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 .
Continuing Data
This application is a DIV of S.N. 18/181,470 (filed 03/09/23, now US 12,374,692), which application is a CON of 17/227,110 (filed 04/09/21, now US 11,637,289), which application is a DIV of S.N. 16/176,987 (filed 10/31/18, now ABN), which application claims priority to US 62/580,931 (filed 11/02/17).
Applicant should update the CON data at page 1 of the instant specification to reflect the above current data.
Amendment(s)
The Preliminary Amendment 05/26/26 is entered.
Claims 1-23 are pending.
Drawings
The Drawings filed 06/30/25 are approved by the examiner.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS statement filed 07/01/25 has been considered. An initialed copy accompanies this action.
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892 or by applicant on PTO-1449, they have not been considered.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-18) in the Reply filed 05/26/26 is acknowledged.
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 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-11, 15-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over US 2011/0045350.
US ‘350 discloses mesoporous electrode materials (Abstract). The formed polymer films are free standing (example 8) and contain PTFE polymer (5 wt%) and active material including MnO2 having D50 values within the claimed range (Table 1) (example 8).
The examiner notes that the instant claims recite “…substantially free of solvent residue”. The examiner does not dispute that US ‘350 discloses wet-cast methods (i.e. slurry paste). However, the examiner respectfully maintains that the free standing films produced from such a method meet the instant requirements. Specifically, according to the definition(s) provided in the instant specification, the claimed films may contain up to approximately 10% residual solvent. Instant para 0104 (emphasis added):
Language of degree used herein, such as the terms "approximately," "about," "generally," and "substantially" as used herein represent a value, amount, or characteristic close to the stated value, amount, or characteristic that still performs a desired function or achieves a desired result. For example, the terms "approximately", "about", "generally," and "substantially" may refer to an amount that is within less than 10% of, within less than 5% of, within less than 1% of, within less than 0.1% of, and within less than 0.01% of the stated amount, depending on the desired function or desired result.
Accordingly, any small amount of residual solvent would fall within the instantly claimed range. Furthermore, the reference clearly teaches solvent removal via die press and drying under vacuum at 120°C to form a final “dry composition” (Example 8. The examiner maintains that such a process would remove practically all residual solvent therefore meeting the claim limitations.
While the reference does not anticipate the claimed PTFE binder range of “about 1.5% to about 4% by mass”, the examiner submits that such would have been obvious in view of the reference teaching of 5% PTFE. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Also, the examiner respectfully submits that any additional minor modifications necessary to meet the claimed limitations, such as tailoring the free standing film to suitable tensile strength, are well within the purview of the skilled artisan.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-11, 13-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Duong et al 2017/0244098.
Duong discloses self-supporting films (i.e. free-standing) comprising (at least) PTFE binder and graphite particles (D50 1-20 microns) (0049; 0055; 0070-0072; 0096; 104).
With respect to the instantly claimed D50 values of the active material particles, the reference discloses a range which includes the claimed values. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of "about 1-5%" while the claim was limited to "more than 5%." The court held that "about 1-5%" allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.). Additionally, while the reference does not anticipate the claimed PTFE binder range of “about 1.5% to about 4% by mass”, the examiner submits that such would have been obvious in view of the reference teaching of 6% PTFE (calculated example 1). A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Also, the examiner respectfully submits that any additional minor modifications necessary to meet the claimed limitations, such as tailoring the free standing film to suitable tensile strength, are well within the purview of the skilled artisan.
Claim(s) 1-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duong et al US 10,741,843 B2, either alone or in view of US 2011/0223482 A1.
Duong discloses an energy storage device include a cathode and an anode, where at least one of the cathode and the anode are made of a polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) composite binder material inducing PTFE and at least one of polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF), a PVDF co-polymer, and poly(ethylene oxide) (PEO) (Abstract). The materials are in the form of free standing films (of fibrillar binder 1-20 wt$, 4-10 preferred), and may contain both conductive carbon additive and a second active material such as lithium sulfide (Column 6, lines 45-55; Column 9, lines 45-55; Column 10, lines 10-20). Although the reference does not specify a particle size range for the active materials, the reference discloses (examples1-4) G5 graphite, Super P carbon black, and Umicore NMC powder, each of which are known to possess particle sizes within the claimed micron ranges (at least 6 microns and least 9.5 microns). Accordingly, the examiner submits that the skilled artisan would have to utilize only routine experimentation in order to determine the suitable D50 values in order to tailor both processing and resultant electrical properties. Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[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). Additionally, Any minor modifications necessary to meet the claimed limitations, such as tailoring the free standing film to suitable tensile strength, are well within the purview of the skilled artisan.
With respect to dependent claim 12, the examiner submits that the use of surface-treated active materials, such as those including functionalized morphology or those containing shell layers, are well known in the art, and the skilled artisan would have found the use of such an obvious choice.
US 2011/0223482 A1 is cited as additional evidence that NMC powders having particle size within the instant claims are known in the art (para 0107), as is the use of surface treatment (para 0131).
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
August 10, 2026
Prosecution Insights