DETAILED ACTION
Citation to the Specification will be in the following format: (S. # : ¶/L) where # denotes the page number and ¶/L denotes the paragraph number or line number. Citation to patent literature will be in the form (Inventor # : LL) where # is the column number and LL is the line number. Citation to the pre-grant publication literature will be in the following format (Inventor # : ¶) where # denotes the page number and ¶ denotes the paragraph number.
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 .
Status of Application
This office action is in response to the papers as filed 8/22/2023.
Claim(s) 1-8 is/are pending.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Construction
Claim 1 and various dependent claims recite the term “shedding.” As understood, this term is not defined in the Specification. Little context is given for what this term means. A dictionary definition would seem to imply this means “giving off, discharging, ejecting,” etc. something. See Definition of shed, accessed online at https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/shedding on 3/5/2026. There is some corroboration of this in the art, in connection with activated carbon. US 5,482,773 to Bair is made of record. Bair states:
Activated carbon is well-known to be useful in removing impurities from air, water and solvents because of its very high microporous surface area (>500 m2/g). In large industrial systems, beds of loose carbon are commonly used for removing impurities from gaseous and liquid streams. In smaller operations, fibrous systems (e.g. felts, papers) in which carbon is mechanically entrained or adhesively attached, are often used.
Fibrous systems employing mechanically entrapped carbon particles are invariably "dirty". That is, the fibrous matrix sheds small particles when pulsed, shaken, or "worked". The shed particles are messy and can interfere with electrical equipment because they are conductive.
To help alleviate the shedding problem, low porosity fibrous sheets can be bonded to the face of the fibrous system or the fibrous system can be impregnated with a resin. These methods increase the pressure drop needed to maintain flow and do not completely solve the shedding problem, especially if the fibrous system is vigorously worked.
Non-shedding, high porosity structures can be obtained by affixing carbon particles to the fibers of high-loft non-wovens with an adhesive. However, the adhesive reduces the activity of the carbon. Also, the method is suitable only for a highly open porous fiber matrix wherein the carbon particles can penetrate into the center of the structure.
(Bair 1: 17-42) (emphasis added). Collectively, the dictionary definition and the usage of the term in the art suggest that shedding means the loss of small particles of activated carbon.
Claim Objections
I. Informalities.
Claim 1-8 are objected to because of the following informalities: various articles are missing, perhaps due to an incomplete translation. For example, “in battery electrode” in Claim 1 should read “in a battery electrode.” Other instances of these missing articles are present. This is a standing objection to all instances of the same/similar language in all claim. Alternatively or additionally, all dependent claims import the issues of Claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
I. Claims 1-8 – or as stated below – is/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 “[a] method for preventing shedding of activated carbon” in the preamble. Later, Claim 1 recites “heating the dried slurry (110) to … reduce shedding.” Preventing and reducing are two different verbs meaning two different things. It is unclear what is required of the claim.
Claim 1 recites (1) “when utilized in battery electrode” in the preamble, (2) “to reduce shedding during usage of activated carbon (108) in battery electrode” and (3) “collecting the processed bonded activated carbon (112) to be used in the battery electrode.”
The first verb phrase is understood to be in the past perfect (?) tense: “when utilized in battery electrode.” The second verb phrase is in the present tense: “to reduce shedding during usage of activated carbon.” The third verb phrase is understood to be in future progressive tense: “to be used in the battery electrode.” This calls into question whether this claim requires manufacture and/or use of an electrode (possibly with some manner of preventing or reducing shedding), or whether this claim recites some intended use of the activated carbon. Stated another way: is this some manner of making activated carbon? Or does this require making an electrode? Or does this require someone to use the electrode? Is any level of shedding allowed when using the electrode?
The use (usage, etc.) language can be problematic. See MPEP 2173.05(q). Here it is ““reasonably”” clear what is required. The indefiniteness has been articulated above, and relates to whether or not “usage” in an electrode is required or not.
Dependent claims not specifically addressed import the issues of the claims from which they depend.
Conclusion
While no prior art was applied to Claims 1-8, this is in accordance with MPEP 2173.06 II, which states “where there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of a claim, it would not be proper to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art. As stated in In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962), a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should not be based on considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims.”
Preparing a slurry with activated carbon, the claimed binders and solvents is known. For example:
US 6,046,268 to Ochoa, et al. - Ochoa teaches at least PVDF and a solvent. (Ochoa 6: 56 et seq.; Fig. 2). Activated carbon (graphite) is added. (Ochoa 6: 58; Fig. 2). The solvent is evaporated. (Ochoa 7: 5).
EP 3968417 to Nakayama, et al. - Nakayama teaches at least PVDF. (Nakayama 10: [0078]). A solvent is taught. (Nakayama 10: [0075]-[0076] – 1.2 Liquid Medium B). A slurry is prepared. (Nakayama 11: [0088]; 16: [0129]). Activated carbon is added. (Nakayama 14: [0113]-[0114]). Drying is taught. (Nakayama 16: [0130]). See also (Nakayama 20: [0151]: “the solvent was removed by heating”).
Bonnefoi, et al., Electrode compositions for carbon power supercapacitors, Journal of Power Sources 1999; 80: 149-155 (hereinafter “Bonnefoi at __”). Bonnefoi teaches CMC and PTFE in a water solvent. (Bonnefoi at 149, 2.1 Electrodes). Activated carbon is added to make a slurry. Id. Thermal treatment (drying) is taught. (Bonnefoi at 150, col. 1).
As to the heating to remove unwanted functional groups, the following are made of record:
Noked, et al., The electrochemistry of activated carbonaceous materials: past, present, and future, J Solid State Electrochem 2011; 15: 1563-1578 (hereinafter “Noked at __”). Note the discussion of heating to remove surface groups on carbonaceous materials at (Noked at 1568, col. 1, et seq.).
Ruiz, et al., Effect of the thermal treatment of carbon-based electrodes on the electrochemical performance of supercapacitors, Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry 2018; 618: 17-23 (hereinafter “Ruiz at __”). Ruiz teaches electrodes made from activated carbon and PVDF, although here without a solvent. (Ruiz at 18, 2.1 Preparation of active materials and electrodes). Ruiz heat treats the electrodes at 600 and 100 C. Id. Ruiz goes on to teach the removal of functional groups. (Ruiz at 19, col. 1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL C. MCCRACKEN whose telephone number is (571) 272-6537. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (9-6).
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, Anthony J. Zimmer can be reached on 571-270-3591. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DANIEL C. MCCRACKEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1736