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 .
Claim Status
Applicant’s arguments and claim amendments submitted on April 8th, 2026 have been entered into the file. Currently claim 1 is amended and claims 2-3 are cancelled, resulting in claims 1, 4-12 pending for examination.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments submitted on April 8th, 2026 have been entered into the file.
Applicant’s amendment of claim 1 to remove “a graph showing” in claim 1 has overcome the objection to claim 1 set forth in the Non-Final Rejection mailed January 12th, 2026.
Applicant’s amendment of claim 1 has overcome the 35 USC § 103 rejection of claims 1, 4-5 in view of Nakajo previously set forth in the Non-Final Rejection mailed January 12th, 2026.
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.
Claims 1, 4-9, 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito (Japanese Patent Publication No. 2020105316 A) (machine translation relied upon) in view of Choy (Chinese Patent Publication No. 107112524 A) and Nakajo (U.S. Patent Publication No. 20220006093 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Ito teaches a material dispersion for a rechargeable lithium battery comprising carbon nanotubes (Abstract).
Ito teaches the carbon nanotube dispersion has high dispersibility so as to obtain an electrode film having high conductivity (Abstract). Further, through disclosed examples, Ito teaches the dispersion able to provide a lithium secondary battery conductivity that is difficult to realize with conventional carbon nanotube dispersion liquid (Page 22, Paragraph 4). Thus, the carbon nanotube dispersion of Ito is conductive and meets the limitations of the instant claim.
Ito discloses the carbon nanotube dispersion liquid includes a dispersant (Abstract). Ito teaches polyvinyl pyrrolidone and carboxymethyl cellulose as a dispersant suitable for use in the dispersion (Paragraph 7, Paragraph 5), which is also provided as an example dispersing agent in the instant disclosure (Paragraph 0042). Ito teaches the amount of carbon nanotube in the carbon nanotube dispersion liquid is preferably 0.2 to 20 parts by mass, preferably 0.5 to 5 parts by mass with respect to 100 parts by mass of the carbon nanotube dispersion liquid (Page 9, Paragraph 3). Ito teaches the amount of the dispersant in the carbon nanotube dispersion liquid is preferably 30 to 80 parts by mass with respect to the mass of carbon nanotubes (Page 9, Paragraph 4). Therefore, Ito teaches the weight percent of dispersing agent with respect to the total weight of the conductive material dispersion as follows:
Upper Limit
5
p
a
r
t
s
c
a
r
b
o
n
n
a
n
o
t
u
b
e
s
100
p
a
r
t
s
c
a
r
b
o
n
n
a
n
o
t
u
b
e
d
i
s
p
e
r
s
i
o
n
l
i
q
u
i
d
×
80
p
a
r
t
s
d
i
s
p
e
r
s
a
n
t
100
p
a
r
t
s
c
a
r
b
o
n
n
a
n
o
t
u
b
e
s
*
100
%
=
4
%
d
i
s
p
e
r
s
a
n
t
w
i
t
h
r
e
s
p
e
c
t
t
o
100
%
c
a
r
b
o
n
n
a
n
o
t
u
b
e
d
i
s
p
e
r
s
i
o
n
Lower Limit
0.5
p
a
r
t
s
c
a
r
b
o
n
n
a
n
o
t
u
b
e
s
100
p
a
r
t
s
c
a
r
b
o
n
n
a
n
o
t
u
b
e
d
i
s
p
e
r
s
i
o
n
l
i
q
u
i
d
×
30
p
a
r
t
s
d
i
s
p
e
r
s
a
n
t
100
p
a
r
t
s
c
a
r
b
o
n
n
a
n
o
t
u
b
e
s
*
100
%
=
=
0.15
%
d
i
s
p
e
r
s
a
n
t
w
i
t
h
r
e
s
p
e
c
t
t
o
100
%
c
a
r
b
o
n
n
a
n
o
t
u
b
e
d
i
s
p
e
r
s
i
o
n
Thus, Ito teaches the dispersant present in the conductive material dispersion from 0.15 wt.% to 4 wt.% based on 100 wt % of the conductive material dispersion. The range of the weight percent of the dispersant of Ito overlaps with the instant claimed range. Therefore, prima facie obviousness is established and the claimed limitation is met. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Ito does not explicitly teach the conductive material dispersion having a viscosity of about 1,000 to about 10,000 cps.
Choy teaches a method for forming a positive electrode for a lithium secondary battery (Abstract). Choy discloses the dispersing agent added to the dispersion as a way to control the dispersibility of the conductive agent as well as the viscosity of the composition (Page 9, Paragraph 4). Further, Choy teaches the viscosity of the composition containing a conductive agent and a dispersant to suitably be from 1000 cps to 5000 cps (Page 11, Paragraph 3). When the viscosity of the dispersion is outside the range, Choy teaches reduced coating ability of the composition which makes forming a uniform thickness on the electrode (Page 18, Paragraph 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the viscosity of the conductive material dispersion of Ito to incorporate the teachings of Choy in which the viscosity is between 1,000 and 5,000 cps. Doing so would increase the ability to coat and achieve uniform thickness on the electrode, as recognized by Choy. With this modification, modified Ito teaches a range of viscosity of conductive material dispersion which substantially overlaps the claimed ranges of conductive material dispersion viscosity in the instant claim 1. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by modified Ito because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness.
Ito does not explicitly teach a particle size distribution of the conductive material dispersion, where A is a maximum peak intensity of all the carbon nanotubes occurring in a particle size range of about 0.5 µm or less, and B is a maximum peak intensity of all the carbon nanotubes occurring in a particle size range of more than about 0.5 µm, the A and the B satisfy the relationship of Equation 1, 0.2 ≤ A/B ≤ 0.8.
However, Nakajo teaches a carbonaceous material dispersion comprising carbon nanotubes (Paragraph 0065) suitable for use as a conductive auxiliary agent for forming a battery electrode layer (Paragraph 0002). Nakajo teaches a graph showing a particle size distribution of the conductive (carbonaceous) material dispersion (Paragraph 0036).
As Nakajo discloses that the sizes presented in the graph are suitable for providing the desired carbonaceous dispersion, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art to have the maximum peak intensity at the particle size 0.25 µm and 1.05 µm correspond to a maximum peak intensity of all the carbon nanotubes in the carbonaceous dispersion the claimed particles at peaks P2 (A) and P1 (B), respectively. One would have been motivated to do so, as Nakajo discloses that the plot in Figure 1 represents a carbonaceous dispersion suitable for its intended use as functioning as a conductive auxiliary agent (Paragraph 18). It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Further, Nakajo teaches the ratio of the heights of the peaks (P1:P2, equated to B/A) is in the range of 1:0.7 to 0.7:1 (1.43-0.7). Therefore, the ratio of the height of the peaks in the particle size distribution, P2:P1 (instant claim A/B in instant Equation 1) is taught by Nakajo to be in the range of 0.7-1.43. The range of the ratio of peak height P2:P1 (equivalent to A/B) of Nakajo substantially overlaps the claimed range of A/B in Equation 1 of the instant claim 1 (corresponds to A/B between 0.2 and 0.8). It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by Nakajo because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the particle size distribution of Ito to incorporate the teachings of Nakajo in which A (P2) is a maximum peak intensity occurring in a particle size range of about 0.5 µm or less, and B (P1) is a maximum peak intensity occurring in a particle size range of more than about 0.5 µm, the A and the B satisfy a relationship of Equation 1, Equation 1: 0.2 ≤ A/B ≤ 0.8. Doing so would provide a carbonaceous material dispersion which is highly concentrated that can easily be coated on electrodes so that that exhibit excellent electrical properties, as recognized by Nakajo (Paragraph 0018). With this modification, as discussed above, Ito in view of Nakajo meets the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 4, modified Ito teaches a conductive material dispersion for a rechargeable lithium battery as discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Ito does not explicitly teach the amount of the carbon nanotubes to be about 0.4 wt% to about 2.0 wt% based on a total of 100 wt% of the conductive material dispersion.
However, Ito teaches the amount of carbon nanotube is most preferably 0.5 to 5 parts by mass with respect to the 100 parts by mass of the carbon nanotube dispersion liquid (0.5-5 wt% of carbon nanotubes).
The range of weight percent of carbon nanotubes of Ito substantially overlaps the claimed ranges of the weight percentage of carbon nanotubes in the instant claim 4. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by Ito because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness.
Regarding claim 5, modified Ito teaches a conductive material dispersion for a rechargeable lithium battery as discussed above with respect to claim 1, wherein the carbon nanotubes are single-walled carbon nanotubes (Page 3, Paragraph 3).
Regarding claim 6, modified Ito teaches a conductive material dispersion for a rechargeable lithium battery as discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Ito does not explicitly teach the carbon nanotubes having an average length of about 10 µm or less.
However, Ito teaches the fiber length of the carbon nanotube is 0.1 µm to 10 µm, preferably 0.2 µm to 5 µm, most preferably 0.3 µm to 2 µm (Page 9, Paragraph 5).
The range of fiber length of carbon nanotubes of Ito substantially overlaps the claimed ranges of the fiber length of carbon nanotubes in the instant claim 6. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by Ito because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness.
Regarding claim 7, modified Ito teaches a conductive material dispersion for a rechargeable lithium battery as discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Ito does not explicitly teach the carbon nanotubes having an average diameter of about 1 nm to about 5 nm.
However, Ito teaches the average outer diameter of the carbon nanotube is 1 nm to 10 nm, preferably 3 nm to 10 nm, and most preferably 3 nm to 8 nm (Page 4, Paragraph 4).
The range of fiber length of carbon nanotubes of Ito substantially overlaps the claimed ranges of the fiber length of carbon nanotubes in the instant claim 6. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by Ito because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness.
Regarding claim 8, modified Ito teaches a conductive material dispersion for a rechargeable lithium battery as discussed above with respect to claim 1, with particles A and B.
Ito does not explicitly teach the dispersion wherein the A is about 0.1 volume% to about 15 volume% and the B is about 1 volume% to about 20 volume% as a fraction of the volume of particles in the particle size distribution.
However, as discussed above, Nakajo discloses that it is desirable to have a state in which primary particles or primary aggregates and secondary aggregates of the carbonaceous material (carbon nanotubes) are present in sufficient proportions resulting in two or more size peaks in the particle size distribution when measured with laser diffraction (Paragraph 0095). Further, Nakajo teaches that by forming two or more particle size peaks, the agglomerated structure of the carbonaceous material can be preserved while also maintaining the desired dispersibility, fluidity, and conductivity in the process of forming electrodes (Paragraph 0094).
Absent unexpected results, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the volume percent of carbonaceous material in the dispersion represented by peak P2 to be between 0.1 volume% to about 15 volume% (equivalent to instant particles A) based on 100 volume% of the carbon nanotubes and those represented by peak P1 to be between 1 volume% to about 20 volume% (equivalent to instant particles B) based on 100 volume% of the carbon nanotubes, since it has been held that where general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering optimum or workable ranges involved only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05.
In the present invention, one would have been motivated to optimize the volume concentration of carbonaceous material to be within the claimed ranges of instant claim 8 in order to achieve the desired structure of the dispersion as well as battery properties. For example, the ordinary artisan would recognize that the proportion of the carbon nanotubes with a smaller particle size (P2 of Nakajo, instant particle A) and the proportion of the carbon nanotubes with a larger particle size (P1 of Nakajo, instant particle B) with respect to the entirety of carbon nanotubes in the dispersion may be tuned to balance between forming the desired agglomerated structure and achieving the desired battery properties of dispersibility, fluidity, and conductivity.
Regarding claim 9, Ito teaches a negative electrode for a rechargeable lithium battery prepared by using the conductive material dispersion (mixture slurry comprising the carbon nanotube dispersion) (Page 12, Paragraph 6) as discussed above with respect to claim 1 (Page 13, Paragraph 4).
Regarding claim 11, Ito teaches a rechargeable lithium battery comprising the negative electrode as discussed above with respect to claim 9, a positive electrode, and an electrolyte (Page 13, Paragraph 4).
Regarding claim 12, modified Ito teaches a conductive material dispersion for a rechargeable lithium battery as discussed above with respect to claim 1. As discussed above, the modification of Ito by Choy results in a viscosity of the conductive material dispersion from 1000 cps to 5000 cps (Page 11, Paragraph 3). With this modification, modified Ito teaches a range of viscosity of conductive material dispersion which overlaps the claimed ranges (4230 cps to about 5830 cps) of conductive material dispersion viscosity in the instant claim 12. Therefore, prima facie obviousness is established. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito in view of Choy and Nakajo as applied to claims 1, 4-9, 11-12 above, as evidenced by the Merriam Webster Definition of “composite.”
Regarding claim 10, Ito teaches a negative electrode for a rechargeable lithium battery as discussed above with respect to claim 9, wherein the negative electrode comprises a silicon and carbon (graphite) composite negative active material (Page 11, Paragraph 5). A composite is defined by Merriam Webster as being made up of distinct parts or elements, and because Ito teaches the active material as a combination of silicon and graphite, Ito teaches a composite active material.
Cited Art Not Relied Upon
Hirabayashi (W.O. 2022138496 A1) discloses a conductive material dispersion (carbon nanotube dispersion liquid) (Paragraphs 11, 3) for a rechargeable lithium battery (Paragraphs 12, 26) comprising carbon nanotubes and a dispersing agent (polymer A and polymer B) (Paragraph 32). Hirabayashi teaches the carbon nanotube dispersion having two or more peaks in the particle size distribution measured using the laser diffraction/scattering type particle size distribution measurement method (Paragraph 109). However, Hirabayashi does not teach the appropriate peak intensities corresponding the particle sizes of the disclosed invention.
Response to Arguments
Response – Claim Rejections Under 35 USC § 103
In response to the Non-Final Rejection mailed January 12th, 2026, applicant argues in the response received April 8th, 2026 that the newly amended limitations of claim 1 are not disclosed, taught, or suggested by Nakajo.
These arguments have been fully considered and are found persuasive.
As discussed above, the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claims 1, 4-5 in view of Nakajo have been withdrawn.
In response to the Non-Final Rejection mailed January 12th, 2026, applicant argues in the response received April 8th, 2026 that Ito, alone or in combination with Choy, does not remedy the deficiencies with respect to amended claim 1. Applicant argues that Ito fails to disclose a viscosity of its carbon nanotube dispersion, and that the conductive material dispersion of the present invention cannot be obtained from Ito. Applicant argues that Choy teaches a solvent is used to have a viscosity of 1000 to 5000 cps but the composition for preparing a positive electrode includes a conductive material, a dispersing agent, a binder, and a positive active material, which are different from the conductive material dispersion including carbon nanotubes and a dispersing agent of the present invention. Applicant thus argues that the viscosity of Choy is not directly comparable to the viscosity of the present invention.
These arguments have been fully considered but are not found persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments, the Examiner presents that as discussed above in the rejection of amended claim 1, Ito is silent as to the viscosity of the conductive material dispersion, but teaches the conductive material dispersion comprising carbon nanotubes, a dispersing agent, and a solvent. Thus, Ito teaches a composition of a carbon nanotube dispersion which overlaps with that of the instant disclosure.
Further, Choy was relied upon to teach the desired range of viscosity of a conductive material dispersion, as Choy teaches a dispersion medium in step (1) in the disclosed method of manufacturing a positive electrode coating composition in which a conductive agent is dispersed in a solvent using a dispersant (Page 7). The materials of the conductive material dispersion of Choy overlap with those of the instant disclosure and the teachings of Ito.
Similar to the instant disclosure and Ito, Choy discloses the conductive material of the dispersion may be carbon nanotubes (Page 9, Paragraph 2). In addition to the conductive agent, Choy teaches a dispersing agent in the dispersion such as polyvinylpyrrolidone and carboxymethyl cellulose (Page 10), which overlap with the dispersants provided in Ito and the instant disclosure. In addition to the conductive and dispersing agents, Choy teaches a solvent in the dispersion such as water (Page 11), which overlap with the solvent provided in Ito and the instant disclosure.
Choy teaches the role of the dispersing agent to increase the dispersibility of the composition, particularly of the conductive agent, and that the dispersing agent may act as a thickener to control the viscosity (Page 9, Paragraph 4). Additionally, Choy teaches the solvent is contained in the dispersion in an amount which takes into consideration the dispersibility of the conductive agent and the dispersant, and such a dispersion can have a suitable viscosity of 1000 cps to 5000 cps after the addition of the solvent (Page 11).
Thus, Choy teaches it is desirable to control the viscosity of the dispersion comprising the conductive material, dispersant, and the solvent, and that such tuning can be achieved by the quantity of dispersant and solvent in step (1) of the disclosed method. Further, Choy teaches that a suitable viscosity of the conductive agent and dispersant dispersed in a solvent as described in the method is between 1000 cps and 5000 cps, which overlaps with the range given in the instant disclosure, in order to obtain the final viscosity of the positive electrode composition for coating that is formed in the subsequent steps of the method.
Thus, the teachings relating to the viscosity of the conductive material dispersion of Choy may be applied to the conductive material dispersion of Ito because the composition and the materials are shared between the prior art, therefore meeting the instant claimed limitations.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 OLIVIA A JONES whose telephone number is (571)272-1718. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30 AM - 4:30 PM.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached at (571) 270-7692. 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.
/O.A.J./Examiner, Art Unit 1789
/MARLA D MCCONNELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights