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 .
Claim Comments
Applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term. In the claims, applicant uses the term “collector”. Is the “collector” the actual electrode by itself, i.e. just the resin fibers + conductive coating (i.e. to make it conductive), or is it a plate that the resin is placed upon, not the resin itself? It is noted that the specification appears to define the “collector” as a positive or negative electrode and does not describe a plate-like feature upon which the matrix is deposited. The specification appears to refer to the resin matrix with a conductive coating by itself as the electrode to which leads are applied.
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.
Claim 1 recites “a ratio of fiber diameters……1.2 to 7.” However, the claim fails to clearly specify what quantities form the numerator and denominator of the recited ratio. For example, are the quantities millimeters, micrometers, etc.? It is not clear if the fibers are hollow as no material is recited and whether the diameters are formed from the inner or outer diameter of the fibers. Claims depending therefrom are also rejected.
Regarding claim 18, the preamble recites a “positive electrode”; however, claim 1 does not contain any conductive recitations, thus, it is unclear how claim 18 can be conducive absent any recited element that has conductive properties.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP 2019065349 (citing to translation).
Regarding claims 1, 2 and 8, JP’349 teaches a polymeric fiber resin support for water electrolysis [8] that can be in mesh form which forms a structural body that can have pores that can be filled with air which read on an air cell. The average fiber diameter (Da) of the fiber (A) is preferably in the range of 0.2 μm to 4.0 μm and the average fiber diameter of the fiber (B) is preferably in the range of 10 μm to 40 μm. Thus, one ratio could be a ratio of 4:10 or 2:5 which falls within the claimed range of 1.2:7. Claim 8 is product-by-process.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Makita (US 2022/0041970).
Regarding claims 1-4 and 8, Mikita teaches a mesh structure is formed by the intertangled plurality of resin fibers adhering and joining together at locations where the resin fibers contact one another. The mesh structure forms mesh openings (abstract). The nonwoven fabric includes a plurality of resin fibers having outer diameters of 10-50 μm, which provides for having a ratio of fibers in the range of 1.2:7. Claim 8 is product-by-process.
Claim(s) 1-4, 8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gerard (US 11208564).
Regarding claim 1-4, 8 and 15, Gerard teaches a functional fibrous substrate, wherein said functional fibrous substrate is made of fibers having a diameter between 0.005 micrometers and 100 micrometers (can form a ratio of 1.2:7), and said fibers can be selected from the group consisting of fibers of thermosetting polymers, fibers of thermoplastic polymers, polyamide fibers, polyester fibers, polyvinylacohol fibers, polyolefin fibers, polyurethane fibers, polyvinylchloride fibers, polyethylene fibers, unsaturated polyester fibers, epoxy resin fibers, vinylester fibers, glass fibers, boron fibers, silica fibers, and mixtures thereof (see claim 1). Claim 8 is product-by-process.
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.
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) 1, 2, 8, 16, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Ma et al. (US 20140332731).
Regarding claims 1, 2 and 8, Ma teaches an electrode composition comprising first and second fibers to form a mesh [0005]. Wherein the first fibers have a diameter #5 of 40nm to about 100nm and the second fibers #2 have a diameter of 4nm and 15nm. (see fig. 1b [0033], [0070-71]. These fall within the claimed range. The Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984); MPEP 2144.04 IV A.
Regarding claim 16, Ma teaches that the large and small fibers were blended with conductive paste and an electrode coating composition was then prepared using paste containing mixed large and small nanotubes with graphite particles, with average diameter of 20 micrometers, together with other necessary binders, such as PVDF [0064]. Thus, the fibers are coated.
Regarding claims 18 and 19, Ma teaches a positive and negative electrode coin cell was sealed after assemble the cathode/separator/anode and injecting electrolyte made a battery [0051].
Claim(s) 5-7, 9, 10, 11, 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Ma et al. (US 20140332731) with evidence from Euler, Textile Electrodes: Influence of Knitting Construction and Pressure on the Contact Impedance, 2/24/2021.
Regarding claims 5-7, 9, 10, 11, 13 and 14, Ma does not teach the specifics in these claims. However, these are all result effective variables that can be optimized based on the application.
For example, as evidenced by Euler, (since the applicant appears to be utilizing these fibers as an textile electrode) one skilled in the art recognized that electrode construction parameters (size, shape, density, topography) in combination with the external parameters electrode condition (i.e., dry or wet) and applied pressure influence and other electrodes in the system all help determine the final product.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to optimize the thickness, density, length, cross-section are all variables that can be optimized to arrive at the final product (page 3 of 23) (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272,205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)). Since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Claim(s) 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Ma et al. (US 20140332731), as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Nishimura (US 20220407082).
Regarding claims 6 and 7, Ma does not specifically teach the mesh thickness.
Nishimura teaches a lithium ion battery current collector according to (2-1), in which the network structure is a network structure having a mesh size of 20 to 200 μm and a thickness of 30 to 80 μm [0602].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective file date to utilize a mesh thickness of 30-80 micrometers that falls within the claimed range to arrive at a functioning battery.
Claim(s) 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Ma et al. (US 20140332731), as applied to claim 16 above, in further view of Nam (US 20160268587).
Regarding claim 17, Ma does not teach coating the fibers with Ni.
Nam teaches coating textile electrode fibers with Ni and Co [0013].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective file date to utilize a conductive coating on the mesh to arrive at a functioning battery.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 12 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is cited on the attached PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER M DIETERLE whose telephone number is (571)270-7872. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9:30-5:30 EST.
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, Patricia Mallari can be reached at 571-272-4729. 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.
/Jennifer Dieterle/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1776