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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the communication filed on 5/27/26. Applicant’s arguments have been considered, but are not found persuasive. Claims 21-40 are pending. This Action is Non-FINAL.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 5/27/26 has been entered.
Claims Analysis
At least claim 21 recites preparing a mixture including “a measured amount of a solvent that is greater than zero and less than 20% by weight of the mixture, the measured amount of the solvent being at least a minimum amount effective to soften the PTFE”. At least claim 31 recites “adding a measured amount of a solvent to the mixture that is greater than zero and less than 20% by weight of the mixture, the measured amount of the solvent being at least a minimum amount effective to soften the PTFE ”. Applicant points to [0027]-[0028] and [0036] of the originally filed specification for support. The cited paragraphs teach “the solvent activation step 130, if performed, may cause the binder to soften further and become more able to stretch without breaking” and “unlike slurry coating and extrusion processes in which the solvent may be 60-80% by weight of the resulting wet mixture, the present disclosed process may add a relatively small amount of solvent in step 130, amounting to less than 20% of the resulting mixture”. See also Figure 1 of the present specification.
Each of claims 21 and 31 recite the measured amount of solvent is greater than zero and less than 20% by weight of the mixture. The added limitation of “at least a minimum amount effective to soften the PTFE” does not further limit the measured amount of solvent recited by each of claims 21 and 31.
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 21-31 and 33-40 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.
Claim 21 recites preparing a mixture including “a measured amount of a solvent that is greater than zero and less than 20% by weight of the mixture, the measured amount of the solvent being at least a minimum amount effective to soften the PTFE”, which is indefinite. It is unclear what encompasses a minimum amount of the solvent effective to soften the PTFE. The claims recites the amount of solvent is “greater than zero and less than 20% by weight of the mixture” and it is unclear if this recited amount of solvent is further the “minimum amount” of solvent claimed. Specifically, it is unclear if “the measured amount” and “the minimum amount” of solvent are the same.
Claim 31 recites “adding a measured amount of a solvent to the mixture that is greater than zero and less than 20% by weight of the mixture, the measured amount of the solvent being at least a minimum amount effective to soften the PTFE ”, which is indefinite. It is unclear what encompasses a minimum amount of the solvent effective to soften the PTFE. The claims recites the amount of solvent is “greater than zero and less than 20% by weight of the mixture” and it is unclear if this recited amount of solvent is further the “minimum amount” of solvent claimed. Specifically, it is unclear if “the measured amount” and “the minimum amount” of solvent are the same.
To the extent the claims are understood in view of the 35 USC 112 rejections above, note the following prior art rejections.
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.
Claim(s) 21, 23-31 and 33-40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duong et al., US 2015/0303481 A1.
Duong teaches an energy storage device having a cathode, an anode and a separator between the anode and the cathode, where at least one of the cathode and the anode includes a polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) composite binder material [0009]. Duong teaches electrode films may be formed using wet or dry processes. For example, active electrode materials may be combined with binder materials, solvents, and other additives, in a wet coating method which requires substantial subsequent drying techniques to fabricate an electrode film [0007]. A dry fabrication process can refer to a process in which no or substantially no solvents are used in the formation of the electrode film [0078]. The dry process includes calendaring the electrode mixture to form a free-standing electrode film [0021]. The method includes combining an active material and PTFE to form a first mixture, adding PTFE to the first mixture to form a second mixture and subjecting the second mixture to a high shear process. Both the combining and adding can include blending at a temperature of about 20°C to about 75°C Subjecting the second mixture to the high shear process may include fibrillizing the PTFE. In some embodiments, fibrillizing can include jet-milling [0017-0018]. The combining can include combining a conductive carbon additive with the active material and the PTFE to form the first mixture [0020]. In some embodiments, PVDF and the electrode active material can be mixed at a temperature of about 20°C to less than 140°C [0093]. The second mixture is compressed to form the free-standing electrode film. Compressing the electrode film mixture to form a free-standing film can be performed at a temperature sufficient to melt a meltable binder component, such as PVDF. For example, compressing the electrode film mixture to form a free-standing electrode film can be performed at temperatures higher than about 140°C, including about 140°C to about 300°C, or about 140°C to about 200°C. In some embodiments, the free-standing electrode film can be laminated to a current collector in the same step or in separate steps. In some embodiments, lamination of a free-standing electrode film to a current collector can be performed at temperatures of about 100°C to about 200°C, or about 160°C to 200°C [0101; 0117-0118]. Duong teaches DMC and DEC are known solvents for use in lithium ion batteries [0075;0088]
Duong does not explicitly teach the mixture includes a solvent. However, one of skill would have found the claimed invention obvious as Duong teaches the dry fabrication process can refer to a process in which no or substantially no solvents are used in the formation of the electrode film. Thus, Duong at least suggests small amounts of solvents (substantially no solvents) may be used to produce the free-standing electrode via the dry fabrication process. The presently claimed invention has been given the broadest reasonable interpretation wherein at least claim 1 encompass a mixture including minute amounts of a solvent. In addition, Duong teaches it was known in the art to produce an electrode film wherein active electrode materials may be combined with binder materials, solvents, and other additives, in a wet coating method which requires substantial subsequent drying techniques to fabricate an electrode film.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 32 is allowed. Claim 22 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: claims 22 and 32 require injecting the solvent into the mixture while the mixture is being subjected to the shear force. Duong does not teach or suggest injecting a solvent into a mixture including the active material, the conductive additive and PTFE while the mixture is being subjected to the shear force.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/27/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Duong fails to contemplate the use of any measured amount of solvent that is both greater than zero and less than 20% by weight of the mixture. Applicant submits the phrase “substantially no solvents” of Duong does not describe or even suggest a measured amount of solvent. Examiner disagrees. Duong explicitly teaches “a dry fabrication process can refer to a process in which no or substantially no solvents are used in the formation of the electrode film” [0078]. Duong’s disclosure of separate recitations for “no solvents” or “substantially no solvents” is emphasized. One of skill would have clearly interpreted “no solvents” to be zero and “substantially no solvents” to be a small amount greater than zero.
The teaching of Duong of a dry fabrication process in which substantially no solvents are used at least suggests a mixture including “a measured amount of solvent that is greater than zero and less than 20% by weight of the mixture” (claim 21) and “adding a measured amount of a solvent to the mixture that is greater than zero and less than 20% by weight of the mixture” (claim 31). One of skill in the art would have found “substantially no solvents” to render “a measured amount of solvent greater than zero” obvious.
Applicant further submits that Duong fails to contemplate any effective result of using "substantially no solvents" as opposed to "no solvents." Thus, based on Duong's teachings, a person having ordinary skill in the art would not expect there to be any difference between using "substantially no solvents" and using "no solvents." As such, "the measured amount of the solvent being at least a minimum amount effective to soften the PTFE", as now claimed, would not have been obvious from the teachings of Duong. Examiner disagrees. In response to applicant's argument that Duong does not contemplate "the measured amount of the solvent being at least a minimum amount effective to soften the PTFE,", the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). Duong explicitly teaches “a dry fabrication process can refer to a process in which no or substantially no solvents are used in the formation of the electrode film” [0078]. The claims recite an amount of solvent of “greater than zero to less than 20% by weight of the mixture”.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRACY DOVE whose telephone number is (571)272-1285. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-3:00.
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.
/TRACY M DOVE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights