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 .
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) 7-13 and 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiang et al. (US 2012/0315538 A1, hereinafter Chiang, previously cited).
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).
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 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 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.
Re Claim 17. Chiang teaches wherein the slurry is free of N-methyl-2-pyrrolidone (para. 63).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/20/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 6, regarding claim 1, applicant argued that Chiang does not disclose liquid component is an organic sublimable material.
The examiner disagrees with this because Chiang explicitly discloses that liquid component is terpene (para. 63), which applicant discloses as an organic sublimable material.
On page 8, regarding claim 1, applicant argued that Chiang employs different manufacturing process compared with the instant application, and does not provide any motivation to use the specific slurry composition of claim 1.
The examiner disagrees with this because weight ratio of the liquid component to the solid component in the slurry determining how well the solid component is distributed in the slurry is common sense. Therefore, 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.
In response to applicant's argument that the claimed slurry provides high porosities while preserving film integrity, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
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.
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
6/5/2026
Prosecution Insights