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 07/17/2026. Claims 1, 2, 4, 8-10, 13, and 16-17 are currently amended. Claims 18 and 19 are new. Claims 1-4 and 8-19 are presented for examination.
The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections in the previous office action are withdrawn. New grounds of rejection necessitated by Applicant’s amendments are presented below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Zettsu fails to teach the carbon nanotube structure of the claimed invention because one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the “bundle form” of Zettsu is akin to a ‘ball of yarn’ rather than one in which 2 to 5,000 single-walled carbon nanotube units are bonded side by side and in parallel with each other.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Hersam evidences that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize a “bundle” as a structure in which single-walled carbon nanotube units are bonded side by side in parallel with each other (Fig. 1a, P387 C2 ¶2). Regardless, this argument is moot as the new ground of rejection relies on Thess to teach the carbon nanotube structure.
Applicant argues Zettsu fails to teach wherein a weight ratio of the multi-walled carbon nanotube unit to the plurality of carbon nanotube structures is 100:1 to 100:200 as required by amended claim 2. The ratio taught by Zettsu is a ratio of the first carbon nanotubes (corresponding to the claimed ‘multi-walled carbon nanotube unit) to the second carbon nanotubes (single-walled carbon nanotubes) generally, not specifically the second carbon nanotubes in bundled form corresponding to the claimed carbon nanotube structure.
This argument is moot because the new ground of rejection relies on Thess to substitute carbon nanotube rope structures for the elongated second carbon nanotubes of Zettsu.
Applicant argues Zettsu fails to teach “the plurality of carbon nanotube structures are interconnected in the electrode active material to form a network structure, the network structure connecting electrode active material particles within the electrode active material to each other” as required by new claim 18 because the bundled single-walled carbon nanotubes densely self-aggregate in particle gaps between a plurality of adjacent secondary particles (Zettsu [0054] and [0095]).
The Examiner respectfully disagrees, as the bundled single-walled carbon nanotubes in particle gaps depicted in Fig. 1 of Zettsu connect between adjacent electrode active material particles. Further, the new ground of rejection relies on Thess to substitute carbon nanotube rope structures for the elongated second carbon nanotubes of Zettsu. Zettsu teaches that the elongated second carbon nanotubes are interconnected to form a network (continuous electron conduction path, [0102]; and connect between active material particles, [0101]).
Applicant argues Zettsu does not teach “wherein each carbon nanotube structure has an average length of 15 µm to 70 µm” as required by claim 19. Zettsu merely teaches that the length of each second elongated carbon material is “2.0 µm or more and 10 µm or less” ([0057]) which lies completely outside the claimed range.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees because Zettsu further teaches that the elongated second carbon material should be long enough to improve electrical conductivity without reducing dispersibility ([0056]) so that the elongated carbon material can connect active secondary active material particles ([0096]), including those not directly adjacent to one another ([0101]) and Thess teaches that the carbon nanotube structures can be tens of microns long (p. 484, c. 1, ll. 6-13). The disclosed higher end of the length range of “10 µm” is so mathematically close to the claimed lower end of “15 µm” that the difference between the claimed range is virtually negligible absent any showing of unexpected results or criticality [MPEP 2144.05(I)].
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 19 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1 and 19 recite “wherein each carbon nanotube structure has an average length of…” The claims should be amended to recite either “wherein the plurality of carbon nanotube structures has an average length of…” or “wherein each carbon nanotube structure has a length of…”
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 1-4, 8, and 10-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zettsu (US 2021/0313559 A1; previously cited) in view of Thess (Crystalline ropes of metallic carbon nanotubes, 1996).
Regarding claim 1, Zettsu discloses an electrode comprising an electrode active material layer ([0046]), the electrode active material layer comprising an electrode active material ([0051]) and a conductive agent ([0053]), the conductive agent comprising: a multi-walled carbon nanotube unit (first elongated carbon material, [0058]); and a carbon nanotube structure (second elongated carbon material, [0058]; elongated second carbon nanotubes self-aggregate in a bundle form, [0095]).
Zettsu teaches wherein single-walled carbon nanotubes are contained in the electrode active material layer in an amount of 0.01 wt% to 0.1 wt% (“Content of second CNT,” Table 1 p. 8-9, [0106]), but does not disclose a plurality of carbon nanotube structures, wherein each carbon nanotube structure includes 2 to 5,000 single-walled carbon nanotube units bonded side by side and in parallel with each other, wherein each carbon nanotube structure has an average length of 10 µm to 70 µm, and wherein the plurality of carbon nanotube structures is contained in the electrode active material layer in an amount of 0.01 wt% to 0.5 wt%.
However, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to have optimized the length of each carbon nanotube structure of Zettsu to 10 µm because Zettsu teaches an overlapping range of 2 µm to 10 µm ([0057]) and that the elongated second carbon material should be long enough to improve electrical conductivity without reducing dispersibility ([0056]) so that the elongated carbon material can connect active secondary active material particles ([0096]), including those not directly adjacent to one another ([0101]).
Thess teaches bundled carbon nanotube structures, wherein each carbon nanotube structure includes 100 to 500 single-walled carbon nanotube units bonded side by side and in parallel with each other (Abstract on p. 483; p. 484 c. 1 ll. 6-13, 23-29; Fig. 1).
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 substituting the carbon nanotube structures of Thess for the elongated second carbon material, such that each carbon nanotube structure includes 100 to 500 single-walled carbon nanotube units bonded side by side and in parallel with each other and wherein the plurality of carbon nanotube structures is contained in the electrode active material layer in an amount of 0.01 wt% to 0.1 wt%, because Thess that these single-walled carbon nanotube structures are significantly more conductive than other known carbon nanotubes (p. 485, c. 3, ll. 18-24).
Regarding claim 2, Zettsu in view of Thess teaches wherein a weight ratio of the multi-walled carbon nanotube unit to the plurality of carbon nanotube structures is 100:1 to 100:200 (Zettsu: 90-99:1-10, [0059]).
Regarding claim 3, Zettsu in view of Thess teaches wherein the multi-walled carbon nanotube unit is contained in the electrode active material layer in an amount of 0.1 wt% to 1.0 wt% (Zettsu: 0.425 wt% to 0.99 wt%, “Content of first CNT,” Table 1, p. 8-9).
Regarding claim 4, Zettsu in view of Thess teaches wherein the plurality of carbon nanotube structures are connected to each other to represent a network structure in the electrode (Zettsu: continuous conduction path, [0102], FIGS. 1 sand 2).
Regarding claim 8, Zettsu in view of Thess teaches wherein each carbon nanotube structure has an average diameter of 2 nm to 200 nm (Thess: 2-20 nm, p. 484, c. 1, ll, 6-10).
Regarding claim 10, Zettsu in view of Thess teaches wherein, in each carbon nanotube structure, the single-walled carbon nanotube unit has an average diameter of 0.5 nm to 5 nm (Zettsu: 1 nm to 5 nm, [0057]).
Regarding claim 11, Zettsu in view of Thess teaches wherein the multi-walled carbon nanotube unit has an average diameter of 5 nm to 200 nm (overlapping range of 10 nm to 400 nm, Zettsu [0057], establishes a prima facie case of obviousness [MPEP § 2144.05(I)]).
Regarding claim 12, Zettsu in view of Thess teaches wherein the multi-walled carbon nanotube unit has an average length of 0.1 µm to 100 µm (Zettsu: 2 µm to 10 µm, [0057]).
Regarding claim 13, Zettsu in view of Thess teaches wherein the carbon nanotube structure is a carbon nanotube structure in which 50 to 4,000 single-walled carbon nanotube units are bonded to each other (Thess: 100 to 500 units, Abstract on p. 483).
Regarding claim 14, Zettsu in view of Thess teaches wherein the electrode is a positive electrode (Zettsu: [0046]).
Regarding claim 15, Zettsu in view of Thess teaches a secondary battery comprising the electrode of claim 1, a separator, and an electrolyte (Zettsu [0086]).
Regarding claim 16, Zettsu in view of Thess teaches wherein each carbon nanotube structure is a cylindrical structure in which a plurality of the single-walled carbon nanotube units are bonded in parallel with each other along long axes of the single-walled carbon nanotube units (Thess: Abstract; p. 484 c. 1 ll. 6-13, 23-29; Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 17, Zettsu in view of Thess teaches wherein the single-walled carbon nanotube units of each carbon nanotube structure are bonded in parallel with each other in a single plane (Thess: Abstract; p. 484 c. 1 ll. 6-13, 23-29; Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 18, Zettsu in view of Thess teaches wherein the plurality of carbon nanotube structures are interconnected in the electrode active material to form a network structure, the network structure connecting electrode active material particles within the electrode active material to each other (Zettsu: second elongated carbon nanotubes form a continuous conduction path, [0102], and connect between active material particles, [0101]; see annotated FIG. 1 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
898
713
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated figure 1
Regarding claim 19, Zettsu in view of Thess does not disclose wherein each carbon nanotube structure has an average length of 15 µm to 70 µm. However, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to have optimized the average length of each carbon nanotube structure, including to an average length of 15 µm, because Zettsu teaches that the elongated second carbon material should be long enough to improve electrical conductivity without reducing dispersibility ([0056]) so that the elongated carbon material can connect active secondary active material particles ([0096]), including those not directly adjacent to one another ([0101]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zettsu (US 2021/0313559 A1) in view of Thess, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ma (US 2014/0332731 A1; previously cited).
Regarding claim 9, Zettsu in view of Thess does not disclose wherein each carbon nanotube structure has an average diameter of 50 nm to 120 nm.
Ma teaches an electrode comprising an electrode active material layer, the electrode active material layer comprising an electrode active material and a conductive agent, the conductive agent comprising carbon nanotubes ([0010]), wherein the diameter of the carbon nanotubes is related to the size of the active material particles ([0010]-[0011]). A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to have optimized the average diameter of the carbon nanotube structure of Zettsu in view of Thess, including to a range corresponding to 50 nm to 120 nm, so that the carbon nanotube structure is large enough to fill gaps between large active material particles but not so large as to reduce the capacity of the battery as taught by Ma ([0010]-[0011]).
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