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 Interpretation
The interpretation of various aspects of the claims used in this action are set forth first.
Regarding the term “non-polar solvent” used in claim 21 and elsewhere, and the term “polar solvent” used in claim 24 and elsewhere, it is noted that the as-filed specification clearly defines “non-polar solvent” as one having a bonded dipole moment of 1.15 D or less. While the specification does not expressly define the limits of what is considered a polar solvent, it is understood that within a given defined system of solvents, the continuum of polarity is split between those that are considered “polar” and those that are considered “non-polar” without any intermediate solvents that are neither polar nor non-polar. Thus, despite there being no art-recognized cut-off for what constitutes a “polar” solvent, because the specification does clearly define the limits of what solvents are non-polar, it necessarily defines that all other solvents having bonded dipole moment above 1.15 D are polar.
It is further noted that while claims 21-27 and 39 define a resin with respect to what solvent it is soluble in, with dependent claims more narrowly defining those solvents, none of those claims actually require the solvents to be present, just that the resin be soluble in such a solvent system.
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 29-31 and 35 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 29, the claim requires “a hydrophobic group” and “a hydrophilic group”. While those terms are understood to be descriptive of a group that is “water repelling” and a group that is “water loving” respectively, there is no art recognized method of determining an exact cut-off between groups that are water loving and those that are not water loving, and between those that are water repelling and those that are not water repelling. Moreover, the specification fails to provide any property or data of a group that can be used to determine if it is considered to be hydrophilic, hydrophobic, or neither, within the scope of how those terms are used in the claims. Thus, claims 29-31 are found indefinite for use of these relative terms.
Similarly, claim 35 requires a “dispersible group” and an “absorptive group”. These terms are problematically relative both because the boundary between dispersible and not dispersible and absorptive and not absorptive is not clearly drawn, and because the terms only have meaning within the context of a specific system in which the material is to be dispersed and/or absorbed which the claim does not define.
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(s) 21-29, 31-37 and 39-40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 10,601,011 to Yasuda (“Yasuda”)
Regard claims 21-28, and 32, Yasuda discloses a liquid composition for application onto an electrode of a battery. Yasuda at column 1, lines 60-67. This is considered to broadly correspond to the recited liquid composition for an electrode, since it may be applied to an electrode surface. The composition includes water as a dispersant, inorganic particles X, and a polyoxyethylene/polyoxypropylene copolymer as a wetting agent. Id. at column 2, lines 31-35, colum 2 line 66-column3, line 1, and column 3, lines 18-27. Applicant in the present Applicant describes polyoxyethylene/polyoxpropylene copolymer as a material that has the recited solubility properties, thus the Office finds the material of Yasuda necessarily meets those limitations. The inorganic particles in some embodiments are aluminum oxide.
Further regarding claims 29 and 31, the present application discloses that polyoxyethelene (poly ethylene oxide) units are hydrophilic while polyoxypropylene (polypropylene oxide) units are hydrophobic. Thus, the material of Yasuda is found to have the required hydrophobic and hydrophilic groups.
Further regarding claim 33, in some embodiments the inorganic particle is aluminum oxide. Id. at column 5, lines 11-25.
Further regarding claims 34 and 35, the composition of Yasuda further includes anionic surfactant as a wetting agent, such surfactant which by definition includes an anionic polar head that is aborptive group towards water, and a nonpolar tail that is dispersible.
Further regarding claims 36, 37, 39 and 40, the electrode is made by either applying the liquid composition to an electrode substrate including electrode active material, followed by drying; or by submersing an electrode substrate having a surface of electrode active material into the liquid composition. Both processes necessarily include some container that contains the liquid composition and a unit that either submerges the substrate in the container thereby providing the liquid composition to the substrate, or a unit that allows for the delivery of the liquid in the container directly onto the substrate.
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.
Claim(s) 30 and 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasuda. Yasuda is applied as described above. Further regarding claim 30, Yasuda does not expressly disclose the relative amount of PEO to PPO groups in the wetting agent copolymer. Nonethess, the Office finds that because Yasuda discloses that the goal is to reduce the amount of wetting agent needed, the fact that the dispersion was occurring in water, and the fact that the only options are more hydrophobic groups than hydrophilic; more hydrophilic than hydrophobic; or same number of each, that the person of ordinary skill in the art through routine experimentation with a known finite number of possibilities would obvious arrive at a ratio of higher hydrophilic PEO groups than PPO hydrophobic groups to allow for excellent dispersion in the aqueous medium.
Further regarding claim 38, Yasuda does not expressly disclose providing the liquid composition onto the electrode substrate in an ink-jet manner. Nonetheless, use of ink-jet printing methods to provide compositions onto an electrode substrate were commonly used methods for delivering liquid compositions for electrodes onto such substrates and thus, use of a unit for providing the liquid of Yasuda in such a manner is considered to be nothing more than the obvious use of a commonly known technique for applying liquid composition to an electrode substrate in its intended manner to achieve the predicted coated substrate.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WYATT P MCCONNELL whose telephone number is (571)270-7531. The examiner can normally be reached 9am to 5pm M-F.
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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at 571-272-1330. 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.
/WYATT P MCCONNELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1727