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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2/12/26 has been entered.
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.
Claim(s) 7-13 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Xiao (“Synthesis of Porous Materials and Their Applications in Electrochemistry and Additive Manufacturing,” Ph.D. Thesis, University of Minnesota, 12/2020, cited by applicant).
Re Claim 7. Xiao teaches a slurry comprising:
a solid component comprising:
an electrochemically active material (P116);
an electrically conductive material (P116); and
a binder (P116); and
a liquid component (P116, implied, roll-to-roll production using a dispersion) comprising an organic sublimable material (P116, camphene), wherein the electrochemically active material and the electrically conductive material are different (P116), and the solid component is dispersed in the liquid component (P116).
Re Claim 8. Xiao teaches wherein the electrochemically active material comprises one or more of a lithium iron phosphate, a lithium titanium oxide, a nickel cobalt manganese oxide, a lithium cobalt oxide (P116).
Re Claim 9. Xiao teaches wherein the electrochemically active material comprises one or more of a metal oxide (P116) and an electron-conducting carbon based material (P116); wherein the electron-conducting carbon based material comprises carbon nanotubes (P116).
Re Claim 10. Xiao teaches wherein the electrically conductive material comprises one or more of carbon black, carbon nanotubes (P116).
Re Claim 11. Xiao teaches wherein the binder comprises a thermoplastic polymer; wherein the thermoplastic polymer comprises a styrene-ethylene-butylene-styrene copolymer (P116).
Re Claim 12. Xiao teaches wherein the organic sublimable material comprises one or more of a terpene (P116, camphene).
Re Claim 13. Xiao teaches wherein the terpene comprises one or more of camphene (P116).
Re Claim 17. Xiao teaches wherein the slurry is free of N-methyl-2-pyrrolidone (P116).
Claim(s) 7-13 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chiang et al. (US 2012/0315538 A1, hereinafter Chiang).
Re Claim 7. Chiang teaches a slurry (para. 63) comprising:
a solid component comprising:
an electrochemically active material (para. 31, 63 & 98-100);
an electrically conductive material (para. 104); and
a binder (para. 74 & 104); and
a liquid component comprising an organic sublimable material (para. 63), wherein the electrochemically active material and the electrically conductive material are different (para. 31, 63 & 98-100 compared with para. 74), and the solid component is dispersed in the liquid component (para. 63).
Re Claim 8. Chiang teaches wherein the electrochemically active material comprises one or more of a lithium cobalt oxide, and a sodium manganese oxide (para. 31, 63 & 98-100).
Re Claim 9. Chiang teaches wherein the electrochemically active material comprises one or more of a metal oxide (para. 31, 63 & 98-100) and an electron-conducting carbon based material; wherein the electron-conducting carbon based material comprises one or more of graphite, carbon nanotubes (para. 100).
Re Claim 10. Chiang teaches wherein the electrically conductive material comprises one or more of carbon black (para. 104).
Re Claim 11. Chiang teaches wherein the binder comprises a thermoplastic polymer; wherein the thermoplastic polymer comprises one or more of a polyolefin (para. 104).
Re Claim 12. Chiang teaches wherein the organic sublimable material comprises one or more of a terpene (para. 63).
Re Claim 13. Chiang teaches wherein the terpene comprises one or more of camphene, (para. 63).
Re Claim 17. Chiang teaches wherein the slurry is free of N-methyl-2-pyrrolidone (para. 63).
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.
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) 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiao.
The teachings of Xiao have been discussed above.
Re Claim 14. Xiao fails to specifically teach that a weight ratio of the liquid component to the solid component is in a range of about 2:1 to about 4:1.
However, as Xiao teaches that finding the appropriate composition should be done (p116), one would perform routine experimentation to find optimum weight ratio of the liquid component to the solid component.
Re Claim 15. Xiao teaches wherein the solid component comprises: about 70 wt% to about 90 wt% of the electrochemically active material (P30, 92.5% LFP); about 5 wt% to about 20 wt% of the electrically conductive material (5% Super P); and about 1 wt% to about 10 wt% of the binder (2.5% Kraton).
Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) See MPEP 2144.05, I.
Re Claim 16. Xiao fails to specifically teach that a temperature of the slurry exceeds a melting point of the organic sublimable material.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the invention of Xiao to have a temperature of the slurry exceeds a melting point of the organic sublimable material, to prevent premature sublimation of the organic sublimable material and to ensure the organic sublimable material are dispersed evenly in the slurry.
Claim(s) 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiang.
The teachings of Chiang have been discussed above.
Re Claim 14. Chiang fails to specifically teach that a weight ratio of the liquid component to the solid component is in a range of about 2:1 to about 4:1.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the invention of Chiang, as one would perform routine experimentation to find optimum weight ratio of the liquid component to the solid component, which would disperse solid content evenly in a slurry.
Re Claim 15. Chiang teaches wherein the solid component comprises: about 70 wt% to about 90 wt% of the electrochemically active material (Table 1, 84.53 %); and about 1 wt% to about 10 wt% of the binder (9.02%), but fails to specifically teach that about 5 wt% to about 20 wt% of the electrically conductive material.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the invention of Chiang, as one would perform routine experimentation to find optimum amount of the electrically conductive material, to control porosity.
Re Claim 16. Chiang fails to specifically teach that a temperature of the slurry exceeds a melting point of the organic sublimable material.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the invention of Chiang to have a temperature of the slurry exceeds a melting point of the organic sublimable material, to prevent premature sublimation of the organic sublimable material and to ensure the organic sublimable material are dispersed evenly in the slurry.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/12/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 5 of remark, regarding claim 1, applicant argued that Xiao is not a prior art, since it was not published until 2/9/2023 by ProQuest, due to embargo request.
The examiner disagrees with this because University of Minnesota website (https://conservancy.umn.edu/items/2eb0630b-469b-4825-841d-72fc5716e742) clearly states that the thesis was published on December 2020.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 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.
Newly cited reference, Chiang addresses the claims.
Conclusion
The rejections above rely on the references for all the teachings expressed in the text of the references and/or one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably understood from the texts. Only specific portions of the texts have been pointed out to emphasize certain aspects of the prior art, however, each reference as a whole should be reviewed in responding to the rejection, since other sections of the same reference and/or various combinations of the cited references may be relied on in future rejections in view of amendments.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN E YOON whose telephone number is (571)270-5932. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9 AM- 5 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, Keith Walker can be reached at 571-272-3458. 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.
/KEVIN E YOON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735
2/19/2026