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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 08/29/2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Applicant’s amendment, arguments, and declaration under 37 C.F.R. 1.132 filed 08/29/2025 have been fully considered. Claim(s) 1 is/are amended; claim(s) 11-15 remain withdrawn. Claims 1, 3-10 are pending review in this Office action. Examiner affirms that the original disclosure provides adequate support for the amendment.
Upon considering said amendment and arguments, the previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 set forth in the Office action mailed 05/30/2025 has/have been withdrawn. Upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is presented below.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sumi et al. (US20130193371A1 cited in Office action filed 05/30/2025) in view of Kim et al. (US20150364749A1)
Regarding claim 1, Sumi discloses a method for manufacturing a negative electrode slurry (“paste”) ([0059]), where an example embodiment of the method comprises:
a) kneading a first mixture (“rough kneading”) including a negative electrode active material (“active material”) and a thickener solution (“thickener”, “water as a solvent”) ([0059], [0025]; the thickener dissolves in the solvent during mixing and thus becomes a thickener solution); and
b) preparing a second mixture (“diluted paste”) including the kneaded first mixture (“paste”) wherein a solid content in the second mixture (~54 wt%, [0058]) is smaller than that of the first mixture (63.5 wt%, [0053]) through addition of solvent ([0059]); while Sumi envisions considerations of dispersing the slurry materials ([0007-0008]) including the conductive agent (“conductive additive”, [0021]), Sumi fails to explicitly indicate step b) of preparing the second mixture as further including a conductive agent as claimed.
Kim is directed to a similar method of manufacturing a slurry (Kim, abstract) such as a negative electrode slurry ([0016]) comprising a step a) (“S1”) of forming a first mixture (“electrode active material dispersion”) including a negative electrode active material in a dispersion medium and a step b) (“S2”) of preparing a second mixture including the first mixture and a conductive agent in a dispersion ([0007]), the second mixture inherently comprising a lower solid content than that of the first mixture (60-90 wt%) from being combined with the conductive agent dispersion (5-20 wt%) ([0010]). Compared to conventional methods of mixing both the active material and conductive agent at high viscosity in an initial mixing step, Kim’s method of separately providing the conductive agent in step b) improves slurry stability ([0036]) and improves conductive agent dispersion, inhibiting cycle characteristic degradation even when less conductive agent is preset in the slurry ([0025-0026]).
Similarly, Sumi desires to ensure stable dispersion of the negative electrode slurry components ([0007-0010]). Consequently, in seeking to ensure slurry stability and improve conductive agent dispersion, it would be obvious before the effective filing date of the instant application for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Sumi’s step b) to further include a conductive agent dispersion in the second mixture as taught by Kim with a reasonable expectation of success, resulting in a step b) of preparing a second mixture including the kneaded first mixture and a conductive agent wherein a solid content in the second mixture is smaller than that of the first mixture.
Modified Sumi further discloses a need to optimize the torque applied during kneading in step a) (i.e., at the start of kneading); excess torque (T4) causes dilatancy in the slurry ([0041], FIG. 5) where the fluidity is reduced and material dispersion and electrode production is impaired ([0007]), while insufficient torque (T6) reduces the kneading efficiency and requires a longer kneading duration to disperse the slurry ([0042-0043], FIG. 5). While Sumi does not explicitly disclose a shear force of kneading as being 100 Pa to 150 Pa, a skilled artisan would recognize the following relations where kneading force is common to the kneading torque and kneading shear stress:
K
n
e
a
d
i
n
g
T
o
r
q
u
e
(
N
*
m
)
=
f
o
r
c
e
N
*
d
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
(
m
)
K
n
e
a
d
i
n
g
S
h
e
a
r
S
t
r
e
s
s
(
P
a
)
=
f
o
r
c
e
(
N
)
/
a
r
e
a
(
m
2
)
where the distance and area components are fixed values dependent on the geometry of the kneading apparatus (i.e., length of stirrers (3) or size of vessel (2) in Sumi FIG. 1) and do not change when adjusting the torque or shear stress. In other words, a skilled artisan optimizing the kneading torque would proportionally optimize the kneading force, and in doing so, would also optimize the kneading shear stress by a proportional amount, such that it would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art seeking the above torque optimization with respect to Sumi’s considerations to simultaneously optimize the kneading shear force. In doing so, a skilled artisan would reasonably utilize at least a portion of the claimed range of 100-150 Pa as at least some amount of shear force is inherently applied during kneading (MPEP 2144.05 II).
Regarding claims 3-4, 6-8 modified Sumi discloses the method of claim 1, wherein an experimental example of the method comprises a solid content of the first mixture (“during rough kneading”) of 63.5 wt% (Sumi [0053]), which falls within the claimed range of 55-70 wt% (claim 3).
Sumi further discloses the method of claim 1 further comprising a step c) of preparing a third mixture (“final paste”) by mixing the second mixture (“diluted paste”) and a binder ([0059]) (claim 7). A solid content of the third mixture is 54 wt% ([0058]), which falls within the claimed range of 35 to 55wt% solids (claim 8).
While Sumi fails to explicitly indicate a solid content in the second mixture (“diluted paste”), the only material difference between Sumi’s second mixture and third mixture (“final paste”) is the addition of 1 wt% binder based on the active material weight ([0050], [0059]); consequently, the second mixture would comprise slightly less than 54 wt% solid content and would fall within the claimed range of 35 to 55wt% solids (claim 4).
Furthermore, while Sumi fails to specify a numerical value of the second mixture viscosity, Sumi’s second mixture having about ~54 wt% solids appears to have a composition falling in the intermediate between that of Applicant’s Example 1 (45.1 wt% solid, 6917 cP viscosity) and Comparative Example 1 (61.7 wt% solids, 14040 cP viscosity) after injection of SWCNT (Instant specification [0063], [0072-0073], pp. 21 Table 1) such that a skilled artisan would expect Sumi’s second mixture’s inherent viscosity to exist within a relatively similar range (i.e, about 6000-14000 cP), being at least within the claimed range of 2000-15000 cP (claim 6)
Regarding claim 5, modified Sumi discloses the method of claim 1. Sumi fails to specify a numerical value of the kneaded first mixture viscosity; however, Sumi’s first mixture (63.5 wt% solids, Sumi [0053]) appears to have a composition falling in the intermediate between that of Applicant’s Comparative Example 1 (61.7 wt% solid, 14040 cP viscosity) and Comparative Example 2 (65 wt% solids, 16230 cP viscosity) after injection of SWCNT (Instant specification [0072-0075], pp. 21 Table 1)
such that a skilled artisan would expect Sumi’s first mixture’s inherent viscosity to exist within a relatively similar range (i.e, about 14000-16000 cP), being at least within the claimed range of 3000-20000 cP.
Regarding claim 9, modified Sumi discloses the method of claim 1. Sumi discloses the selection of at least one conductive agent (“conductive additive”) in the slurry (Sumi [0021]), but fails to specify the conductive agent as being at least one of those selected from the group of claim 9.
Kim, relied on to teach the addition of the conductive agent in the second mixture, further teaches a suitability of selecting carbon nanotube, acetylene black, carbon black, graphite, Ketjen black,
carbon black, carbon fiber, and carbon fiber as conductive agents because these materials do not cause a chemical change in a lithium secondary battery (Kim [0045]); consequently, it would be obvious to select at least one of these options as the conductive agent with a reasonable expectation of success (MPEP 2144.07).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sumi in view of Kim as applied to claim 9 above, further in view of Predtechenskiy et al. (“SWCNT vs MWCNT and Nanofibers. Applications in Lithium-Ion Batteries and Transparent Conductive Films” cited with copy in Office action filed 12/30/2024).
Regarding claim 10, modified Sumi discloses the method of claim 9; while Kim teaches a suitability of selecting carbon nanotubes as the conductive agent (Kim [0013]), where the genus of carbon nanotubes would be understood to include the species of single-walled carbon nanotube (SWCNT), Kim fails to explicitly specify the inclusion of SWCNT.
Predtechenskiy is directed to the use of carbon nanotubes in various applications including as a conductive agent in lithium-ion batteries (Predtechenskiy, Abstract), and teaches SWCNTs as being particular advantageous conductive agents due to their low internal resistance and greatly improve internal resistance and cell cycling in this role (Predtechenskiy, highlighted segment on page 116).
Consequently, in seeking to reduce internal resistance and improve cell cycling properties of the negative electrode slurry produced by modified Sumi’s method, it would be obvious before the effective filing date of the instant application for one having ordinary skill in the art to include SWCNT as a conductive agent. Such a modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as Kim discloses a general suitability of using carbon nanotubes as the conductive agent, with SWCNTs being a specific type of carbon nanotube.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to rejection of claim(s) 1 and 3-9 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Hashimoto et al. (JP-2013093240-A) in view of Hasegawa et al. (JP-4147994-B2) (Remarks pp. 6-11) 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.
Applicant’s remarks with respect to Sumi et al. (US-20130193371-A1) (Remarks pp. 10) have been considered but are moot since Applicant's amendment has necessitated a different interpretation of Sumi as laid out in the rejections of record above.
Applicant asserts that the anode manufactured by the method of the present invention unexpectedly inhibits significantly reduced anode resistance (Remarks pp. 10-11, Instant specification Example 1 [0059-0069], pp. 21 Table 1) when the SWCNT is injected after the kneading process when the strong shear force is applied ([0084]), this improving the capacity retention rate ([0095]).
While this argument has been fully considered, it has not been found persuasive. Kim (US20150364749A1), teaching injecting a conductive additive such as carbon nanotube after an initial mixing step (see discussion of claim 1) notes improved cycle characteristics (i.e., retention rate) from improved conductive agent dispersion ([0025-0026]) such that these beneficial results are expected with respect to the prior art (MPEP 716.02(c) II).
Applicant’s Declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 filed 08/29/2025 from Byong Ho Ko has been fully considered.
In ¶3-4 of the Declaration under 37 CFR 1.132, Applicant presents a comparison (Comparative Example 3) with previously cited prior art Hashimoto (JP4147994B2) where no SWCNT as a conductive agent is added, showing increased resistance.
This evidence of unexpected results has been considered but has not been found persuasive. It is known in the art that conductive agents as additives improve the electrical conductivity of electrodes (Predtechenskiy pp. 115 col. 1 ¶4, “the electrical conductivity of the electrode active material of a Li-ion battery is low. To improve the conductivity of electrodes, conductive carbon materials are used as additives”) such that beneficial results to electrode conductivity from the addition of conductive agents are expected and evidence obviousness (MPEP 716.02(c) II).
In ¶3-4 of the Declaration under 37 CFR 1.132, Applicant presents a comparison (Comparative Example 4) with previously cited prior art where the first mixture was stirred using a stirrer instead of being subjected to kneading under shear force, resulting in an electrode having increased resistance (Declaration, ¶3-4).
This evidence of unexpected results has been considered but has not been found persuasive, as the declaration fails to explain the data proffered as evidence of non-obviousness. The declaration and instant specification do not appear to define the processes of “kneading” or “stirring” such that it would be understood how either process necessarily produces or fails to produce the unexpected results. It is also known in the art that stirring with a stirrer may be used to knead an electrode slurry (Sumi [0007], “The paste is kneaded with a rotating stirrer”).
While the declaration seems to imply that stirring, unlike kneading, fails to impart a shear force, it would be recognized that any process with a difference in flow rate between regions (du/dy) necessarily imparts at least some amount of shear force (tau) as an inherent fluid property (see Newton’s Law of Viscosity):
PNG
media_image1.png
220
513
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Newton’s Law of Viscosity
such that is not clear whether it is the lack of shear force or the process of stirring itself that causes an unexpected decrease in anode resistance.
Thus, for the above reasons, the declaration fails to explain the data proffered as evidence of non-obviousness (MPEP 716.02 (b) II).
Examiner also notes the Declaration as filed appears to have multiple typographic errors. In the second prior art document cited in ¶2 and compared with Comparative Example 4, the Declaration cites Hasegawa (corresponding to patent no. JP4147994B2) as the inventor name and US20130193371A1 (corresponding to inventor Sumi et al.) as the patent document number. It is not clear to the Examiner which document Applicant intends to compare using Comparative Example 4. Furthermore, ¶3 appears to introduce Comparative Example 3 (example with no conductive agent) as Comparative Example 4 on the first page of the declaration.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EVERETT T CHOI whose telephone number is (703)756-1331. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 11:00-8:00.
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 G 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.
/E.C./Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 2/13/2026