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 .
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claim 12 is directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: It is an independent and distinct method from the method originally claimed. A method of producing a battery is independent and distinct from a method of producing a slurry.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claim 12 is withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-9, 11 and 13-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bai et al. (CN 103035940A).
Regarding claims 1-5, 7, 8, 11 and 20: Bai et al. teach a method of producing a slurry comprising dissolving and dispersing PVdF in NMP as a solvent and then adding silica filler and stirring at 2,800 rpm to prepare a slurry with a viscosity of 1,400 cp [Example 1]. Bai et al. teach that the amount of silica filler is 88-95% of the composition [0016, 0038], with an example at 88% [Example 1]. The composition of Bai et al. is capable of functioning in the claimed capacity.
The difference between Bai et al. and the claimed method is the order of mixing the components.
The claimed order of mixing is obvious. See In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946) (selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results); see also In re Gibson, 39 F.2d 975, 5 USPQ 230 (CCPA 1930) (Selection of any order of mixing ingredients is prima facie obvious.).
Regarding claim 6: Bai et al. teach PVdF [Examples]. The skilled artisan would immediately envisage a powder of PVdF.
Regarding claim 9: Bai et al. teach the claimed solid content [Examples].
Regarding claim 13: Bai et al. teach the claimed amount of PVdf, and solid content [Examples].
Regarding claims 14 and 17: Bai et al. teach silica, PVdf and NMP [Examples].
Regarding claim 15: Bai et al. teach the claimed viscosity [0039, 0062, 0072; Examples].
Regarding claim 16: Bai et al. teach a solid content of 12% [0050, Examples]. 12% is close to the claimed amount of 15%. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 18: Bai et al. teach stirring with a stirring blade at 2,800 rpm [Example 1]. The stirring duration can be determined through routine experimentation to produce a slurry.
Regarding claim 19: The claimed temperature range is not critical. Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. “[W]here 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.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bai et al. (CN 103035940A) as applied to claim 1 above further in view of Chen et al. (CN 108043240A).
Bai et al. teach that preferably the porosity of the coating is greater than 40% [0011].
Bai et al. fail to teach a conductive agent.
However, Chen et al. teach adding lithium chloride to an analogous composition as a pore forming agent [0015; Examples].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add lithium chloride as taught by Chen et al. to the composition of Bai et al. to increase the porosity of the composition.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant has alleged unexpected results due to the claimed order of mixing. This is not persuasive because the claims are not commensurate in scope with the data provided. The examples only include N-methyl-2-pyrrolidone, alumina and PVdF, in particular amounts. The claims are broader than the data can support. While the solid content is disclosed, the Office is unable to determine the amounts of the materials present in the method of the instant examples.
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN USELDING whose telephone number is (571)270-5463. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8am to 6:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joseph Del Sole can be reached on 571-272-1130. 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://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOHN E USELDING/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1763
Prosecution Insights