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
2. Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (Claims 1-10) in the reply filed on September 7, 2026, is acknowledged.
3. Claims 11-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on September 7, 2026.
Priority
4. Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c) is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
5. Information disclosure statements (IDS), submitted March 27, 2024; April 8, 2024; January 26, 2025; and, July 22, 2026, have been received and considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
6. 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.
7. Claim 4 is 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.
8. Claim 4 recites the limitation "the aqueous acrylic resin " in lines 1-2 and 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. Claims 1 and 3-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Daughenbaugh et al. (US 11,374,223 B2).
With regard to Claim 1, Daughenbaugh et al. disclose a conductive slurry, characterized by comprising the following raw material components: an aqueous binder comprising an aqueous polymer having polycarboxyl functionality, such as epoxy functional acrylic polymer (column 4, line 12 through column 6, line 47); a conductive agent (column 7, line 51 through column 8, line 2); a dispersant, such as water (column 8, lines 36-49); and a curing agent for cross-linking reaction with the aqueous polymer having polycarboxyl functionality (column 6, line 48 through column 7, line 30).
With regard to Claim 3, Daughenbaugh et al. disclose the aqueous polymer having polycarboxyl functionality comprises at least one of aqueous acrylic resin, such as epoxy functional acrylic polymer (column 4, line 12 through column 6, line 47).
With regard to Claim 4, Daughenbaugh et al. disclose the aqueous acrylic resin comprises a copolymer of polyacrylic acid, acrylic acid, such as epoxy functional acrylic polymer (column 4, line 12 through column 6, line 47).
With regard to Claim 5, Daughenbaugh et al. disclose the curing agent comprises a compound having more than two carboxylic acid reactive functional groups, optionally, the carboxylic acid reactive functional group being selected from at least one of carbodiimide group (column 6, line 48 through column 7, line 30).
With regard to Claim 6, Daughenbaugh et al. disclose the dispersant comprises an aqueous solvent, wherein the aqueous solvent comprises water (column 8, lines 36-49).
With regard to Claim 7, Daughenbaugh et al. disclose the raw material components of the conductive slurry further comprise a thickener, the thickener comprising at least one of carboxymethyl cellulose and salt thereof (column 8, lines 3-35).
With regard to Claim 8, Daughenbaugh et al. disclose the conductive agent comprises at least one of carbon black and Ketjen black (column 7, line 54 through column 8, line 2).
With regard to Claim 9, Daughenbaugh et al. disclose a method for preparing the conductive slurry noted above, wherein the method comprises: uniformly mixing a conductive agent, a dispersant, and an aqueous binder to obtain a pre mixture; and adding a curing agent to the pre-mixture and uniformly mixing it to obtain a conductive slurry (See Example 9, column 17, line 45 through column 18, line 5).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. 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.
15. Claims 2 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daughenbaugh et al. (US 11,374,223 B2), as applied to Claims 1 and 3-10 above.
With regard to Claim 2, Daughenbaugh et al. disclose the conductive slurry in paragraph 11 above, including wherein the conductive slurry comprises, in parts by mass: up to 70 wt% of aqueous binder (column 6, lines 28-47); up to 20 wt% of conductive agent (column 7, lines 51-65); up to 80 wt% dispersant (column 8, lines 36-49); and up to 5 wt% of curing agent (column 7, lines 20-30). Daughenbaugh et al. do not specifically disclose wherein the conductive slurry comprises100 parts of aqueous binder; 50-150 parts of conductive agent; 800-850 parts of dispersant; and 3-16 parts of curing agent. The specific amount of aqueous binder, conductive agent, dispersant and curing agent in the conductive slurry is not considered to confer patentability to the claims. As the conductive slurry, stability and cost of manufacturing are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting said amount of aqueous binder, conductive agent, dispersant and curing agent in the conductive slurry, with the stability and manufacturing cost both increasing as the amount of aqueous binder, conductive agent, dispersant and curing agent is increased, the precise amount of aqueous binder, conductive agent, dispersant and curing agent in the conductive slurry would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the amount of aqueous binder, conductive agent, dispersant and curing agent in the conductive slurry in the conductive slurry of Daughenbaugh et al. to obtain the desired balance between the stability and cost of manufacturing (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
With regard to Claim 10, Daughenbaugh et al. disclose the conductive slurry in paragraph 11 above, including wherein the conductive slurry comprises, in parts by mass: up to 70 wt% of aqueous binder (column 6, lines 28-47) and up to 5 wt% of curing agent (column 7, lines 20-30). Daughenbaugh et al. do not specifically disclose wherein a mass ratio of the curing agent to the aqueous binder is 0.03-0.16. Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a mass ratio of the curing agent to the aqueous binder to be 0.03-0.16, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05.
Conclusion
16. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KARIE O APICELLA whose telephone number is (571)272-8614. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday; 8:00AM to 5:00PM 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, Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at 571-270-3879. 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.
/KARIE O'NEILL APICELLA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights