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 .
The Final Rejection, filed on 8/22/2025, has been withdrawn. The Final Rejection (8/22/2025) is being replaced with a new Non-Final Rejection.
Claim 1 has been amended and claim 5 has been canceled.
The pending claims are claims 1-4 and 6-15.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al., US 2020/0243848 (equivalent to KR 1020190065172), in view of Al-Hamadani et al., Stabilization and Dispersion.
Regarding claim 1, Kim et al., teaches a carbon nanotube dispersion (abstract; 0012-0017) comprising carbon nanotubes (0021) and a dispersant (polyvinylpyrrolidone; 0078) (0070-0071), and a water-based solvent (0079; 0085; 0091).; and teaches carbon nanotubes having a BET specific surface area of 800 m2/g or more (100-3000 m2/g) (0017; 0051); and teaches the carbon nanotubes have a specific surface area of 100 m2/g to 3,000 m2/g (0017; 0051).
Kim et al., does not teach wherein the dispersant comprises a polymer dispersant containing; an amine (amino groups) and a phenolic compound containing two or more aromatic rings; wherein the phenolic compound is included in an amount of 1 part by weight to 100 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the polymer dispersant containing an amine; teaches a phenolic compound containing more than one aromatic ring, and teaches a dispersant, polyvinyl pyrrolidone (pg. 5917, col. 2, first para.).
Al-Hamadani et al., teaches a carbon nanotube dispersion (abstract; pg. 863, section 3) comprising carbon nanotubes and a dispersant (polyvinylpyrrolidone or pvp) (pg. 365, section 3.2.2.2), and a water-based solvent (pg. 864, section 3.1.3) (pg. 865, section 3.2.1.2 and 3.2.2), wherein the dispersant comprises a polymer dispersant containing an amine (amino groups) (pg. 863, section 3.1.1) and a phenolic compound containing two or more aromatic rings (bisphenol) (pg. 869, Table 3).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to insert the teachings of Al-Hamadani into Kim because Al-Hamadani teaches “enhanced dispersion and stabilization of CNMs in water greatly addition, while CNMs have shown potential as superior sorbents improves their physicochemical properties..” (pg. 870, Section 5).
Regarding claim 2, Kim et al., teaches the carbon nanotube is a single-walled (0043-0044) or multi-walled (0043-0044).
Regarding claim 3, Kim et al., teaches carbon nanotubes are included in an amount of 0.01-2 wt% (0014; 0052).
Regarding claim 4, Kim et al., teaches dispersant is included in an amount of 1 to 2 by weight (0099; 0113).
Regarding claim 6, Kim et al., teaches polymer dispersant comprises of polyvinylpyrrolidone (0078; 0080).
Regarding claim 7, Kim et al., does not teach phenolic compound comprises at least one structure of phenolic in at least one of the aromatic rings.
Al-Hamadani et al., teaches phenolic compound comprises at least one structure of phenolic (bisphenolate) (pg. 868, section 4; Table 3 “Bisphenols”) in at least one of the aromatic rings (pg. 868, section 4; Table 3 “Bisphenols”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to insert the teachings of Al-Hamadani into the teachings of Kim because “Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to insert the teachings of Al-Hamadani into Kim because Al-Hamadani teaches “enhanced dispersion and stabilization of CNMs in water greatly addition, while CNMs have shown potential as superior sorbents improves their physicochemical properties..” (pg. 870, Section 5).
Regarding claim 8, Kim et al., does not teach phenolic compound does not comprise a structure in which three or more aromatic rings are fused in a molecular structure.
Al-Hamadani et al., teaches phenolic compound does not comprise a structure in which three or more aromatic rings are fused in a molecular structure (bisphenolate) (pg. 868, section 4; Table 3 “Bisphenols”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to insert the teachings of Al-Hamadani into Kim because Al-Hamadani teaches “enhanced dispersion and stabilization of CNMs in water greatly addition, while CNMs have shown potential as superior sorbents improves their physicochemical properties..” (pg. 870, Section 5).
Regarding claim 9, Kim et al., does not teach a phenolic compound containing more than one aromatic ring, and teaches a dispersant, polyvinyl pyrrolidone.
Al-Hamadani et al., teaches phenolic compound containing two or more aromatic rings comprises at least one of tannic acid (pg. 864, section 3.2.1.1).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to insert the teachings of Al-Hamadani into Kim because Al-Hamadani teaches “enhanced dispersion and stabilization of CNMs in water greatly addition, while CNMs have shown potential as superior sorbents improves their physicochemical properties..” (pg. 870, Section 5).
Regarding claim 10, Kim et al., does not teach carbon nanotube dispersion has a viscosity increase rate represented by Equation (1) of 80% or less.
However, A prima facie case of obviousness may be made when chemical compounds have very close structural similarities and similar utilities. "An obviousness rejection based on similarity in chemical structure and function entails the motivation of one skilled in the art to make a claimed compound, in the expectation that compounds similar in structure will have similar properties” In re Payne, 606 F.2d 303, 313, 203 USPQ 245, 254 (CCPA 1979). See In re Papesch, 315 F.2d 381, 137 USPQ 43 (CCPA 1963).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to insert the teachings of Al-Hamadani into Kim because Al-Hamadani teaches “enhanced dispersion and stabilization of CNMs in water greatly addition, while CNMs have shown potential as superior sorbents improves their physicochemical properties..” (pg. 870, Section 5).
Regarding claim 11, Kim et al., does not teach the carbon nanotube dispersion has an initial viscosity, which is measured at 25°C and 1 rpm, of 0.1 Pa- s to 12 Pa- s.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art wherein A prima facie case of obviousness may be made when chemical compounds have very close structural similarities and similar utilities. "An obviousness rejection based on similarity in chemical structure and function entails the motivation of one skilled in the art to make a claimed compound, in the expectation that compounds similar in structure will have similar properties." In re Payne, 606 F.2d 303, 313, 203 USPQ 245, 254 (CCPA 1979). See In re Papesch, 315 F.2d 381, 137 USPQ 43 (CCPA 1963).
Regarding claim 12, Kim et al., teaches negative electrode slurry composition (0071; 0075-0076) comprising carbon nanotube dispersion of claim 1 (0070-0071), and a binder (0070-0071; 0078); a silicon-based negative electrode active material (abstract; 0011; 0015; 0021; 0033).
Regarding claim 13, Kim et al., teaches a negative electrode comprising a negative electrode active material layer (abstract; 0007-0020) formed by negative electrode slurry composition (0071; 0075-0076).
Regarding claim 14, Kim et al., teaches a lithium secondary battery (abstract; 0022; 0058).
Regarding claim 15, Kim et al., teaches BET specific surface area is from 800-5000 m2/g (100-3000 m2/g) (0017; 0051).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/14/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues regarding the 35 USC 103 Rejection of Oki et al., (US 2010/0248034) in view of Kim et al., (US 2020/0243848).
However, the Final Rejection, filed on 8/22/2025, has been withdrawn. The Final Rejection (8/22/2025) is replaced with a new Non-Final Rejection, as seen above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGELA J MARTIN whose telephone number is (571)272-1288. The examiner can normally be reached 7am-4pm.
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.
ANGELA J. MARTIN
Examiner
Art Unit 1727
/ANGELA J MARTIN/Examiner, Art Unit 1727