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 .
Applicant’s amendments were received on 6/22/26. Claim 1 has been amended. Claims 4-6 are cancelled.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S.C. code not included in this action can be found in the prior Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, on claims 5 and 6 are withdrawn because the Applicant has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Delnick, on claims 1, 2, 3, 20 are withdrawn because the Applicant amended the claims.
The rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kucherovsky et al., on claims 1- 4, 20 are withdrawn because the Applicant amended the claims.
The rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nitzan (WO2008/075348), on claims 1, 3, 4, 20 are maintained. The rejection is further modified in view of the Applicant’s amendments.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3 , 20 s/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nitzan (WO2008/075348).
Regarding claim 1, the Nitzan reference discloses a method of printing a separator for an electrochemical cell, the method comprising providing an ink comprising particles of a separator-forming substance suspended therein, providing a medium, applying a layer of the ink to the medium in a printing process, and forming a separator from the separator-forming substance in the layer of ink (Page 6 ,Fig. 6 Example 1). The Nizan reference discloses the separator-forming substance is an ionic conductor material, the ionic conductor material is a porous (microns can be measured in nanometer, hence nanopores) material is a metal organic framework (polymer comprising an ionic, cross-linking functional group and a polyvalent metal ion).
Regarding claim 2, the Nitzan reference discloses the ink comprise an electrolyte and wherein the separator-forming substance forms a separator that hosts at least some electrolyte.
Regarding claim 3, the Nitzan reference discloses wherein the step of forming the separator comprises drying or curing the ink
Regarding claim 20, the Nitzan reference discloses a method of forming an electrochemical cell, the method comprising providing a first electrode, printing a separator on the first electrode in accordance with the method of claim 1 wherein the medium is the first electrode, and providing a second electrode, wherein the separator is located between the first and second electrodes in the so formed electrochemical cell. (method in figures).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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, 2, 3, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable by Delnick (EP0814520) in view Hiroshi et al. (WO2012050152).
Regarding claim 1, the Delnick reference discloses a method of printing a separator for an electrochemical cell, the method comprising providing an ink comprising particles of a separator-forming substance suspended therein, providing a medium, applying a layer of the ink to the medium in a printing process, and forming a microporous (microporous can be measured in nanometers) separator from the separator-forming substance in the layer of ink ((5:5-10). The Delnick reference discloses the different applications for various types of electrochemical cell separator/electrolyte are known. The Delnick discloses separators ink can include solid particulate materials such as silica, alumina, kaolin can be included in the separator ink but is silent in specifying the ink further comprise ion conductor material that is a zeolite. However, the Hiroshi et al. reference discloses different particle materials for separators including silica, alumina, kaolin and zeolite are applicable as heat resistant materials for better stability in high temperature applications. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide zeolite for teachings of using particulates silica, alumina, kaolin disclosed by the Hiroshi et al. for the separator using particulates such as silica, alumina, kaolin for the separator disclosed by the Delnick reference in order to provide a stable separator applicable in high temperature range.
In addition, the substitution of known equivalent structures involves only ordinary skill in the art. In re Fout 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982); In re Susi 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971); In re Siebentritt 152 USPQ 618 (CCPA 1967); In re Ruff 118 USPQ 343 (CCPA 1958). When a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable result. KSR v. Teleflex
Regarding claim 2, the Delnick reference discloses wherein the ink comprises an electrolyte and wherein the separator-forming substance forms a separator that hosts at least some of the electrolyte (6:4-7).
Regarding claim 3, the Delnick reference discloses wherein the step of forming the separator comprises drying or curing the ink (6:9-12).
Regarding claim 20, the Delnick reference discloses a method of forming an electrochemical cell, the method comprising providing a first electrode, printing a separator on the first electrode in accordance with the method of claim 1 wherein the medium is the first electrode, and providing a second electrode, wherein the separator is located between the first and second electrodes in the so formed electrochemical cell.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-3, 20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
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 HELEN OI CONLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-5162. The examiner can normally be reached 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, Nicholas Smith can be reached at 5712728760. 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.
/Helen Oi K CONLEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752
