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 .
CATHODE ELECTRODE COMPOSITIONS FOR BATTERY APPLICATIONS
Examiner: Adam Arciero S.N. 17/439,062 Art Unit: 1727 February 14, 2026
DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 April 09, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-4, 7-18, 22, 25 and 44 are currently pending. Claims 1, 25 and 44 have been amended.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The prior art rejections under 35 USC 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ma on claims 1-4, 7-12, 17, 22, 24 and 44 are withdrawn because Applicant has amended the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The prior art rejections under 35 USC 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ma and Yordem on claims 13-16 are withdrawn because Applicant has amended the claims.
The prior art rejections under 35 USC 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ma and Yadav on claim 18 is withdrawn because Applicant has amended the claims.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7-12, 17, 22, 24 and 44 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma et al. (US 2014/0332731 A1) in view of Yordem et al. (US 2018/0102549 A1) in view of Krause et al. (Comparative study of singlewalled, multiwalled, and branched carbon nanotubes melt mixed in different thermoplastic matrices, as found in IDS dated 04/09/2025).
As to Claims 1, 7-11, 22, 25, 44, Ma discloses a cathode composition and method of making into paste, for a battery, comprising: 86.8 wt% of LiFePO4 (active material) 1; 2% multiwalled carbon nanotubes provided in a dispersion 2,5; a solvent comprising N-methyl pyrrolidone; 0.4 wt% polyvinyl pyrrolidone (PVP-dispersant); 5 wt% PVdF binder (Abstract, Fig. 1A-1B, paragraphs [0024, 0026, 0035-0047, 0052, 0054, 0072, Table 1). Ma discloses wherein the multiwalled carbon nanotubes are crosslinked to each other (Fig. 1A-1B and paragraph [0045]). Ma does not specifically disclose wherein the multiwalled carbon nanotubes are branched.
However, Krause taches of branched multiwalled carbon nanotubes that are melt-mixed in a polymeric structure such as PVdF (reads on crosslinked) (Abstract and pg. 2, col. 2, first full paragraph). At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the carbon nanotubes of Ma to comprise branched multiwalled carbon nanotubes that are crosslinked because Krause teaches that the conductive network formation ability and mechanical properties are improved (pg. 2, col. 2, first full paragraph).
As to Claims 2-4, Ma discloses wherein carbon nanotubes are selected in part because of their high aspect ratios, and further discloses wherein the method of making the carbon nanotubes, a milling process is provided in order to control the size and provide a shear force to control the amount of entanglement of the carbon nanotubes in the composition (paragraphs [0005 and 0043]). Ma recognizes that the size (length and aspect ratio) of the carbon nanotubes is a result-effective variable that can be controlled and optimized in order to provide for the required amount of nanotube entanglement, as required by an application (paragraph [0043]). The courts have held that a particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation, see MPEP 2144.05, II, B. At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify/optimize the length, aspect ratio, and amount of entanglement for the carbon nanotubes because Ma teaches that an electrode that exhibits excellent cycle life performance at various charge rates is provided (paragraph [0055]). In addition, it is the position of the Office that the composition of Ma will intrinsically comprise the claimed characteristics given that the method of making and the composition of the prior art and the claimed invention are the same, see MPEP 2112.
As to Claim 12, it is noted that claim 12 is a product-by-process claim. The courts have held that "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." See MPEP 2113, I. Ma discloses the same composition as the claimed invention. It is the position of the Office that the composition of Ma will intrinsically comprise the claimed amount of carbon nanotubes when dried, given that the method of making and the composition of the prior art and the claimed invention are the same, see MPEP 2112.
As to Claim 17, Ma discloses wherein the electrode composition can comprise carbon black (pg. 5, Table 3).
Claim(s) 13-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma et al. (US 2014/0332731 A1) in view of Krause et al. (Comparative study of singlewalled, multiwalled, and branched carbon nanotubes melt mixed in different thermoplastic matrices, as found in IDS dated 04/09/2025) as applied to claims 1-4, 7-12, 17, 22, 24 and 44 above and in further view of Yordem et al. (US 2018/0102549 A1).
As to Claims 13-14, modified Ma does not specifically disclose the claimed coated carbon nanostructure.
However, Yordem teaches of using carbon nanotubes in an electrode for a battery, wherein the carbon nanotubes can be coated with polyethylene glycol (paragraph [0166]). At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the carbon nanotubes of modified Ma to comprise a polyethylene glycol coating because Yordem teaches that such structures can be used to improve the conductivity of the electrode (paragraphs [0056-0057]).
As to Claim 15, Yordem teaches of using ANS carbon nanotubes, which is also the same as used in the present invention in paragraph [0081] of the PGPub. Therefore, it is the position of the Office that the coated carbon nanotubes of modified Ma intrinsically comprise the claimed amount of coating given that the materials used in the prior art and the present invention are the same, see MPEP 2112.
As to Claim 16, it is noted that claim 16 is a product-by-process claim. The courts have held that "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." See MPEP 2113, I. Modified Ma discloses the same composition as the claimed invention. It is the position of the Office that the composition of Ma will intrinsically comprise the claimed amount of carbon nanotubes when dried, given that the method of making and the composition of the prior art and the claimed invention are the same, see MPEP 2112.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma et al. (US 2014/0332731 A1) in view of Krause et al. (Comparative study of singlewalled, multiwalled, and branched carbon nanotubes melt mixed in different thermoplastic matrices, as found in IDS dated 04/09/2025) as applied to claims 1-4, 7-12, 17, 22, 24 and 44 above and in further view of Korchev et al. (US 2018/0366734 A1).
As to Claim 18, modified Ma does not specifically disclose the claimed carbon black.
However, Korchev teaches of an electrode composition for a cathode material carbon black with a BET specific surface area of 160 m2/g and an OAN of 162 mL/100g (paragraph [0066]). At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the electrode composition of modified Ma to comprise the claimed carbon black because Korchev teaches that a battery with improved conductivity and performance is provided (paragraph [0006]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 09, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s principle arguments are:
a) Ma teaches of individual carbon nanotubes not crosslinked carbon nanotubes (claims 1, 25 and 44).
b) The claimed carbon nanotubes can be considered the base monomeric unit with the carbon nanostructure (claims 1, 2, 25 and 44).
c) The Examples of the present invention provide for unexpected results (claims 1, 25 and 44).
In response to Applicant’s arguments, please consider the following comments:
a) The carbon nanotubes of Ma touch and cross each other, which reads on cross-linked. The claims do not structurally differentiate the crosslinked carbon nanotubes from that of Ma. In addition, the newly applied prior art reference also reads on the claimed “crosslinked”.
b) In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the claimed carbon nanotubes can be considered the base monomeric unit with the carbon nanostructure) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
c) The results are not persuasive at least because the claims are not fully commensurate in scope with the results (i.e. dispersion, materials, and contents).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM ARCIERO whose telephone number is (571)270-5116. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5 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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at (571)272-1330. 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.
/ADAM A ARCIERO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1727