DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
2. The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “12” has been used to designate both the separator, previously identified with reference character “8,” and the first current collector in Figure 1. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
3. The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
a. In page 26 line 23 and page 33 line 10, “final step” was given the reference number of 108 while in page 27 lines 14-15 and Figure 5 of the drawings, the final step was referred to with reference number 110.
b. In page 39 line 10, “Figure 12” should read as “Figure 14.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
4. Claims 6 and 18 objected to because of the following informalities:
a. In claim 6 lines 3, the word “colbalt” is used within the phrase “lithium colbalt oxide,” this appears to be a typographical error and should instead read as “cobalt.”
b. Claim 18 is dependent upon claim 17 which was cancelled in the preliminary amendment received on 1 December 2023.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
5. 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.
6. Claims 1, 4, and 14 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.
As to claim 1, claim 1 recites “an active layer” in line 1 and “an active layer” in line 4. It is unclear if these are two different active layers or the same active layer. This appears to be a typographical error and “an active layer” in line 4 should instead read as “the active layer.”
As to claim 4, claim 4 recites “the particles” within line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation within the claim. This appears to be a typographical error as “a plurality of discrete particles” was previously disclosed within claim 2. For purposes of examination, claim 4 is dependent upon claim 2.
As to claim 14, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 14 recites the broad recitation "wherein the ink comprises between approximately 5 wt% and approximately 70 wt% active-layer-forming material," and the claim also recites "preferably between approximately 10 wt% and approximately 50 wt% active-layer-forming material" which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claims are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
7. 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.
8. Claims 1-12, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tucholski et al. (US-20060216586-A1, disclosed in IDS mailed on 1 December 2023).
As to claim 1, Tucholski discloses an ink for printing [0089] an active layer (figure 1, cathode layer 130, [0089]) in an electrochemical cell (figure 1, cell 101, [0087]) using a high-speed printing process, the ink comprising:
a solvent [0089]; and
an active-layer-forming material for forming an active layer [0089], wherein the active-layer-forming material comprises:
an active material in suspension in the solvent [0089]; and
a polymeric binder [0089].
As to claim 2, Tucholski discloses the ink for printing an active layer as disclosed within claim 1, and further discloses wherein the active material is a particulate material comprising a plurality of discrete particles [0114].
As to claim 3, Tucholski discloses the ink for printing an active layer as disclosed within claim 2, and further discloses wherein the discrete particles are provided as flakes, fibres, or general particulate [0114].
As to claim 4, Tucholski discloses the ink for printing an active layer as disclosed within claim 2, and further discloses wherein the particles are of a size less than 20 microns [0114].
As to claim 5, Tucholski discloses the ink for printing an active layer as disclosed within claim 1, and further discloses wherein the active layer is an electrode and the active material is an electrode material (figure 1, cathode layer 130, [0089]).
As to claim 6, Tucholski discloses the ink for printing an active layer as disclosed within claim 5, and further discloses wherein the electrode material comprises an inorganic lattice material selected from the group of: manganese dioxide, zinc, lithium colbalt oxide (LCO), lithium iron phosphate (LFP), graphite, nickel, hydroxide, cadmium or silver oxide [0089].
As to claim 7, Tucholski discloses the ink for printing an active layer as disclosed within claim 1, and further discloses wherein the binder is dissolved in the solvent [0113].
As to claim 8, Tucholski discloses the ink for printing an active layer as disclosed within claim 1, and further discloses wherein the binder comprises one or more polymers selected from the group of: polyvinyl alcohol, polyacrylamide, polyacrylic acid, polyethylene glycol, polyamines, polyvinylpyrrolidone and methyl cellulose [0115].
As to claim 9, Tucholski discloses the ink for printing an active layer as disclosed within claim 1, and further discloses wherein the solvent comprises water or alcohol [0089].
As to claim 10, Tucholski discloses the ink for printing an active layer as disclosed within claim 1, and further discloses wherein the active-layer-forming material comprises a conductive material [0089].
As to claim 11, Tucholski discloses the ink for printing an active layer as disclosed within claim 10, and further discloses wherein the conductive material comprises a conductive carbon additive [0089].
As to claim 12, Tucholski discloses the ink for printing an active layer as disclosed within claim 10, and further discloses wherein the active-layer-forming material comprises up to approximately 40wt% conductive material [113].
As to claim 15, Tucholski discloses the ink for printing an active layer as disclosed within claim 1, and further discloses wherein the active-layer-forming material comprises between approximately 40 wt% and approximately 98 wt% active material [0113].
As to claim 16, Tucholski discloses the ink for printing an active layer as disclosed within claim 1, and further discloses wherein the active-layer-forming material comprises up to approximately 40 wt% binder [0113].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
9. 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.
10. Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tucholski et al. (US-20060216586-A1, disclosed in IDS mailed on 1 December 2023) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Lockett et al. (US-20140099528-A1).
As to claim 13, Tucholski discloses the ink for printing an active layer as disclosed within claim 1, however, Tucholski does not disclose wherein the ink comprises between approximately 30 wt% and approximately 95 wt% solvent.
Lockett discloses using ink to print the multiple layers of an energy storage device, wherein the ink comprises between approximately 30 wt% and approximately 95 wt% solvent [0193] to create an ink that has a high viscosity [0200].
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ink for printing an active layer as disclosed within Tucholski to further include that the ink comprises between approximately 30 wt% and approximately 95 wt% solvent to create an ink with high viscosity as disclosed within Lockett.
As to claim 14, Tucholski discloses the ink for printing an active layer as disclosed within claim 1, however, Tucholski does not disclose wherein the active-layer-forming material comprises between approximately 5 wt% and approximately 70 wt% active-layer-forming material, preferably between approximately 10 wt% and approximately 50 wt% active-layer.
Lockett discloses using ink to print the multiple layers of an energy storage device, wherein the active-layer-forming material comprises between approximately 5 wt% and approximately 70 wt% active-layer-forming material, preferably between approximately 10 wt% and approximately 50 wt% active-layer [0190-0195] to create an ink that has a high viscosity [0200].
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ink for printing an active layer as disclosed within Tucholski to further include that the active-layer-forming material comprises between approximately 5 wt% and approximately 70 wt% active-layer-forming material, preferably between approximately 10 wt% and approximately 50 wt% active-layer to create an ink with high viscosity as disclosed within Lockett.
11. Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tucholski et al. (US-20060216586-A1, disclosed in IDS mailed on 1 December 2023) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Tikhonov et al. (US-20130232772-A1).
As to claim 18, Tucholski discloses the ink for printing an active layer as disclosed within claim 1, however, Tucholski does not disclose wherein the active-layer-forming material comprises up to approximately 50 wt% inert filler.
Tikhonov discloses mixing components into a paste to form an active layer, wherein the active-layer-forming material comprises up to approximately 50 wt% inert filler [0085]. The Supreme Court decided that a claim can be proved obvious merely by showing that the combination of known elements was obvious to try. In this regard, the Supreme Court explained that, “[w]hen there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill in the art has a good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp.” An obviousness determination is not the result of a rigid formula disassociated from the consideration of the facts of the case. Indeed, the common sense of those skilled in the art demonstrates why some combinations would have been obvious where others would not. Therefore, choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation for success, is likely to be obvious to a person if ordinary skill in the art. (see MPEP § 2143, E.).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ink for printing an active layer as disclosed within Tucholski to further include that the active-layer-forming material comprises up to 50 wt% as disclosed within Tikhonov.
12. Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tucholski et al. (US-20060216586-A1, disclosed in IDS mailed on 1 December 2023) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Takahashi et al. (US-20190097236-A1).
As to claim 19, Tucholski discloses the ink for printing an active layer as disclosed within claim 1, however, Tucholski does not disclose wherein the active-layer-forming material comprises a dispersion agent.
Takahashi discloses using a paste to print an electrode, wherein the active-layer-forming material comprises a dispersion agent [0110] to effectively and efficiently disperse the active material.
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ink for printing an active layer as disclosed within Tucholski to further include that the active-layer-forming material comprises a dispersion agent to effectively and efficiently disperse the active material as disclosed within Takahashi.
As to claim 20, modified Tucholski discloses the ink for printing an active layer as disclosed within claim 19, however, Tucholski does not disclose wherein the active-layer-forming material comprises up to approximately 5 wt% dispersion agent.
Takahashi discloses using a paste to print an electrode, wherein the active-layer-forming material comprises up to approximately 5 wt% dispersion agent [0110] to effectively and efficiently disperse the active material.
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the ink for printing an active layer as disclosed within Tucholski to additionally include that the active-layer-forming material comprises up to approximately 5 wt% dispersion agent to effectively and efficiently disperse the active material as disclosed within Takahashi.
13. Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tucholski et al. (US-20060216586-A1, disclosed in IDS mailed on 1 December 2023) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Wang et al. (Wang et al., "Development of MnO2 cathode inks for flexographically printed rechargeable zinc-based battery," 2014, Journal of Power Sources, Vol. 268, pp. 246-254 (Year: 2014), disclosed in IDS mailed on 1 December 2023).
As to claim 22, Tucholski discloses the ink for printing an active layer as disclosed within claim 1, however, Tucholski does not disclose wherein the ink has a viscosity in the range of approximately 50 to approximately 500 centipoise when measured at a shear rate of 1000 to 100,000 s-1.
Wang discloses the development of MnO2 cathode inks for flexographically printed rechargeable zinc-based battery, wherein the ink has a viscosity in the range of approximately 50 to approximately 500 centipoise when measured at a shear rate of 1000 to 100,000 s-1 (figure 3, page 4 section 3.1.1.) to ensure that the ink has no difficulties with the transfer processes from an ink reservoir to foil substrates.
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ink for printing an active layer as disclosed within Tucholski to further include that the ink has a viscosity in the range of approximately 50 to approximately 500 centipoise when measured at a shear rate of 1000 to 100,000 s-1 to ensure that the ink has no difficulties with transfer processes from an ink reservoir to foil substrates as disclosed within Wang.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB JEROME SCHULER whose telephone number is (571)272-8487. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 7:30am-5pm.
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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at 5712721330. 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.
/J.J.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1727
/BARBARA L GILLIAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1727
Prosecution Insights