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 .
Response to Amendment
This is a final office action in response to Applicant’s remarks and amendments filed on 12/22/2025. Claim 1 is currently amended. Claims 8 and 9 are cancelled. Claims 1, 3, and 5-7, and 10-11 are presented for examination.
The 35 U.S.C. § 103 and 35 U.S.C. § 112 rejections in the previous office action are withdrawn. New grounds of rejection necessitated by Applicant’s amendment are presented below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The new ground of rejection does not rely on Thess and does not rely on Seol to teach the claimed weight ratio of the carbon nanotube structure and the hydrogenated nitrile butadiene rubber.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “wherein a weight ratio of the carbon nanotube structure and the hydrogenated nitrile butadiene rubber is 1:1 to 1:5,” but the claim has previously defined the electrode layer comprising a conductive agent, which comprises a plurality of carbon nanotube structures. It is therefore unclear whether the claimed ratio refers to a single carbon nanotube structure, or to all of the plurality of single-walled carbon nanotube structures.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 3, 5, and 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zettsu (US 2021/0313559 A1) in view of Seol (WO 2017/099481 A1, English-language equivalent US 2018/0219212 A1 is cited below; see IDS filed 09/24/2021) and Liang (Electrochemical behaviours of SiO2-coated LiNi0.8Co0.1Mn0.1O2 cathode materials by a novel modification method, 2016; cited 08/26/2025).
Regarding claim 1, Zettsu discloses an electrode comprising: an electrode active material layer ([0046]), wherein: the electrode active material layer comprises an electrode active material ([0051]), a dispersant ([0070]), and a conductive agent (first and second elongated carbon materials, [0053]); the conductive agent comprises a plurality of single-walled carbon nanotube structures (second elongated carbon material, [0058]; elongated second carbon nanotubes self-aggregate in a bundle form, [0054]), wherein each single-walled carbon nanotube structure includes 2 to 5,000 single-walled carbon nanotube units bonded to each other (Hersam evidences that a carbon nanotube bundle comprises multiple single-walled carbon nanotube units bonded to each other, Fig. 1a, P387 C2 ¶2; Zettsu therefore discloses an overlapping range of 2 or more single-walled carbon nanotube units); and
wherein the plurality of single-walled carbon nanotube structures forms a conductive network structure in the electrode active material layer ([0096], FIG. 2),
wherein the conductive network structure is provided by the plurality of single-walled carbon nanotube structures connected to each other and connecting between active material particles ([0096], FIG. 2),
wherein each single-walled carbon nanotube unit has an average diameter of 0.5 nm to 10 nm (1 nm to 5 nm, [0057]), and
wherein a weight ratio of the carbon nanotube structure and the dispersant is 1:1 to 1:5 (assuming the carbon nanotube structure refers to the plurality of single-walled carbon nanotube structures as discussed in Claim Objection above; Zettsu teaches that a ratio of the conductive agent:dispersant is 100:(30 or less), [0078], and a ratio of the second elongated carbon material corresponding to the single-walled carbon nanotube structures is 15:85 to 1:99, [0059], yielding an overlapping range of (1-15):(30 or less) and establishing a prima facie case of obviousness [MPEP § 2144.05(I)]).
Zettsu does not disclose wherein the dispersant is hydrogenated nitrile butadiene rubber or wherein the active material particles are silicon-based.
Seol discloses an electrode comprising a conductive agent and a dispersant ([0011]), wherein the conductive agent comprises carbon nanotubes ([0052]-[0053]) and the dispersant comprises hydrogenated nitrile butadiene rubber ([0089]). A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to have modified the electrode of Zettsu by using hydrogenated nitrile butadiene rubber because Seol teaches that hydrogenated nitrile butadiene rubber improves the dispersibility of carbon nanotubes to form a stable electrode composition ([0090]).
Zettsu teaches that the active material may include a lithium composite metal oxide ([0037]), but Zettsu in view of Seol does not disclose wherein the active material particles are silicon-based.
Liang teaches that SiO2 has been used in coating cathode material such as lithium composite metal oxides because the SiO2 provides thermal stability and reduces surface degradation of the active material (p. 571, col. 1 bridging col. 2). A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to have coated the active material particles of Zettsu in view of Seol with SiO2 as taught by Liang, thereby forming “silicon-based active material particles,” with a reasonable expectation that doing so would improve the thermal stability and cycling performance of the active material particles (p. 571, col. 1 bridging col. 2).
Regarding claim 3, Zettsu in view of Seol and Liang teaches wherein, in each single-walled carbon nanotube structure, the single-walled carbon nanotube units are arranged side by side and bonded (Hersam evidences that a carbon nanotube bundle comprises multiple single-walled carbon nanotube units arranged side by side and bonded, Fig. 1a, P387 C2 ¶2).
Regarding claim 5, Zettsu in view of Seol and Liang teaches wherein each single-walled carbon nanotube unit has an average length of 1 µm to 100 µm (Zettsu: 2 µm to 10 µm, [0057]).
Regarding claim 6, Zettsu in view of Seol and Liang teaches wherein each single-walled carbon nanotube unit has a specific surface area of 500 m2/g to 1,000 m2/g (Zettsu: overlapping range of 100 m2/g to 1,000 m2/g, [0062], establishes a prima facie case of obviousness [MPEP § 2144.05(I)]).
Regarding claim 7, Zettsu in view of Seol and Liang teaches wherein the hydrogenated nitrile butadiene rubber has a weight average molecular weight of 50,000 g/mol to 500,000 g/mol (Seol: overlapping range of 10,000 g/mol – 700,000 g/mol, [0099], establishes a prima facie case of obviousness [MPEP § 2144.05(I)]).
Regarding claim 10, Zettsu in view of Seol and Liang teaches a secondary battery comprising the electrode of claim 1 (Zettsu: [0046]).
Regarding claim 11, Zettsu in view of Seol and Liang teaches wherein the plurality of single-walled carbon nanotube structures is included in the electrode active material layer in an amount of 0.01-0.5 wt% relative to a total weight of the electrode active material (Zettsu: 0.01-0.1 wt% in Examples 1-3, see “Content of active material particle” and “Content of second CNT” in Table 1 on p. 8).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINE C. DISNEY whose telephone number is (703)756-1076. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:30 MT.
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, Tiffany Legette-Thompson can be reached at (571) 270-7078. 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.
/C.C.D./Examiner, Art Unit 1723 /TIFFANY LEGETTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights