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 .
Status of Application
Claims 1-4 are pending and presented for examination.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
1. Claims 1 and 4 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 4 of copending Application No. 19/396032 in view of Yamasaki et al. (U.S. PGPUB No. 2016/0233553). Claims 1 and 4 of Application No. 19/396032 teach an identical process except for failing to teach the slurry including an anode active material. However, Yamasaki teaches forming layers for batteries by mixing all of a solid electrolyte, a conductive additive, a binder, a solvent and anode active material (0052). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify claims 1 and 4 of Application No. 19/396032 by including an anode active material thereby allowing for formation of secondary batteries.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
2. Claims 1 and 4 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 5 of copending Application No. 19/293841 in view of Yamasaki. Claims 1 and 5 of Application No. 19/293841 teach an identical process to that claimed but teach a cathode active material instead of an anode active material. However, Yamasaki teaches that anodes of batteries can be made by mixing anode active material, solid electrolyte, conductive additive, binder and a solvent (0052). Therefore, it would have been obvious to substitute an anode active material for the cathode active material to allow for the process to be applicable to formation of the anode layer of a battery.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
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.
3. Claims 1-4 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 1 recites the limitation "applying the anode slurry that has been determined to be acceptable". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no initial recitation of a step of determining the slurry is acceptable or what would be considered an acceptable slurry. Therefore, claim 1 is indefinite. For examination purposes, the claim has been interpreted as “applying the anode slurry after the step of determining the quality of the coating film”. Claims 2-4 depend from claim 1 and are indefinite for the same reasons.
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.
4. Claim(s) 1 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamasaki et al. (U.S. PGPUB No. 2016/0233553) in view of Kume et al. (U.S. PGPUB No. 2025/0239613).
Regarding claims 1 and 4, Yamasaki teaches a method of making an anode active material layer (0015) for a secondary battery (abstract and 0002) comprising: a step of preparing an anode slurry by mixing an anode active material, a solid electrolyte, a conductive additive, a binder and a solvent (0052) and a step of applying the acceptable slurry to form a layer with a thickness of 1-100 microns (0052). Yamasaki fails to teach a step of obtaining a parameter of the anode slurry using a dynamic viscoelasticity measuring device and a step of determining quality of a coating film based on the obtained parameter.
However, Kume teaches providing an anode slurry composition and then obtaining a parameter of the slurry using a rheometer (a type of dynamic viscoelasticity measuring device, see 0229) and then determining the quality of coating based upon the obtained parameter (0229 and 0232). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yamasaki’s process by additionally including a step of measuring the anode slurry using a rheometer and then determining the quality of the coating. One would have been motivated to make this modification to ensure that Yaasaki’s anode slurry composition is in an optimal range for providing a quality coating prior to depositing the slurry and/or allowing for adjustment of the slurry prior to coating to ensure optimal properties.
5. Claim(s) 2 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamasaki in view of Kume as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Park et al. (“Complex rheological response of Li-ion battery anode slurries”).
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Yamasaki in view of Kume make obvious claim 1, but fail to explicitly teach the parameter that is measured is obtained by a strain sweep measurement where the measurement is a storage elastic modulus and a loss elastic modulus in a range of strain amounts as claimed.
However, Park teaches a step of obtaining a parameter of an anode slurry (abstract) obtained by a strain sweep measurement which is a measurement of a storage elastic modulus and a loss elastic modulus (see Section 3.1 and Figure 2a) in a range of 0.1-2000% which overlaps with the claimed range (Section 3.1, and note that overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness). Park further teaches that the results of the measurement can be correlated to coating quality (see Introduction). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yamasaki in view of Kume’s process by performing a strain sweep measurement as disclosed by Park. One would have been motivated to make this modification to get further data about the anode slurry to guarantee that it has optimal properties prior to deposition and/or allow for adjusting prior to coating to provide optimized electrodes.
Conclusion
Claims 1-4 are pending.
Claims 1-4 are rejected.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT S WALTERS JR whose telephone number is (571)270-5351. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached at 571-272-1295. 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.
/ROBERT S WALTERS JR/
June 29, 2026Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights