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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 January 27, 2026 has been entered.
Status of Application
Claims 11 and 22 are amended and claim 14 is cancelled, submitted on 1/27/2026. Claims 11, 13, 16-19 and 21-22 are presented for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
1. 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.
2. Claims 11, 13, 16-19, and 21-22 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 11, in Ln11-14 recites the limitation "wherein the electrode including the current collector and the active material layer has a density of 1.5 to 1.8 g/cm3.” The term “density” in claim 11 is unclear because it is not defined by the claim or by the text part of the specification of the instant application. The ordinary meaning of an electrode density value normally refers to the density of the active material excluding the current collector thus the ordinary meaning seems contrary to or inconsistent with the meaning of the recitation which defines the density value includes the current collector and the active material layer. Applicant is free to be his or her own lexicographer, a patentee or applicant may use terms in a manner contrary to or inconsistent with one or more of their ordinary meanings if the written description clearly redefines the terms and one of ordinary skill in the art would be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. However, it is unclear whether the density range in the claim includes the current collector or not. [MPEP 2173.05(a) (III)]. For examination purposes, the recitation is interpreted as a density referring to the electrode active material layer only, excluding the current collector.
Similar reason for rejection and claim interpretation apply to claims 13, 16-19, and 21 which are dependent from claim 1.
Claim 22, in Ln13-15 has exactly the same recitation as in claim 11 Ln11-14, same reason for rejection and claim interpretation apply to claim 22.
Further, Claim 11 in Ln8-9 recites “wherein the negative electrode active material comprises a carbon-based active material and a silicon-based active material”. Since “comprises is open-ended, the claim recitation broadly encompasses the scenarios that the active material exists as both a simple physical mixture of separate, discrete particles and as an integrated, pre-fused composite particle. However, the instant disclosure para[40] explicitly criticizes and disclaims “integrated” or “composite” materials, quote “in order to meet the productivity problem, the process of manufacturing an electrode (battery) using the previously established carbon-based active material should be used as it is if possible, and also, the silicon-based material should be based on a simple particle form having a micrometer order size rather than be highly shaped like a nanostructure or have a highly complexed form with other material. In addition, in order to meet life characteristics, poor cycle characteristics (life characteristics) in which a battery capacity is decreased to 30% or less at 50 cycles when silicon having a simple particle form is used as an active material should be improved.” It is therefore unclear to a person of ordinary skill in the art to determine the structural boundary of the claimed “active material” in view of the disclosure para[40]. For examination purposes, both a simple physical mixture of separate, discrete particles or as an integrated, pre-fused composite particle would be considered as reading on the recited negative electrode active material.
Similar reason for rejection and claim interpretation apply to claims 13, 16-19, and 21 which are dependent from claim 1.
Claim 22, in Ln8-12 has a similar issue regarding the structural boundary of the claimed negative active material as set forth above for claim 11 Ln8-9, and same reason for rejection and claim interpretation apply to claim 22.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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.
4. The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
5. 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.
6. Claims 11, 13, 16-18 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ueda (US 20150194668 A1) in view of Ren (US 20160211511 A1), further in view of Wang (CN 107302080 A) and Sheem (US 20040214085 A1).
Regarding claim 11, in light of the 112 (b) rejection above, Ueda discloses a secondary battery comprising an electrode in which an active material layer including a negative electrode active material of composite graphite particles containing Si particles embedded therein (step 2, [0341]), then coated with amorphous carbon (step3, [0343]), which anticipates “a point type conductive carbon material” and “the negative electrode active material is wrapped by the point type conductive carbon material uniformly coated on the negative electrode active material”, because the amorphous carbon coating corresponds to a point type conductive carbon material and the negative electrode active material comprises a carbon-based active material and a silicon-based active material. Ueda further discloses a binder ([0348]) and the active material layer is disposed on at least one surface of a current collector (copper foil, [0348]).
Ueda further discloses preferably vapor-growth-process carbon fibers, among other carbonaceous particles choices which differ in shape or property from the composite graphite particle should be further incorporated to obtain an active material for non-aqueous-secondary-battery negative electrode ([0290]), which renders obvious the claimed “a linear conductive carbon material” because the vapor-growth-process carbon fiber corresponds to a linear conductive carbon material.
While Ueda discloses the inevitable problem of shedding of metallic particle capable of alloying with Li from the graphite as a result of volume expansion due to charge/discharge, and conduction path breakage ([0026]), and a point type conductive carbon material, a linear conductive carbon material, as established above, Ueda does not explicitly disclose the point type conductive carbon material is coated with the linear conductive carbon material bound to the point type conductive carbon material.
Ren teaches the desire to effectively reduce the cycle expansion of the material while ensuring high capacity, and to increase cycle performance ([0007]) and a composite negative electrode with advantages of good electrical conductivity, high specific capacity, long cycle life, high initial charge-discharge efficiency and low cycle expansion ([0008]); and a carbon coating method of in a step (3) of the Example 3, that the negative electrode active material graphite/nano-silicon composite was added into a fusing machine with Acetylene being fed into the reaction process furnace to obtain nano-silicon/graphite composite material coated by amorphous carbon coating layer ([0063]), followed by a step (4), the nano-silicon graphite composite material coated by amorphous carbon was homogeneously mixed by nano-dispersion with carbon nanotubes to obtain final nano-silicon composite negative electrode material ([0064]), which inherently anticipates the claimed “a point type conductive carbon material, a linear conductive carbon material, and the negative electrode active material is wrapped by the point type conductive carbon material uniformly coated on the negative electrode active material, and the point type conductive carbon material is coated with the linear conductive carbon material bound to the point type conductive carbon material”, because Acetylene black made in step (3) ([0063]) is a point type carbon material, and carbon nanotubes in step (4) is a linear conductive carbon material.
It would have been obvious to adopt the coating method step (4) taught by Ren to incorporate the linear conductive carbon material of Ueda and thus arrive at the claimed “the point type conductive carbon material is coated with the linear conductive carbon material bound to the point type conductive carbon material” with a reasonable expectation to effectively reduce the cycle expansion of the material while ensuring high capacity, and to increase cycle performance.
Modified Ueda further discloses the negative electrode active material Examples 1 and 2 comprises 7.7 mass% and 12.5 µmass% of Si content, respectively (Table 1), both of which fall within the range of 5% to 30 % by weight as claimed “5 to 30 parts by weight of the silicon-based active material based on 100 parts by weight of the carbon-based active material”.
Modified Ueda further discloses the need of pressing the dried, coated negative electrode to increase the battery capacity per unit volume of the negative-electrode active-material layer and with a desired density range in order to prevent decreases both in battery capacity due to an increase in electrode thickness and in the amount of interstices among the particles resulting in reducing the quick charge/discharge characteristics due to the resultant decrease in the amount of the electrolytic solution held in the interstices and in the movability of alkali ions, e.g., lithium (Li) ions ([0304]), therefore, modified Ueda discloses the active material layer of the negative electrode is in a densified state.
Modified Ueda further discloses the density of the negative-electrode active material layer is preferably 1.3 g/cm3 or higher and more preferably 1.8 g/cm3 or less ([0304]), which includes a density value of 1.8 g/cm3, falling on the higher end value of the claimed range.
Modified Ueda does not explicitly disclose a compressibility is 10 to 40% based on the thickness change percentage of the active material layer before and after roll pressing process.
Wang teaches a similar concern of huge volume changes in charge and discharge process for silicon material causing a very short cycle life ([0004]), and a preparation method improves the preparation efficiency of silica- based negative electrode material and also significantly improves its load capacity and circulation life span ([0007]) via using carbon source to scatter nano silica-based material in the slurry stage ([0018]) and roll pressing after drying the electrode material to improve adhesion between nano silicon material, electrode material and conductive current collector ([0021]). Wang further teaches the roller pressing makes the electrode material thickness down to 20 µm from 30 µm, which is calculated to be a compressibility of 33.3% falling within the claimed compressibility range of 10 to 40%.
It would have been obvious to adjust the compressibility of the active material at taught by Wang and arrive at a value that falls within the claimed compressibility range of 10 to 40%, in order to solve the problem of shedding of metallic particle capable of alloying with Li from the graphite as a result of volume expansion due to charge/discharge, and conduction path breakage, as desired by Ueda.
While modified Ueda further mentions using a pore-forming material in order to mitigate the breakage of the composite graphite particle due to the expansion/contraction of the metallic particle (B) ([0229] and [0242]), modified Ueda does not explicitly mention a pore size of the micropores present in the active material layer is 1.5 to 10 µm.
Sheem teaches that the negative active material for rechargeable lithium battery including porous particles having a plurality of void therein can prevent pulverization of the porous particles, and the external volume of the porous particles is maintained by compressing the volume of the void when the volume is expanded during the process of intercalating lithium ions with Si ([0017]) and the non-aqueous electrolyte is impregnated within the voids when it is used as the negative active material for a lithium rechargeable battery ([0019]); and the voids having an average diameter of between 1 nm and 10 µm ([0009]), which overlappingly encompasses the claimed pore size range of 1.5 to 10 µm.
It would have been obvious to maintain the pore size of the modified Ueda within the overlapping portion (1.5 to 10 µm) between the Sheem taught range and the claimed range, by adjusting the pore-forming material in order to prevent pulverization of the porous particles and maintain the external volume of the porous particles during the process of intercalating lithium ions with Si, as taught by Sheem.
The equation 1 recitation in claim 11, a result of the micropores porosity measurement under a testing conditions outside of the claimed secondary battery setting, is considered as an inherent property of the electrode when activated by a formation process such as charge and discharge etc., with the claimed electrode with active material layer structure in a densified state, absent evidence to the contrary for secondary consideration.
In summary, since modified Ueda has included all the structural features of the claimed secondary battery comprising a negative electrode active material and an electrode made thereof, modified Ueda meets all the requirements of this claimed secondary battery.
Regarding claim 13, in light of the 112 (b) rejection above, modified Ueda discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. While modified Ueda has concern about increased resistance leading to a decrease in output ([0202]), modified Ueda does not explicitly disclose the electrode has an electrical resistivity of 0.05 Ω.cm or less.
Ren further teaches the nano-silicon composite negative electrode material further includes amorphous carbon coating layer and nano-conductive material coating layer on the surface of the graphite matrix ([0010]) with a variety of thickness range choices ranging from 5.0 to 1000.0 nm for the amorphous carbon coating layer ([0018 ]), and a variety of material choices for the nano-conductive material coating layer and a content of from 0.1 to 10.0 wt.% in the negative electrode material for nano-conductive material coating layer ([0019-0020]). Moreover, Ren teaches in Example 2 that the retention rate after 500 cycles is 98.5% ([0084] and Table 1). It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to reasonably expect that the claimed limitation “the electrode has an electrical resistivity of 0.05 Ω.cm or less” has necessarily and inherently been met by Ueda in view of Ren, because the retention rate after 500 cycles is as high as 98.5% and the foregoing broad ranges of conductive coating layers (thickness, materials and content in wt% in the negative electrode material).
Regarding claim 16, in light of the 112 (b) rejection above, modified Ueda discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Modified Ueda does not explicitly disclose the active material layer comprises 0.3 to 5 parts by weight of the point type conductive carbon material based on 100 parts by weight of the negative electrode active material.
Ren further teaches the amorphous carbon coating layer has a thickness of from 5.0 to 1000.0 nm, e.g. 5-50 nm, 10-150 nm, 150-500 nm, 440-950 nm, 500-800 nm and the like, preferably 10.0-500.0 nm, further preferably 50.0-200.0 nm ([0018]). Since Ren includes such a broad thickness range from 5.0 to 1000.0 nm for the amorphous coating layer that it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ueda in view of Ren and arrive at a value of the weight percentage of the point type conductive carbon material that would fall within the range of 0.3% to 5% based on the weight of the negative electrode active material with a reasonable expectation of success under routine optimization in order to achieve a balance between a good electrical conductivity and a high specific capacity of the obtained negative electrode.
Ren further teaches the nano-conductive material coating layer comprises carbon fiber among other choices with a content of from 0.1 to 10.0 wt.% in the negative electrode material, e.g., 0.3 wt.%, 0.9 wt.% ([0020]). It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ueda in view of Ren and thus arrive at a linear conductive carbon material weight percentage value that which falls within the range as claimed “the active material layer comprises 0.1 to 1.5 parts by weight of the linear conductive carbon material, based on 100 parts by weight of the negative electrode active material” because carbon fiber corresponds to the linear conductive carbon material of the instant claim.
Regarding claim 17, in light of the 112 (b) rejection above, modified Ueda discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. As established above in claim 11, Ueda has included amorphous carbon made with coal-based heavy oil in a burning furnace at 1,000° C for 1 hour in a nitrogen atmosphere (step3, [0343]). Modified Ueda further discloses the composite graphite particle may contain fine carbon particles from the standpoint of improving the electrical conductive properties ([0123]) and with examples including a fine coal powder, vapor-phrase carbon powder, carbon black, Ketjen Black ([0129]), which at least anticipates the claimed carbon black, ketjen black.
Regarding claims 18 and 21, in light of the 112 (b) rejection above, modified Ueda discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. While modified Ueda further discloses the d50 of the fine carbon particle is usually 0.01 – 10 µm, preferably 0.1 µm ([0125]), and the d50 of the average particle diameter of Example 1’s negative electrode active material is 20 µm (Table 1), which means the calculated particle size diameter ratio is 200, falling within the range of a diameter ratio of an average diameter (D50) of the negative electrode active material divided by an average diameter (D50) of the point type conductive carbon material is 50 to 300 (claim 18); and falling on the higher end value of the range 50 to 200 (claim 21).
Regarding claim 22, in light of the 112 (b) rejection above, Ueda discloses a secondary battery comprising an electrode in which an active material layer including a negative electrode active material of composite graphite particles containing Si particles embedded therein (step 2, [0341]), and then coated with amorphous carbon (step3, [0343]), which anticipates “a point type conductive carbon material” and “the negative electrode active material is wrapped by the point type conductive carbon material uniformly coated on the negative electrode active material”, because the amorphous carbon coating corresponds to a point type conductive carbon material and the negative electrode active material comprises a carbon-based active material (graphite) and a silicon-based active material (Si). Ueda further discloses a binder ([0348]) and the active material layer is disposed on at least one surface of a current collector (copper foil, [0348]).
Ueda further discloses preferably vapor-growth-process carbon fibers, among other carbonaceous particles choices which differ in shape or property from the composite graphite particle should be further incorporated to obtain an active material for non-aqueous-secondary-battery negative electrode ([0290]), which renders obvious the claimed “a linear conductive carbon material” because the vapor-growth-process carbon fiber corresponds to a linear conductive carbon material.
While Ueda discloses the inevitable problem of shedding of metallic particle capable of alloying with Li from the graphite as a result of volume expansion due to charge/discharge, and conduction path breakage ([0026]), and a point type conductive carbon material, a linear conductive carbon material, as established above, Ueda does not explicitly disclose the point type conductive carbon material is coated with the linear conductive carbon material bound to the point type conductive carbon material.
Ren teaches the desire to effectively reduce the cycle expansion of the material while ensuring high capacity, and to increase cycle performance ([0007]) and a composite negative electrode with advantages of good electrical conductivity, high specific capacity, long cycle life, high initial charge-discharge efficiency and low cycle expansion ([0008]); and a carbon coating method of in a step (3) of the Example 3, that the negative electrode active material graphite/nano-silicon composite was added into a fusing machine with Acetylene being fed into the reaction process furnace to obtain nano-silicon/graphite composite material coated by amorphous carbon coating layer ([0063]), followed by a step (4), the nano-silicon graphite composite material coated by amorphous carbon was homogeneously mixed by nano-dispersion with carbon nanotubes to obtain final nano-silicon composite negative electrode material ([0064]), which inherently anticipates the claimed “a point type conductive carbon material, a linear conductive carbon material, and the negative electrode active material is wrapped by the point type conductive carbon material uniformly coated on the negative electrode active material, and the point type conductive carbon material is coated with the linear conductive carbon material bound to the point type conductive carbon material”, because Acetylene black made in step (3) ([0063]) is a point type carbon material, and carbon nanotubes in step (4) is a linear conductive carbon material.
It would have been obvious to adopt the coating method step (4) taught by Ren to incorporate the linear conductive carbon material of Ueda and thus arrive at the claimed “the point type conductive carbon material is coated with the linear conductive carbon material bound to the point type conductive carbon material” with a reasonable expectation to effectively reduce the cycle expansion of the material while ensuring high capacity, and to increase cycle performance.
Modified Ueda further discloses the volume-average particle diameter (d50) in the composite graphite particle is usually 10 µm or less ([0092]) which falls within the range as claimed “the negative electrode active material comprises a carbon based active material having an average diameter (D50 ) of 5 to 20 µm”.
Modified Ueda further discloses the average particle diameter d50 for Examples 1-2 is 20 µm, and the silicon-based active material is embedded therein, and Si is used as the metallic particle in Examples 1 and 2 ([0339] and [0358]), and the metallic particle (B) in the composite graphite particle (C) is usually 0.03 µm or larger, and 10 µm or less to maintain a balance between reduced charge/discharge cycling and charge/discharge capacity ([0092]), which overlaps the D50 range as claimed “the silicon-based active material has an average diameter (D50) of 5 to 20 µm”. It would have been obvious for a skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a silicon active material that has an average diameter (D50) that falls within the overlapping portion (5 to 10 µm) of the taught range and the claimed range, and arrive at the claim limitation without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success in achieving a negative electrode having a balance of good charge/discharge cycling and charge/discharge capacity.
Modified Ueda further discloses the negative electrode active material Examples 1 and 2 comprises 7.7 mass% and 12.5 mass% of Si content, respectively (Table 1), both of which fall within the range of 5% to 30 % by weight as claimed “5 to 30 parts by weight of the silicon-based active material based on 100 parts by weight of the carbon-based active material”.
Modified Ueda further discloses the need of pressing the dried, coated negative electrode to increase the battery capacity per unit volume of the negative-electrode active-material layer and with a desired density range in order to prevent decreases both in battery capacity due to an increase in electrode thickness and in the amount of interstices among the particles resulting in reducing the quick charge/discharge characteristics due to the resultant decrease in the amount of the electrolytic solution held in the interstices and in the movability of alkali ions, e.g., lithium (Li) ions ([0304]), therefore, modified Ueda discloses the active material layer of the negative electrode is in a densified state.
Modified Ueda further discloses the density of the negative-electrode active material layer is preferably 1.3 g/cm3 or higher and more preferably 1.8 g/cm3 or less ([0304]), which includes a density value of 1.8 g/cm3, falling on the higher end value of the claimed range.
Modified Ueda does not explicitly disclose a compressibility is 10 to 40% based on the thickness change percentage of the active material layer before and after roll pressing process.
Wang teaches a similar concern of huge volume changes in charge and discharge process for silicon material causing a very short cycle life ([0004]), and a preparation method improves the preparation efficiency of silica- based negative electrode material and also significantly improves its load capacity and circulation life span ([0007]) via using carbon source to scatter nano silica-based material in the slurry stage ([0018]) and roll pressing after drying the electrode material to improve adhesion between nano silicon material, electrode material and conductive current collector ([0021]). Wang further teaches the roller pressing makes the electrode material thickness down to 20 µm from 30 µm, which is calculated to be a compressibility of 33.3% falling within the claimed compressibility range of 10 to 40%.
It would have been obvious to adjust the compressibility of the active material at taught by Wang and arrive at a value that falls within the claimed compressibility range of 10 to 40%, in order to solve the problem of shedding of metallic particle capable of alloying with Li from the graphite as a result of volume expansion due to charge/discharge, and conduction path breakage, as desired by Ueda.
While modified Ueda further mentions using a pore-forming material in order to mitigate the breakage of the composite graphite particle due to the expansion/contraction of the metallic particle (B) ([0229] and [0242]), modified Ueda does not explicitly mention a pore size of the micropores present in the active material layer is 1.5 to 10 µm.
Sheem teaches that the negative active material for rechargeable lithium battery includes porous particles having a plurality of void therein can prevent pulverization of the porous particles, and the external volume of the porous particles is maintained by compressing the volume of the void when the volume is expanded during the process of intercalating lithium ions with Si ([0017]) and the non-aqueous electrolyte is impregnated within the voids when it is used as the negative active material for a lithium rechargeable battery ([0019]); and the voids having an average diameter of between 1 nm and 10 µm ([0009]), which overlappingly encompasses the claimed pore size range of 1.5 to 10 µm.
It would have been obvious to maintain the pore size of the modified Ueda within the overlapping portion (1.5 to 10 µm) between the Sheem taught range and the claimed range, by adjusting the pore-forming material in order to prevent pulverization of the porous particles and maintain the external volume of the porous particles during the process of intercalating lithium ions with Si, as taught by Sheem.
The equation 1 recitation in claim 22, a result of the micropores porosity measurement under a testing conditions outside of the claimed secondary battery setting, is considered as an inherent property of the electrode when activated by a formation process with the claimed electrode with active material layer structure in a densified state, absent evidence to the contrary for secondary consideration.
In summary, since modified Ueda has included all the structural features of the claimed secondary battery comprising a negative electrode active material and an electrode made thereof, modified Ueda meets all the requirements of this claimed secondary battery.
7. Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ueda (US 20150194668 A1) in view of Ren (US 20160211511 A1), further in view of Wang (CN 107302080 A) and Sheem (US 20040214085 A1), as applied to claim 11, further in view of Kim (US 20180175370 A1).
Regarding claim 19, in light of the 112 (b) rejection above, modified Ueda discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Modified Ueda does not explicitly disclose the linear conductive carbon material has a short axis diameter of 5 to 20 nm and a long axis length of 1 to 50 µm.
Kim teaches a conductive material which includes bundle-type carbon nanotubes and a lithium secondary battery manufactured using a conductive material dispersed liquid which has high solid like properties and thus allows the formation of an electrode active material layer having a uniform thickness with no concern for collapse or occurrence of cracks during manufacturing of an electrode, and thereby can improve the performance characteristics, particularly capacity characteristics of a battery (Abstract). Kim further teaches the carbon nanotube unit in Example 1-1 of Table 1 has an average diameter of 12 nm, and an average length of 30 µm (Table 1, [0160]), which falls within the ranges as claimed “the linear conductive carbon material has a short axis diameter of 5 to 20 nm and a long axis length of 1 to 50 µm”.
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to prepare and use the carbon fiber of modified Ueda as taught by Kim thus arriving at the claim limitation without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to improve the performance characteristics, particularly capacity characteristics of a battery.
Response to Arguments
8. Applicant’s arguments regarding the amended claims 11 and 22 filed on 1/27/2026 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Conclusion
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAN LUO whose telephone number is (571)270-5753. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00AM -5:00PM ET. ET.
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, Jonathan Leong can be reached on (571)270-1292. 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.
/K. L./Examiner, Art Unit 1751 8/11/2026
/Haroon S. Sheikh/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1751
Prosecution Insights