” and “the solvent being a remainder of a measured amount of solvent combined with the electrode active material and the one or more binders during formation of the film”, which are not, when recited together, adequately supported or enabled by the prior filed application. Claim 32 recites “the electrode active material having an exposed surface that is unblocked by the one or more binders” and “the solvent being a remainder of a measured amount of solvent combined with the electrode active material and the one or more binders during formation of the film”, which are not, when recited together, adequately supported or enabled by the prior filed application.
Prior art [0006.2] teaches “since the binder is dissolved in a solution and it flows into the active materials to block the active material surfaces, this reduces the active materials functionality…an electrode made by a conventional coating method does not provide a long life energy storage device” (problem #1). Prior art [0006.6] teaches “the extrusion process for making an electrode does not have problems #1 where the binder flows into active materials to block the active material surfaces as much”. The extrusion solvent is normally with high lubricating quality [0006.5]. Prior art [0006.8] teaches “to make an electrode by a dry process, powders were dry mixed and subjected to extensive mixing wherein the binder is fibrillized…the dry process solved all four problems associated with the coating process”. The dry process is without solvent activation. Figure 6 is a prior art Figure showing the conventional extrusion process wherein the binder does not block active material surfaces. While Figure 7 depicts a prior art electrode made using the conventional dry process, [0006.8] teaches the dry process (without solvent activation) solves all four problems, including problem 1. Thus, the dry process (without solvent activation) does not result in the binder blocking the active material surfaces. The admitted prior art does not appear to provide specific support for the claim limitations, when recited together.
Figure 8 depicts an electrode made using a dry process with solvent activation. However, the solvent activation is not specifically described. Furthermore, while [0028], [0033-0034] and [0037] of the present specification teaches a ratio of the powder mixture to the added solvent may be around 100:3, “the solvent being a remainder of a measured amount of solvent combined with the electrode active material and the one or more binders during formation of the film” is not described.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: Claim 21 recites “the solvent being a remainder of a measured amount of solvent combined with the electrode active material and the one or more binders during formation of the film”, which is not adequately supported by the specification as filed. Claim 32 recites “the solvent being a remainder of a measured amount of solvent combined with the electrode active material and the one or more binders during formation of the film”, which is not adequately supported by the specification as filed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 21-28 and 30-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 21 and 32 each recite “the solvent being a remainder of a measured amount of solvent combined with the electrode active material and the one or more binders during formation of the film” which is not described. While [0028], [0033-0034] and [0037] of the present specification teach a ratio of the powder mixture to the added solvent may be around 100:3, “the solvent being a remainder of a measured amount of solvent combined with the electrode active material and the one or more binders during formation of the film” is not described.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 21-28 and 30-39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being unpatentable over by Raman et al., US 10,923,295 B2.
Raman teaches an energy storage device including a cathode, an anode, and a separator between the cathode and the anode, where the anode and/or electrode includes an electrode film having a super-fibrillized binder material and carbon (electrode active material). The electrode film can have a reduced quantity of the binder material while maintaining desired mechanical and/or electrical properties. The electrode film may include an electrical conductivity promoting additive to facilitate decreased equivalent series resistance performance (abstract).See at least Figures 2, 5B, 6A and 6B. An electrode comprising a free-standing dry electrode film comprising dry carbon particles, dry super-fibrillized binder particles, and a current collector is provided. The dry super-fibrillized binder particles comprise about 3 wt % to about 7 wt % of the free-standing dry electrode film. The free-standing dry electrode film further comprises a conductive carbon in about 1% to about 5% by mass (1:45-64). The binder material may be less than about 4%, for example, between about 0.5% and 4% by weight or 1% and 4% by weight. The electrode film comprising a reduced quantity of binder can maintain desired resistance to a tensile, shear, compressive, and/or twisting stress (8:22-45). The super-fibrillized matrix comprises carbon particles having at least 10%, at least 20%, at least 30%, at least 40%, at least 50%, at least 60%, at least 70%, at least 80%, at least 90%, at least 95%, or at least 99% surface area in contact with binder particles, or a range of values therebetween (has an exposed surface that is unblocked by the binder) (4:40-45).
The binder may be PTFE (8:16-21; 9:56-59). The carbon material may be activated carbon or graphite (7:55-67). Note claims 21 and 32 recite “solvent in an amount less than 3 percent by weight of the electrode film”, which includes the value zero. Raman teaches the electrode films can be fabricated using a dry fabrication process. As used herein, a dry fabrication process can refer to a process in which no or substantially no solvents are used in the formation of an electrode film. For example, components of the electrode film may comprise dry particles. The dry particles for forming the electrode film may be combined to provide a dry particles electrode film mixture. In some embodiments, the electrode film may be formed from the dry particles electrode film mixture using the dry fabrication process such that weight percentages of the components of the electrode film and weight percentages of the components of the dry particles electrode film mixture are similar or the same. In some embodiments, the electrode film formed from the dry particles electrode film mixture using the dry fabrication process may be free or substantially free from any processing solvents, and solvent residues resulting therefrom (9:30-47). Thus, the claims are anticipated.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/11/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The amendments to the specification of 11/11/25 have been considered and entered by the Examiner. The new/replacement drawings (Figures 5-8) have been accepted and entered by the Examiner.
Amendments to the Claims
Applicant argues support for the amendments to claims 21 and 32 “can be found throughout the specification as originally filed, for example, in [0028] and/or [0027]. Examiner disagrees. While [0028], [0033-0034] and [0037] of the present specification teach a ratio of the powder mixture to the added solvent may be around 100:3, “the solvent being a remainder of a measured amount of solvent combined with the electrode active material and the one or more binders during formation of the film” is not described.
Priority
The previous objection to the specification has been withdrawn. See the amendments to the specification that provide support for “the electrode active material having an exposed surface that is unblocked by the one or more binders”. However, the specification remains objected to under new grounds. Claim 21 recites “the solvent being a remainder of a measured amount of solvent combined with the electrode active material and the one or more binders during formation of the film”, which is not adequately supported by the specification as filed. Claim 32 recites “the solvent being a remainder of a measured amount of solvent combined with the electrode active material and the one or more binders during formation of the film”, which is not adequately supported by the specification as filed. Furthermore, the priority document does not appear to provide specific support for the claim limitations, when recited together. See discussion above regarding the teachings of the priority document.
35 USC 102
Applicant argues Raman fails to disclose the combination of features recited in claim 21 and/or claim 32 including “the solvent in an amount less than 3 percent by weight of the free-standing electrode film, the solvent being a remainder of a measured amount of solvent combined with the electrode active material and the one or more binders during formation of the film”. Examiner disagrees and notes this limitation has been rejection under 35 USC 112, 1st. The claims requires a solvent in an amount less than 3 percent by weight, which includes the value of zero. Applicant asserts a person having ordinary skill in the art would understand the claimed solvent to be in a quantity greater than zero due to the fact of “the solvent being a remainder of a measured amount of solvent combined with the electrode active material and the one or more binders during formation of the film”. The assertion is not persuasive and no evidence and/or support has been provided for the assertion.
In addition, Raman teaches the electrode films can be fabricated using a dry fabrication process. As used herein, a dry fabrication process can refer to a process in which no or substantially no solvents are used in the formation of an electrode film. For example, components of the electrode film may comprise dry particles. The dry particles for forming the electrode film may be combined to provide a dry particles electrode film mixture. In some embodiments, the electrode film may be formed from the dry particles electrode film mixture using the dry fabrication process such that weight percentages of the components of the electrode film and weight percentages of the components of the dry particles electrode film mixture are similar or the same. In some embodiments, the electrode film formed from the dry particles electrode film mixture using the dry fabrication process may be free or substantially free from any processing solvents, and solvent residues resulting therefrom (9:30-47). Applicant does not address the teachings of Raman regarding being “free” or “substantially free” of solvents (“free” teaches 0, “substantially free” teaches greater than 0).
Newly Added Claims
New claims 41 and 42 have been withdrawn. See above for the reasons for withdrawal.
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 TRACY DOVE whose telephone number is (571)272-1285. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-3:00.
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, Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at 571-270-3879. 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.
/TRACY M DOVE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725