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 8-15 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.
The term “flaky” in claim 8 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “flaky” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. What makes a particle flaky? Does it have to have a certain physical properties or characteristics for it to be considered flaky? The Examiner requests that the Applicant please clarify this term.
Claim 11 is indefinite because it is unclear what is meant by “wherein the organic solvent has a boiling point M of 150oC to 300oC, and the drying step is performed at a heating temperature of 20oC to MoC”. If the drying step is performed at a heating temperature, wouldn’t the heating temperature be a single value, not a range? If it is supposed to be a range, the language should be different. Furthermore, MoC does not appear to make sense because M is defined as being 150oC to 300oC. The “oC” after the M would not need to be present since it was already defined to be a oC.
The term “flaky” in claim 12 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “flaky” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. What makes a particle flaky? Does it have to have a certain physical properties or characteristics for it to be considered flaky? The Examiner requests that the Applicant please clarify this term.
The term “flaky” in claim 13 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “flaky” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. What makes a particle flaky? Does it have to have a certain physical properties or characteristics for it to be considered flaky? The Examiner requests that the Applicant please clarify this term.
Claim 15 is indefinite because it is unclear what is meant by “wherein the organic solvent has a boiling point M of 150oC to 300oC, and the drying step is performed at a heating temperature of 20oC to MoC”. If the drying step is performed at a heating temperature, wouldn’t the heating temperature be a single value, not a range? If it is supposed to be a range, the language should be different. Furthermore, MoC does not appear to make sense because M is defined as being 150oC to 300oC. The “oC” after the M would not need to be present since it was already defined to be a oC.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-15 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action. Prior art was not found that taught or suggested the method as claimed that included the paste, the drying step, a pressing step and a heating step as claimed
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIN B SAAD whose telephone number is (571)270-3634. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30a-6p.
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, Keith Walker can be reached at 571-272-3458. 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.
/ERIN B SAAD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735
Prosecution Insights