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 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: for sake of clarity, “(2 x
√
π
A
)” should be deleted especially given that the circumference of a circle would necessarily be described in said manner. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: for sake of clarity, “the step of acquiring a 2D-scale map about the resistance distribution of the sample of cross-section” should be written as simply “Step 2.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: for sake of clarity, “the step of masking a conductive material zone” should be written as simply “Step 3.” 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 1-10 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 1 recites that the claimed mathematical formula is “defined” by the claimed circumference and area parameters. Given that absence of a clear definition/representation of the claimed mathematical formula (for example, as in the manner of Claim 2), Claim 1 is therefore rendered particularly indefinite insofar as it is unclear if defined means that the mathematical formula only includes the circumference and area parameters therein, or if defined means that the mathematical formula may include other parameters as well.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the parameters." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the circumference." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the parameters." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites “at least one optional cross-section” inside of the electrode active material layer. Claim 1 is therefore rendered particularly indefinite insofar as it is unclear what differentiates a cross-section from an “optional” cross-section, and unclear if the use of “optional” implies that the cross-section inside of the electrode active material layer is somehow not necessarily required.
Claim 1 recites that the mathematical formula is concerned with circumference and area parameters of the instantly claimed portion. Given the absence of a clear definition/representation of the shape of the claimed portion and the use of at least the term circumference, Claim 1 is therefore rendered particularly indefinite insofar as it is unclear if the claimed portion is required to be a circle, or if the claimed portion may be another geometric shape.
Claim 1 recites that the method is for “evaluation” the claimed dispersibility. Given that absence of a clear definition/representation of the claimed mathematical formula (for example, as in the manner of Claim 2), Claim 1 is therefore rendered particularly indefinite because it is unclear how dispersibility of a conductive material is being evaluated/determined based on the mathematical formula (i.e. because the specifics of the mathematical formula are unclear, it is unclear how said mathematical formula evaluates dispersibility in the claimed manner).
Claims 3, 5-8 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 3 recites “an optional cross-section” inside of the electrode active material layer. Claim 3 is therefore rendered particularly indefinite insofar as it is unclear what differentiates a cross-section from an “optional” cross-section, and unclear if the use of “optional” implies that the cross-section inside of the electrode active material layer is somehow not necessarily required.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the resistance distribution." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the calculated values." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 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.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the electrode surface." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 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.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the surface of the sample of cross-section." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 7-8 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 7 recites the limitation "the resistance value data." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the ingredients." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the sample of electrode cross-section." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the minimum value." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the conductive material peak." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the electrode active material peak." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 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.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the portion." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the current collector." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 4, 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Konishi et al. (US 2020/0075937).
Regarding Claim 1, Konishi teaches a method for evaluating the aggregation (i.e. dispersibility) of a graphene in an electrode of a secondary battery comprising an active material mixture layer comprising a secondary battery active material and the graphene (Abstract, [0046], [0050]-[0060]). As illustrated in Figures 1-3, Konishi teaches that the method comprises calculating a mathematical formula defined, at least in part, by circumference and area parameters of a portion of a cross-section of the active material mixture layer that functions as a conductive material zone inside of the active material mixture layer, wherein the degree of aggregation of graphene is determined, at least in part, based on the mathematical formula ([0050]-[0060]).
Regarding Claim 4, Konishi teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
Konishi teaches that the active material mixture layer is formed on a surface of a current collector ([0064]-[0065], [0120]).
Regarding Claim 9, Konishi teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
Konishi teaches that the electrode comprises the active material mixture layer formed on a surface of a current collector, wherein the active material mixture layer comprises an electrode active material, the graphene, and a binder ([0046], [0064]-[0065], [0120]).
Regarding Claim 10, Konishi teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
Furthermore, and based on the perspective illustrated in Figures 1 and 3, the cross-section is parallel to a portion where the active material mixture layer faces a current collector on which the active material mixture layer is formed (i.e. parallel to the plane where the active material mixture layer is formed on the current collector ([0050]-[0060]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-3, 5-8 are 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 rewritten to overcome all applicable objections as previously described and rejections under 35 USC 112(b) as previously described.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 2 (Claims 3, 5-8 each depend, ultimately, from Claim 2) further limits the method of Claim 1 by defining the mathematical formula as a conductive dispersibility Index 1 or Index 2, wherein Index 1 and Index 2 are defined in the instantly claimed manner.
The closest prior art reference of record relevant to at least independent Claim 2 is Konishi, as previously described. Although Konishi discloses calculating a mathematical formula defined, at least in part, by circumference and area parameters of a portion of a cross-section of the active material mixture layer that functions as a conductive material zone inside of the active material mixture layer, Konishi neither teaches nor suggests that the mathematical formula is defined so as to be in accordance with the definitions of dispersibility Index 1 or Index 2.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW W VAN OUDENAREN whose telephone number is (571)270-7595. The examiner can normally be reached 7AM-3PM 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, Matthew Martin can be reached at 5712707871. 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.
/MATTHEW W VAN OUDENAREN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Prosecution Insights