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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 09/19/25 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Currently, the pending Claims are 1-2, 5-7, 9, 11, 13-14, 17, 20, 22-26, 28, 31, with Claims 11, 13-14, 17, 20, 22-26, 28, 31 being withdrawn from consideration. The examined Claims are 1-2, 5-7, 9, with Claim 1 being amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant has mainly (1) amended Claim 1 to explicitly require that there is no binder in the composite, and (2) amended Claim 1 to require that the composite remains crack free at a thickness of, explicitly, between 1000 µm to 2000 µm.
Applicant presents arguments versus the prior art rejections of record (Pages 7-11 of Remarks).
While Applicant’s arguments are acknowledged, they are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection presented below as necessitated by Applicant’s amendments to the Claims. All previous prior art rejections of record are hereby withdrawn.
Furthermore, Applicant’s explanation/definition of “segregated network” as instantly claimed is acknowledged. Applicant notes (emphasis added) that the Specification as filed (Page 9 lines 11-35) defines “segregated network” as where “…dispersed CNTs [carbon nanotubes] (or metallic nanowires or a combination thereof) are being restricted to the space between the much larger active material particles in the composite. The segregated network spontaneously forms when the ratio of the length of the CNT (or metallic nanowires or combination thereof; for example ~1 µm) to the active material particles in the composite (such as micro-silicon >1 µm) is in the order of 1:1” (Page 8 of Remarks). Furthermore, Applicant notes (emphasis added) that as illustrated in Figure 1, the active material particle size (>1 µm) is larger than the nanotube length (~1 µm), which means that the excluded-volume associated with the particles drives the spontaneous formation of a segregated network, where, in this instance, the CNTs spontaneously form networked 2-dimensional membranes which wrap and interconnect the active material particles (Page 9 of Remarks).
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.
Claims 1-2, 5-7, 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smithyman et al. (US 2011/0111279).
Regarding Claim 1, Smithyman teaches a composite for use as an electrode (Abstract, [0018]). Smithyman teaches that the composite comprises a network of carbon nanotubes and a particulate active material, wherein the composite does not contain any binder or adhesive material therein ([0043]-[0046], [0053]-[0055]).
Smithyman does not explicitly teach that the composite remains crack free at a thickness within the instantly claimed range. Furthermore, Smithyman does not explicitly teach that the network of carbon nanotubes are spontaneously formed as a segregated network of carbon nanotubes, wherein the ratio of a length of the carbon nanotubes and the particulate active material is at most 1:1.
However, it is first noted that based on the language of Claim 1, while the composite is required to remain crack free at a thickness within the instantly claimed range (i.e. 1000-2000 µm), the composite is not required to exhibit any particular thickness whatsoever, let alone a thickness within the instantly claimed range. Instead, said crack free characteristic is a consequence of the structure of the instantly claimed composite.
Furthermore, Applicant’s Specification as filed (emphasis added) defines (See Page 9 lines 11-35) “segregated network” as where “…dispersed CNTs [carbon nanotubes] (or metallic nanowires or a combination thereof) are being restricted to the space between the much larger active material particles in the composite. The segregated network spontaneously forms when the ratio of the length of the CNT (or metallic nanowires or combination thereof; for example ~1 µm) to the active material particles in the composite (such as micro-silicon >1 µm) is in the order of 1:1.” Furthermore, and as illustrated in Figure 1, the active material particle size (>1 µm) is larger than the nanotube length (~1 µm), which means that the excluded-volume associated with the particles drives the spontaneous formation of a segregated network, where, in this instance, the CNTs spontaneously form networked 2-dimensional membranes which wrap and interconnect the active material particles.
Finally, Smithyman teaches that the composite exhibits a thickness within the range of 10-500 µm, wherein Smithyman teaches that a particular thickness of the composite within said range may be selected based on a desired amount of overall surface for ion adsorption, or a desired ratio of active material between two electrodes ([0045]). Smithyman teaches that the carbon nanotubes have a large aspect ratio and a length of >1 µm ([0051]). In a specific embodiment, Smithyman teaches that the carbon nanotubes have an average diameter of 0.71-1.31 nm and an aspect ratio of 1000 (therefore, said carbon nanotubes have a length within the range of 710-1310 nm, or 0.71-1.31 µm) ([0099]). Smithyman teaches that the particulate active material exhibits a size within the range of 1-100 µm (or, in particular, 1-20 µm) ([0055], [0099]).
Therefore, a ratio of the length of the carbon nanotubes in Smithyman (i.e. a length of >1 µm or more specifically a length of 0.71-1.31 µm) to the particulate active material (i.e. a length of 1-100 µm or more specifically a length of 1-20 µm) is, for example, “at most 1:1.” In the case where the claimed range(s) “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (See MPEP 2144.05 (I)). Furthermore, and in accordance with the Specification as filed, the composite of Smithyman is interpreted as comprising a “spontaneously formed segregated network of carbon nanotubes” under all instances where said ratio of lengths is “at most 1:1.” Finally, the composite of Smithyman is interpreted as being “crack free” at a thickness of 1000-2000 µm given that said characteristic is a consequence of the structure of the instantly claimed composite, and the composite of Smithyman meets all of the structural limitations of the instantly claimed composite. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255,195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). “When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir.1990).
Regarding Claim 2, Smithyman teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
Smithyman does not explicitly teach that the carbon nanotubes form a continuous two-dimensional membrane which wraps around the particulate active material and acts as a scaffold to hold the particulate active material in place to form the segregated network.
As previously described (See Claim 1), Applicant’s Specification as filed (emphasis added) defines (See Page 9 lines 11-35) “segregated network” as where “…dispersed CNTs [carbon nanotubes] (or metallic nanowires or a combination thereof) are being restricted to the space between the much larger active material particles in the composite. The segregated network spontaneously forms when the ratio of the length of the CNT (or metallic nanowires or combination thereof; for example ~1 µm) to the active material particles in the composite (such as micro-silicon >1 µm) is in the order of 1:1.” Furthermore, and as illustrated in Figure 1, the active material particle size (>1 µm) is larger than the nanotube length (~1 µm), which means that the excluded-volume associated with the particles drives the spontaneous formation of a segregated network, where, in this instance, the CNTs spontaneously form networked 2-dimensional membranes which wrap and interconnect the active material particles.
Furthermore, and as also previously described (See Claim 1), Smithyman teaches that the composite exhibits a thickness within the range of 10-500 µm, wherein Smithyman teaches that a particular thickness of the composite within said range may be selected based on a desired amount of overall surface for ion adsorption, or a desired ratio of active material between two electrodes ([0045]). Smithyman teaches that the carbon nanotubes have a large aspect ratio and a length of >1 µm ([0051]). In a specific embodiment, Smithyman teaches that the carbon nanotubes have an average diameter of 0.71-1.31 nm and an aspect ratio of 1000 (therefore, said carbon nanotubes have a length within the range of 710-1310 nm, or 0.71-1.31 µm) ([0099]). Smithyman teaches that the particulate active material exhibits a size within the range of 1-100 µm (or, in particular, 1-20 µm) ([0055], [0099]). Smithyman also teaches that upon formation, the composite specifically forms a network of the carbon nanotubes surrounding or entrapping the particulate active material in place ([0084]).
Therefore, a ratio of the length of the carbon nanotubes in Smithyman (i.e. a length of >1 µm or more specifically a length of 0.71-1.31 µm) to the particulate active material (i.e. a length of 1-100 µm or more specifically a length of 1-20 µm) is, for example, at most 1:1. In the case where the claimed range(s) “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (See MPEP 2144.05 (I)). Furthermore, and in accordance with the Specification as filed, the carbon nanotubes of Smithyman form a continuous two-dimensional membrane which wraps around the particulate active material and acts as a scaffold to hold the particulate active material in place to form the segregated network under all instances where said ratio of lengths is at most 1:1. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255,195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). “When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir.1990).
Regarding Claim 5, Smithyman teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
Smithyman teaches that the composite comprises about 5-99 wt%, about 5-90 wt%, or about 5-95 wt% of particulate active material (and therefore about 1-95 wt%, 10-95 wt%, or 5-95 wt% of the spontaneously formed segregated network of carbon nanotubes), wherein Smithyman further teaches that the relative amount of carbon nanotubes in the composite as compared to the relative amount of particulate active material in the composite consequently affects characteristics such as electrical conductivity, surface area, and ratio of active material with another electrode ([0063]). In the case where the claimed range(s) “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (See MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Regarding Claim 6, Smithyman teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
While Claim 6 puts forth further limitations on the metallic nanowires, neither Claim 1 nor Claim 6 require the presence of the metallic nanowires in the composite.
Therefore, Smthyman is considered to meet the required limitations of Claim 6.
Regarding Claim 7, Smithyman teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
Smithyman teaches that the particulate active material is selected from, for example, micron-sized silicon powder, lithium, sulfur, lithium cobalt oxide, lithium iron phosphate, and chalcogenides ([0054]-[0055], [0057]-[0060]).
Regarding Claim 9, Smithyman teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
Smithyman teaches that the composite comprises about 5-99 wt%, about 5-90 wt%, or about 5-95 wt% of particulate active material (with the balance being essentially or entirely carbon nanotubes) wherein Smithyman further teaches that the relative amount of carbon nanotubes in the composite as compared to the relative amount of particulate active material in the composite consequently affects characteristics such as electrical conductivity, surface area, and ratio of active material with another electrode ([0063]). In the case where the claimed range(s) “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (See MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW W VAN OUDENAREN whose telephone number is (571)270-7595. The examiner can normally be reached 7AM-3PM EST M-F.
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, Matthew Martin can be reached at 5712707871. 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.
/MATTHEW W VAN OUDENAREN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1728