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 .A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06/02/26 has been entered.
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.
Claims 1, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adrian W Pullen (U. S. Patent Application: 2020/0403225, here after Pullen).
Claim 1 is rejected. Pullen teaches a method of preparing a battery electrode, comprising:
preparing a slurry having a solid content of 50-97% [0036] the slurry including ingredients in one or more solvents, the slurry comprising 38-45% of the one or more solvents [0036] (more than 40% and less than 80%), the ingredients being components
of an active medium of the battery electrode, wherein the active medium comprises a
cathode active material [0036, 0038]; wherein the cathode active material is selected from the group consisting of cobalt oxide, or nickel oxide (lithiated cobalt or nickel oxide) [0038, 0040, 0041-0042];
mixing the slurry with a high shear mixer so as to form a mixed slurry [0044, 0004 first sentence];
separating the ingredients from the one or more solvents in the mixed slurry [0045]; and applying the ingredients to a current collector after separating the ingredients from the one or more solvents [0045]. Although Pullen does not teach the slurry having a solid content of less than 80 wt%, however teaches slurry has a solid content of 50-97% [0036]. Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have selected the portion of [overlapping range] that corresponds to the claimed range. In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549 (CCPA 1974). Although Pullen does not teach the solvent is more tha than 40% and less than 80%, however teaches slurry has a solvent of 38-45% [0036]. Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have selected the portion of [overlapping range] that corresponds to the claimed range. In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549 (CCPA 1974). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have a method of Pullen where the slurry comprising a solid content of less than 80 wt%, and a solvent of 38-45%, because one having ordinary skill in the art to have selected the portion of overlapping range that corresponds to the claimed range.
Claim 10 is rejected as Pullen teaches separating the ingredients from the one
or more solvents in the mixed slurry includes filtering [0045].
Claims 1, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kouhei Tuduki et al (U. S. Patent Application: 2018/0183042, here after Tuduki), further in view of Chun-man Zheng et al (Chinese Patent: 107768595, here after Zheng).
Claim 1 is rejected. Tuduki teaches a method of preparing a battery electrode, comprising:
preparing a slurry having a solid content of 50wt% the slurry including ingredients of solvent, the slurry comprising 50% solvent (adding solvent to have 50% solid, therefor ewe will have 50% solvent) [0093 lines 13-15], the ingredients being components of an active medium(graphite) of the battery anode, mixing the slurry with a high shear mixer (Filmix or Primix)so as to form a mixed slurry; and applying the ingredients to a current collector [0057, 0093, 0076 last 9 lines]. Tuduki does not teach separating the ingredients from the one or more solvents in the mixed slurry. Zheng teaches forming a negative electrode by forming mixing graphite solvent and binder and then filtering it and coating on current collector [page 4 one paraph before the last]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have a method of Tuduki and filter slurry prior to coating o current collector, because it is suitable way to make negative electrodes.
Claim 10 is rejected as Tuduki teaches separating the ingredients from the one
or more solvents in the mixed slurry includes filtering [page 4 one paraph before the last].
Claims 2, 5-9, 11, 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kouhei Tuduki et al (U. S. Patent Application: 2018/0183042, here after Tuduki), Chun-man Zheng et al (Chinese Patent: 107768595, here after Zheng), further in view of and Tomohiro Kato et al (Japanese Patent: 2022071849, here after Kato). Akikusa is used as evidence for inherency for claims 6-9, and 15-18).
Claim 2 is rejected. Tuduki teaches using high shear mixer [0004], but does not teach shear rate. Kato teaches a method of preparing a graphite(graphene) slurry comprising graphene powder, binder and solvent and mixing it by a high shear mixer (Filmix or Primix) at shear rate of 5000-50000 per second [page 10 paragraph 3, 5]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have a method of Tuduki where the shear rate is higher than 94200/minute, because it helps to form slurry of graphite(graphene) for making electrode for batteries.
Claim 11 is rejected. Tuduki teaches a method of preparing a battery electrode, comprising:
preparing a slurry having a solid content of 50wt% the slurry including ingredients of solvent, the slurry comprising 50% solvent (adding solvent to have 50% solid, therefor ewe will have 50% solvent) [0093 lines 13-15], the ingredients being components of an active medium(graphite) of the battery anode, mixing the slurry with a high shear mixer (Filmix or Primix)so as to form a mixed slurry; and applying the ingredients to a current collector [0057, 0093, 0076 last 9 lines]. Tuduki does not teach separating the ingredients from the one or more solvents in the mixed slurry. Zheng teaches forming a negative electrode by forming mixing graphite solvent and binder and then filtering it and coating on current collector [page 4 one paraph before the last]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have a method of Tuduki and filter slurry prior to coating o current collector, because it is suitable way to make negative electrodes. Tuduki teaches using high shear mixer [0004], but does not teach shear rate. Kato teaches a method of preparing a graphite(graphene) slurry comprising graphene powder, binder and solvent and mixing it by a high shear mixer (Filmix or Primix) at shear rate of 5000-50000 per second [page 10 paragraph 3, 5]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have a method of Tuduki where the shear rate is higher than 94200/minute, because it helps to form slurry of graphite(graphene) for making electrode for batteries.
Claims 5, and 14 are rejected as Kato teaches the high shear mixer includes a
rotor and a stator [page 10 paragraph 4].
Claims 6, and 15 are rejected as Kato teaches the shear mixer is a Filmix
(registered trademark)30-30 type (Primix Corporation) [page 19 example 1] which is a
rotor stator mixer [page 10 paragraph 4], wherein the rotor is inner blade [see Akikusa
page 7, Example 1 lines 13-15], which means the rotor is positioned in an interior of the
stator.
Claims 7, and 16 are rejected as Kato teaches the shear mixer is a Filmix
(registered trademark)30-30 type (Primix Corporation) [page 19 example 1] which is a
rotor stator mixer [page 10 paragraph 4], wherein the rotor is inner blade [ see
Akikusa page 7, Example 1 lines 13-15], which means the rotor is positioned in an
interior of the stator, and Akikusa teaches the diameter of the rotor (blade 26 mm) and
inner diameter of the stator (container, 30 mm) which means the stator (container) is
within 0.5 inch of potion of the blade.
Claims 8, and 17 are rejected as Kato teaches the shear mixer is a Filmix
(registered trademark)30-30 type (Primix Corporation) with shear rate of 20,000 per
second [page 19 example 1], and with diameter of blade (26 mm) [see Akikusa page 7,
Example 1 lines 13-15], a tangential(linear) speed of at least a portion of the rotor during
the mixing is greater than 47100 inch per minute.
Claims 9, and 18 are rejected as Kato teaches the shear mixer is a
Filmix (registered trademark)30-30 type (Primix Corporation) with shear rate of 20, 000
per second during mixing the slurry with high shear mixer [page 19 example 1], which is
a stator mixer [page 10 paragraph 4], wherein the rotor is inner blade [see Akikusa page
7, Example 1 lines 13-15], therefore the rotor is rotated more than 5000 rpm during the
mixing.
Claim 19 is rejected as Tuduki teaches separating the ingredients from the one
or more solvents in the mixed slurry includes filtering [page 4 one paraph before the last].
Claim 20 is rejected as Kato teaches a duration of mixing the slurry is less than 5
Minutes [page 10 paragraph 5].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/02/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues Kato is related to graphene dispersion and improving dispersibility of graphene dispersion, however Tuduko also teaches mixing a dispersion of graphite(graphene) for making electrode(anode), and Kato teaches a mixing device for graphene and binder and solvent with strong shear rate [page 10 paragraph 3, and 5]. Takashi is not a part of current rejection as the applicant amended the claims.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TABASSOM TADAYYON ESLAMI whose telephone number is (571)270-1885. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at 5712725166. 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.
/TABASSOM TADAYYON ESLAMI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights