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 .
Foreign Priority Documents
The Japanese foreign priority document(s) 2023-005616, submitted under 35
U.S.C. § 119 (a)-(d), was/were been received on February 28, 2024 and placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed January 18, 2024 & September 5, 2024 has/have been received and complies with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner, and an initialed copied is attached herewith.
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.
Claim(s) 1-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BAEK et al., EP 4254546 A1 in view of Jang et al., US-20220255080-A1.
With respect to claim 1, BAEK teaches a positive electrode (positive electrode mixture layer may include at least a positive electrode active material; DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE EMBODIMENTS, “(1-1. Positive Electrode)“ section, paragraph 1), the positive electrode comprising a positive electrode current collector (positive electrode includes a positive electrode current collector; DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE EMBODIMENTS, “(1-1. Positive Electrode)“ section, paragraph 1), a positive electrode mixture layer on the positive electrode current collector (positive electrode mixture layer may include at least a positive electrode active material; a positive electrode mixture layer formed on the positive electrode current collector; DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE EMBODIMENTS, “(1-1. Positive Electrode)“ section, paragraphs 1-2), and wherein the positive electrode is for a non-aqueous electrolyte rechargeable battery (non-aqueous electrolyte rechargeable battery, DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE EMBODIMENTS, section, “<1. Basic Configuration of Non-aqueous Electrolyte Rechargeable Battery>”, section, paragraph 1), the flame retardant layer comprises composite particles comprising a metal hydroxide (composite particles in which metal hydroxide particles; DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE EMBODIMENTS, section, “<2. Characteristic Configuration of Non-aqueous Electrolyte Rechargeable Battery According to an Embodiment >”, paragraph 3) and a flame retardant (modifying the first composite particles, modifying agent may include phosphoric acid, phosphonic acid (such as phosphonic acid, ethylphosphonic acid, and phenylphosphonic acid), and phosphinic acid (such as phosphinic acid and diphenylphosphinic acid); DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE EMBODIMENTS, section (3-1. Preparing Method of Composite Particles), paragraph 1-2; Examiner’s Note: the acids are modifying agents but reasonably expected to function as flame retardants because the materials of the composite materials are the same. See Example 1 Modification treatment; Furthermore, In accordance with MPEP 2112.01, “[p]roducts of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). In the instant case, the flame retardancy is necessarily present.). With respect to claim 2, a ratio of MS1 and MS2 satisfies Formula (1): 0.5≤(MS1/MS2)≤10.0 (1) ((MS1/MS2) may satisfy Formula (1).0.5≤MS1/MS2≤5.0; SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION, paragraph 8; Range: Furthermore, "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).) With respect to claim 4, a specific surface area (BET) of the composite particles is greater than or equal to about 8 square meter per gram (m2/g) and less than or equal to about 150 m2/g (specific surface area (BET1) is greater than or equal to about 8 m2/g and less than or equal to about 600 m2/g; teaching claim 4).
With respect to claim 5, the metal hydroxide is at least one selected from among aluminum hydroxide, pseudo-boehmite, boehmite, alumina, and kaolinite, and a surface and an interior of the metal hydroxide are each modified with a flame retardant (metal hydroxide is at least one selected from aluminum hydroxide, pseudo-boehmite, boehmite, alumina, and kaolinite; teaching claim 8; the surface is modified with phosphorus based acids to form the flame retardant as described above; teaching claims 12-13). With respect to claim 6, the flame retardant layer comprises at least one of phosphoric acid, phosphoric acid ester, phosphonic acid, or phosphinic acid (treatment agent includes at least one of phosphoric acid, phosphonic acid, and phosphinic acid; teaching claims 14). With respect to claim 13, the non-aqueous electrolyte rechargeable battery comprising the positive electrode as claimed in claim 1, a negative electrode, a separator, and a non-aqueous electrolyte solution (a positive electrode, a negative electrode, a separator, and a non-aqueous electrolyte; teaching claims 11).
BAEK does not teach or suggest: a flame retardant layer on a side of the positive electrode mixture layer facing oppositely away from the positive electrode current collector (claim 1); an amount of desorbed P2 (MS1) of the composite particles from about 80 °C to about 1400 °C as determined by thermal desorption gas mass spectrometry (TDS-MS) is greater than or equal to about 200×10-6 mole per gram (mol/g) and less than or equal to about 2500×10-6 mol/g, and an amount of desorbed H2O (MS2) from about 80 °C to about 200 °C by TDS-MS is greater than or equal to about 50×10-6 mol/g and less than or equal to about 1000×10-6 mol/g (claim 1); an integrated value of 50% (D50) of a volume-based particle size distribution of the composite particles is greater than or equal to about 0.05 micrometer (μm) and less than or equal to about 3 μm, and an integrated value of 90% (D90) of a volume-based particle size distribution of the composite particles is less than or equal to about 5 μm (claim 3); an amount of an aluminum element is about 5 mass% to 30 mass% and an amount of a phosphorus element is about 5 mass% to about 30 mass%, based on a total weight of the positive electrode, as determined by inductively coupled plasma emission spectroscopy (ICP-AES) (claim 7); the flame retardant layer comprises the composite particles and a binder, an amount of the composite particles in the flame retardant layer is about 70 mass% to about 99 mass%, and an amount of the binder in the flame retardant layer is about 1 mass% to about 30 mass% (claim 8); the flame retardant layer has a thickness of about 0.1 μm to about 5 μm (claim 9); the metal hydroxide has a D50 value greater than or equal to about 10 nanometer (nm) and less than or equal to about 10 μm (claim 10); the metal hydroxide is greater than or equal to about 1 mass% and less than or equal to about 50 mass%, based on a total weight of the composite particles (claim 11); the flame retardant is greater than or equal to about 0.1 mass% and less than or equal to about 90 mass%, based on a total weight of the composite particles (claim 12); the composite particles is greater than or equal to about 0.01 mass% and less than or equal to about 5.0 mass%, based on a total weight of the non-aqueous electrolyte rechargeable battery (claim 14).
Jang teaches that it is well known in the are to employ: a flame retardant layer on a side of the positive electrode mixture layer facing oppositely away from the positive electrode current collector (an elastic polymer protective layer disposed between the cathode and the anode; See the abstract; elastic protective polymer layer may also act to provide flame-retardant or fire-resisting capability to the battery since polymers from phosphonic acids; flame retardant additive is selected from a phosphorus-based flame retardant, metal hydroxide flame retardant or a combination thereof; [0031]; claim 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ a flame retardant layer on a side of the positive electrode mixture layer facing oppositely away from the positive electrode current collector taught by Jang, as the positive electrode flame retardant configuration of BAEK, in order to improve safety of Li metal batteries for EV, HEV, and microelectronic device applications.
With respect to an amount of desorbed P2 (MS1) of the composite particles from about 80 °C to about 1400 °C as determined by thermal desorption gas mass spectrometry (TDS-MS) is greater than or equal to about 200×10-6 mole per gram (mol/g) and less than or equal to about 2500×10-6 mol/g, and an amount of desorbed H2O (MS2) from about 80 °C to about 200 °C by TDS-MS is greater than or equal to about 50×10-6 mol/g and less than or equal to about 1000×10-6 mol/g (claim 1); it would have been obvious in the positive electrode mixture of BAEK in view of Jang; in order to improve safety of Li metal batteries for EV, HEV, and microelectronic device applications. BAEK teaches an amount of desorbed P.sub.2 (MS1) from about 80 °C to about 1400 °C by thermal desorption gas mass spectrometry (TDS-MS) is greater than or equal to about 300 × 10-6 mol/g and less than or equal to about 3000 × 10-6 mol/g; overlapping with the claimed range.. See teaching claim 1 of BAEK. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Furthermore, "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
With respect to an integrated value of 50% (D50) of a volume-based particle size distribution of the composite particles being greater than or equal to about 0.05 micrometer (μm) and less than or equal to about 3 μm, and an integrated value of 90% (D90) of a volume-based particle size distribution of the composite particles being less than or equal to about 5 μm (claim 3); it would have been obvious in the positive electrode mixture of BAEK in view of Jang; in order to improve safety of Li metal batteries for EV, HEV, and microelectronic device applications. BAEK teaches the contemplation of particle size distribution including: a diameter (D50) of particles having a cumulative volume of 50 volume% in a particle size distribution. D50 refers to the average diameter (or size) of particles whose cumulative volume corresponds to 50 vol% in the particle size distribution (e.g., cumulative distribution), and refers to the value of the particle size corresponding to 50% from the smallest particle when the total number of particles is 100% in the distribution curve accumulated in the order of the smallest particle size to the largest particle size. See “<Consideration of Examples and Comparative Examples> “ section. Furthermore, "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
With respect to an amount of an aluminum element being about 5 mass% to 30 mass% and an amount of a phosphorus element is about 5 mass% to about 30 mass%, based on a total weight of the positive electrode, as determined by inductively coupled plasma emission spectroscopy (ICP-AES) (claim 7); it would have been obvious in the positive electrode mixture of BAEK in view of Jang; in order to improve safety of Li metal batteries for EV, HEV, and microelectronic device applications. BAEK teaches flame retardant aluminum hydroxide composite particles with a degree of modification by phosphonic acid. See SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION. Furthermore, "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
With respect to the flame retardant layer comprising the composite particles and a binder, an amount of the composite particles in the flame retardant layer is about 70 mass% to about 99 mass%, and an amount of the binder in the flame retardant layer is about 1 mass% to about 30 mass% (claim 8); it would have been obvious in the positive electrode mixture of BAEK in view of Jang; in order to improve structural integrity of the fame retardant layer. BAEK teaches positive electrode active material, and may further include a conductive agent and a positive electrode binder. See (1-1. Positive Electrode) section. Thus the reference teaches a mixture including binder and flame retardant material. The skilled artisan commonly uses binders for structural integrity of mixed materials. Furthermore, "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
With respect to the flame retardant layer having a thickness of about 0.1 μm to about 5 μm (claim 9); it would have been obvious in the positive electrode mixture of BAEK in view of Jang; in order to improve structural integrity of the fame retardant layer. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
With respect to the metal hydroxide has a D50 value greater than or equal to about 10 nanometer (nm) and less than or equal to about 10 μm (claim 10); it would have been obvious in the positive electrode mixture of BAEK in view of Jang; in order to improve safety of Li metal batteries for EV, HEV, and microelectronic device applications. BAEK teaches the contemplation of particle size distribution including: a diameter (D50) of particles having a cumulative volume of 50 volume% in a particle size distribution. D50 refers to the average diameter (or size) of particles whose cumulative volume corresponds to 50 vol% in the particle size distribution (e.g., cumulative distribution), and refers to the value of the particle size corresponding to 50% from the smallest particle when the total number of particles is 100% in the distribution curve accumulated in the order of the smallest particle size to the largest particle size. See “<Consideration of Examples and Comparative Examples> “ section. Furthermore, "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
With respect to the metal hydroxide being greater than or equal to about 1 mass% and less than or equal to about 50 mass%, based on a total weight of the composite particles (claim 11); it would have been obvious in the positive electrode mixture of BAEK in view of Jang; in order to improve safety of Li metal batteries for EV, HEV, and microelectronic device applications. BAEK teaches flame retardant aluminum hydroxide composite particles with a degree of modification by phosphonic acid. See SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION. Furthermore, "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
With respect to the flame retardant being greater than or equal to about 0.1 mass% and less than or equal to about 90 mass%, based on a total weight of the composite particles (claim 12); it would have been obvious in the positive electrode mixture of BAEK in view of Jang; in order to improve safety of Li metal batteries for EV, HEV, and microelectronic device applications. BAEK teaches flame retardant aluminum hydroxide composite particles with a degree of modification by phosphonic acid. See SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION. Furthermore, "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
With respect to the composite particles being greater than or equal to about 0.01 mass% and less than or equal to about 5.0 mass%, based on a total weight of the non-aqueous electrolyte rechargeable battery (claim 14) ; it would have been obvious in the positive electrode mixture of BAEK in view of Jang; in order to improve safety of Li metal batteries for EV, HEV, and microelectronic device applications. BAEK teaches flame retardant aluminum hydroxide composite particles with a degree of modification by phosphonic acid. See SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION. Furthermore, "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
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) 15 & 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by BAEK et al., EP 4254546 A1.
With respect to claim 15, BAEK teaches a method of preparing composite particles for a non-aqueous electrolyte rechargeable battery, the method comprising: mixing metal hydroxide particles and a flame retardant to form a mixture; and heating the mixture (Composite Particles A' before modification and 3.0 g of phosphoric acid were dispersed in 50 cm3 of a mixed solution of ethanol and purified water (a volume mixing ratio of 1 : 1). This dispersion was heated at 80 °C for 4 hours and vacuum-dried, obtaining modified Composite Particles A; See “<Modification Treatment of Endothermic Particles> “, (Example 1)). With respect to claim 17,
wherein heating comprises heating the mixture to greater than or equal to about 40 °C and less than or equal to about 100 °C (This dispersion was heated at 80 °C for 4 hours and vacuum-dried, obtaining modified Composite Particles A; See “<Modification Treatment of Endothermic Particles> “, (Example 1)). With respect to claim 18,
wherein heating further comprises reacting the mixture at greater than or equal to about 40 °C and less than or equal to about 100 °C for greater than or equal to about 1 hour and less than or equal to about 48 hours (This dispersion was heated at 80 °C for 4 hours and vacuum-dried, obtaining modified Composite Particles A; See “<Modification Treatment of Endothermic Particles> “, (Example 1)). Therefore, the instant claims are anticipated by BAEK.
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.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BAEK et al., EP 4254546 A1.
BAEK teaches a method of preparing composite particles for a non-aqueous electrolyte rechargeable battery, the method comprising: mixing metal hydroxide particles and a flame retardant to form a mixture; and heating the mixture (Composite Particles A' before modification and 3.0 g of phosphoric acid were dispersed in 50 cm3 of a mixed solution of ethanol and purified water (a volume mixing ratio of 1 : 1). This dispersion was heated at 80 °C for 4 hours and vacuum-dried, obtaining modified Composite Particles A; See “<Modification Treatment of Endothermic Particles> “, (Example 1)), as described in the rejection recited herein above.
BAEK does not teach or suggest: a stirring speed greater than or equal to about 50 meter per minute (m/min) and less than or equal to about 500 m/min (claim 16).
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ a stirring speed greater than or equal to about 50 meter per minute (m/min) and less than or equal to about 500 m/min, in the method of BAEK, in order to increase homogeneity of the mixture. The skilled artisan recognizes that mixing speed directly effects blending. Furthermore, "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
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.
Claim(s) 15-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang et al., US-20220255080-A1.
With respect to claim 15, Jang teaches a method of preparing composite particles for a non-aqueous electrolyte rechargeable battery, the method comprising: mixing a flame retardant to form a mixture; and heating the mixture (phosphonic acids, phosphorous acid, phosphites, phosphoric acids, combinations; add an additional amount of from 0.1% to 70% by weight of a flame retardant that is dispersed in, dissolved in, or chemically bonded to the high-elasticity polymer; additive is selected from phosphorus-based flame retardant, metal hydroxide flame retardant, or a combination thereof [0031] heated for 5 hours at 90° C, (Example 1)). With respect to claim 17,wherein heating comprises heating the mixture to greater than or equal to about 40 °C and less than or equal to about 100 °C (heated for 5 hours at 90° C, (Example 1)).With respect to claim 18, wherein heating further comprises reacting the mixture at greater than or equal to about 40 °C and less than or equal to about 100 °C for greater than or equal to about 1 hour and less than or equal to about 48 hours (heated for 5 hours at 90° C, (Example 1)).
Although Jang teaches phosphorus-based flame retardant, metal hydroxide flame retardant, or a combination thereof [0031] may be used, the reference does not teach with sufficient specificity: metal hydroxide particles in the mixture being heated (claim 15); a stirring speed greater than or equal to about 50 meter per minute (m/min) and less than or equal to about 500 m/min (claim 16).
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ metal hydroxide particles in the mixture being heated in the method of Jang, in order to increase flame retardant efficiency. The skilled artisan recognizes used of multiple flame retardants to improve safety. Furthermore, selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
With respect to a stirring speed greater than or equal to about 50 meter per minute (m/min) and less than or equal to about 500 m/min (claim 16); it would have been obvious in the method of Jang,in order to increase homogeneity of the mixture. The skilled artisan recognizes that mixing speed directly effects blending. Furthermore, "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Examiners Note
Applicant is advised that once a translation of the foreign priority is submitted to disqualify the inventor’s own work, incorporating claim 6 in to claim 1 appears to be allowable. Updated search conducted after response.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MONIQUE M WILLS whose telephone number is (571)272-1309. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:30am to 5:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner's supervisor, Tiffany Legette, may be reached at 571-270-7078. 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 http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/Monique M Wills/
Examiner, Art Unit 1722
/TIFFANY LEGETTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights