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 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) 1-3,6-14,21 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2004/0029008 (US ‘008).
As to Claim 1, US ‘008 discloses a cathode material that is comprised of gellable polymer that is comprised of a blend of PVDF-HFP and PMMA at weight ratios including 1:1 (para. 0039), an electrolyte salt solution comprised of organic solvents and lithium salts (para. 0042-0043), and a electrochemically active material (para. 0045,0047). The Examiner notes that due to mixture of two separate polymers, the blend would have solubilities where one polymer is higher than the other polymer. The Examiner further notes that a gel matrix would be present due to similarity of the polymers and solvents used in the instant claims to those of the prior art.
However, US ‘008 fails to disclose the specific volume ratios as required by the claim.
As to the difference, US ‘008 notes that varying blends of the polymers will improve the adhesion of the composite material to different substrates (para. 0039). The Examiner further notes that weight ratios and volume ratios are related through a physical constant of density depending on the resins selected.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the polymer volume ratios to the claimed levels as the reference suggests modification of the weight ratios to achieve improved adhesion and the conversion between weight ratios and volume ratios is a simple conversion.
As to Claims 2 and 3, see discussion of Claim 1 above.
As to Claims 6 and 7, US ‘008 discloses cathode active material including lithium transition metal oxides (para. 0047).
As to Claims 8 and 9, the conductive additive can be carbon black (para. 0048).
As to Claim 10, US ‘008 fails to specifically disclose the carbon black being present 0.2 to 2.5 wt %.
As to the difference, US ‘008 discloses an example where carbon black is present at 4 wt % (para. 0091).
A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties, see Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778F.2d 775,227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2144.051.
As to Claims 11 and 12, solvents include ethylene carbonate which is linear and other species including cyclic species (para. 0042).
As to Claim 13, the salts can include LiBF4 (para. 0043).
As to Claim 14, US ‘008 discloses an example where the salt is present at 8.9 % of the solvent amount (para. 0091).
However, the reference fails to specifically disclose the 10 to 30 wt % range.
A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties, see Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778F.2d 775,227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2144.051.
As to Claims 21 and 25, see discussion of Claim 1. The composition is formed into films on current collectors and electrodes are formed (para. 0095, 0102).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4,5 and 15-18 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.
Specifically, none of the prior art discloses the volume content or volume ratios as required by the claims nor is there any teaching, suggestion or motivation as to why one of ordinary skill in the art would arrive at the claimed limitations.
Conclusion
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/ 7/10/2026
/MARK KOPEC/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1762
Prosecution Insights