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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed April 5, 2024 and June 16, 2026 have been placed in the application file and the information referred to therein has been considered as to the merits.
With respect to foreign language references with no translation of the document: “If no translation is submitted, the examiner will consider the information in view of the concise explanation and insofar as it is understood on its face, e.g., drawings, chemical formulas, English language abstracts, in the same manner that non-English language information in Office search files is considered by examiner in conducting searches.” See MPEP §609.04(a)(II) (D) and 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(ii).
Drawings
The drawings received April 5, 2024 are acceptable for examination purposes.
Specification
The specification received April 5, 2024 has been reviewed for examination purposes.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 sets forth a plurality of elements which would be in better form as set forth in MPEP § 608.01(m) which states, in part, “Where a claim sets forth a plurality of elements or steps, each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation, 37 CFR 1.75(i). There may be plural indentations to further segregate subcombinations or related steps.” Claims 2-16 are dependent upon base claim 1 and therefore objected to for the same reason.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “ta” at line 2 should be “a”. 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 1-16 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 “one-dimensional” in claims 1-16 is not particularly clear with respect to the claimed ion-conducting fiber as it is not clear as to whether or not the fiber is one-dimensional. At best, with respect to nanomaterial terminology, sources commonly describe “one-dimensional” structures as having two dimensions at the nanoscale and a substantially greater third dimension. Claim 1 defines the fiber as having a diameter of 0.1-10microns and a length-diameter ratio of greater than or equal to 1.5. A minimum length-diameter ration neither establishes a nanoscale confinement nor reliably establishes an elongated, one-dimension dominant morphology.
The disclosure is inconsistent with, or at least fails to identify, a settled technical meaning of “one-dimensional”. The disclosed fiber may have a diameter of 0.1-10microns and need have a length only 1.5 times the diameter. The range appears to include ordinary three-dimensional, mildly elongated micron scale fibers. The numerical limits do not tell a skilled artisan what additional, objectively identifiable conditions make an otherwise three-dimensional fiber “one-dimensional”. Neither the claims nor the remainder of the disclosed invention identifies what objective additional structural or functional criterion/criteria distinguishes a recited “one-dimensional ion-conductive fiber” from other ion-conducting fibers having the same recited dimensions. Therefore the metes and bounds of claims 1-16 are indefinite.
The term “rich” in claim 9 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “rich” 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. Neither the claims nor the disclosure provide sufficient quantification as to what the clear boundaries are to the term “rich”.
Claim Interpretation
In light of the issue regarding the term “one-dimensional” above, the phrase “one-dimensional” contributes no discernable limitation beyond the expressly recited dimensions and dimensional ratio(s) of the claimed invention.
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.
Claims 1-7, 9 and 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (“Copper-coordinated cellulose ion conductors for solid-state batteries”) in view of Mukai et al. (EP 3691002A1).
As to claim 1, Yang discloses a positive electrode plate, comprising: a positive electrode current collector and a positive electrode material layer provided on at least one surface of the positive electrode current collector (see preparation of solid-state positive electrodes where the layer is cast on an aluminum foil, i.e., a current collector); wherein the positive electrode material layer comprises a one-dimensional ion-conducting fiber (Li-Cu-CNF) and a positive electrode active material (LiFePO4); the one-dimensional ion-conducting fiber has a diameter and a length-diameter ratio of about 200 (page 595, left-hand column); and a mass ratio of the one-dimensional ion-conducting fiber to the positive electrode active material is 9:1 LiFePO4 to cellulose fiber which is 0.11:1 fiber to active material (see preparation of solid-state cathode section).
As to claims 2 and 11, the fiber has a length-diameter ratio of roughly 200.
As to claim 3, Yang discloses a mass ratio of the one-dimensional ion-conducting fiber to the positive electrode active material is 9:1 LiFePO4 to cellulose fiber which is 0.11:1 fiber to active material (see preparation of solid-state cathode section).
As to claim 5, the mass percentage of the fiber is ~5% (page 595, left-hand column) or less as the mass ratio of the one-dimensional ion-conducting fiber to the positive electrode active material is 9:1:1 LiFePO4:CNT:cellulose fiber which is 1/11 or about 9% mass cellulose fiber in the formulation (see preparation of solid-state cathode section).
As to claim 6, the ionic conductivity is 1.5x10-3 S/cm or higher (page 592, left-hand column).
As to claim 7, the fiber comprises copper-ion-modified cellulose.
As to claim 9, the positive electrode active material is LiFePO4 or other conventional materials (pages 594-595 and preparation of solid state-positive electrodes and assembly of solid-state batteries under methods).
As to claim 14, the electrode is further employed in an electrochemical apparatus comprising a solid electrode, the positive electrode plate discussed in claim 1 above (discussed above and Fig. 4a).
As to claim 15, the fiber has a length-diameter ratio of ~200 (page 595, left-hand column).
As to claim 16, the electrochemical apparatus of claim 14 is suitably employed as a power source for a corresponding electronic device as would have been of routine skill of a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Yang does not teach of the one-dimensional ion-conducting fiber has a diameter of 0.1 μm to 10 μm (claim 1), further the fiber has a diameter of 0.1-2 mm (claims 2, 11 and 15), the length of the fiber is greater than 1 mm (claims 4, 12 and 13), or the mas ratio of claim 3.
Yang teaches that Li-Cu-CNF makes it an effective ion conducting binder for thick solid-state electrodes in which low ionic conductivity has been an issue (page 592, left-hand column; page 594, left-hand column). Yang is further clear that the CNFs have a desired high aspect ratio of ~200 (page 595, left-hand column). Therefore the fibers of Yang are cellulose nanofiber based electrode binder materials.
Mukai is drawn to the same field of endeavor, positive electrode layer formulations wherein the layer includes cellulose nanofibers as a binder present in a low mass content and having the following relative dimensions. The fibers having a fiber diameter from 0.002 mm to 1 mm and a fiber length of 0.5 mm to 10 mm. The aspect ratio (length-diameter) is 2 or more and 100,000 or less (para. [0050], applied to claims 1, 2, 4, 11-13 and 15). Selecting the dimensions of cellulose nanofibers in a positive electrode layer formulation to have these dimensions was known to improve cycle characteristic and mechanical stability.
Therefore 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 cellulose nanofibers of Yang to have a fiber diameter from 0.002 mm to 1 mm and a fiber length of 0.5 mm to 10 mm along with an aspect ratio (length-diameter) of 2 or more and 100,000 or less as taught by Mukai since it would have predictably improved cycle characteristic and mechanical stability of the binder of Yang. 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 USPQ 2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding the mass ratio of claim 3: Yang discloses a mass ratio of the one-dimensional ion-conducting fiber to the positive electrode active material is 9:1 LiFePO4 to cellulose fiber which is 0.11:1 fiber to active material (see preparation of solid-state cathode section).
For the broader range of claim 1, Yang sufficiently falls within the mass ratio of 0.01:1 to 0.2:1. For claim 3, while Yang teaches of a slightly different mass ratio of about 0.11:1 than 0.01:1 to 0.05:1 of claim 3, it would have been of routine optimization to vary the mass ratios outside of the range of Yang while achieving the desired ion-conductivity necessitated by the fibers.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to tune the mass ratio of the fiber to active material of Yang where the amount of ion-conductive material to active material is lower than Yang’s example since it would have provided for a positive electrode layer having excellent electrochemical performance including a high level of active material relative to a low level of ion-conducting fiber. In addition, regarding the difference in ranges between claim 3 (0.01:1 to 0.05:1) to the example of Yang, it would have been of routine optimization to vary the mass ratios outside of the example of Yang while achieving the desired ion-conductivity necessitated by the fibers. For example, by increasing the amount of active material and lowering the ion-conductive material, would have been routine tuning providing for superior and electrochemical performance (such as improve capacity) while still maintaining fiber ion-conductivity.
Furthermore, it has been held that when the difference between a claimed invention and the prior art is the range or value of a particular variable, then a prima facie rejection is properly established when the difference in the range or value is minor. Titanium Metals Corp. of Am. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Generally, differences in ranges will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such ranges is critical. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (“Copper-coordinated cellulose ion conductors for solid-state batteries”) in view of Mukai et al. (EP 3691002A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hasegawa et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0287209).
As to claim 10, Yang teaches that the LiFePO4 positive electrode is 120 mm thick (paragraph bridging pages 595-596).
Yang teaches that the layer can be provided on an aluminum foil (current collector; see Methods – preparation of solid-state positive electrodes of Yang) but is silent regarding the thickness of the positive electrode plate (sum of current collector and active material layer as the positive electrode plate of the claim comprises both the layer and collector).
At a minimum, Yang teaches of the layer being more than 120 mm thick (paragraph bridging pages 595-596). Yang further teaches that the layer can be applied to an aluminum foil of unspecified thickness. The selection of the thickness of the aluminum foil to be on the order of a low micron thickness would have been of routine skill in the art, thus rendering the comprehensive electrode plate to be more than 120 mm and less than 200 mm.
Hasegawa is drawn to the same field of endeavor, electrode and battery designs and formulations in solid-state batteries. Hasegawa discloses an electrode current collector for an all-solid-state battery where the thickness is selected in a range from 5 mm to 30 mm with the recognition that if the collector is too thick, energy density decreases and if the collector is too thin, workability becomes poor (para. [0056]).
Therefore 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 positive electrode of Yang to have an aluminum current collector in a thickness range from 5 mm to 30 mm as taught by Hasegawa since it would have provided a current collector having both good workability and mechanical properties while also providing a thickness which provides for good energy density. By selecting the current collector to be in the range of 5 mm to 30 mm in combination with as 120 mm thick positive electrode active material layer taught by Yang itself, the resultant positive electrode plate comprehensive thickness would be 120 mm active material layer plus 5 mm to 30 mm al foil collector layer or 125 mm to 150 mm. Generally, differences in ranges will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such ranges is critical. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969). 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 USPQ 2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claims 1-7 and 9-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0102140).
As to claim 1, Zhang discloses a positive electrode plate (positive electrode), comprising: a positive electrode current collector (para. [0040]) and a positive electrode material layer (para. [0039]) provided on at least one surface of the positive electrode current collector; wherein the positive electrode material layer comprises a one-dimensional ion-conducting polymer/ion-conducting fiber and a positive electrode active material; the one-dimensional ion-conducting fiber has a diameter of about 100 nm to 10,000 nm and lengths in the range of about 5 mm to about 1 cm (para. [0087). By example, Zhang teaches a fiber diameter about 200-300 nm and a length-of several micrometers (para. [0109]). Therefore the ratio of length-diameter is at least 1.5; and a mass ratio of the one-dimensional ion-conducting fiber to the positive electrode active material is about 5-15 wt% relative to an active material weight of about 65-75 wt% (para. [0089]).
As to claims 2 and 11, the exemplary fiber has a diameter of about 200-300nm and a length-of several micrometers which teaches to a length-diameter ratio of 1.5 to 20,000 further 1.5-200 (para. [0109]).
As to claim 3, a mass ratio of the one-dimensional ion-conducting fiber to the positive electrode active material is about 5-15 wt% (para. [0089]).
As to claim 4, the length of the fiber is at least about 5 mm (para. [0087]) and several mm (para. [0109]).
As to claim 5, the mass percentage of the fiber is ~5-15wt%, preferably 5-10wt% (para. [0089]).
As to claim 6, Zhang teaches of the same fiber formulation, PAN, PMMA, PVdF, etc. (paras. [0057], [0079]) in combination with LLZO (abstract, examples, para. [0055]). As the fiber formulation of Zhang is the same, there is a reasonable expectation that the ion-conducting fibers of Zhang would exhibit the same degree of ionic conductivity, absent clear evidence to the contrary.
Where applicant claims a composition in terms of a function, property or characteristic and the composition of the prior art is the same as that of the claim but the function is not explicitly disclosed by the reference, the examiner may make a rejection under both 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103, expressed as a 102/103 rejection.
“In relying upon the theory of inherency, the examiner must provide a basis in fact and/or technical reasoning to reasonably support the determination that the allegedly inherent characteristic necessarily flows from the teachings of the applied prior art.” Ex parte Levy, 17 USPQ2d 1461, 1464 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1990)
In the case of the instant application the basis for expectation of inherency is that the fiber formulation of Zhang is the same, therefore, there is a reasonable expectation, that the ion-conducting fibers of Zhang would exhibit the same degree of ionic conductivity, absent clear evidence to the contrary.
The Examiner invites applicant to provide that that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his [or her] claimed product.
Whether the rejection is based on inherency’ under 35 U.S.C. 102, on prima facie obviousness’ under 35 U.S.C. 103, jointly or alternatively, the burden of proof is the same...[footnote omitted].” The burden of proof is similar to that required with respect to product-by-process claims. In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 70, 205 USPQ 594, 596 (CCPA 1980) (quoting In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433-34 (CCPA 1977)).
As to claim 8, the fiber comprises a polymer fiber comprising an ion-conducting substance, for example a polymer such as PAN, PMMA, PVdF, etc. (paras. [0057], [0079]) in combination with LLZO (abstract, examples, para. [0055]).
As to claim 9, the positive active material includes lithium cobalt oxide, lithium manganate, lithium iron phosphate and lithium nickel cobalt manganese oxide (paras. [0056] and [0085]-[0086]).
As to claim 10, by example, the positive electrode has a thickness of 100-200 mm, a more preferred thickness of 50-150 mm to a positive electrode current collector of 1-10 mm, more preferred thickness of 1-2 mm (Table 1).
As to claim 11, the one-dimensional ion-conducting fiber has a diameter of about 100 nm to 10,000 nm and lengths in the range of about 5 mm to about 1 cm (para. [0087). By example, Zhang teaches a fiber diameter about 200-300 nm and a length-of several micrometers (para. [0109]). Zhang thus teaches a diameter of 0.2-0.3 mm to a length of several mm (several being ~7 mm but clearly greater than at about 5 mm). 5 mm/ 0.3 mm is a ratio of 16.7. 5 mm/ 0.2 mm is a ratio of 25. 7 mm/ 0.3 mm is a ratio of 23.3. 7 mm/ 0.2 mm is a ratio of 35. Thus it would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art that Zhang sufficiently teaches to the same diameter and length-diameter ratio of claim 11.
As to claims 12-13, Zhang teaches of the length to be in a range from about 5 mm to about 1 cm, and by way of example, a specific fiber diameter about 200-300 nm and a length-of several micrometers (para. [0109]). Thus falling in the ranges of claims 12-13 with sufficient specificity.
As to claim 14, the electrode is further employed in an electrochemical apparatus comprising a solid electrode, the positive electrode plate discussed in claim 1 above (Table 1, para. [0099] and Fig. 1, for example).
As to claim 15, the one-dimensional ion-conducting fiber has a diameter of about 100 nm to 10,000 nm and lengths in the range of about 5 mm to about 1 cm (para. [0087). By example, Zhang teaches a fiber diameter about 200-300 nm and a length-of several micrometers (para. [0109]). Zhang thus teaches a diameter of 0.2-0.3 mm to a length of several mm (several being ~7 mm but clearly greater than at about 5 mm). 5 mm/ 0.3 mm is a ratio of 16.7. 5 mm/ 0.2 mm is a ratio of 25. 7 mm/ 0.3 mm is a ratio of 23.3. 7 mm/ 0.2 mm is a ratio of 35. Thus it would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art that Zhang sufficiently teaches to the same diameter and length-diameter ratio of claim 15.
As to claim 16, the electrochemical apparatus of claim 14 is suitably employed as a power source for a corresponding electronic device as would have been of routine skill of a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Zhang does not appear to expressly teach of the specific ion-conducting fiber in a diameter from 0.1 mm to 10 mm with a length-diameter ratio of 1.5 or more in the positive electrode with the specific mass ratio of fiber to active material in the range of 0.01:1 to 0.2:1 (claim 1), further to 0.01:1 to 0.05:1 (claim 3).
It would have been well within the skill of the ordinary worker in the art, based on the core teachings of Zhang, to arrive at the particular fiber dimensions in combination with the mass ratios in a positive electrode formulation for at least the following reasons:
Zhang teaches to the same ion-conducting fiber, having a high length-diameter ratio for suitable use in a positive electrode formulations. Zhang generally recognized that the use of polymer-LLZO based fibers having a higher length-diameter morphology was the desired morphology. Zhang teaches of an exemplary ion-conducting fiber in Example 1 which, while then employed in the electrolyte formulation, would have been predictably suitable for the positive electrode formulations of Zhang with a reasonable expectation of success to a suitable fiber morphology used in the positive electrodes themselves.
Notably, the one-dimensional ion-conducting fiber has a diameter of about 100 nm to 10,000 nm and lengths in the range of about 5 mm to about 1 cm (para. [0087). Thus a higher length-diameter ratio is clearly evident by Zhang.
By example, Zhang teaches a fiber diameter about 200-300 nm and a length-of several micrometers (para. [0109]). Zhang thus teaches a diameter of 0.2-0.3 mm to a length of several mm (several being ~7 mm but clearly greater than at about 5 mm). 5 mm/ 0.3 mm is a ratio of 16.7. 5 mm/ 0.2 mm is a ratio of 25. 7 mm/ 0.3 mm is a ratio of 23.3. 7 mm/ 0.2 mm is a ratio of 35. Thus it would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art that Zhang sufficiently teaches to the same diameter and length-diameter ratio.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the exemplary ion-conducting fiber of Zhang as a suitable fiber morphology for use in the positive electrode formulations of Zhang since it would have predictably provided for positive electrode/fiber mixtures of Zhang whereby the positive electrode active material of Zhang would have exhibited the requisite and sufficient ion-conductivity provided by the exemplary fibers. The resultant modification therefore providing the requisite fiber diameter and length-diameter ratio in the positive electrode active material formulation of Zhang.
As to the mass ratio of claims 1 and 3 to modified Zhang now including the particular fiber diameter and length-diameter ratio in the positive electrode active material formulation discussed above, it would have further been obvious to tune the mass ratio of the fiber to active material of Zhang to the same ratio of claims 1 and 3 as follows:
According to Zhang, the mass percentage of the fiber is ~5-15wt%, preferably 5-10wt% (para. [0089]) relative to about 65-75wt% active material, preferably 70-75wt%. This teaches of a mass ratio of about 5-15% ion-conducting fiber to 65-75 active material, or mass ratio of about 0.0667:1 to 0.2308:1. For the preferred range, Zhang teaches This teaches of a mass ratio of about 5-10% ion-conducting fiber to 70-75 active material, or mass ratio of about 0.0667:1 to 0.1429:1.
For the broader range, Zhang sufficiently overlaps with the mass ratio of claims 1 and 3. To the preferred range Zhang sufficiently falls within the range of claim 1. For claim 3, while Zhang teaches of a slightly different range than 0.01:1 to 0.05:1, it would have been of routine optimization to vary the mass ratios outside of the range of Zhang while achieving the desired ion-conductivity necessitated by the fibers. Furthermore, Zhang teaches that the amounts are approximate further leading a person of ordinary skill in the art to envision and appreciate mass ratios beyond that of Zhang with a reasonable expectation that such amounts provide sufficient amount of ion-conducting fiber to the positive electrode.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to tune the mass ratio of the fiber to active material within the approximate ranges of Zhang of about 0.0667:1 to 0.2308:1, more particularly to about 0.0667:1 to 0.1429:1 as Zhang sufficiently led to low mass ratio of ion-conducting fiber to active material as a sufficient loading level for imparting a degree of ion-conductivity to the positive electrode formulation. In addition, regarding the difference in ranges between claim 3 (0.01:1 to 0.05:1) to the approximate range of Zhang, it would have been of routine optimization to vary the mass ratios outside of the range of Zhang by increasing the amount of active material while achieving the desired ion-conductivity necessitated by the fibers to provide for superior and tuned electrochemical performance and ion-conductivity.
Furthermore, Zhang teaches that the amounts are approximate further leading a person of ordinary skill in the art to envision and appreciate mass ratios beyond that of Zhang with a reasonable expectation that such amounts provide sufficient amount of ion-conducting fiber to the positive electrode. It has been held that when the difference between a claimed invention and the prior art is the range or value of a particular variable, then a prima facie rejection is properly established when the difference in the range or value is minor. Titanium Metals Corp. of Am. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Generally, differences in ranges will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such ranges is critical. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0202978 discloses ion conducting fibers including Cu-cellulose fibers.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGG CANTELMO whose telephone number is (571)272-1283. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 7am to 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, 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.
/GREGG CANTELMO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights