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 4/2/26. Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are not found persuasive. Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 8-20 are withdrawn from consideration.
This Action is FINAL, as necessitated by amendment.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 4/28/26 has been considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-7, in the reply filed on 10/31/25 is acknowledged. Claims 8-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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 1-7 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 1 recites the limitation "the nanotubes" in lines 10-11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner suggests “the aerosolized nanotubes”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "nanotubes" in line 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner suggests “the aerosolized nanotubes”.
Claim 2 recites “a sufficient amount”, which is indefinite. It is unclear what encompasses a sufficient amount of the aerosolized conductive material. In addition, claim 2 recites “to reach or exceed an electrical conductivity percolation point of the conductive material”, which is indefinite. First, “the conductive material” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Second, the electrical conductivity percolation point (or threshold) is the critical concentration of conductive fillers in an insulating material where a continuous pathway for electricity forms, causing a sudden, sharp increase in conductivity from an insulating state to a conductive one. It is unclear how the electrical conductivity percolation point of the conductive material is determined as the claim does not recite a conductive material within an insulating material.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the nanotubes" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the conductive material" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims Analysis
At least claim 1 recites “a conductive material” and “an aerosolized conductive material”, which has been given the broadest reasonable interpretation by the Examiner. A “conductive material” may be any material that is electrically conductive, ionically conductive and/or thermally conductive.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/103 as being anticipated by, and alternatively unpatentable over, Pierce et al., US 2019/0036103 A1.
Pierce teaches a method of making a composite product that may be used as a flexible self-standing electrode. An aerosolized mixture of nanotubes and an electrode active material is collected on a porous substrate, such as a filter, until it reaches a desired thickness. The resulting self-standing electrode may then be removed from the porous substrate and may operate as a battery electrode (abstract). The self-standing electrode is free of binder and a metal-based current collector [0003-0007]. The type of nanotubes used are not limited. The nanotubes may be entirely carbon, or they made be substituted, that it is, have non-carbon lattice atoms. In some aspects, carbon and inorganic nanotubes include additional components such as metals or metalloids (conductive material), incorporated into the structure of the nanotube [0031].
The aerosolizing of the electrode active material comprises distributing an aerosolizing gas through a first porous frit and a bed of an electrode active material, in an aerosolizing chamber, to produce the aerosolized electrode active material powder. The aerosolizing chamber may be constructed with an appropriately sized porous material such that gas can pass through to enable aerosolization but that does not permit the active material to fall through the pores. The aerosolizing chamber is not limited to any particular configuration. Suitable aerosolizing gases include, but are not limited to, argon, helium, or nitrogen. In some embodiments, the aerosolizing gas may be the same as the carrier gas [0041].
The nanotubes and the electrode active material may be individually aerosolized before mixing. For example, the nanotubes may be provided in the vessel 10A and the electrode active material may be provided in the vessel 10B. One or more carrier gases 20A may be introduced to the vessel 10A to aerosolize the nanotubes, and one or more carrier gases 20B may be introduced to the vessel 10B to aerosolize the electrode active materials. An aerosolized stream 25A comprises the nanotubes entrained in the carrier gas 20A introduced to the vessel 10A, and an aerosolized stream 25B comprises the electrode active materials entrained in the carrier gas 20B introduced to the vessel 10B. The aerosolized stream 25A is mixed with the aerosolized stream 25B at junction 27. The mixed aerosolized stream 30 (deposited stream) is directed to the porous substrate 40. The carrier gas passes through the porous substrate 40 as gas stream 50 while the mixture of the nanotubes and the electrode active material is captured on the surface of the porous substrate 40 to form the self-standing electrode 60. The self-standing electrode 60 can be removed from the porous substrate 40 when it reaches the desired thickness. The carrier gases 20A and 20B may be the same, or different, and may be introduced at the same or different flow rates. For example, the flow rates of the carrier gases 20A and 20B may be tailored to feed the nanotubes and the electrode active material to the junction 27 at the individual flow rates necessary to achieve the desired ratio of nanotubes to electrode active material in the resulting self-standing electrode 60 [0027]. The nanotubes may be formed in a nanotube synthesis reactor [0006;0028]. The self-standing electrode has a webbed morphology in which there is a webbed arrangement of carbon nanotubes with the electrode active material contained or embedded within the web [0050].
Thus, the claims are anticipated. Pierce further teaches catalysts are used for the production of carbon nanotubes. The catalyst particles (conductive particles) are present as an aerosol [0034-0036]. The self-standing electrode can be used with or without a metal-based current collector (typically alumina or copper) [0022].
The claims are alternatively unpatentable. At least claim 1 broadly recites “a conductive material”. The claims do not require the conductive material be a different material from the electrode active material and/or the nanotubes. Both the electrode active material and the nanotubes of the present claims and the cited prior art are conductive materials. In addition, Pierce teaches additives may be present in a range of 0-5 wt%. One of skill would have found the claimed invention obvious as Pierce teaches the materials of the self-standing electrode may be individually aerosolized before mixing. See at least [0021], [0031], [0044] and [0050] of Pierce. The concept of individually aerosolizing materials of a self-standing electrode is taught and suggested by Pierce.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/2/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. No specific arguments were provided regarding the 35 USC 112 rejection of claim 2. The 35 USC 112 rejections of claims 1, 5 and 6 were necessitated by amendment.
Regarding the claims analysis provided by the Examiner, the claims have been given the broadest reasonable interpretation. Examiner suggests amending the claims to recite “an electrically conductive material” and/or “an aerosolized electrically conductive material” if Applicant wishes the claims be limited to “electrically” conductive.
Examiner notes the publication date of Pierce (US2019/0036103) is 1/31/19. The effective filing date of the present application is 2/24/23.
Regarding the prior art rejection in view of Pierce, Applicant argues the present invention discloses individually aerosolizing an electrode active material, nanotubes and a conductive material. Applicant then concludes the inclusion of metals or metalloids, incorporated into the structure of the nanotube, as disclosed by Pierce, does not teach both the aerosolized conductive material and the nanotubes as recited in the claims. Examiner disagrees. Pierce teaches the nanotubes and the electrode active material may be individually aerosolized before mixing. At least claim 1 broadly recites “a conductive material”. The claims do not require the conductive material be a different material from the electrode active material and/or the nanotubes. Both the electrode active material and the nanotubes of the present claims and the cited prior art are conductive materials. One of skill would have found the claimed invention obvious as Pierce teaches the materials of the self-standing electrode may be individually aerosolized before mixing.
Conclusion
Regarding cited prior art US2015/0380738, vacuum filtration and aerosolizing are fundamentally different processes — one is a separation technique in chemistry, the other is a dispersion method for generating fine particles in air.
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
Prosecution Insights