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 species A in the reply filed on 8/10/2026 is acknowledged.
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 2-5, 8-15, 17, 19, and 20 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.
Claim 2 recites “the semisolid electrolyte membrane of claim 1 further comprising at least two electrolyte deposition layers”. Claim 1 previously recited “at least two layers of electrolyte deposited thereon”, and further refers to “a first layer of said electrolyte deposition” and “a second layer of said electrolyte deposition”. Therefore it is unclear if the at least two electrolyte deposition layers are additional electrolyte deposition layers distinct from those recited in claim 1. The disclosure as originally filed seems to be concerned with an embodiment comprising two electrolyte layers. Claims 3-5 are also rejected based on their dependence from claim 2. Claim 17 requires the limitations of claim 5, and is therefore also rejected.
Claim 5 recites that the molecules are selected from amongst a Markush group, “and any like cyano-derivatives thereof”. It is unclear what “any like cyano-derivatives” includes. Given the specificity of molecules included in the claim, is a like cyano-derivative inclusive of a molecule with one substitution or two substitutions? What structure must be retained for a molecule to be a cyano-derivative that is within the scope of the claim? Claim 17 is also rejected based on its dependence from claim 5.
Claim 11 recites that the molecules are selected from amongst a Markush group, “and any like cyano-derivatives thereof”. It is unclear what “any like cyano-derivatives” includes. Given the specificity of molecules included in the claim, is a like cyano-derivative inclusive of a molecule with one substitution or two substitutions? What structure must be retained for a molecule to be a cyano-derivative that is within the scope of the claim? Claim 19 is also rejected based on its dependence from claim 5.
Claim 15 recites that the molecules are selected from amongst a Markush group, “and any like cyano-derivatives thereof”. It is unclear what “any like cyano-derivatives” includes. Given the specificity of molecules included in the claim, is a like cyano-derivative inclusive of a molecule with one substitution or two substitutions? What structure must be retained for a molecule to be a cyano-derivative that is within the scope of the claim? Claim 20 is also rejected based on its dependence from claim 5.
Claim 8 recites “the semisolid electrolyte membrane of claim 6 further comprising at least two electrolyte deposition layers”. Claim 1 previously recited “at least two layers of electrolyte deposited thereon”, and further refers to “a first layer of said electrolyte deposition” and “a second layer of said electrolyte deposition”. Therefore it is unclear if the at least two electrolyte deposition layers are additional electrolyte deposition layers distinct from those recited in claim 1. The disclosure as originally filed seems to be concerned with an embodiment comprising two electrolyte layers. Claims 9-11 are also rejected based on their dependence from claim 8. Claim 19 requires the limitations of claim 11, and is therefore also rejected.
Claim 12 recites “the semisolid electrolyte membrane of claim 7 further comprising at least two electrolyte deposition layers”. Claim 1 previously recited “at least two layers of electrolyte deposited thereon”, and further refers to “a first layer of said electrolyte deposition” and “a second layer of said electrolyte deposition”. Therefore it is unclear if the at least two electrolyte deposition layers are additional electrolyte deposition layers distinct from those recited in claim 1. The disclosure as originally filed seems to be concerned with an embodiment comprising two electrolyte layers. Claims 13-15 are also rejected based on their dependence from claim 8. Claim 20 requires the limitations of claim 15, and is therefore also rejected.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 6, 7, 16, 18, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2019/225078A1 to Nishimura (machine translation relied upon herein), and further in view of US 2019/0348705 to Chen.
Regarding claims 1, 6, and 7, Nishimura teaches a semisolid electrolyte membrane 320 (membrane 320 supports and mixes with semisolid material of 310, as described in the middle of p. 6 of the translation), wherein the membrane comprises a swollen porous base material (layer 320 is formed intentionally larger than other layers; Figs. 2, middle of p. 11 explicitly discusses the porosity of the membrane 320; a skilled artisan would understand that the membrane 320 is intended to take up electrolyte within as is described for layer 310 in the passage spanning pages 7, 8) having a top side (one of the left or right surface in Figs. 2) and a bottom side (the other of the right or left surface) and selected from cellulose fibers. The swollen porous base material comprises at least two layers of electrolyte (layers 310, 110 in Fig. 2(a) comprise electrolyte within as do layers 310, 210 of Fig. 2(b), and layers 310, 110 or 310, 210 in Fig. 2(c)) deposited thereon at a top side or a bottom side thereof, wherein a first layer of the electrolyte deposition resides within at least some of the pores as well on the surface of the swollen porous base material (electrolyte permeates layer 310, which itself mixes and permeates layer 320; p. 6: “when the relative energy difference is 0.6 or less, the two kinds of polymers come to be dissolved in any mixed composition, which is more preferable. The intermolecular force at the micro level works between the polymer (mainly containing P (VdF-HFP)) on the surface of the self-healing layer 310 and the polymer contained in the separator 320, and the self-healing layer 310 and the separator 320 adhere to each other. It is considered that the polymers are easily mixed by increasing the force.”) and wherein a second layer of the electrolyte deposition resides on top of the first layer of the electrolyte deposition (p. 4: “the nonaqueous electrolyte is injected into the secondary battery 1000 from the vacant side or the injection hole of the outer package 500, and the pores of the electrode mixture layer are filled with the nonaqueous electrolyte”).
Per claims 1, 6, and 7, the material of the porous polymer material 320 of the semisolid electrolyte membrane is cellulose (middle p. 6 of translation). While Nishimura does not explicitly recite that the cellulose fibers are hydrophilic, such a property is necessarily present. “Products 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). MPEP §2112.01.
Nishimura is concerned with the mechanical strength of the elements (p. 5 of translation: “When the content of the oxide particles is large, the composition of the self-healing layer binder is decreased, and the mechanical strength of the self-healing layer 310 may be reduced.”), but does not discuss a tensile strength of the semisolid electrolyte membrane. Chen teaches that it would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to form the tensile strength of such an element to be greater than 5 MPa and up to 150 MPa to improve a mechanical function (¶0117, 0120).
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). MPEP §2144.05. A range can be disclosed in multiple prior art references instead of in a single prior art reference depending on the specific facts of the case. Iron Grip Barbell Co., Inc. v. USA Sports, Inc., 392 F.3d 1317, 1322, 73 USPQ2d 1225, 1228 (Fed. Cir. 2004). MPEP §2144.05.I.
Nishimura generally teaches that ionic conductivity should be optimized so that the semisolid electrolyte membrane of that invention can be included in a rechargeable energy storage device 1000 (see references to lithium ion diffusion in the translation). Chen teaches that it would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to vary the thickness, porosity, and temperature parameters of similar electrolyte membranes to optimize ionic charge conductivity (¶0037, 0065, 0104).
“[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.” 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.).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Nishimura and Chen teaches a rechargeable energy storage device 1000 (Figs. 1, 2, bottom of p. 2 of translation) comprising the semisolid electrolyte membrane of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the energy storage device comprises at least one anode 200 and one cathode 100, and wherein the semisolid electrolyte membrane 320 is present between the anode and cathode.
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Nishimura and Chen teaches a rechargeable energy storage device 1000 (Figs. 1, 2, bottom of p. 2 of translation) comprising the semisolid electrolyte membrane of claim 7 (see rejection of claim 7 above), wherein the energy storage device comprises at least one anode 200 and one cathode 100, and wherein the semisolid electrolyte membrane 320 is present between the anode and cathode.
Regarding claim 21, Nishimura teaches a semisolid electrolyte membrane 320 (membrane 320 supports and mixes with semisolid material of 310, as described in the middle of p. 6 of the translation), wherein the membrane comprises a swollen porous base material (layer 320 is formed intentionally larger than other layers; Figs. 2, middle of p. 11 explicitly discusses the porosity of the membrane 320; a skilled artisan would understand that the membrane 320 is intended to take up electrolyte within as is described for layer 310 in the passage spanning pages 7, 8) having a top side (one of the left or right surface in Figs. 2) and a bottom side (the other of the right or left surface) and selected from cellulose fibers. The swollen porous base material comprises dense layers comprising electrolyte (semi-solid layer 310 in Fig. 2(a) comprise electrolyte within as does layer 310 of Fig. 2(b), and either of layers 310 in Fig. 2(c)) deposited thereon at a top side or a bottom side thereof, wherein the dense electrolyte deposition resides within the pores of and on the surface of the swollen porous base material (electrolyte permeates layer 310, which itself mixes and permeates layer 320; p. 6: “when the relative energy difference is 0.6 or less, the two kinds of polymers come to be dissolved in any mixed composition, which is more preferable. The intermolecular force at the micro level works between the polymer (mainly containing P (VdF-HFP)) on the surface of the self-healing layer 310 and the polymer contained in the separator 320, and the self-healing layer 310 and the separator 320 adhere to each other. It is considered that the polymers are easily mixed by increasing the force.”).
The material of the porous polymer material 320 of the semisolid electrolyte membrane is cellulose (middle p. 6 of translation). While Nishimura does not explicitly recite that the cellulose fibers are hydrophilic, such a property is necessarily present, based on the identification of cellulose as hydrophilic on p. 7 of the instant specification. The ordinary and customary meaning of a term may be evidenced by a variety of sources, including the words of the claims themselves, the specification, drawings, and prior art. However, the best source for determining the meaning of a claim term is the specification – the greatest clarity is obtained when the specification serves as a glossary for the claim terms. See, e.g., In re Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., 696 F.3d 1142, 1149-50, 104 USPQ2d 1337, 1342-43 (Fed. Cir. 2012). MPEP §2111.01.III. “Products 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). MPEP §2112.01.
Nishimura is concerned with the mechanical strength of the elements (p. 5 of translation: “When the content of the oxide particles is large, the composition of the self-healing layer binder is decreased, and the mechanical strength of the self-healing layer 310 may be reduced.”), but does not discuss a tensile strength of the semisolid electrolyte membrane. Chen teaches that it would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to form the tensile strength of such an element to be greater than 5 MPa and up to 150 MPa to improve a mechanical function (¶0117, 0120).
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). MPEP §2144.05. A range can be disclosed in multiple prior art references instead of in a single prior art reference depending on the specific facts of the case. Iron Grip Barbell Co., Inc. v. USA Sports, Inc., 392 F.3d 1317, 1322, 73 USPQ2d 1225, 1228 (Fed. Cir. 2004). MPEP §2144.05.I.
Nishimura generally teaches that ionic conductivity should be optimized so that the semisolid electrolyte membrane of that invention can be included in a rechargeable energy storage device 1000 (see references to lithium ion diffusion in the translation). Chen teaches that it would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to vary the thickness, porosity, and temperature parameters of similar electrolyte membranes to optimize ionic charge conductivity (¶0037, 0065, 0104).
“[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.” 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(s) 2-5 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishimura and Chen as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2013/0004861 to Yu.
Regarding claims 2-5, modified-Nishimura teaches the limitations of claim 1. The semisolid electrolyte membrane comprises the two electrolyte deposition layers (see above), and further teaches that additives can be included in such layers to inhibit corrosion or stabilize other layers (bottom of p. 9 through p. 10 of the translation of Nishimura). The references do not recite that the two electrolyte deposition layers comprise rotating molecules to permit ion transfer through the membrane, those rotating molecules being mono- or di-cyano molecules. Yu teaches that it would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to include di-cyano molecules in an electrolyte layer to enhance high temperature stability and other properties of the electrolyte (¶0032, 0039).
Specifically, Yu teaches that it would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to use tetracyanoethylene because it would have merely required the choice of a known material for its art-recognized purpose (¶0036). The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07).
While Yu does not explicitly discuss the molecules as rotating molecules that permit ion transfer through the membrane, it is expected that such a property is present since it has the claimed chemical structure. “Products 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). MPEP §2112.01.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Nishimura, Chen, and Yu teaches a rechargeable energy storage device 1000 (Figs. 1, 2, bottom of p. 2 of translation) comprising the semisolid electrolyte membrane of claim 5 (see rejection of claim 5 above), wherein the energy storage device comprises at least one anode 200 and one cathode 100, and wherein the semisolid electrolyte membrane 320 is present between the anode and cathode.
Claim(s) 8-11 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishimura and Chen as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Yu.
Regarding claims 8-11, modified-Nishimura teaches the limitations of claim 6. The semisolid electrolyte membrane comprises the two electrolyte deposition layers (see above), and further teaches that additives can be included in such layers to inhibit corrosion or stabilize other layers (bottom of p. 9 through p. 10 of the translation of Nishimura). The references do not recite that the two electrolyte deposition layers comprise rotating molecules to permit ion transfer through the membrane, those rotating molecules being mono- or di-cyano molecules. Yu teaches that it would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to include di-cyano molecules in an electrolyte layer to enhance high temperature stability and other properties of the electrolyte (¶0032, 0039).
Specifically, Yu teaches that it would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to use tetracyanoethylene because it would have merely required the choice of a known material for its art-recognized purpose (¶0036). The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07).
While Yu does not explicitly discuss the molecules as rotating molecules that permit ion transfer through the membrane, it is expected that such a property is present since it has the claimed chemical structure. “Products 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). MPEP §2112.01.
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Nishimura, Chen, and Yu teaches a rechargeable energy storage device 1000 (Figs. 1, 2, bottom of p. 2 of translation) comprising the semisolid electrolyte membrane of claim 11 (see rejection of claim 11 above), wherein the energy storage device comprises at least one anode 200 and one cathode 100, and wherein the semisolid electrolyte membrane 320 is present between the anode and cathode.
Claim(s) 12-15 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishimura and Chen as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Yu.
Regarding claims 12-15, modified-Nishimura teaches the limitations of claim 7. The semisolid electrolyte membrane comprises the two electrolyte deposition layers (see above), and further teaches that additives can be included in such layers to inhibit corrosion or stabilize other layers (bottom of p. 9 through p. 10 of the translation of Nishimura). The references do not recite that the two electrolyte deposition layers comprise rotating molecules to permit ion transfer through the membrane, those rotating molecules being mono- or di-cyano molecules. Yu teaches that it would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to include di-cyano molecules in an electrolyte layer to enhance high temperature stability and other properties of the electrolyte (¶0032, 0039).
Specifically, Yu teaches that it would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to use tetracyanoethylene because it would have merely required the choice of a known material for its art-recognized purpose (¶0036). The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07).
While Yu does not explicitly discuss the molecules as rotating molecules that permit ion transfer through the membrane, it is expected that such a property is present since it has the claimed chemical structure. “Products 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). MPEP §2112.01.
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Nishimura, Chen, and Yu teaches a rechargeable energy storage device 1000 (Figs. 1, 2, bottom of p. 2 of translation) comprising the semisolid electrolyte membrane of claim 15 (see rejection of claim 15 above), wherein the energy storage device comprises at least one anode 200 and one cathode 100, and wherein the semisolid electrolyte membrane 320 is present between the anode and cathode.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “A semisolid electrolyte for flexible Zn-ion batteries” to Lu (of record). “Supporting information: A semi-solid electrolyte for flexible Zn-ion batteries (published coincident with Lu, of record) is relied upon for additional information about properties.
Regarding claim 21, Lu teaches a semisolid electrolyte membrane (Title) exhibiting a tensile strength of 1 to 50 MPa (see top left column of text of p. 6906: "The highest tensile strength, 2.14 MPa, of the GAME is observed at GE/SA = 1/1, which is almost 1 order of magnitude higher than 0.32 MPa of GEM."), wherein the membrane comprises a swollen porous base material having a top side and a bottom side and selected from hydrophilic fibers, hydrophilic films, and any combinations thereof (the middle bottom portion of Fig. 1a simultaneously shows the top and bottom side of the film; Fig. 2(f) shows the porous nature of the film; right column of text on p. 6905: " Based on the unique properties derived from GE-SA cross-linking reactions, the following advantages are expected for the GAME: (1) the abundant hydrophilic functional hydroxyl and carboxylic groups on the polymer chains facilitate ZnSO4 absorption and dissociation; (2) the interpenetrated 3D network not only provides the material with high mechanical strength but also ensures more liquid electrolyte uptake; and (3) the rigid covalent bonding can dissipate mechanical energy induced by deformation, while the reversible ionic bonding together with hydrogen bonding and chain entanglements between the two polymers allow a quick recovery after the deformation."; left column of text of p. 6907: "The outstanding plating/stripping performance of GAME is attributed to its flexibility and toughness, which can accommodate the volume change during Zn deposition, thus suppressing the growth of Zn dendrites.", emphasis added), wherein the swollen porous base material comprises a dense electrolyte deposition thereon at least one of the top and bottom side thereof, wherein the dense electrolyte deposition resides within the pores of and on the surface of the swollen porous base material (bottom left portion of Fig. 1a shows ZnSO₄ resides within the pores of an on the surface of the swollen porous base material; right column of text of p. 6905: "After imbibing in ZnSO4 solution, the membrane finally transforms into a flexible Zn-ion conducting electrolyte.").
Lu teaches three embodiments of the semisolid electrolyte membrane that have a tensile strength greater than 1 MPa (Fig. 2(a)), which have ionic conductivities from 3.7 X 10⁻² S/cm MPa (1:1 mass ratio, Fig. 2(c)) to 2 X 10-2 S/cm MPa (1:3 mass ratio). Lu (at the bottom of the left column of text of p. 6907 and in Supporting Information at Fig. S7) also teaches that the ionic conductivity of a membrane is dependent upon temperature. Finally, Lu teaches that the semisolid electrolyte membrane is suitable for use at different temperatures (top of right column of p. 6909). Therefore it would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to form a semisolid electrolyte membrane with an ionic conductivity in the claimed range because the composition and temperature of function of the membrane can be varied according to the desired application.
"[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." 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.).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ryan S Cannon whose telephone number is (571)270-7186. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30am-5:30pm PST.
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, Jeffrey Barton can be reached at (571) 272-1307. 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.
Ryan S. Cannon
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1726
/RYAN S CANNON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726
