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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 February 2, 2026 has been entered.
Summary
The Applicant’s argument and claim amendments received February 2, 2026 have been entered into the file. Currently, claim 1 is amended; claim 3 is cancelled; and claim 12 is new, resulting in claims 1-2 and 4-12 pending for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1, and by dependency claims 2, 4-10, and 12, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation in line 6 recites that “a powder resistivity of the porous carbon material is 0.60 Ω∙cm or less” however, without specifying an applied load, one of ordinary skill in the art could select any pressure load to apply such that the resistivity falls within the claimed range. Paragraph [0108] of the instant specification discloses that the powder resistivity is measured when a load of 64 MPa is applied, however, as written in claim 1, the powder resistivity could be measured under any load and therefore, could apply to any porous carbon material, making the limitation indefinite.
Regarding claims 2, 4-10, and 12, these claims are rejected based on their dependency on claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 4, and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Cericola, et al. (US 2015/0099180 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Cericola teaches surface-modified carbon hybrid particles to be used as a carbon additive in a variety of applications (¶ [0041], Ln. 1-8), including in positive electrodes (¶ [0044], Ln. 1-7). Cericola teaches that a characteristic of the surface-modified carbon hybrid particles is that the proportion of mesopores as opposed to micropores on the surface is high (¶ [0043], Ln. 1-4). As the IUPAC definition of mesopore includes pores with a width between 2 nm and 50 nm and the IUPAC definition of micropore includes pores with a width not exceeding 2 nm, the reference therefore teaches a higher volume of pores having a diameter of 2 nm or more than of pores having a diameter of less than 2 nm. Specifically, Cericola teaches examples of the surface-modified carbon hybrid particles including functionalized Carbon Hybrid D, which has a micropore volume of 0.055 cm3/g, within the claimed range of 0.22 cm3/g or less, and a mesopore volume of 0.350 cm3/g, within the claimed range of 0.25 cm3/g or more (Table 8).
Cericola teaches that the surface-modified carbon hybrid particles have an ash content of below 0.1% (¶ [0050], Ln. 1-6). The resistivities of carbon additives are provided in Figure 9, including the resistivity of Carbon Hybrid D at various densities. As shown in the Figure, the resistivity is below 0.2 Ω∙cm, within the claimed range of 0.60 Ω∙cm or less.
Regarding claim 2, Cericola teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above and further teaches that the BET specific surface area of the surface-modified carbon hybrid particles is within 100 m2/g and 800 m2/g (¶ [0042], Ln. 1-6), specifically teaching a BET specific surface area of Carbon Hybrid D of 431 m2/g (Table 1).
Regarding claim 4, Cericola teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above and further teaches that the D50 particle size (average particle size) is from 7 to 15 µm (¶ [0044], Ln. 7-13), within the claimed range of 2 to 20 µm.
Regarding claim 11, Cericola teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above and further teaches that the resistivity is measured at a pressure of 4.5 kN/cm2 (45 MPa) (¶ [0117], Ln. 1-4). In the case that the resistivity is measured at a higher pressure of 65 MPa, the resistivity is expected to be lower, and still within the claimed range of less than 0.60 Ω∙cm or less.
Regarding claim 12, Cericola teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above, and as the micropore volume of Carbon Hybrid D is 0.055 cm3/g, Cericola teaches a pore volume of pores having a diameter of less than 2 nm of 0.20 cm3/g or less (Table 8).
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.
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 5-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang, et al. (US 2020/0028156 A1) in view of Cericola, et al. (US 2015/0099180 A1).
Regarding claims 5-8 and 10, Zhang teaches an electrochemical cell (electrochemical device) including a cathode, anode, and solid state electrolyte (¶ [0048], Ln. 1-6), teaching that many cathode active materials may be used and specifically teaching the use of nickel manganese cobalt (NCM) and lithium cobalt oxide (LCO) (lithium ion secondary battery) (¶ [0062], Ln. 1-12). Zhang teaches that the cathode includes active material, carbon (conductive material), and PTFE binder powder blended at a starting formulation of active/carbon/PTFE of 82/10/8 (¶ [0066], Ln. 1-4), within the claimed range of a binder in an amount of 0.5 to 10% by weight and a conductive material in an amount of 1 to 10% by weight. Zhang teaches that the cathode may include an engineered porosity carbon material as a processing additive (¶ [0073], Ln. 1-2). Zhang further teaches that the processing additive has a high porosity, including a pore diameter of about 10 nm to 1000 nm and a pore volume of about 0.8 mL/g to about 2.5 mL/g (¶ [0073], Ln. 11-16). Zhang teaches that the processing additive is included at an amount from 2 wt% to 10 wt% relative to the total weight of the electrode material (¶ [0079], Ln. 1-6). Zhang does not expressly teach that the processing additive is a carbon material having a pore volume of pores having a diameter of less than 2 nm of 0.22 cm3/g or less, an ash content of 0.5% by weight or less, or a powder resistivity of 0.60 Ω∙cm or less.
Cericola teaches surface-modified carbon hybrid particles to be used as a carbon additive in a variety of applications (¶ [0041], Ln. 1-8), additionally teaching that carbon additives are used in a variety of primary and secondary batteries, including lithium primary and rechargeable batteries (¶ [0002], Ln. 1-10). Cericola teaches that a characteristic of the surface-modified carbon hybrid particles is that the proportion of mesopores as opposed to micropores on the surface is high (¶ [0043], Ln. 1-4). As the IUPAC definition of mesopore includes pores with a width between 2 nm and 50 nm and the IUPAC definition of micropore includes pores with a width not exceeding 2 nm, the reference therefore teaches a higher volume of pores having a diameter of 2 nm or more than of pores having a diameter of less than 2 nm. Specifically, Cericola teaches examples of the surface-modified carbon hybrid particles including functionalized Carbon Hybrid D, which has a micropore volume of 0.055 cm3/g, within the claimed range of 0.22 cm3/g or less, and a mesopore volume of 0.350 cm3/g, within the claimed range of 0.25 cm3/g or more (Table 8). Cericola teaches that the surface-modified carbon hybrid particles have an ash content of below 0.1% (¶ [0050], Ln. 1-6). The resistivities of carbon additives are provided in Figure 9, including the resistivity of Carbon Hybrid D at various densities. As shown in the Figure, the resistivity is below 0.2 Ω∙cm, within the claimed range of 0.60 Ω∙cm or less. Cericola teaches that the surface-modified carbon hybrid particles exhibit excellent mechanical and electrochemical properties due to their high surface area and high mesopore content, making them favorable conductive additives (¶ [0041], Ln. 1-8). Specifically Cericola teaches that when the carbon hybrid particles are used as carbon conductive additives in battery electrodes, good electrical conductivity as well as excellent compressibility is observed (¶ [0045], 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 cathode of Zhang to include the carbon additive of Cericola, based on the teachings of Cericola that high surface area and high mesopore content carbon hybrid particles are favorable conductive additives. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to use the surface-modified carbon hybrid particles in the cathode of Zhang in order to improve electrical conductivity and compressibility. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the particles at the content taught by Zhang for the addition of a processing carbon additive, which is 2 wt% to 10 wt% relative to the total weight of the electrode material. Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the surface-modified carbon hybrid particles within the claimed range of 10% by weight or less with respect to the total weight of the positive electrode active material.
Regarding claim 9, Zhang in view of Cericola teaches all of the limitations of claim 8 above and Zhang further teaches that charge/discharge cycles were performed on a cell including the LCO cathode from 2.7 to 4.2 V, operating within the claimed voltage of 2 to 5 V (¶ [0104], Ln. 1-5).
Response to Arguments
Response-Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. 103
In light of the Applicant’s amendment to claim 1 in the response filed February 2, 2026, the previous rejections of claims 1-2, 4, and 11 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Feaver, et al (US 2011/0159375 A1) in view of Takeshita, et al. (US 2019/0190027 A1) and of claims 1 and 5-11 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Ikuta, et al. (JP 2004/296431 A) in view of Feaver, et al (US 2011/0159375 A1), and further in view of Takeshita, et al. (US 2019/0190027 A1) have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 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.
Conclusion
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