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 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.
The term “substantially” in claims 2, 3, and 17 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Regarding claims 2 and 3, the specification does not clarify what percent or portion of the PTFE powder is required to be unfibrillated for the whole sample to be considered “substantially unfibrillated”. Likewise, regarding claim 17, the specification does not clarify how little water is enough to be considered “substantially no water”.
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.
Claims 1 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2004046001 A2 (hereinafter Wormser) in view of US 8072734 B2 (hereinafter Zhong).
Regarding claim 1, Wormser discloses a method for handling powder, the method comprising: receiving powder into a hopper having a conical section (Fig. 1, No. 2); reducing a sticking force (1) between an inner surface of the conical section of the hopper and the PTFE powder, (2) among particles of the PTFE powder, or both (Fig. 24A, No 256); discharging the PTFE powder from an outlet located near a base of the conical section of the hopper into a transfer channel (Fig. 24A, No. 260); applying a pressure differential to the transfer channel to convey the PTFE powder in a dilute phase comprising a gas and the PTFE powder along the transfer channel (pg. 17, 5th full paragraph); and at an outlet of the transfer channel, separating the PTFE powder from the gas (Fig. 2, Nos. 14 and 18),
Zhong discloses in a method in which PTFE has a particle morphology that is sufficient for dry manufacturing of film battery electrodes (claims 19, 21, and 24). Zhong specifies that the powder to be handled can be polytetrafluoroethylene (claims, 15, 23, and 24)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Wormser with the method of Zhong. The motivation would be that since powders are regularly conveyed pneumatically, and polytetrafluoroethylene is often in powdered form, it would be obvious to use a powder conveying method to convey another powder.
Regarding claim 12, Wormser and Zhong disclose the method of claim 1. Wormser further discloses wherein reducing a sticking force between the inner surface of the hopper and the PTFE powder comprises aerating the inner surface of the hopper (Fig. 24A, No. 256, pg. 21, 1st full paragraph).
Regarding claim 13, Wormser and Zhong disclose the method of claim 12. Wormser further discloses aerating the inner surface of the hopper comprises flowing an aeration gas between an outer wall of the conical section of the hopper and a porous inner wall of the conical section of the hopper (Fig. 24A, No. 256, pg. 21, 1st full paragraph).
Regarding claim 14, Wormser and Zhong disclose the method of claim 13. Wormser further discloses the porous inner wall of the conical section extends from the outlet of the conical section to a position along the inner wall of the conical section where a diameter of the conical section is at least 75% of a maximum diameter of the conical section (Fig. 24A, No. 256).
Regarding claim 17, Wormser and Zhong disclose the method of claim 13. Wormser further discloses that the aeration gas contains substantially no water (pg. 21, 1st full paragraph). Air is supplied to the fluidizing pad, and atmospheric air has a very small amount of water.
Regarding claim 27, Wormser and Zhong disclose the method of claim 1. Wormser further discloses reducing a sticking force between the inner surface of the hopper and the PTFE power comprises injecting a gas into the PTFE powder in the hopper (Fig. 24A, No. 256, pg. 21, 1st full paragraph).
Regarding claim 28, Wormser and Zhong disclose the method of claim 1. Wormser further discloses applying a pressure differential to the transfer channel comprises applying a suction to the pressure channel (Fig. 2, No. 20).
Regarding claim 29, Wormser and Zhong disclose the method of claim 1. Wormser further discloses applying a pressure differential to the transfer channel comprises applying a positive pressure to the pressure channel (Fig.1 No. 8).
Regarding claim 44, Wormser and Zhong disclose the method of claim 1. Wormser further discloses that separating the PTFE powder from the gas comprises: separating the PTFE powder from the gas in a separator (Fig 2, No. 14); and flowing the PTFE powder through a discharge valve at an outlet of the separator (Fig. 2 No. 6).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-7, 10, 15, 16, 18-23, 25, 26, 30-42, 46-50 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMARI JADAN MEDDLING whose telephone number is (571)272-8178. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Gene Crawford can be reached at 5712726911. 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.
/GENE O CRAWFORD/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3651
Prosecution Insights