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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, LiNi0.6Mn0.2Co0.2O2 (NCM 622) (Species A), carbon black powder (Species B), polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) (Species C), and one layer (Species D) in the reply filed on August 18, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claim 1 contains allowable subject matter. The restriction requirement of Groups I-II and Species A-D, as set forth in the Office Action dated June 18, 2026, has been reconsidered in view of the allowability of claims to the elected invention pursuant to MPEP § 821.04(a). The restriction requirement is hereby withdrawn as to any claim that requires all the limitations of an allowable claim. Specifically, the restriction requirement of Groups I-II and Species A-D is withdrawn. Claims 8 and 17-19, directed to non-elected Group II and D2, are no longer withdrawn from consideration because the claim(s) requires all the limitations of an allowable claim.
In view of the above noted withdrawal of the restriction requirement, applicant is advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application.
Once a restriction requirement is withdrawn, the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 121 are no longer applicable. See In re Ziegler, 443 F.2d 1211, 1215, 170 USPQ 129, 131-32 (CCPA 1971). See also MPEP § 804.01.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: L2-4 should recite “a slurry of an active ingredient, a conductive additive, a binder, and a solvent, the slurry having a
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: The Examiner suggests amending L3 to recite “or silicon-containing compounds”.
Claims 9-11 are objected to because of the following informalities: the claim should recite “wherein the screen-printed electrode …” in light of [0056]-[0057] of the instant specification.
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The Examiner suggests amending (b) to recite “…and mixing the solvent and the dispersed slurry to form the ink having a uniform distribution of components in the solvent” in order to have consistent antecedent basis and improve clarity of the claim.
L9 of the claim should recite “to produce the ink having a solids content…” in order to have correct antecedent basis.
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: The Examiner suggests amending L2 to recite “…of the total solvent added to prepare the ink” in order to improve clarity of the claim (i.e. the solvent is added to the slurry and the dispersed slurry to prepare the ink).
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.
Claims 12-16 are 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 term “high resolution” in Claim 12 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high resolution” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
The term “fast-charging” in Claims 13-15 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “fast-charging” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the screen-printed electrode battery" in L1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the screen-printed electrode battery" in L1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-19 contain allowable subject matter.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The invention of Claim 1 is directed to a screen-printable electrode battery ink, comprising:
a slurry of an active ingredient, a conductive additive, a binder, and a solvent, the slurry having a solids content from about 40% by weight to about 70% by weight that is uniformly distributed in the solvent, wherein the ink has a thixotropic recovery rate from about 30 seconds to about 90 seconds, and wherein the binder has untwisted molecular chains.
The closest prior art is considered to be Herle (US PGPub 2017/0288232 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Herle discloses a screen-printable electrode battery ink ([0030], [0022]), comprising:
a slurry of an active ingredient, a binder, and a solvent, the slurry having a solids content of 53.19% by weight ([0030], Table 1), which falls within and therefore reads on the instantly claimed range of about 40% by weight to about 70% by weight, and is uniformly distributed in the solvent ([0022], e.g. wherein the slurry achieves a uniform coating layer).
Herle further discloses wherein the slurry may further comprise a conductive additive in order to improve electrical conductivity ([0022]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a conductive additive in the slurry, as disclosed by Herele, in order to improve electrical conductivity.
Modified Herle does not disclose wherein the ink has a thixotropic recovery rate from about 30 seconds to about 90 seconds.
The Examiner notes that the instant specification discloses wherein the claimed thixotropic recovery rate is achieved when the slurry is prepared by adding a first amount of a solvent to the slurry comprising the conductive additive, the active ingredient, and the binder, mixing to disperse components of the slurry in the solvent, and then adding a second amount of the solvent to the dispersed slurry. In this process, the same solvent is added in two unequal parts with the greater amount being added as the first amount and the lesser amount being the second amount ([0045], [0040]).
Modified Herle discloses wherein the slurry is prepared by adding a first amount of a solvent (water) to the slurry comprising the conductive additive, the active ingredient, and the binder, and then adding a second amount of a solvent (Solsperse 27000) to the dispersed slurry (Fig. 2, [0030]).
However, the Examiner notes that the first amount of solvent uses water and the second amount of solvent uses a hyperdispersant (Solsperse 27000) and therefore different solvents are added in the two unequal parts with the greater amount being added as the first amount and the lesser amount being the second amount.
Furthermore, the Examiner notes that Solsperse 27000 is not disclosed by the instant specification as being a suitable solvent for preparing the claimed ink.
Consequently, it cannot be said that the ink of modified Herle would necessarily and inherently achieve a thixotropic recovery rate from about 30 seconds to about 90 seconds in light of [0045], [0040] of the instant specification, as required by the claimed invention.
Moreover, modified Herle does not disclose wherein the binder has untwisted molecular chains.
The Examiner notes that the instant specification discloses wherein in the process of preparing the ink, the addition of the second portion of the solvent opens twisted molecular chains of the binder present in the ink ([0040], [0047]). By untwisting the chains of the binder, the ink can be readily screen printed onto substrates uniformly without flaws and tortuous channels, thus improving the architecture of the printed substrate and its electrochemical performance ([0043]).
Consequently, because the second amount of solvent used to prepare the ink of modified Herle is different from the first amount of solvent (Fig. 2, [0030], Table 1) and because the second amount of solvent uses a hyperdispersant that was not disclosed nor suggested by the instant specification as being a suitable solvent, it cannot be said that the ink of modified Herle would necessarily and inherently achieve a binder having untwisted molecular chains in light of [0040], [0043], [0047] of the instant specification, as required by the claimed invention.
Additional prior art that is considered to be pertinent to the Applicant’s disclosure include:
Dalton et al. (US PGPub 2023/0142469 A1) teaches a screen-printable battery electrode ink ([0081], [0141]), wherein the ink is thixotropic and has a viscosity from 100 to 1,000 Pa·s at a shear rate of 0.1 /s and/or a viscosity from 1 to 10 at a shear rate of 100 /s in order to prevent flocculation of carbon materials within the ink while also maintaining a viscosity suitable for screen printing ([0081]).
However, Dalton does not teach wherein the ink has a thixotropic recovery rate from about 30 seconds to about 90 seconds, as required by the claimed invention.
In light of the above, the closest prior art fails to disclose, teach, suggest, or render obvious the claim limitation “wherein the ink has a thixotropic recovery rate from about 30 seconds to about 90 seconds, and wherein the binder has untwisted molecular chains” in combination with all of the other limitations taken as a whole.
Claims 2-16 are dependent on Claim 1 and therefore contain allowable subject matter for the reasons set forth above.
Claim 17 contains substantially similar limitations as set forth in Claim 1 and therefore contains allowable subject matter for the reasons set forth above.
Claims 18-19 are dependent on Claim 17 and therefore contain allowable subject matter for the reasons set forth above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIMBERLY WYLUDA whose telephone number is (571)272-4381. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7 AM - 3 PM 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, BASIA RIDLEY can be reached at (571)272-1453. 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.
/KIMBERLY WYLUDA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights