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 § 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 7,8,10 and 11 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 molded conductive resin composite” in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, the term is taken as -– conductive resin composite --.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "The conductive resin composite molding" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, the term is taken as – The conductive resin composite --.
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) 1,4-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0013146 (US ‘146) in view of US 20200185720 (US ‘720).
As to Claim 1, US ‘146 discloses composite carbon particles with graphite particles as a core (para. 0210) wherein the particles further contain a shell or coating that can comprise amorphous carbon (para. 0213). The reference notes the composite particles can have volume based average particle sizes of 1 to 50 microns (para. 0256-0260).
However, US ‘146 fails to disclose the specific mass ratio of graphite particles to amorphous carbon as required by the claim.
As to the difference, US ‘720, in the related art of disclosing composite particles comprising graphite cores and amorphous carbon the surface, discloses weight ratios of 1 to 20 parts amorphous carbon to 100 parts by weight of graphite. The references notes that this weight ratio results in maintenance of electrical conductivity and between the graphite and the amorphous carbon and suppression of swelling of the graphite improving the resulting composite particle performance for battery applications (para. 0042-0043).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optimize the mass ratio of amorphous carbon to graphite particles in the composite particle of US ‘146 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 4, see discussion of Claim 1 above.
As to Claim 5, US ‘146 discloses the composite particle blended with a polymer binder to make electrode sheet (para. 0525-0526).
As to Claim 6, US ‘146 discloses the composite particle present at 90-95 % by mass of the composition with the binder (para. 0533).
As to Claim 7, US ‘146 discloses an embodiment wherein the composition is pressed into a sheet form (para. 0568) which the Examiner construes as a molded form.
As to Claim 8, see Claim 7 discussion above.
As to Claim 9, the Examiner respectfully submits the prior art composition could serve as a separator as no additional structure for a “separator” is required by the instant claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10 and 11 would contain allowable subject matter pending resolution of the 112 issues raised above.
Specifically, none of the prior art discloses a composite conductive particle of Claim 1 in a process to create a molding with resin fiber or a fiber molding as required by Claims 10 or 11 nor is there any teaching, suggestion or motivation to modify the prior art to arrive at the claimed methods.
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/ 9/23/2026
/MARK KOPEC/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1762
