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
The amendment filed 8/25/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-3, 7, 9, 10, and 16 remain pending in this application. The examiner acknowledges the amendment of claims 17 and 18. The examiner acknowledges the cancellation of claim 5, 11, 12, 14, and 15. The examiner acknowledges no new matter has been added.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Regarding claim 1 and claim 17, it is noted that if claim 17 was amended to delete the species Mn from the list of species in line 12, claims 1 and 17 would have mutually exclusive characteristics because they would comprise mutually exclusive chemical formulas because the claim recites “at least one selected from the group consisting.” Therefore, only Mn has been considered to receive an action on the merits and the rest of the species (Fe, Ti, Sr, Na, Mg, Ca, Sc, Y, Cu, Zn, Cr, and B) have been withdrawn from consideration.
Claim Objections
Line 5 of claim 1 recites “the positive electrode-comprising.” It is advised to amend the limitation to recite “the positive electrode comprising” for proper punctuation.
Line 4 of claim 17 recites “the positive electrode-comprising.” It is advised to amend the limitation to recite “the positive electrode comprising” for proper punctuation.
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.
Claims 1-3, 7, 9, 10, 13, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakayama et al. (US 2016/0380263 A1) in view of Kusama et al. (US 2021/0083268 A1), Shinoda et al. (US 2021/0376319 A1), and Ikemoto et al. (EP 1698656 A1). Ikemoto et al. was cited in the non-final rejection filed 8/25/2025.
Regarding claim 1, Nakayama et al. teaches a secondary battery (see e.g. lithium secondary battery 10 in Para. 6 and 81 and Fig. 1A and 1B) comprising a positive electrode (see e.g. positive electrode 2 in Para. 6 and 82 and Fig. 1A), a
Separator (see e.g. separator 1 in Para. 82 and Fig. 1A), a negative electrode facing the positive electrode through the separator (see e.g. negative electrode and positive electrode sandwiching separator in Para. 80 and in negative electrode 3 of Para. 82 doing such in Fig. 1A), and an electrolyte (see e.g. electrolytic solution 6 in Para. 83 and Fig. 1B), wherein
the electrolyte contains a nonaqueous solvent (see e.g. electrolytic solution contains an electrolyte and an organic solvent in Para. 114. Considering water or aqueous was not mentioned in the electrolytic solution paragraphs of 114-120, it is understood to be nonaqueous),
the positive electrode-comprising a positive electrode current collector (see e.g. positive electrode current collector in Para. 88), and a positive electrode mixture layer (see e.g. positive electrode mixture in para. 88 that is either press-formed or applied as a paste and dried on the current collector in Para. 94 forming a layer) containing a positive electrode active material (see e.g. the positive electrode mixture comprises the positive electrode active material in Para. 88) and provided on a surface of the positive electrode current collector (see e.g. the positive electrode mixture is supported on a positive electrode current collector in Para. 88 and is either press-formed or applied as a paste and dried on the current collector in Para. 94),
the positive electrode active material contains a lithium-containing composite oxide (see e.g. positive electrode active material comprises lithium-containing composite metal oxide in Para. 23) which has a layered structure (see e.g. the lithium-containing composite metal oxide comprises secondary particles having on its surface a coating layer i.e. a layered structure), the lithium-containing composite oxide containing nickel that occupies 80 atom % or more of metal atoms therein other than lithium (see e.g. the lithium-containing composite metal oxide has the formula Lia(NibCocM11-b-c)O2 in Para. 24 wherein 0.9 ≤ b ≤ 1, 0 < c ≤ 0.1, 0.9< b+c ≤ 1 and M1 may be a metal in Para. 25. Thus, the maximum possible combined atomic % of Co and M1 is 0.1 out of the total 1 of all metals other than Li, with Ni being 0.9, leading to a minimum of nickel occupying 90 atom % of metal atoms other than lithium)
the lithium-containing composite oxide is a lithium-nickel composite oxide represented by a represented by a Chemical Formula LiaNixM1-xO2 (where a =1, 0.85 ≤ x ≤ 0.9, M is at least one selected from the group consisting of Co, Al, and Mn) (see e.g. the lithium-containing composite metal oxide has the formula Lia(NibCocM11-b-c)O2 in Para. 24 wherein 0.9 ≤ a ≤ 1.2, 0.9 ≤ b ≤ 1, 0 < c ≤ 0.1, 0.9< b+c ≤ 1 and M1 may be Al or Mn in Para. 25. Therefore, the lithium subscript range taught by Nakayama et al. of 0.9 ≤ a ≤ 1.2 overlaps with the claimed value of 1. The nickel subscript taught by Nakayama et al. of 0.9 ≤ b ≤ 1 overlaps with the claimed range of 0.85 to 0.9. CocM11-b-c where 0.9 ≤ b ≤ 1, 0 < c ≤ 0.1, 0.9 < b+c ≤ 1 and M1 may be Al or Mn as taught by Nakayama et al. overlaps with the claimed M1-x wherein 0.85 ≤ x ≤ 0.9 and M is at least one selected from the group consisting of Co, Al, and Mn. For example b, c, and M1 of Nakayama et al. may be 0.9, 0.05, and Mn respectively, leading to Co0.05Mn0.05, meeting the claim limitations of M1-x wherein 0.85 ≤ x ≤ 0.9 and M is at least one selected from the group consisting of Co, Al, and Mn because if 1-x = 0.1, then x = 0.9.
This overlaps the claimed range in a manner which provides a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05).),
the positive electrode mixture layer contains a carbon fiber (see e.g. the positive electrode mixture may include a conductive material such as a fibrous carbonaceous material such as graphitized carbon fiber in Para. 90).
Nakayama et al. fails to explicitly teach carbon fiber having an outermost diameter of 5 nm or less, in an amount of 0.01 parts by mass or more and 0.1 parts by mass or less relative to 100 parts by mass of the positive electrode active material,
the positive electrode mixture layer is provided on a surface of the positive electrode current collector in an amount of 250 g/m2 or more and 300g/m2 or less, and
However, Kusama et al. teaches an active material-containing layer with carbon fiber and granular fiber blended to enhance current collecting performance suppress contact resistance between the active material and current collector in which the amount is optimized to increase conductivity in Para. 59. Kusama et al. teaches the diameter or thickness of the carbon fiber is 1 nm to 200 nm in Para. 60. Kusama et al. teaches the carbon fiber may be 0.01 to 10 parts by mass relative to 100 parts by mass of the active material to increase electronic conductivity and optimize energy density in Para. 61. Kusama et al. notes it can be for a positive electrode in Para. 39.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the carbon fibers, as taught by Kusama et al., of the positive electrode mixture layer of Nakayama et al., to have a diameter or thickness of 1 nm to 200 nm and an amount of 0.01 to 10 parts by mass relative to 100 parts by mass of the active material in order to increase electronic conductivity and optimize resistance and energy density as noted by Kusama et al. in Para. 59 and 61.
This overlaps the claimed range in a manner which provides a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05).
Nakayama et al. in view of Kusama et al. fails to teach wherein a density of the positive electrode mixture layer is 3.5 to 3.6 g/cm3.
However, Shinoda et al. teaches a positive electrode active material of a lithium-nickel composite wherein the positive electrode mixture layer has a density of 3.5 to 5.0 c/cm3 to increase capacity in Para. 23 and 28.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the positive electrode mixture layer of Nakayama et al. in view of Kusama et al. to have a density of 3.5 to 5 g/cm3, as taught by Shinoda et al., in order to increase capacity as noted in Para. 23 of Shinoda et al..
Nakayama et al. in view of Kusama et al. and Shinoda et al. fails to teach the positive electrode mixture layer is provided on a surface of the positive electrode current collector in an amount of 250 g/m2 or more and 300g/m2 or less.
However, Ikemoto et al. teaches applying a positive electrode active material containing a lithium composite oxide and binder and conductive additives to the current collector foil in an amount of 250 g/cm2 in Para. 60.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied the known technique as taught by Ikemoto et al. the positive electrode of Nakayama et al in view of Kusama et al. and Shinoda et al. of applying 250 g/cm2 of a positive electrode active material comprising a lithium composite oxide, binder, and conductive additives, similar to the positive electrode active material from the combined teachings of Nakayama et al in view of Kusama et al. and Shinoda et al., to yield predictable results and an improved system as shown by Ikemoto et al. in Para. 60. It would have been obvious because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would yield nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 2, Nakayama et al. in view of Kusama et al., Shinoda et al., and Ikemoto et al. teaches the secondary battery of claim 1, wherein the positive electrode mixture layer contains the carbon fiber having a fiber length of 1 µm or more (see e.g. combined teachings of Nakayama et al. and Kusama et al. in rejection of claim 1. Nakayama et al. teaches positive electrode with carbon fiber in Para. 90. Kusama et al. teaches the carbon fiber may have a length of 5 µm to 50 µm in Para. 60 for a benefit of optimizing electronic conductivity and resistance in Para. 59.).
Regarding claim 3, Nakayama et al. in view of Kusama et al., Shinoda et al., and Ikemoto et al. teaches the secondary battery of claim 1, wherein the carbon fiber content relative to 100 parts by mass of the positive electrode active material is 0.01 parts by mass or more and 0.05 parts by mass or less (see e.g. combined teachings of Nakayama et al. and Kusama et al. in rejection of claim 1. Nakayama et al. teaches positive electrode with carbon fiber in Para. 90. Kusama et al. teaches the carbon fiber may be 0.01 to 10 parts by mass relative to 100 parts by mass of the active material to increase electronic conductivity and optimize energy density in Para. 61.
This overlaps the claimed range in a manner which provides a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05).).
Regarding claim 7, Nakayama et al. in view of Kusama et al., Shinoda et al., and Ikemoto et al. teaches the secondary battery of claim 1, wherein the carbon fiber includes a carbon nanotube (see e.g. combined teachings of Nakayama et al. and Kusama et al. in rejection of claim 1. Nakayama et al. teaches positive electrode with carbon fiber in Para. 90. Kusama et al. teaches the carbon fiber may include carbon nanotubes in Para. 60 for a benefit of optimizing electronic conductivity and resistance in Para. 59).
The combination as taught thus far of Nakayama et al. in view of Kusama et al., Shinoda et al., and Ikemoto et al. fails to explicitly teach the carbon nanotubes are single wall carbon nanotubes.
However, Shinoda et al. teaches conductive additives for a positive electrode mixture layer may be single wall carbon nanotubes in Para. 120.
Therefore, as Shinoda et al. teaches obvious alternative carbon nanotubes for positive electrode conductive materials, 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 carbon nanotubes as taught by the previously established combination of references of Nakayama et al. in view of Kusama et al., Shinoda et al., and Ikemoto et al. to be single-walled carbon nanotubes, as taught by Shinoda et al., which established they are well known and widely used in the art of positive electrode conductive materials. This is an example of substituting equivalents known for the same purpose which supports a prima facie obviousness (2144.06 II)).
Regarding claim 9, Nakayama et al. in view of Kusama et al., Shinoda et al., and Ikemoto et al. teaches the secondary battery of clam 1, wherein the negative electrode (see e.g. Nakayama et al. teaches negative electrode 3 in Para. 82 and Fig. 1A) comprises a negative electrode current collector (see e.g. Nakayama et al. teaches negative electrode current collector in Para. 98), and a negative electrode active material layer (see e.g. Nakayama et al. teaches negative electrode mixture supported on the negative electrode current collector in Para. 98 that may be press-formed on applied and dried in Para. 111 i.e. forming a layer) containing a negative electrode active material (see e.g. Nakayama et al. teaches the negative electrode mixture comprises the negatively electrode active material in Para. 98) and formed on a surface of the negative electrode current collector (see e.g. (see e.g. Nakayama et al. teaches Negative electrode mixture supported on the negative electrode current collector in Para. 98 that may be press-formed on applied and dried on the negative electrode current collector in Para. 111), and
the negative electrode active material contains a silicon composite material (see e.g. Nakayama et al. teaches the negative electrode active material may include alloys in Para. 99 that comprise Si and other metals in Para. 106).
Regarding claim 10, Nakayama et al. in view of Kusama et al., Shinoda et al., and Ikemoto et al. teaches the secondary battery of claim 1, wherein the carbon fiber (see e.g. Nakayama et al. teaches the positive electrode mixture may include a conductive material such as a fibrous carbonaceous material such as graphitized carbon fiber in Para. 90) content relative to 100 parts by mass of the positive electrode active material is 0.04 parts by mass or more and 0.1 parts by mass or less (see e.g. combined teachings of Nakayama et al. and Kusama et al. in rejection of claim 1. Nakayama et al. teaches positive electrode with carbon fiber in Para. 90. Kusama et al. teaches the carbon fiber may be 0.01 to 10 parts by mass relative to 100 parts by mass of the active material to increase electronic conductivity and optimize energy density in Para. 61.
This overlaps the claimed range in a manner which provides a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05).).
Regarding claim 13, Nakayama et al. in view of Kusama et al., Shinoda et al., and Ikemoto et al. teaches the secondary battery of claim 1, wherein in the Chemical Formula, 0.88 ≤ x ≤ 0.90 (see e.g. Nakayama et al. teaches the lithium-containing composite metal oxide has the formula Lia(NibCocM11-b-c)O2 in Para. 24 wherein 0.9 ≤ a ≤ 1.2, 0.9 ≤ b ≤ 1, 0 < c ≤ 0.1, 0.9< b+c ≤ 1 and M1 may be Al or Mn in Para. 25. The nickel subscript taught by Nakayama et al. of 0.9 ≤ b ≤ 1 overlaps with the claimed range of 0.88 to 0.9.
This overlaps the claimed range in a manner which provides a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05).).
Regarding claim 16, Nakayama et al. in view of Kusama et al., Shinoda et al., and Ikemoto et al. teaches the secondary battery of claim 1, wherein the carbon fiber (see e.g. Nakayama et al. teaches the positive electrode mixture may include a conductive material such as a fibrous carbonaceous material such as graphitized carbon fiber in Para. 90) content relative to 100 parts by mass of the positive electrode active material is 0.04 parts by mass or more and 0.1 parts by mass or less (see e.g. combined teachings of Nakayama et al. and Kusama et al. in rejection of claim 1. Nakayama et al. teaches positive electrode with carbon fiber in Para. 90. Kusama et al. teaches the carbon fiber may be 0.01 to 10 parts by mass relative to 100 parts by mass of the active material to increase electronic conductivity and optimize energy density in Para. 61.
This overlaps the claimed range in a manner which provides a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05).), and
in the Chemical Formula, 0.88 ≤ x ≤ 0.90 (see e.g. Nakayama et al. teaches the lithium-containing composite metal oxide has the formula Lia(NibCocM11-b-c)O2 in Para. 24 wherein 0.9 ≤ a ≤ 1.2, 0.9 ≤ b ≤ 1, 0 < c ≤ 0.1, 0.9< b+c ≤ 1 and M1 may be Al or Mn in Para. 25. The nickel subscript taught by Nakayama et al. of 0.9 ≤ b ≤ 1 overlaps with the claimed range of 0.88 to 0.9.
This overlaps the claimed range in a manner which provides a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05).).
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakayama et al. (US 2016/0380263 A1) in view of Kusama et al. (US 2021/0083268 A1) and Ikemoto et al. (EP 1698656 A1). Ikemoto et al. was cited in the non-final rejection filed 8/25/2025.
Regarding claim 17, Nakayama et al. teaches a secondary battery (see e.g. lithium secondary battery 10 in Para. 6 and 81 and Fig. 1A and 1B) comprising a positive electrode (see e.g. positive electrode 2 in Para. 6 and 82 and Fig. 1A), a
Separator (see e.g. separator 1 in Para. 82 and Fig. 1A), a negative electrode facing the positive electrode through the separator (see e.g. negative electrode and positive electrode sandwiching separator in Para. 80 and in negative electrode 3 of Para. 82 doing such in Fig. 1A), and an electrolyte (see e.g. electrolytic solution 6 in Para. 83 and Fig. 1B), wherein
the electrolyte contains a nonaqueous solvent (see e.g. electrolytic solution contains an electrolyte and an organic solvent in Para. 114. Considering water or aqueous was not mentioned in the electrolytic solution paragraphs of 114-120, it is understood to be nonaqueous),
the positive electrode-comprising a positive electrode current collector (see e.g. positive electrode current collector in Para. 88), and a positive electrode mixture layer (see e.g. positive electrode mixture in para. 88 that is either press-formed or applied as a paste and dried on the current collector in Para. 94 forming a layer) containing a positive electrode active material (see e.g. the positive electrode mixture comprises the positive electrode active material in Para. 88) and provided on a surface of the positive electrode current collector (see e.g. the positive electrode mixture is supported on a positive electrode current collector in Para. 88 and is either press-formed or applied as a paste and dried on the current collector in Para. 94),
the positive electrode active material contains a lithium-containing composite oxide (see e.g. positive electrode active material comprises lithium-containing composite metal oxide in Para. 23) which has a layered structure (see e.g. the lithium-containing composite metal oxide comprises secondary particles having on its surface a coating layer i.e. a layered structure), the lithium-containing composite oxide containing nickel that occupies 80 atom % or more of metal atoms therein other than lithium (see e.g. the lithium-containing composite metal oxide has the formula Lia(NibCocM11-b-c)O2 in Para. 24 wherein 0.9 ≤ b ≤ 1, 0 < c ≤ 0.1, 0.9< b+c ≤ 1 and M1 may be a metal in Para. 25. Thus, the maximum possible combined atomic % of Co and M1 is 0.1 out of 1 of the total of all metals other than Li, with Ni being 0.9, leading to a minimum of nickel occupying 90 atom % of metal atoms other than lithium)
the lithium-containing composite oxide is a lithium-nickel composite oxide represented by a represented by a Chemical Formula LiaNixM1-xO2 (where 0 < a ≤ 1.2, 0.8 ≤ x < 1, M is at least one selected from the group consisting of Mn, Fe, Ti, Sr, Na, Mg, Ca, Sc, Y, Cu, Zn, Cr, and B) (see e.g. the lithium-containing composite metal oxide has the formula Lia(NibCocM11-b-c)O2 in Para. 24 wherein 0.9 ≤ a ≤ 1.2, 0.9 ≤ b ≤ 1, 0 < c ≤ 0.1, 0.9< b+c ≤ 1 and M1 may be Al or Mn in Para. 25. Therefore, the lithium subscript range taught by Nakayama et al. of 0.9 ≤ a ≤ 1.2 overlaps with the claimed range of 0 to 1.2. The nickel subscript taught by Nakayama et al. of 0.9 ≤ b ≤ 1 overlaps with the claimed range of 0.8 to 1. CocM11-b-c where 0.9 ≤ b ≤ 1, 0 < c ≤ 0.1, 0.9 < b+c ≤ 1 and M1 may be Al or Mn as taught by Nakayama et al. overlaps with the claimed M1-x wherein 0.8 ≤ x ≤ 1 and M is at least one selected from the group consisting of Mn, Fe, Ti, Sr, Na, Mg, Ca, Sc, Y, Cu, Zn, Cr, and B. For example b, c, and M1 of Nakayama et al. may be 0.9, 0.05, and Mn respectively, leading to Co0.05Mn0.05, meeting the claim limitations of M1-x wherein 0.85 ≤ x ≤ 0.9 and M is at least one selected from the group consisting of Co, Al, and Mn because if 1-x = 0.1, then x = 0.9.
This overlaps the claimed range in a manner which provides a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05).),
the positive electrode mixture layer contains a carbon fiber (see e.g. the positive electrode mixture may include a conductive material such as a fibrous carbonaceous material such as graphitized carbon fiber in Para. 90).
Nakayama et al. fails to explicitly teach carbon fiber having an outermost diameter of 5 nm or less, in an amount of 0.01 parts by mass or more and 0.1 parts by mass or less relative to 100 parts by mass of the positive electrode active material,
the positive electrode mixture layer is provided on a surface of the positive electrode current collector in an amount of 250 g/m2 or more and 300g/m2 or less, and
However, Kusama et al. teaches an active material-containing layer with carbon fiber and granular fiber blended to enhance current collecting performance suppress contact resistance between the active material and current collector in which the amount is optimized to increase conductivity in Para. 59. Kusama et al. teaches the diameter or thickness of the carbon fiber is 1 nm to 200 nm in Para. 60. Kusama et al. teaches the carbon fiber may be 0.01 to 10 parts by mass relative to 100 parts by mass of the active material to increase electronic conductivity and optimize energy density in Para. 61. Kusama et al. notes it can be for a positive electrode in Para. 39.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the carbon fibers, as taught by Kusama et al., of the positive electrode mixture layer of Nakayama et al., to have a diameter or thickness of 1 nm to 200 nm and an amount of 0.01 to 10 parts by mass relative to 100 parts by mass of the active material in order to increase electronic conductivity and optimize resistance and energy density as noted by Kusama et al. in Para. 59 and 61.
This overlaps the claimed range in a manner which provides a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05).
Nakayama et al. in view of Kusama et al. fails to teach the positive electrode mixture layer is provided on a surface of the positive electrode current collector in an amount of 250 g/m2 or more and 300g/m2 or less.
However, Ikemoto et al. teaches applying a positive electrode active material containing a lithium composite oxide and binder and conductive additives to the current collector foil in an amount of 250 g/cm2 in Para. 60.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied the known technique as taught by Ikemoto et al. the positive electrode of Nakayama et al in view of Kusama et al. of applying 250 g/cm2 of a positive electrode active material comprising a lithium composite oxide, binder, and conductive additives, similar to the positive electrode active material from the combined teachings of Nakayama et al in view of Kusama et al., to yield predictable results and an improved system as shown by Ikemoto et al. in Para. 60. It would have been obvious because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would yield nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 18, Nakayama et al. in view of Kusama et al. and Ikemoto et al. teaches the secondary battery of claim 1, wherein M is at least one selected from the group consisting of a combination of Co and Al, and a combination of Co and Mn (see e.g. Nakayama et al. teaches the lithium-containing composite metal oxide has the formula Lia(NibCocM11-b-c)O2 in Para. 24 wherein 0.9 ≤ a ≤ 1.2, 0.9 ≤ b ≤ 1, 0 < c ≤ 0.1, 0.9< b+c ≤ 1 and M1 may be Al or Mn in Para. 25).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-3, 5, and 9-16 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 and/or relies on a new combination of the references cited in the Non-Final Rejection filed 8/25/2025 to address the newly added limitations. In this case, Nakayama et al. (US 2016/0380263 A1), Kusama et al. (US 2021/0083268 A1), and Shinoda et al. (US 2021/0376319 A1) were newly relied upon while Ikemoto et al. was previously relied upon but used in a new combination to address the newly added limitations.
Applicant's arguments filed 1/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues an unexpected critical result of cycle characteristics in paragraph 2 of page 8 to paragraph 4 of page 9 of applicant’s arguments and the affidavit that Hironori et al. in view of Kim et al. and Ikemoto et al. does not show.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim recites “carbon fiber” and 5 nm outermost diameter or less. The affidavit appears to show the alleged unexpected results for the CNT2 with an average diameter from 1.5 to 5 nm. Currently, the claim encompasses any “carbon fiber,” not just carbon nanotubes and any diameter below 5 nm, not just between 1.5 and 5 nm. It cannot be presumed that any "carbon fiber", including other types of carbon between 1.5 to 5 nm in diameter would also have the unexpected properties. Thus the claims as currently recited are not commensurate is scope with the examples and the results in the affidavit do not support the claimed ranges.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Showa (JP 2013/093288) teaches a method a production method of a composite material for a lithium secondary battery positive electrode including a lithium transition metal composite and fibrous carbon. This was cited in the Non-Final Rejection filed 8/25/2025.
Matsuu (US 2018/0254482 A1) teaches a positive electrode active material including a lithium composite oxide for a positive electrode in a lithium-ion secondary battery. This was cited in the Non-Final Rejection filed 8/25/2025.
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 KATHERINE J METZGER whose telephone number is (571)272-0170. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday (1st week) or Monday - Friday (2nd week) 7:30am-5:00am - 9-day biweekly schedule.
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, Tong Guo can be reached at 571-272-3066. 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.
/KATHERINE J METZGER/Examiner, Art Unit 1723
/CHRISTIAN ROLDAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723
04/14/2026
Prosecution Insights