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 .
Summary
The Applicant’s arguments and claim amendments received November 5, 2025 have been entered into the file. Currently, claims 1-2 and 4 are amended, and claim 3 is cancelled, resulting in claims 1-2 and 4 pending for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on September 25, 2025 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takada, et al. (US 2022/0393147 A1) in view of Kusama, et al. (US 2021/0083269 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 4, Takada teaches a non-aqueous lithium power storage element comprising a positive electrode, a negative electrode, a separator, and a lithium-ion containing nonaqueous electrolyte (¶ [0046], Ln. 1-4). The positive electrode includes a positive electrode current collector and a positive electrode active material layer containing a positive electrode active material, formed on one or both sides of the positive electrode current collector (¶ [0047], Ln. 1-4). Takada further teaches that the positive electrode active material layer contains a positive electrode active material, carbon nanotubes, and it may also contain an alkali metal compound, resulting in the formation of pores in the positive electrode active material layer (¶ [0132], Ln. 1-5, 9-12). The carbon nanotubes cover the surface of the positive electrode active material and crosslink (intertwined with each other to form a carbon network) between the positive electrode active material particles (¶ [0218], Ln. 1-5). The crosslinking of carbon nanotubes leaves spaces in the positive electrode active material layer, forming pores. Takada teaches that pores in the positive electrode active material layer allow easy diffusion of ions, increasing ion diffusion within the positive electrode active material layer and resulting in higher output (¶ [0245], Ln. 5-10).
In one embodiment, Takada teaches that the positive electrode precursor includes active carbon (positive electrode active material), carbon nanotubes dispersion, lithium carbonate as an alkali metal compound (water soluble lithium compound), acetylene black, PVP, acrylic latex, and distilled water (¶ [0731], Ln. 1-10; positive electrode precursor production example 10). In this solution, the lithium carbonate and carbon nanotubes would cling to each other.
Takada does not expressly teach that the average diameter of the plurality of pores is 0.5 µm or more and 5 µm or less.
Kusama teaches an electrode comprising a porous active material layer including active material and carbon fiber (¶ [0019], Ln. 2-5). The pore diameter of the active material is in a range of 0.05 µm to 10 µm (¶ [0025], Ln. 8-9). Kusama teaches that pores in the active material layer retain electrolyte, and the pore size ensures a sufficient amount of electrolyte is retained in the active material layer (¶ [0025], Ln. 12-15). Ensuring a sufficient amount of electrolyte is retained in the active material layer can decrease lithium ion conduction resistance and decrease the electron conduction resistance (¶ [0025], Ln. 17-19).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the diameter of the pores in the active layer of Takada based on the teachings of Kusama. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, that to decrease conduction resistance, the pore diameter taught by Kusama could be applied to the pores in the active material taught by Takada. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to adjust the pore size to a value within the claimed range to decrease resistance and improve conduction through the electrode.
Regarding claim 2, Takada in view of Kusama teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above and further teaches that the carbon nanotubes used in the positive electrode active material layer are multilayer carbon nanotubes with a preferred diameter of 3 nm to 80 nm (¶ [0199], Ln. 1-5), within the claimed range of 0.3 nm to 100 nm.
Claims 1-2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kusama, et al. (US 2021/0083269 A1) in view of Motoki, et al. (US 2022/0407076 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 4, Kusama teaches a lithium ion secondary battery including a negative electrode, positive electrode, and nonaqueous electrolyte (¶ [0074], Ln. 1-3, ¶ [0078], Ln. 1-5). Kusama teaches that that the electrode used as a positive electrode (¶ [0038], Ln. 1-4) includes an active material-containing layer that is supported by at least one surface of a current collector (¶ [0040], Ln. 1-4). The active material-containing layer includes granular carbon, a binder, active material, inorganic solid particles, and carbon fiber (¶ [0040], Ln. 6-8). Kusama further teaches that the active material-containing layer contains pores to retain electrolyte (¶ [0025], Ln. 12-13). Kusama teaches that the pore diameter of the active material is in a range of 0.05 µm to 10 µm (¶ [0025], Ln. 8-9). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
The carbon fiber maintains an electro-conduction path and, as shown in Fig. 1, is intertwined to form a carbon network and plurality of pores (¶ [0026], Ln. 19-22; Fig. 1). Specifically, Kusama teaches forming a positive electrode active material layer by preparing a carbon fiber-dispersed solution and mixing it with inorganic solid particles and a binder to form a first slurry (¶ [0193], Ln. 1-8). The first slurry is then mixed with a lithium-containing nickel-manganese-cobalt composite oxide active material, granular carbon, and a binder (¶ [0194], Ln. 1-8).
Kusama does not expressly teach that the positive electrode includes a water-soluble lithium compound selected from the claimed list, or that the carbon fibers cling to the surface of the water-soluble lithium compound.
Motoki teaches a paste for a secondary battery that is obtained using carbon nanotubes having specific properties as a conductive additive that reduces the internal resistance of the secondary battery and causes the secondary battery to display excellent cycle characteristics (¶ [0010], Ln. 2-10). The paste includes carbon nanotubes as a conductive additive, a polymer, and a dispersion medium (¶ [0011], Ln. 1-6). The carbon nanotubes are surface-treated carbon nanotubes (¶ [0011], Ln. 5-9). Specifically, Motoki teaches that the carbon nanotubes are acid-treated then immersed in a base treatment solution of lithium hydroxide (¶ [0195], Ln. 1-13). Motoki teaches that the paste is included in the positive electrode slurry along with a LiNi0.6Co0.2Mn0.2 positive electrode active material and a dispersion medium (¶ [0202], Ln. 1-7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the positive electrode active material layer of Kusama to include the surface-treated carbon nanotube paste of Motoki based on the teachings of Motoki. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the surface-treated carbon nanotube paste of Motoki would be applicable to the positive electrode active material layer of Kusama as both teach secondary batteries with positive electrode including a lithium-containing nickel-manganese-cobalt composite oxide active material and carbon fibers. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to include the surface-treated carbon nanotube paste in order to reduce the internal resistance of the secondary battery and cause the secondary battery to display excellent cycle characteristics. In including the surface-treated carbon nanotubes, the positive electrode active material layer of Kusama would include lithium hydroxide, a water-soluble lithium compound. Additionally, during the base-treatment of the carbon nanotubes in the lithium hydroxide solution, the carbon nanotubes would cling to the lithium hydroxide.
Regarding claim 2, Kusama in view of Motoki teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 and Kusama further teaches that the thickness (diameter) of the carbon fiber is preferably 1 nm to 200 nm (¶ [0060], Ln. 1-6). Specifically, examples 1-4 teach the inclusion of carbon fiber with a thickness of 50 nm and examples 5-10 teach the inclusion of carbon fiber with a thickness of 100 nm, within the claimed range of 0.3 nm or more and 100 nm or less (Table 2). Additionally, Motoki teaches that the average diameter of the carbon nanotubes is not less than 0.5 nm and not more than 200 nm (¶ [0045], Ln. 1-2).
Response to Arguments
Response-Claim Rejections 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103
In light of the Applicant’s amendment to claim 1 to incorporate the limitations of claim 3, the previous rejections of claims 1-2 and 4 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) over Takada, et al. (US 2022/0393147 A1) are overcome, however, upon further consideration, the reference is still applicable under 35 U.S.C. 103 and used in combination with Kusama, et al. (US 2021/0083269 A1) in the rejection above. Further, in light of the Applicant’s amendment to claim 1 to incorporate the limitations of claim 3, the previous rejections of claims 1-4 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Kusama, et al. (US 2021/0083269 A1) in view of Motoki, et al. (US 2022/0407076 A1) have been modified in the rejection above. Any arguments with respect to the reference that are still deemed valid will be addressed herein.
The Applicant argues, see pages 5-7 of the remarks, that Kusama does not teach an average pore diameter of the plurality of pores and therefore it would not be obvious to modify pore diameter, and that the claimed range of pore diameters is critical to achieving unexpected results. These arguments are not persuasive.
With respect to the argument that Kusama does not teach an average pore diameter of the plurality of pores and therefore it would not be obvious to modify pore diameter, this argument is not persuasive. Kusama teaches that the active material has a pore diameter at the first peak in a range of 0.05 µm to 10 µm (¶ [0025], Ln. 8-9), further teaching that the first peak indicates the mode diameter (¶ [0028], Ln. 1-7). Kusama teaches that pores in the active material layer retain electrolyte, and the pore size ensures a sufficient amount of electrolyte is retained in the active material layer (¶ [0025], Ln. 12-15). The range of pore diameters taught by Kusama overlaps the claimed range of average pore diameters. One of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to select an average pore diameter in an active material based on a teaching regarding the mode pore diameter. One of ordinary skill in the art would realize that, as the majority of the pores have a pore diameter of a specific value, it would be obvious to target that value for the average diameter.
With respect to the argument that the average diameter of the plurality of pores achieves unexpected results, this argument is not persuasive. The Applicant points to data regarding the maximum arrival temperatures of lithium ions batteries using the positive electrode active material of claim 1. In the remarks filed on November 5, 2025 and the affidavit filed November 5, 2025, the Applicant argues that there is excellent heat dissipation obtained when the average diameter of the plurality of pores is 0.5 µm or more and 5 µm or less. It is noted that the data relied upon is directed to a secondary battery including a positive electrode, negative electrode containing silicon, separator, and non-aqueous electrolyte, while the claim is directed to a positive electrode broadly including positive electrode active materials and fibrous carbon pieces. Additionally, the data relied upon pertains only to a positive electrode containing lithium cobalt oxide and carbon nanotubes. Thus, the Applicant’s arguments are not commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. Whether the unexpected results are the result of unexpectedly improved results or a property not taught by the prior art, the "objective evidence of nonobviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support" (MPEP 716.02(d)).
Additionally, with respect to the evidence of advantageous and unexpected properties, the Applicant’s argument points to data provided in Table 1 of the affidavit filed November 5, 2025. As stated in the preparation, the average particle size of the lithium compound was adjusted in order to modify the pore diameter of the positive electrode active material. Thus, additional parameters are adjusted in the examples compared than just the average pore diameter and it is not clear what causes the reduction in maximum arrival temperature.
Finally, with respect to the evidence of advantageous and unexpected properties, the Applicant’s argument points to data provided in Table 1 of the affidavit filed November 5, 2025. Based on the data presented, it is not clear how the pore size impacts the maximum arrival temperature. For example, pore sizes at the bottom and top of the claimed range (0.5 µm in Example a and 5 µm in Example b) result in maximum arrival temperatures of 78 °C and 76 °C, respectively, however a pore size of 8 µm results in a maximum arrival temperature of 80 °C, which is very close to 78 °C, and a pore size of 7 µm, which is closer to the claimed range, results in a maximum arrival temperature of 81 °C, higher than the arrival temperature resulting from a pore size further outside of the claimed range. Thus, it is not clear how the pore size results in advantageous and unexpected properties. The evidence relied upon should establish "that the differences in results are in fact unexpected and unobvious and of both statistical and practical significance" (MPEP 716.02(b)(I)).
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 SARAH J JACOBSON whose telephone number is (703)756-1647. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at (571) 272-1291.
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.
/SARAH J JACOBSON/Examiner, Art Unit 1785
/MARK RUTHKOSKY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1785