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
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 4/10/2025 and 2/27/2026 have been considered by the examiner. Initialed copies accompany this action.
Drawings
The Drawings filed 4/10/2025 are approved by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang et al (CN114479457). The machine translation is relied upon for the rejection purposes.
Regarding claim 1, Wang discloses a liquid dispersion of fluoride particles, comprising: an organic solvent; fluoride particles dispersed in the organic solvent; and polyvinylidene fluoride (para 102-0104; 132-133).
Regarding claim 3, Wang discloses the liquid dispersion of fluoride particles according to claim 1, wherein a content of the fluoride particles is in a range of 1 mass% to 20 mass% with respect to a total mass of the líquid dispersion of fluoride particles (para 102-0104; 132-133).
Regarding claims 4-6, Wang discloses liquid dispersion of fluoride particles according to claim 1, wherein the fluoride particles include CaF2 and LaF3 (para 102-0104; 132-133).
Claims 1-5 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Onizuka et al (US20140329151).
Regarding claim 1, Onizuka discloses a paste comprising: an organic solvent; fluoride particles dispersed in the organic solvent; and polyvinylidene fluoride (para 0121-122 and Table 3).
Regarding claim 2, Onizuka discloses the paste according to claim 1, wherein a content of the polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) is in a range of 0.01 mass% to 3 mass% with respect to a total mass of the paste (para 0121-122 and Table 3).
Regarding claim 3, Onizuka discloses the paste according to claim 1, wherein a content of the fluoride particles is in a range of 1 mass% to 20 mass% with respect to a total mass of the paste (para 0121-122 and Table 3).
Regarding claims 4-5, Onizuka discloses the paste according to claim 1, wherein the fluoride particles include LiF (lithium fluoride, para 0121-122 and Table 3).
Regarding claim 8, Onizuka discloses the paste according to claim 1, wherein the organic solvent is N- methylpyrrolidone (para 0121-122 and Table 3).
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.
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 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al (CN114479457) in view of Chen et al. (Journal of Alloys and Compounds 817 (2020) 153075).
Wang discloses a liquid dispersion described above and is incorporated herein by reference. Wang does not disclose the liquid dispersion of fluoride particles according to claim 4, wherein the M²M³F₅ is BaLaF₅, BaCeF5, SrLaF5, or SrCeF5. Chen discloses BaCeF5 ceramic that has high mechanical strength, thermal stability, and radiation resistant (page 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filling date of the invention to use BaCeF5 as the fluoride particles in the liquid dispersion of Wang, to provide the dielectric composite material with good high-temperature stability, good high-temperature energy storage performance as well as good mechanical properties.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al (CN114479457).
Wang discloses a liquid dispersion described above. Wang discloses N- methylpyrrolidone can be used as the organic solvent in the dispersion (para 0090). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filling date of the invention to replace the N,N-dimethylformamide (DMF) with N- methylpyrrolidone in the dispersion of Wang, because one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to carry out such a substitution, and the results of obtaining a dispersion were reasonably predictable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAIDUNG D NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5455. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 10a-3p.
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, Angela Brown-Pettigrew can be reached at 571-272-2817. 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.
/HAIDUNG D NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761
9/14/2026
Prosecution Insights