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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on December 22, 2023 has been considered by the examiner.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 objected to because of the following informalities: There seems to be an issue with grammar in claim 7 line 3. For purposes of compact prosecution, the examiner is interpreting “adding a second solvent and stirring same with the material to be coated” to be “adding a second solvent and stirring with the same material to be coated”. 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.
Claim 1 is 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.
The terms “carbon nanomaterial” (pg 1, lines 2-3) and “carbon nanoparticle” (pg 1, lines 1, 4, and 9) in claim 1 are not defined by the claim. It is unclear if these two terms reference the same material. The broadest reasonable interpretation will be given in an effort to advance prosecution such that “carbon nanomaterial” can include the “carbon nanoparticle” or reference an additional carbon material. Clarification is required.
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.
(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.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S Pre-Grant Publication No. 2023/0246166, hereinafter Predtechneskiy.
Regarding claim 1, Predtechneskiy teaches a carbon nanoparticle (‘carbon nanotube in the suspension’ [0030]) coating method comprising:
(1) mixing a dispersant (‘dispersant’ [0027] and ‘the suspension also contains 1.0 wt% of polybinylpyrrolidone as a dispersant’ [0091]), a first solvent (‘solvent’ [0027] and ‘N-methylpyrrolidone was used as the suspension’ [0091]), and a carbon nanomaterial (‘carbon nanotubes’ [0027] and [0091]) to prepare a dispersion;
(2) homogenizing carbon nanoparticles (‘carbon nanotubes’) in the dispersion through a dispersion process;
(3) stirring the dispersion with a material to be coated (‘silicon and silicon oxide’ [0027] and [0068]); and
(4) adding a solution comprising an ionic compound (‘binder additives’ [0027] (reads on ionic compound) and ‘the anode slurry additionally comprises the binding polymer substance polyvinylidene fluoride Li salt’ [0037]) to coat the carbon nanoparticles (‘carbon nanotubes’) on the surface of the material to be coated (‘silicon and silicon oxide’).
(‘mixing the mixture of the composition (C) in the suspension (S) until a homogeneous slurry is obtained. To ensure rheological or adhesion properties of the slurry is optimal for its subsequent application on the current collector, binder additives, dispersants, and solvents are introduced simultaneously with the silicon and silicon oxide (C) into the carbon nanotube suspension (S). Moreover it is note that the art teaches that most often, the sequence of introducing the binder additives, dispersants, and solvents has no effect on the achieved technical result.’ [0026-0027])
Regarding claim 2, Predtechneskiy teaches the carbon nanoparticle [0030] coating method according to claim 1, wherein the dispersant is polyvinyl pyrrolidone(‘the suspension also contains 1.0 wt% of polyvinylpyrrolidone as a dispersant’ [0091]).
Regarding claim 3, Predtechneskiy teaches the carbon nanoparticle [0030] coating method according to claim 1, wherein the first solvent is n-methyl pyrrolidone(‘N-methylpyrrolidone was used as the suspension’ [0091]).
Regarding claim 4, Predtechneskiy teaches the carbon nanoparticle [0030] coating method according to claim 1, wherein the carbon nanomaterial is carbon nanotubes (‘a suspension of a mixture of single-walled and multi-walled carbon nanotubes’ [0091]).
Regarding claim 5, Predtechneskiy teaches the carbon nanoparticle [0030] coating method according to claim 1, wherein the ionic compound is one selected from ionic compounds consisting of a salt of a Group 1 element and a halogen group element. (‘The anode slurry additionally comprises the binding polymer substance polyvinylidene fluoride Li salt’ [0037]).
Regarding claim 6, Predtechneskiy teaches the carbon nanoparticle coating method according to claim 1, wherein the material to be coated is silicon oxide. (‘the anode slurry was produced using a powder of composition comprising a phase of silicon and phases of silicon oxide covered with a layer of amorphous carbon’ [0068]).
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.
Claims 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S Pre-Grant Publication No. 2023/0246166, hereinafter Predtechneskiy as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2021/0047185, hereinafter Finlayson.
Regarding claims 7-8, Predtechneskiy teaches an anode slurry that contains phases of silicon and silicon oxide, carbon nanotubes, graphite, binder additives, a dispersant, and a solvent that is to be applied to a current collector [0027].
However, Predtechneskiy fails to teach a second solvent (instant claim 7) of ethanol (instant claim 8) in the mixture.
Finlayson teaches an anode for a lithium ion battery [0139] that consists of silicon oxide coated in carbon nanotubes [0146]. The aqueous wet cake for the anode consists of carbon nanotubes, a dispersant, and a solvent that were stirred for an hour. The carbon nanotubes were then filtered and washed four times with ethanol [0159].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added Finlayson’s second solvent of ethanol in the anode slurry of Predtechneskiy in order to wash the carbon nanotubes and remove non-coupled dispersant from the mixture [0159].
Regarding claims 9-10, Predtechneskiy teaches an anode slurry that contains phases of silicon and silicon oxide, carbon nanotubes, graphite, binder additives, a dispersant, and a solvent that is to be applied to a current collector [0027].
However, Predtechneskiy fails to teach the use of a filter press to prepare a filter cake (instant claim 9) that is dried at 50C to 150C (instant claim 10).
Finlayson teaches an anode for a lithium ion battery [0139] that consists of silicon oxide coated in carbon nanotubes [0146]. The aqueous wet cake for the anode consists of carbon nanotubes, a dispersant, and a solvent that were stirred for an hour. The carbon nanotubes were then filtered using a Buchner filter and washed four times with ethanol. The carbon nanotubes were then dried in vacuo at 90C, and finally dried at 140C [0159].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have filters and dried the anode slurry of Predtechneskiy according to Finlayson in order to dry the product and complete the reaction between the carbon nanotubes, dispersant, and any other additives [0159].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mia K Holbrook whose telephone number is (571)272-9253. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30-5.
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, Miriam Stagg can be reached at (571) 270-5256. 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.
/M.K.H./Examiner, Art Unit 1724
/MIRIAM STAGG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1724
Prosecution Insights