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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 24 February 2023 was filed after the mailing date of the priority document on 15 July 2022. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-12 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 term “a collosol way” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “a collosol way” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In such composition, any form of distribution can be considered "a collosol way" to another since the specification is silent as to how the distribution must be to be considered "a collosol way" to another. For examination purposes the term "a collosol way" has been construed to be a colloid.
Claim 1 recites the term “glass sands” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “glass sands” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In such composition, any size fiber of glass can be considered "glass sands" to another since the specification is silent as to how small or texturize the barrier must be to be considered "glass sands" to another. For examination purposes the term "glass sands" has been construed to be glass fiber. Claim 7, which is dependent on claim 1, is similarly rejected.
Claim 10 recites the term “a collosol way” in claim 10 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “a collosol way” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In such composition, any form of distribution can be considered "a collosol way" to another since the specification is silent as to how the distribution must be to be considered "a collosol way" to another. For examination purposes the term "a collosol way" has been construed to be a colloid.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. For example, agar is a component in the gel carrier in claim 1 but the gelling agent in claim 4. Further, agar cannot be included again because it is already in claim 1, and since claim 4 depends on claim 3, it does not further limit the scope. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
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.
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.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abbott (WO 2015150750 A1), in view of Kondo (WO 2019055446 A1) and Lu (CN 110564307 A).
With regard to claims 1 and 10, Abbott teaches a gel material comprising a mixture of ionic compounds (Abstract), uncharged organic compounds (Abstract), polysaccharides (Abstract), and water (page 12, lines 8-10). Abbott further teaches the polysaccharide can be agar (page 9, lines 20-23), the uncharged organic compound can be xylitol (page 7, line 34, sugar alcohol). Abbott further teaches structurally reinforcing material such as glass fibers (page 16, line 23). Abbott also teaches the gel material can contain additives such as fillers and stabilizers (page 12, lines 24-26). Abbott further teaches gel as a semi-solid to almost solid colloid of a solid and a liquid (page 3, lines 26-27). Abbott further teaches a mass ratio of ionic compound and uncharged compound to polysaccharide is 1:2 to 4:1 (page 11, lines 36-39).
However, Abbott fails to explicitly teach aluminum hydroxide, magnesium hydroxide, and expanded graphite as an inorganic embodiment in the gel material. Abbott also fails to explicitly teach the weight percentage of the embodiments of 20% to 30% aluminum hydroxide, 20% to 30% magnesium hydroxide, 1% to 5% of glass sands (interpreted as glass fiber), 0.1% to 0.5% of expanded graphite, and 0.1% to 0.5% of zinc borate.
In the same field of endeavor, Kondo teaches a filler of aluminum hydroxide and magnesium hydroxide at 1% to 60% (page 28, lines 11-16). Kondo teaches the inclusion of material improves the melt integrity to loss or deterioration at elevated temperatures (page 28, line 8-12). Kondo further teaches aluminum hydroxide improves the flame-retardant nature of the material (page 29, lines 17-19)
With regard to the aluminum hydroxide and magnesium hydroxide, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use aluminum hydroxide and magnesium hydroxide as filler additives. The person having ordinary skill in the art would expect the addition of aluminum hydroxide and magnesium hydroxide to improve strength, and flame-retardant properties of gel carrier as taught by Kondo to the base product of Abbott.
With regard to the aluminum hydroxide and magnesium hydroxide weight percentage range, Kondo teaches 1% to 60% (page 28, line 8-17). A range of 1% to 60% overlaps with the claimed range of 20% to 30% for aluminum hydroxide and magnesium hydroxide. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP § 2144.05.I.
Kondo further teaches glass fibers as an additive within the composition with the weight range of 1% to 60% (page 28, line 8-17). Kondo teaches the incorporation of materials to improve the strength or toughness (page 28, line 20).
With regard to the glass sand weight percentage range, Kondo teaches 1% to 60% (page 28, line 8-17). A range of 1% to 60% overlaps with the claimed range of 1% to 5%. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP § 2144.05.I.
However, Kondo fails to explicitly teach the inclusion of expanded graphite and zinc borate, as well as at their desired weight percentage.
In the same field of endeavor, Lu teaches zinc borate (page 10, para 0020) and expanded graphite (page 14, para 0029) as additives at 0% to 55% (page 1, para 1). Lu further teaches the inclusion of expanded graphite as a composite protective barrier (page 14, para 0029). Lu further teaches additional additives, such as starch (page 10, para 0020), which act as thickeners. Additive diluents and leveling agents are also employed to adjust viscosity for adaptation to higher pressures (page11, para 0021). Lu further teaches the inclusion of these additive provides bonding strength, mechanical strength, compatibility, and flame-retardant properties that help the performance of adhesive (page 12, para 0024). Further, Lu teaches the incorporation of water (page 8, para 0012) to the gel adhesive to replace other volatile organic components thus having environmental protection significance (page 14, para 0031).
With regard to the expanded graphite and zinc borate, Lu teaches 0% to 55% for zinc borate and expanded graphite (page 1, para 1). A range of 0% to 55% overlaps with the claimed range of 0.1% to 0.5%. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP § 2144.05.I. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use zinc borate and expanded graphite as additives to improve performance of the gel carrier as taught by Lu to the base product of Abbott.
Please note, the intended use of the above claimed composition (i.e. wrap a battery cell) does not patentably distinguish the composition, per se, since such undisclosed use is inherent in the reference composition. In order to be limiting, the intended use must create a structural difference between the claimed composition and the prior art composition. MPEP 2112
With regard to claims 2 and 11, Abbott teaches hydrophobic polymer as coating for the gel composition which polyethylene satisfies (page 17 para. 0059). However, Abbott fails to explicitly disclose polyethylene within the claimed examples.
In the same field of endeavor, Kondo teaches polyethylene as the membrane film, separator, or coating (page 45, line 29-31; page 51, line 29-31). Kondo also teaches the inclusion of polyethylene modifies or enhances the performance and properties (page 28, line 8-12).
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art to make the claimed invention before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the following reasons. Abbott and Kondo teach coatings for material. The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to achieve enhancement in outer protection performance. One of ordinary skill in the art would achieve predictable result of a better-quality outer surface because polyethylene enhances durability. Therefore, the invention as a whole would be obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art.
From the teachings of the references, it is apparent that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in producing the claimed invention. Therefore, the invention as a whole was prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as evidenced by the references, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
With regard to claim 3, Abbott teaches a gel material comprising water (page 12, line 8-10) and a binder (page 1, line 1-10).
With regard to claim 4, Abbott teaches a gel material comprising agar (page 9, line 15-26).
With regard to claim 5, Abbott teaches a compound or mixture of a hydrate (which aluminum hydroxide satisfies) (Abstract). However, Abbott fails to explicitly disclose aluminum hydroxide within the claimed examples.
As stated above, Abbott in combination with Kondo teach the aluminum hydroxide.
With regard to claim 6, Abbott teaches a compound of a hydrate or Group II cation, (which magnesium hydroxide satisfies) (Abstract). However, Abbott fails to disclose magnesium hydroxide within the claimed examples.
As stated above, Abbott in combination with Kondo teach the magnesium hydroxide.
With regard to claim 7, Abbott teaches a structurally reinforcing material such as glass fibers (page 16, line 23).
With regard to claim 8, Abbott teaches a structurally reinforcing material such as carbon fibers, which expanded graphite is a carbon-based material (page 16, line 23). However, Abbott fails to explicitly disclose expanded graphite within the claimed examples.
As stated above, Abbott in combination with Lu teach the expanded graphite.
With regard to claims 9 and 12, Abbott teaches a compound of a hydrated metal salt, which zinc borate satisfies (page 5, line 13). However, Abbott fails to explicitly disclose zinc borate within the claimed examples.
As stated above, Abbott in combination with Kondo teach the zinc borate.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Aja A Walker whose telephone number is (571)272-0037. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7-5.
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, Angela Brown-Pettigrew can be reached at 571-272-2817. 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.
/A.A.W./Examiner, Art Unit 1761
/ANGELA C BROWN-PETTIGREW/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1761