DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
2. Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation “ the active material includes at least one of lithium iron phosphate and lithium manganese iron phosphate” is improper alternative claiming. Alternative claiming may be set forth as "a material (or at least one material) selected from the group consisting of A, B, and C" or "wherein the material is (or is at least one of) A, B, or C" see MPEP 2173.05(h). For the purpose of this Office Action, the limitation has been interpreted as “ the active material includes at least one of lithium iron phosphate or lithium manganese iron phosphate”. Appropriate correction is required.
3. Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation “ the conductive filler includes at least one of metal wires, metal oxides, carbon nanotubes, carbon black, graphite flake, graphite nanoparticles, and graphite nanoplate” is improper alternative claiming. Alternative claiming may be set forth as "a material (or at least one material) selected from the group consisting of A, B, and C" or "wherein the material is (or is at least one of) A, B, or C" see MPEP 2173.05(h). For the purpose of this Office Action, the limitation has been interpreted as “ the conductive filler includes at least one of metal wires, metal oxides, carbon nanotubes, carbon black, graphite flake, graphite nanoparticles, or graphite nanoplate”. Appropriate correction is required.
4. Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation “ an active material including at least one of lithium iron phosphate and lithium manganese iron phosphate” is improper alternative claiming. Alternative claiming may be set forth as "a material (or at least one material) selected from the group consisting of A, B, and C" or "wherein the material is (or is at least one of) A, B, or C" see MPEP 2173.05(h). For the purpose of this Office Action, the limitation has been interpreted as “ an active material including at least one of lithium iron phosphate or lithium manganese iron phosphate”. Appropriate correction is required.
5. Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation “ the conductive filler includes at least one of metal wires, metal oxides, carbon nanotubes, carbon black, graphite flake, graphite nanoparticles, and graphite nanoplate” is improper alternative claiming. Alternative claiming may be set forth as "a material (or at least one material) selected from the group consisting of A, B, and C" or "wherein the material is (or is at least one of) A, B, or C" see MPEP 2173.05(h). For the purpose of this Office Action, the limitation has been interpreted as “ the conductive filler includes at least one of metal wires, metal oxides, carbon nanotubes, carbon black, graphite flake, graphite nanoparticles, or graphite nanoplate”. Appropriate correction is required.
6. Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation “ an active material including at least one of lithium iron phosphate and lithium manganese iron phosphate” is improper alternative claiming. Alternative claiming may be set forth as "a material (or at least one material) selected from the group consisting of A, B, and C" or "wherein the material is (or is at least one of) A, B, or C" see MPEP 2173.05(h). For the purpose of this Office Action, the limitation has been interpreted as “ an active material including at least one of lithium iron phosphate or lithium manganese iron phosphate”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
7. 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.
8. Claims 2, 3-12, and 14 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.
9. Claim 2 recites the limitation "the total weight" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of this Office Action, the limitation has been interpreted as "a total weight".
10. Claim 2 recites the limitation "the conductive filler" in lines 7 and 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of this Office Action, the limitation has been interpreted as "the conductive fillers" as there is antecedent basis.
11. Claims 3-12 are rejected as depending from claim 2.
12. Claim 14 recites the limitation "the total weight" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of this Office Action, the limitation has been interpreted as "a total weight".
13. Claims 16 and 17-19 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.
14. Claim 12 recites the limitation "the total weight" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of this Office Action, the limitation has been interpreted as "a total weight".
15. Claims 17-19 are rejected as depending from claim 16.
16. Claim 19 recites the limitation "the range" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of this Office Action, the limitation has been interpreted as "a range".
17. Claim 20 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.
18. Claim 20 recites the limitation "the total weight" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of this Office Action, the limitation has been interpreted as "a total weight".
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
19. 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 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.
20. Claim(s) 1, 13, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Uddin et al. (US 2024/0026082).
Regarding claim 1, Uddin discloses a method of forming a cathode for a secondary battery([0023], [0208], [0231]), comprising: mixing together a solution of polyvinylidene fluoride in N-methyl-2-pyrrolidone([0301], [0316], [0326]), a first dispersion of polytetrafluoroethylene in water([0301], [0316], [0326]), additional N-methyl-2-pyrrolidone ([0316], [0326]), an active material([0301], [0316], [0326]), and conductive fillers to form a slurry([0301], [0316], [0326]); coating the slurry onto a cathode current collector([0301], [0316], [0326]); and drying the coating and forming a cathode([0301], [0316], [0326]).
Regarding claim 13, Uddin discloses mixing is performed with a planetary mixer([0294]).
Regarding claim 15, Uddin discloses the slurry is coated onto the cathode current collector by die coating([0301], [0316], [0326]).
21. Claim(s) 16, 17, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Li et al. (CN116315463A) with citations from machine translation provided with this Office Action.
Regarding claim 16, Li discloses a cathode electrode for a secondary battery([n0008]), comprising: a cathode disposed on a surface of a cathode current collector([n0023]-[0031]), the cathode including an active material including at least one of lithium manganese iron phosphate([0031]), wherein the active material is present in the cathode in a range of 89 percent by weight to 97.5 percent by weight of the total weight of the cathode(93 percent [0031]), a binder including polyvinylidene fluoride and polytetrafluoroethylene([0031]), wherein the binder is present in a range of 2.1 percent by weight to 6 percent by weight of the total weight of the cathode(3 percent [0031]), and a conductive filler(acetylene black[0031]), wherein the conductive filler is present in a range of 0.5 percent by weight to 5 percent by weight of the total weight of the cathode(1.5 percent [0031]).
According to the MPEP, “"[W]hen, as by a recitation of ranges or otherwise, a claim covers several compositions, the claim is ‘anticipated’ if one of them is in the prior art." Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) See MPEP 2131.03.
Regarding claim 17, Li discloses the conductive filler includes at least one of the following: carbon black ([0031]).
Regarding claim 20, Li discloses a vehicle battery(applications in new energy fields such as power and energy storage, [n0002], [n0008]), comprising: a cathode disposed on a surface of a cathode current collector ([n0023]-[0031]), the cathode including an active material including at least one of lithium manganese iron phosphate ([0031]), wherein the active material is present in the cathode in a range of 89 percent by weight to 97.5 percent by weight of a total weight of the cathode (93 percent [0031]), a binder including polyvinylidene fluoride and polytetrafluoroethylene ([0031]), wherein the binder is present in a range of 2.1 percent by weight to 6 percent by weight of the total weight of the cathode (3 percent [0031]), and a conductive filler (acetylene black[0031]), wherein the conductive filler is present in a range of 0.5 percent by weight to 5 percent by weight of the total weight of the cathode (1.5 percent [0031]); an anode disposed on an anode current collector([n0024], [0033]); a separator positioned between the anode and cathode([n0008]); and an electrolyte contacting the anode and the cathode([0037]).
According to the MPEP, “"[W]hen, as by a recitation of ranges or otherwise, a claim covers several compositions, the claim is ‘anticipated’ if one of them is in the prior art." Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) See MPEP 2131.03.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
22. 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
23. Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uddin et al. (US 2024/0026082) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Li et al. (CN116315463A) with citations from machine translation provided with this Office Action.
Regarding claim 2, Uddin discloses the cathode includes the active material([0301], [0316], [0326]), polyvinylidene fluoride([0301], [0316], [0326]), polytetrafluoroethylene([0301], [0316], [0326]), and the conductive fillers([0301], [0316], [0326]), S-linked quinone polymers, sulfurized carbon matrices, and related compositions, composites, electrode materials, electrodes, electrochemical cells as well as related methods and systems can be used in connection with lithium-ion battery technology with various cathodes such as NMC, LFP, LMO, NCA which are currently widely applied in the electric vehicular applications([0255]) but does not explicitly disclose wherein the active material includes at least one of lithium iron phosphate or lithium manganese iron phosphate and the active material is present in the cathode in a range of 89 percent by weight to 97.5 percent by weight of a total weight of the cathode, the polyvinylidene fluoride and polytetrafluoroethylene are present together in a range of 2.1 percent by weight to 6 percent by weight of the total weight of the cathode, and the conductive fillers includes at least one of metal wires, metal oxides, carbon nanotubes, carbon black, graphite flake, graphite nanoparticles, or graphite nanoplate and the conductive fillers is present in a range of 0.5 percent by weight to 5 percent by weight of the total weight of the cathode.
Li teaches the positive electrode includes at least one of nickel-cobalt-manganese positive electrode material, lithium iron phosphate positive electrode material, spinel lithium manganese-nickel oxide positive electrode material, and lithium-rich manganese-based positive electrode material([n0016]). Li teaches a cathode electrode for a secondary battery([n0008]), comprising: a cathode disposed on a surface of a cathode current collector([n0023]-[0031]), the cathode including an active material including at least one of lithium manganese iron phosphate([0031]), wherein the active material is present in the cathode in a range of 89 percent by weight to 97.5 percent by weight of the total weight of the cathode(93 percent [0031]), a binder including polyvinylidene fluoride and polytetrafluoroethylene([0031]), wherein the binder is present in a range of 2.1 percent by weight to 6 percent by weight of the total weight of the cathode(3 percent [0031]), and a conductive filler(acetylene black[0031]), and the conductive filler includes at least one of carbon black, wherein the conductive filler is present in a range of 0.5 percent by weight to 5 percent by weight of the total weight of the cathode(1.5 percent [0031]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the active material of Uddin with the active material includes at least one of lithium iron phosphate or lithium manganese iron phosphate as taught by Li as art recognized equivalence for the same purpose. See MPEP 2144.06 II. And it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the method of modified Uddin, the active material is present in the cathode in a range of 89 percent by weight to 97.5 percent by weight of a total weight of the cathode, the polyvinylidene fluoride and polytetrafluoroethylene are present together in a range of 2.1 percent by weight to 6 percent by weight of the total weight of the cathode, and the conductive fillers include at least one of carbon black and the conductive fillers are present in a range of 0.5 percent by weight to 5 percent by weight of the total weight of the cathode as taught by Li as obvious to try choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.
24. Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uddin et al. (US 2024/0026082) as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 14, Uddin discloses the cathode can be applied using wet process by mixing all the active materials and additives and binders with water then coat or used as a dry powder and pressed onto aforementioned substrates ([0269]) but does not explicitly disclose
water is present in the slurry in a range of 0.1 weight percent to 3 weight percent of a total weight of the slurry.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the method of Uddin with water is present in the slurry in a range of 0.1 weight percent to 3 weight percent of a total weight of the slurry in order to balance mixing and applying onto substrates, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP §2144.05 (II-A).
25. Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (CN116315463A) with citations from machine translation provided with this Office Action as applied to claim 16 above and further in view of Shembel et al. (US 2009/0117461).
Regarding claim 18, Li does not explicitly disclose the polytetrafluoroethylene is fibrillated.
Shembel teaches a method for production of electrodes for Li-primary and Li-ion batteries based of using two types of binder(abstract). Shembel teaches the first binder is soluble in organic solvent and second binder is insoluble in organic solvent during the process of slurry preparation(abstract). Shembel teaches combination of the slurry composition and conditions of the electrode temperature treatment decrease the cathode production complexity, improve electrochemical characteristics of the electrode, increase adhesion properties and flexibility of coating, and reduce the interface resistance between the current collector and electrode mass(abstract). Shembel teaches the polytetrafluoroethylene is fibrillated([0014]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the polytetrafluoroethylene of Li with the polytetrafluoroethylene is fibrillated as taught by Shembel as applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results. MPEP 2143.
26. Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (CN116315463A) with citations from machine translation provided with this Office Action as applied to claim 16 above and further in view of Yoshikawa et al. (US 2023/0115482).
Regarding claim 19, Li does not explicitly disclose the cathode current collector is coated in a layer of carbon particles and a surface area of the cathode current collector is in a range of 25 square meters per gram to 2000 square meters per gram.
Yoshikawa teaches positive electrode for non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery, and non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery, battery module and battery system using the same (title). Yoshikawa teaches a current collector coating layer is present on a surface of the positive electrode current collector on a side of the positive electrode active material layer([0027] [C6]). Yoshikawa teaches the current collector coating layer includes carbon, and preferably includes carbon particles (such as carbon black) and a binder([0027] [C7]). Yoshikawa teaches the positive electrode current collector main body 14 has, on at least a part of its surface, a current collector coating layer 15 (Fig. 1, [0101]). Yoshikawa teaches “at least a part of its surface” means 10% to 100%, preferably 30% to 100%, more preferably 50% to 100% of the area of the surface of the positive electrode current collector main body ([0102]) and the thickness of the current collector coating layer 15 is preferably 0.1 to 4.0 μm ([0106]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the cathode current collector of Li with the cathode current collector is coated in a layer of carbon particles as taught by Yoshikawa as applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results. MPEP 2143. And it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a surface area of the cathode current collector in a range of 25 square meters per gram to 2000 square meters per gram in order to balance the area of the surface coating and the thickness, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP §2144.05 (II-A).
Double Patenting
27. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
28. Claim 20 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 16 of copending Application No. 18/668,779 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because instant claim 20 recites a vehicle battery that is similar in structure and composition to the vehicle battery recited in claim 16 of the copending application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Allowable Subject Matter
29. Claim 3 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. And the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112 set forth in this Office Action on claim 3 is overcome.
In particular, the allowable limitation is further comprising: mixing the first dispersion of polytetrafluoroethylene in water with the N-methyl-2-pyrrolidone to form a second dispersion;
adding the solution of polyvinylidene fluoride in N-methyl-2-pyrrolidone to the second dispersion and forming a third dispersion; adding in a portion of the conductive fillers into the third dispersion, wherein the portion of the conductive fillers are dry conductive fillers; adding in a remainder of the conductive fillers into the third dispersion, wherein the remainder of the conductive fillers are in an aqueous slurry, and forming a fourth dispersion; and adding the active material to the fourth dispersion after mixing in the dry conductive fillers and wet conductive fillers.
Uddin does not disclose, teach or render obvious further comprising: mixing the first dispersion of polytetrafluoroethylene in water with the N-methyl-2-pyrrolidone to form a second dispersion; adding the solution of polyvinylidene fluoride in N-methyl-2-pyrrolidone to the second dispersion and forming a third dispersion; adding in a portion of the conductive fillers into the third dispersion, wherein the portion of the conductive fillers are dry conductive fillers; adding in a remainder of the conductive fillers into the third dispersion, wherein the remainder of the conductive fillers are in an aqueous slurry, and forming a fourth dispersion; and adding the active material to the fourth dispersion after mixing in the dry conductive fillers and wet conductive fillers.
30. Claims 4-7 are objected to as being dependent upon allowable claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the allowable claim and any intervening claims. And the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112 set forth in this Office Action on claims 4-7 is overcome.
31. Claim 8 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. And the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112 set forth in this Office Action on claim 8 is overcome.
In particular, the allowable limitation is further comprising: mixing the active material, a portion of the conductive fillers wherein the portion of the conductive fillers are dry conductive fillers, and polyvinylidene fluoride powder to form a dry mixture; kneading the dry mixture with a solution of polyvinylidene fluoride in N-methyl-2-pyrrolidone and additional N-methyl-2-pyrrolidone to form a dough; mixing N-methyl-2-pyrrolidone to a first dispersion of polytetrafluoroethylene in water and adding the mixture to water to the dough to form a second dispersion; and mixing the second dispersion with a remainder of the conductive fillers, wherein the remainder of the conductive fillers are in an aqueous slurry and forming a third dispersion.
Uddin discloses further comprising: mixing the active material, a portion of the conductive fillers wherein the portion of the conductive fillers are dry conductive fillers, but does not disclose, teach or render obvious mixing polyvinylidene fluoride powder to form a dry mixture; kneading the dry mixture with a solution of polyvinylidene fluoride in N-methyl-2-pyrrolidone and additional N-methyl-2-pyrrolidone to form a dough; mixing N-methyl-2-pyrrolidone to a first dispersion of polytetrafluoroethylene in water and adding the mixture to water to the dough to form a second dispersion; and mixing the second dispersion with a remainder of the conductive fillers, wherein the remainder of the conductive fillers are in an aqueous slurry and forming a third dispersion.
Li teaches further comprising: mixing the active material, a portion of the conductive fillers wherein the portion of the conductive fillers are dry conductive fillers, but does not teach, disclose or render obvious mixing polyvinylidene fluoride powder to form a dry mixture; kneading the dry mixture with a solution of polyvinylidene fluoride in N-methyl-2-pyrrolidone and additional N-methyl-2-pyrrolidone to form a dough; mixing N-methyl-2-pyrrolidone to a first dispersion of polytetrafluoroethylene in water and adding the mixture to water to the dough to form a second dispersion; and mixing the second dispersion with a remainder of the conductive fillers, wherein the remainder of the conductive fillers are in an aqueous slurry and forming a third dispersion.
32. Claims 9-12 are objected to as being dependent upon allowable claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the allowable claim and any intervening claims. And the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112 set forth in this Office Action on claims 9-12 is overcome.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VICTORIA HOM LYNCH whose telephone number is (571)272-0489. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 AM - 4:30 PM EST M-F.
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, Miriam Stagg can be reached at 571-270-5256. 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.
/VICTORIA H LYNCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1724
Prosecution Insights