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 .
This action is responsive to amendments filed on 3/13/2026.
Claims 1-6, 8-13, 16-19 are pending. Claim 19 is new. Claims 1 and 8 are amended.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-13, and 16-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2020/173821 (WO ‘821) in view of WO 2022/080206 citing US 2023/0383135 (US ‘135) as a English translation.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to 103 rejections, Applicants contend the secondary reference used in the rejection does not teach the use of and amount of amine compound in conjunction with the specific combination of the first and second polymers as required by amended Claim 1.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes the US ‘135 discloses the amine compound is suggested at 5 wt % or greater in the entire electrode paste/slurry (para. 0072) and the slurry contains additional components such as binder polymer (Table 6).
Therefore the Examiner concludes that one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably directed to investigate the addition of the amine to the related art of electrode pastes in WO ‘821 for the advantages stated in the US ‘135 reference which otherwise discloses the same amounts and types of first and second polymers required by Claim 1.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-13, and 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2020/173821 (WO ‘821) in view of WO 2022/080206 citing US 2023/0383135 (US ‘135) as a English translation.
As to Claim 1, WO ‘821 discloses a composition comprised of two polymers wherein one polymer is a comb polymer and the second polymer is a polyvinylpyrrolidone (i.e. a n-vinyl lactam) wherein the solids content of the polymers is 0.36 to 1.07 g of the total dispersions in examples (pgs. 14-15, Table 1) and the ratios between the two polymers range from 10:90 to 90:10 (pg. 5, line 20). The Examiner respectfully submits that the prior art inherently discloses the weight ranges of the first and second polymer discussed in Claim 1 of all the solids content in the material.
However, US ‘852 fails to disclose the presence of one amine having the specified molecular weight at the weight range required by Claim 1.
As to the difference US ‘135, in a similar art of dispersions used to make electrode materials (Abstract), discloses the use of aminoalcohol compounds (para. 0071) to reduce steric hindrance and improve dispersion of the conductive carbon materials in the electrode composition (para. 0069) at 2.3 to 43 mass % of the slurry (US ‘135, para. 0072).
It would have been obvious to incorporate at amine compound with the molecular weight required at the percentages required by Claim 1 for the advantages of improved carbon material dispersion in the electrode slurry per the teachings of the US ‘135 reference.
As to Claim 2, see discussion of Claim 1 above.
As to Claims 3-5, see discussion of Claim 1 above in regards to polyvinylpyrrolidone.
As to Claim 6, see discussion of Claim 1 above in regards to aminoalcohols.
As to Claim 7, see discussion of Claim 1 above in regards to the comb polymer.
As to Claim 8, the comb polymer can be comprised of a polymer backbone of styrene and maleic anhydride and side chains of polyalkylene oxide i.e. compounds containing ether groups (pg. 4, lines 12-20).
As to Claim 9, the comb polymer can contain carboxylic acid groups which are neutralized with bases (pg. 4, lines 26-28).
As to Claim 10, Table 1 illustrates examples containing samples containing approximately 98 % solvent.
However, the art does not disclose solvent content as required by the claim.
As to the difference, US ‘852 notes that solvent content is used to adjust the viscosity of the electrode paste (pg. 7, lines 23-24).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optimize the solvent content of US ‘852 through routine experimentation for best results, As to optimization results, a patent will not be granted based upon the optimization of result effective variables when the optimization is obtained through routine experimentation unless there is a showing of unexpected results which properly rebuts the prima facie case of obviousness. See In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272,276,205 USPQ 215,219 (CCPA 1980). See also In re Woodruff 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936-37 (Fed. Cir. 1990), and In re Aller, 220 F2d 454,456,105 USPQ 233,235 (CCPA 1955).
As to Claim 11, the solvent can be dimethylformamide (pg. 7, line 21).
As to Claim 12, the US ’852 composition contains electrically conductive carbon (para. 0035).
As to Claim 13, the material is carbon black (pg. 6, lines 10-14).
As to Claim 16, see discussion of claims above. The composition can further contain binder (pg. 7, lines 14-16). and cathode active material (pg. 8, lines 13-32).
As to Claim 17, shear forces are applied to composition above to create the electrode material (pg. 6, lines 15-23).
As to Claim 18, a process of making a battery electrode from the composition described in claim 1 above is disclosed (pg. 21, lines 5-20).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 19 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.
Specifically, none of the prior art discloses the composition of claim 1 wherein a first polymer requires a polysaccharide or a modified polysaccharide nor is there any teaching, suggestion or motivation to substitute or modify the prior art teachings to arrive at the claimed composition.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAISON P THOMAS whose telephone number is (571)272-8917. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 9:00 am-3:30 pm EST.
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, Robert Jones can be reached at (571) 270-7733. 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.
/J.P.T/Examiner, Art Unit 1762
/jt/ 4/22/2026
/MARK KOPEC/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1762
Prosecution Insights