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 .
Response to Election/Restrictions
Applicant's timely election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-6, in the reply filed 04/27/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that it would not be a significant burden on the Office to search and examine each of the identified inventions.
Examiner finds the applicant's argument unpersuasive and maintains the restriction since there is a search burden as the inventions are patentably distinct and independent Inventions, Inventions I and II are related as mutually exclusive species in an intermediate-final product relationship. Distinctness is proven for claims in this relationship if the intermediate product is useful to make other than the final product, and the species are patentably distinct (MPEP § 806.05(j)). In the instant case, the intermediate product (i.e. a positive electrode slurry comprising a positive electrode active material and a polyether phosphate) is deemed to be useful to make a heating layer for a heating element, which is different from the claimed positive electrode plate comprising a positive electrode film layer prepared from the positive electrode slurry. The inventions are deemed patentably distinct because there is nothing of record to show them to be obvious variants. It is noted that while the searches of inventions I and II may be overlapping, there is no reason to believe that the searches would be co-extensive. In searching invention I, the examiner will be focusing on the patentability of the positive electrode slurry and not the positive electrode plate as set forth in invention II. Conversely, in searching invention II, the examiner will be focusing on the patentability of the positive electrode plate and not the positive electrode slurry. Accordingly, a search for both inventions would pose an undue burden on the office.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper. Thereby the restriction requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 1-11 are pending. Claims 7-11 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claims 1-6 are currently under examination.
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 1-6 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.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase "optionally" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Furthermore, claim 1 recites “the polyether phosphate comprises at least the following structural units:
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
,
PNG
media_image2.png
200
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
,
PNG
media_image3.png
200
400
media_image3.png
Greyscale
, and a structural unit (IV) that is a phosphate group”. It is unclear if the polyether phosphate comprises all of the structural units (I), (II), (III), and (IV); or the polyether phosphate comprises at least one of the structural units (I), (II), (III), and (IV). For the purpose of the compact prosecution, this limitation is interpreted as “the polyether phosphate comprises at least one of the following structural units”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2-6 depend from claim 1. Therefore, claims 2-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite.
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.
1. Claims 1 and 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mino (US 2022/0069272 A1, hereinafter Mino).
Regarding claim 1, Mino teaches a positive electrode slurry comprising a positive electrode active material and an additive ([0016]), wherein the additive is compound A having, in its molecule, a polyether group and an acidic group ([0016]).
Mino also teaches that the compound A has, in its molecule, a polyether group and an acidic group, wherein the polyether group can include polyethylene oxide, the acidic group can include a phosphoric acid ester group ([0023]), which reads on the claimed polyether phosphate comprising a structural unit (I) when A is hydrogen, and a structural unit (IV) that is a phosphate group.
Mino also teaches that the component A is added to suppress the stringiness of the positive electrode slurry ([0024]).
Mino does not teach a single embodiment with all the claimed elements together.
However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make a positive electrode slurry comprising a positive electrode active material and an additive that is compound A comprising polyethylene oxide and a phosphoric acid ester group as taught by Mino, in order to suppress the stringiness of the positive electrode slurry with a reasonable expectation of success, because the compound A of Mino has a polyether group and an acidic group, the polyether group can include polyethylene oxide, the acidic group can include a phosphoric acid ester group, and the component A of Mino is added to suppress the stringiness of the positive electrode slurry as recognized by Mino. Therefore, the invention as a whole would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 4, Mino teaches that the compound A (the claimed polyether phosphate) in the positive electrode slurry is 0.1 parts by mass or more and 5.0 parts by mass or less, per 100 parts by mass of the positive electrode active material ([0024]). Thus, in the positive electrode slurry of Mino, the weight ratio of the compound A (the claimed polyether phosphate) to the positive electrode active material is in a range of 0.001 to 0.05, which overlaps with the claimed range of “from 0.0005 to 0.030”.
Mino does not teach the claimed weight ratio of the polyether phosphate to the positive electrode active material at once under the meaning of anticipation.
However, 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. Therefore, the invention as a whole would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 5, Mino teaches that the positive electrode active material can include LiaMnO2, and 0<a≤1.2 ([0027]), which reads on the claimed lithium manganese oxide.
Regarding claim 6, claim 6 recites that when G = 0 to 0.3, it is determined that the slurry is not gelled, and when G > 0.3, it is determined that it is gelled. Claim 6 also recites that the positive electrode slurry has a gelling factor G ranging from 0 to 1. Thus, the limitation of “the positive electrode slurry has a gelling factor G ranging from 0 to 1” is reasonably interpreted as the positive electrode slurry cannot be gelled, or can be gelled. According to the equation “G = (m1-m2)/m1” in claim 6, G is in a range of 0 to 1. Thus, any positive electrode slurry would fulfill this requirement for having a gelling factor G ranging from 0 to 1.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to expect that the claimed property of a gelling factor G ranging from 0 to 1, would be present in the positive electrode slurry as taught by Mino with a reasonable expectation of success, because no matter whether the positive electrode slurry of Mino cannot be gelled or can be gelled, it will have a gelling factor G ranging from 0 to 1. Therefore, the invention as a whole would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
2. Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mino (US 2022/0069272 A1, hereinafter Mino) as applied to claims 1 and 4-6 above, and further in view of Boinowitz (US 6,310,123 B1, hereinafter Boinowitz).
The disclosure of Mino is relied upon as set forth above.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Mino teaches that a positive electrode slurry comprises a positive electrode active material and an additive ([0016]), and the additive is compound A having, in its molecule, a polyether group and an acidic group ([0016]), wherein the polyether group can include a polyalkylene oxide group and the like, the acidic group can include a phosphoric acid ester group ([0023]).
Mino also teaches that the component A is added to suppress the stringiness of the positive electrode slurry ([0024]).
Mino does not teach that the compound A (the claimed polyether phosphate) has a number average molecular weight ranging from 10,000 to 80,000; nor the compound A (the claimed polyether phosphate) contains 0 to 75 mol% of structural unit (I), 0 to 65 mol% of structural unit (II), 5 to 65 mol% of structural unit (III), and 4 to 15 mol% of structural unit (IV), based on the total molar amount of structural unit (I) to structural unit (IV), wherein the molar proportions of structural unit (I) and structural unit (II) are not both zero.
However, Boinowitz teaches (claim 1) a phosphoric ester has the formula:
PNG
media_image4.png
364
682
media_image4.png
Greyscale
wherein x can be 1;
n can be 2;
m and o are each a number from 2 to 100; and
R′ is an alkyl, alkaryl, alkenyl or sulfopropyl radical, which reads on the claimed polyether phosphate comprising a structural unit (I) when A is hydrogen, a structural unit (III) when E is phenyl, and a structural unit (IV) that is a phosphate group.
Thus, in the phosphoric ester of Boinowitz, the ethylene oxide group (the claimed structural unit (I)) can have a molar amount of 2 to 97 mol%, the styrene oxide group (the claimed structural unit (III)) can have a molar amount of 2 to 97 mol%, and the phosphate group (the claimed structural unit (IV)) can have a molar amount of 0.5 to 20 mol%, based on the total molar amount of the ethylene oxide group, the styrene oxide group, and the phosphate group, which overlap with the claimed ranges of “0 to 75 mol%”, “5 to 65 mol%”, and “4 to 15 mol%”. The phosphoric ester of Boinowitz can comprise 0 mol% of the claimed structural unit (II).
Boinowitz also teaches that the phosphoric ester has an average molecular weight of from 300 to about 15,000 g/mol (col. 3, ll. 24-26), which overlaps with the claimed range of “from 10,000 to 80,000”.
Boinowitz also teaches that the phosphoric ester is used as a dispersant to reduce the viscosity of a highly filled dispersion (col. 2, ll. 27-30).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the phosphoric ester as taught by Boinowitz as the compound A having a polyether group and a phosphoric acid ester group in Mino, in order to reduce the viscosity/stringiness of the composition with a reasonable expectation of success, because the phosphoric ester of Boinowitz and the compound A of Mino both contain a polyether group and a phosphoric acid ester group, and both are used to reduce the viscosity/stringiness of a composition as recognized by Boinowitz and Mino. Therefore, the invention as a whole would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIAJIA JANIE CAI whose telephone number is 571-270-0951. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 am - 5:00 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, Angela Brown-Pettigrew can be reached on 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.
/JIAJIA JANIE CAI/Examiner, Art Unit 1761
/ANGELA C BROWN-PETTIGREW/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1761
Prosecution Insights