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 .
Priority
This application is a 371 of PCT/EP2023/055432 (filed 03/03/23), which application claims priority to LU102918 (filed 03/04/22).
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Amendment(s)
The Preliminary Amendment filed 04/11/25 is entered. Claims 1-15 are pending.
The Substitute Specification filed 04/11/25 is entered.
Drawings
The Drawings filed 08/26/24 are approved by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-12) in the Reply filed 06/08/26 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS statement filed 08/26/24 has been considered. An initialed copy accompanies this action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 12 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.
The phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. Also, the terminology “…the binder solutions acrylates” does not have antecedent basis in the independent claim. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For examination purposes, the examiner construes the specified Markush components as “further comprising” in addition to those specified in the independent claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 and/or 103
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed 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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hawley et al (Electrochimica Acta 2021).
Hawley et al (Electrochimica Acta 2021) discloses aqueous processing for NCA-based lithium-ion cathodes (Abstract). The reference discloses a paste/slurry composition comprising NCA (LiNi.8Co.15Al.05O2), PAA/H20, CMC thickener, and fluorine acrylic latex binder (Section 2.1; Table 1; Table 2). The reference does not contain PVDF (instant claims 3-4). The reference discloses several examples with pH from 9.0 to 10.25 (Fig 4). "[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) (citing In re Petering, 301 F.2d 676, 682, 133 USPQ 275, 280 (CCPA 1962)) (emphasis in original) (Claims to titanium (Ti) alloy with 0.6-0.9% nickel (Ni) and 0.2-0.4% molybdenum (Mo) were held anticipated by a graph in a Russian article on Ti-Mo-Ni alloys because the graph contained an actual data point corresponding to a Ti alloy containing 0.25% Mo and 0.75% Ni and this composition was within the claimed range of compositions.). "If the prior art discloses a point within the claimed range, the prior art anticipates the claim." UCB, Inc. v. Actavis Labs. UT, Inc., 65 F.4th 679, 687, 2023 USPQ2d 448 (Fed. Cir. 2023).
The reference anticipates each of the above listed claims.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7, 9 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kukay et al (JCIS 2021).
Kukay discloses aqueous Ni-rich cathode dispersions (Abstract). The reference discloses a paste/slurry composition comprising NMC811 (LiNi.8Mn.1Co.1O2), CMC/acrylic emulsion binder and 0.5-1.5 wt% phosphoric acid (Section 2.1; Table 1; Table 2). The reference does not contain PVDF (instant claims 3-4). The reference discloses several examples with pH from 9.0 to 10.0 (Fig 5). "[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) (citing In re Petering, 301 F.2d 676, 682, 133 USPQ 275, 280 (CCPA 1962)) (emphasis in original) (Claims to titanium (Ti) alloy with 0.6-0.9% nickel (Ni) and 0.2-0.4% molybdenum (Mo) were held anticipated by a graph in a Russian article on Ti-Mo-Ni alloys because the graph contained an actual data point corresponding to a Ti alloy containing 0.25% Mo and 0.75% Ni and this composition was within the claimed range of compositions.). "If the prior art discloses a point within the claimed range, the prior art anticipates the claim." UCB, Inc. v. Actavis Labs. UT, Inc., 65 F.4th 679, 687, 2023 USPQ2d 448 (Fed. Cir. 2023).
The reference anticipates each of the above listed claims.
Claim(s) 1-4, 9, 10 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Peda et al (JPS 2020).
Peda discloses surface modified water-borne cathode slurries (Abstract). The reference discloses a paste/slurry composition comprising phosphoric-acid modified NMC811 (LiNi.8Mn.1Co.1O2), PAA/PAN latex emulsion binder and 0.5-1.5 wt% phosphoric acid (Section 2.1). The reference does not contain PVDF (instant claims 3-4). The reference discloses pH from 10.0-12.o (Section 4). "[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) (citing In re Petering, 301 F.2d 676, 682, 133 USPQ 275, 280 (CCPA 1962)) (emphasis in original) (Claims to titanium (Ti) alloy with 0.6-0.9% nickel (Ni) and 0.2-0.4% molybdenum (Mo) were held anticipated by a graph in a Russian article on Ti-Mo-Ni alloys because the graph contained an actual data point corresponding to a Ti alloy containing 0.25% Mo and 0.75% Ni and this composition was within the claimed range of compositions.). "If the prior art discloses a point within the claimed range, the prior art anticipates the claim." UCB, Inc. v. Actavis Labs. UT, Inc., 65 F.4th 679, 687, 2023 USPQ2d 448 (Fed. Cir. 2023).
The reference anticipates each of the above listed claims.
Claim(s) 5, 6, 8, 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over any of Hawley et al (Electrochimica Acta 2021), Kukay et al (JCIS 2021), or Peda et al (JPS 2020), either alone or in view of Radloff et al (JECS 2021) or US 11,569,494.
Each of Hawley et al (Electrochimica Acta 2021), Kukay et al (JCIS 2021), and Peda et al (JPS 2020) are relied upon as set forth above.
With respect to dependent claim 11, the examiner submits that the skilled artisan would have to utilize only routine testing in order to determine the suitable solids% of the slurry as such a variable is well known in the art to tailor processing properties. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). With respect to dependent claims 5-6, the examiner respectfully submits the addition of small amount of PVDF to aqueous slurry electrode compositions is well-know in the art to tailor adhesion and dispersion properties. US 11,569,494 is cited as additional evidence of such (see Column 16, Table 2). With respect to dependent claim 8, the examiner submits that the use of SBR would have been obvious to the skilled artisan as such is a known binder for water-borne electrode slurries. Radloff et al (JECS 2021) is cited as additional evidence of such (see Abstract; examples).
In view of the foregoing, the above claims have failed to patentably distinguish over the applied art.
The remaining references listed on forms 892 and 1449 have been reviewed by the examiner and are considered to be cumulative to or less material than the prior art references relied upon in the rejection above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK T KOPEC whose telephone number is (571)272-1319. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00a-5:00p 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 5712707733. 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.
/MARK KOPEC/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1762
MK
June 25, 2026
Prosecution Insights