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 and Claim Status
The amendment filed 8 September 2025 has been entered. Claims 1–4 are pending in the application. The paragraph numbers cited in this Office Action in reference to the Instant Application are referring to the paragraph numbering of the PGPub of the Instant Application. See US 2023/0113038 A1.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 8 September 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being 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 1–4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akikusa et al. (US 2015/0171421 A1) as evidenced by Mukai et al. (US 2015/0280237 A1) in view of Nagai et al. (US 2019/0198879 A1).
Regarding Claims 1–3, Akikusa discloses a positive electrode (see electrode, [0028], which can be a positive electrode, [0029]) for an energy storage device (see lithium ion secondary cell, [0028]) comprising a positive active material layer (see electrode film, [0028]) containing a positive active material (see positive electrode active material, [0029]) and carbon nanofibers (see carbon nanofibers, [0028]).
While Akikusa discloses ([0028]) that the carbon nanofibers contain carbon nanotubes, Akikusa does not explicitly disclose that the carbon nanofibers are entirely carbon nanotubes. However, it is well-known in the field of positive electrodes for energy storage devices that carbon nanotubes, amongst the various types of carbon nanofibers, are most preferably used as conductive agents in positive electrodes due to their improved conductivity, as evidenced by Mukai ([0089]). It would therefore have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the positive electrode of Akikusa such that the carbon nanofibers containing carbon nanotubes are instead entirely carbon nanotubes, as carbon nanotubes are well-known in the field to be most preferably used as conductive agents in positive electrodes amongst the various types of carbon nanofibers due to their improved conductivity.
Akikusa does not disclose that the average diameter of the carbon nanotube is 30 nm or more and 50 nm or less.
Nagai teaches a positive electrode (see electrodes, [0045], and positive electrode, [0082]) for an energy storage device (see battery, [0045]) comprising a positive active material layer (see electrode mixture layer, [0082]) containing a positive active material (see active material, [0045]) and a carbon nanotube (see multi-walled carbon nanotubes, [0045]). Nagai further teaches ([0050]) wherein the average diameter of the carbon nanotube is 5 nm or more and 50 nm or less. Nagai teaches ([0050]) that when the average diameter of the carbon nanotube does not exceed 50 nm, the number of carbon nanotubes per unit weight is suitable for forming a conductive network.
Nagai and Akikusa are analogous to the claimed invention as they are in the same field of positive electrodes for energy storage devices. It would therefore have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the overlapping portions of the ranges, i.e. 30–50 nm, for the average diameter of the carbon nanotube with a reasonable expectation that such selection would successfully result in a number of carbon nanotubes per unit weight suitable for forming a conductive network.
Modified Akikusa does not explicitly disclose wherein in a Log differential pore volume distribution of the positive active material layer measured by a mercury intrusion method, an average value of a ratio of a Log differential pore volume to a pore diameter in a range of a pore diameter of 20 nm or more and 200 nm or less is 3000 cm2/g or more (Claim 1), wherein in the Log differential pore volume distribution, a peak of the Log differential pore volume exists in the range of the pore diameter of 20 nm or more and 200 nm or less (Claim 2), nor wherein the Log differential pore volume distribution, a maximum value of the Log differential pore volume in the range of the pore diameter of 20 nm or more and 200 nm or less is 0.04 cm3/g or more (Claim 3). However, it is submitted that such limitations are simply measurements and thus descriptions of the Instant positive electrode which would be the direct result of the Instant positive active material layer’s composition.
Example 1 of the Instant Application is a positive electrode active material layer which satisfies the recited measurements of Claims 1–3 above ([0089], Table 1). The Instant Application discloses that Example 1 is a positive active material layer containing: LiMeO2 (Me is Ni/Co/Mn=60/20/20) present in a mass % of 93 ([0083]–[0084]), conductive agents in the form of: carbon nanotubes with average diameters of 30–50 nm and lengths of 5–12 µm present in a mass % of 1.0 ([0083]–[0084], Table 1) and carbon black present in a mass % of 3.0 ([0083]–[0084], Table 1), and a binder in the form of polyvinylidene fluoride present in a mass % of 3 ([0083]–[0084]).
Modified Akikusa discloses a positive active material layer (as set forth above) containing LiMeO2 (Me is Ni/Co/Mn=60/20/20) (see Li(MnxNiyCoz)O2 wherein x+y+z=1 and 0<x<1, 0<y<1, and 0<z<1, [0029]), carbon nanotubes with average diameters of 30–50 nm (as set forth above), carbon black ([0010]), and a binder in the form of polyvinylidene fluoride ([0029]).
Akikusa discloses ([0029]) that the carbon nanotube have aspect ratios of 50 or more, corresponding to lengths of 1.5 µm or more, which overlaps with the lengths of Example 1 of the Instant Application. Note that when the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP § 2144.05.I).
Akikusa discloses ([0029]) that when the carbon nanotubes have aspect ratios of 50 or more, the lengths of the carbon nanotubes are sufficient to crosslink the active material. Thus in addition to the prima facie case of obviousness established above, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to select the overlapping portions of the ranges, i.e. 5–12 µm, for the length of the carbon nanotubes with a reasonable expectation that such selection would successfully result in carbon nanotubes that can sufficiently crosslink the active material.
Akikusa discloses ([0033]) that the carbon nanotubes can be present in a mass % of 0.1 to 5, which overlaps with the mass % of Example 1 of the Instant Application. Note that when the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP § 2144.05.I).
Akikusa discloses ([0033]) that when the positive active material layer contains the carbon nanotubes in a mass % of 0.1 to 5, the carbon nanotubes entangle to a suitable extent with the positive active material without entangling with each other. Thus in addition to the prima facie case of obviousness established above, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to select the overlapping portions of the ranges, i.e. a mass % of 1.0, for the mass % of carbon nanotubes with a reasonable expectation that such selection would successfully result in carbon nanotubes which entangle with the positive active material to a suitable extent while not entangling with each other.
Akikusa discloses ([0033]) that the carbon black can be present in a mass % of 1 to 7, which overlaps with the mass % of Example 1 of the Instant Application. Note that when the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP § 2144.05.I).
Akikusa discloses ([0033]) that when the positive active material layer contains carbon black in a mass % of 1 to 7, the carbon black can serve as a suitably sized conductive path without generating many voids during mixing with the binder. Thus in addition to the prima facie case of obviousness established above, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to select the overlapping portions of the ranges, i.e. a mass % of 3.0, for the mass % of carbon black with a reasonable expectation that such selection would successfully result in the carbon black being able to serve as a suitably sized conductive path without generating many voids during mixing with the binder.
Akikusa discloses ([0033]) that binder in the form of polyvinylidene fluoride can be present in a mass % of 2 to 7, which overlaps with the mass % of Example 1 of the Instant Application. Note that when the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP § 2144.05.I).
Akikusa discloses ([0033]) that when the positive active material layer contains polyvinylidene fluoride in a mass % of 2 to 7, the adhesion property of the active material and current collector is sufficiently strong and the positive active material layer can maintain sufficient electronic conductivity. Thus in addition to the prima facie case of obviousness established above, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to select the overlapping portions of the ranges, i.e. a mass % of 3, for the mass % of polyvinylidene fluoride with a reasonable expectation that such selection would successfully result in sufficiently strong adhesion between the active material and the current collector and sufficient electronic conductivity of the positive active material layer.
Finally, Akikusa discloses ([0033]) that the positive active material layer contains active material in an amount sufficient to balance the other components of the active material layer described above and reach a total mass % of 100. A person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have thus found it obvious to select a mass % of the active material LiMeO2 (Me is Ni/Co/Mn=60/20/20) of 93.
Thus as set forth above, modified Akikusa discloses a positive active material layer which appears to have the same composition as that of Example 1 of the Instant Application. It is therefore submitted that the recited properties of the positive active material layer of modified Akikusa overlap the claimed properties of Claims 1–3, i.e. in a Log differential pore volume distribution of the positive active material layer measured by a mercury intrusion method, have an average value of a ratio of a Log differential pore volume to a pore diameter in a range of a pore diameter of 20 nm or more and 200 nm or less is 3000 cm2/g or more (Claim 1), have a peak of the Log differential pore volume exists in the range of the pore diameter of 20 nm or more and 200 nm or less (Claim 2), and have a maximum value of the Log differential pore volume in the range of the pore diameter of 20 nm or more and 200 nm or less is 0.04 cm3/g or more (Claim 3).
Regarding Claim 4, modified Akikusa discloses the positive electrode of Claim 1. Modified Akikusa further discloses an energy storage device (see lithium ion secondary cell, Akikusa [0028]) comprising the positive electrode according to Claim 1.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 8 September 2025 with respect to Claim 1, specifically regarding the reference Akikusa not disclosing carbon nanotubes having the average diameter of 30 nm or more and 50 nm or less have been fully 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 arguments filed 8 September 2025 with respect to Claim 1, specifically regarding a criticality of the 30 nm or more and 50 nm or less range for the average diameter of the carbon nanotube have been fully considered but are not persuasive. The Applicant’s statement that it is easier to disperse the conductive agent when the carbon nanotubes have an average diameter within the above range is a conclusory statement without any supporting evidence (see MPEP 716.01(c)). Furthermore, Applicant discloses ([0027]) that the average diameter of the carbon nanotube preferably ranges from 10 nm or more and 70 nm or less ([0027]), and also includes multiple examples (see e.g. Examples 3 and 4, [0083]–[0084], Table 1) which appear to, in some cases (e.g. Example 3), outperform other Examples (e.g. Example 1 and 2) which contain carbon nanotubes with diameters in the 30–50 nm range.
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 JULIA MARIE FEHR, Ph.D. whose telephone number is (571)270-0860. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM EST.
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, BASIA RIDLEY can be reached at (571)272-1453. 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.
/J.M.F./Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/Sean P Cullen, Ph.D./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights