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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “a pure water” is unclear as it appears to missing a word such as “dispersion” or “mixture”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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.
Claims 1 and 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Gestaut et al. (EP 0052446).
Regarding claim 1, Gestaut et al. teaches a partially-fluorinated carbon particle for use as electrodes (Abstract) including an acetylene black referred to as “Schawingan Black” that are disclosed to be somewhat hydrophobic which float on cold water but quickly sink in hot water. (col. 13, lines 15-28). The disclosure in Gestaut et al. therefore implies that the acetylene black would inherently float at 25oC (cold water) and settle or sink when heated to 50oC or above (hot water), as claimed.
Alternatively, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to control the hydrophobic properties of the carbon black materials disclosed in Gestaut et al., which would affect the temperature at which the particles float and sink, in order to optimize the dispersibility of the carbon black in liquids and binder materials for forming electrodes.
Regarding claim 3, the disclosure in Gestaut et al. of the carbon black floating in cold water would meet the limitation of a “dispersion medium” containing the carbon black.
Regarding claim 4, the carbon black is mixed with a binder material of PTFE (Abstract). The carbon black and binder material can be combined precious metal catalyst particles and pore-forming materials, which would meet the limitations of “active materials” as claimed. (col. 8, lines 4-31).
Regarding claim 5, Gestaut et al. teaches that the carbon particles are used to form an electrode (i.e. a battery member). (Abstract).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Gestaut et al. (EP 0052446), as evidenced by Yong et al. (Integrated Flexible Solid-State Supercapacitor Fabricated in a Single Fabric Layer, Journal of Physics: Conference Series 773 (2016) 012086)
Gestaut et al. does not explicitly teach the surface area of the “Schawingan Black”. However, teaches that that Schawingan Black has an effective surface area of 75 m2/g. (Page 2, Section 2, First paragraph). Therefore, the Schawingan Black disclosed in Gestaut et al. would have the same surface area, overlapping with the presently claimed range. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “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 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Gestaut et al. (EP 0052446) in view of Amine et al. (U.S. App. Pub. No. 2007/0148545).
Gestaut et al. is relied upon as described in the rejection of claim 1, above.
Regarding claim 6, Gestaut et al. does not disclose a laminate containing a current collect and a mixed material layer provided on the current collector comprising the carbon black.
Amine et al. teaches an electrode material composition based on lithium titanate which are carbon coated (Abstract) used to form a positive electrode material onto an Al-current collector. (par. [0063]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form a laminate composition containing the carbon material of Gestaut et al. onto a current collector.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to apply the laminate composition of Gestaut et al. on to a current collector in order to be able to direct or transfer the electrical energy produced by the electrode material into a circuit in an energy storage device such as a battery.
Regarding claim 7, Amine et al. teaches using the laminate composition in a secondary battery. (par. [0015]).
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Nagai et al. (U.S. App. Pub. No. 2019/0177551). (cited in the IDS filed on 03/19/2024).
Regarding claim 1, Nagai et al. teaches a carbon black material for use in an electrode composition in a battery (Abstract) wherein the carbon black material is acetylene black. (par. [0021]).
Nagai et al. does not disclose that the carbon black material floats on the surface of a pure water solution at 25oC but settles at 50oC or above, as claimed. However, the specification of the current application indicates that this property is the direct result of the oxygen gas content relative to the raw acetylene gas during synthesis of the acetylene black material. (Applicant’s specification, par. [0031]). In particular, the content of oxygen gas should be 30 parts by volume or more and 300 parts by volume or less relative to 100 parts by weight of the total carbon source (acetylene + additional carbon sources). (Applicant’s specification, par. [0031]). Nagai et al. teaches that the content of oxygen gas used in the synthesis of the acetylene black can be 40% by volume relative to 25% acetylene and 17.5% toluene gas (par. [0076], Example 7) which is about 94 parts by volume of oxygen gas relative to the carbon source gases. It would therefore be inherent or obvious that the acetylene black produced in Nagai et al. would have the same material properties as the carbon black of the present invention, including the ability to float on the surface of a water dispersion at 25oC and but settling at greater than 50oC.
Regarding claim 2, Nagai et al. teaches the surface area of the carbon black material being in the range of 50-220 m2/g, overlapping with the presently claimed range. (Abstract). As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “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 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 3, Nagai et al. teaches a dispersion medium with the carbon black material. (par. [0046]).
Regarding claim 4, Nagai et al. teaches forming an electrode composition include the carbon black, a polymer binder and an active material. (par. [0042]).
Regarding claim 5, Nagai et al. teaches forming an electrode material for a battery. (par. [0042]).
Regarding claim 6, Nagai et al. teaches forming the electrode material as a laminate on the surface of a current collector. (par. [0048]).
Regarding claim 7, Nagai et al. teaches forming an electrode material for a battery. (par. [0042]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDRE F FERRE whose telephone number is (571)270-5763. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8 am to 4 pm ET.
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, Alicia Chevalier can be reached at 5712721490. 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.
/ALEXANDRE F FERRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1788 08/18/2026
Prosecution Insights