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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 June 26th, 2026 has been entered.
Claim Status
Applicant’s arguments and claim amendments submitted on June 26th, 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 June 26th, 2026 have been entered into the file.
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 and a water solvent (Abstract; Page 3, Paragraph 3; Page 8, Paragraph 2).
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 2,000 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. Therefore, prima facie obviousness is established. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
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). Nakajo teaches that when the carbonaceous material in the conductive material dispersion has two or more particle size peaks in the particle size distribution, good dispersibility and fluidity and thus good conductive properties can be demonstrated when forming electrodes (Paragraph 0094).
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 (as seen in the Figure of Nakajo) 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 0018). The particle size of the peak P2 of Nakajo lies within the particle size range of A of the instant claim and the particle size of the peak P1 of Nakajo lies within the particle size range of B of the instant claim. Therefore, prima facie obviousness is established. 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) (Paragraph 0036). 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). Therefore, prima facie obviousness is established. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
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 demonstrating good dispersibility, fluidity, and conductive 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. Therefore, prima facie obviousness is established. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
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. Therefore, prima facie obviousness is established. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
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. Therefore, prima facie obviousness is established. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
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 the remarks filed June 26th, 2026, applicant argues that the attempted modification of Ito’s dispersion liquid with Nakajo’s nanotube dispersion having 15 to 30 wt% carbonaceous material and less than 0.05 wt% water should defeat the intended purpose of Ito to provide a liquid dispersion with 1 wt% CNT and 99.5 wt% water. Applicant argues that such a proposed modification would render the prior art unsatisfactory for its intended purpose, and thus fails to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. Applicant argues that Ito teaches a carbon nanotube dispersed solution that needs to be an aqueous solution while Nakajo needs to have an organic solvent, of which the water content needs to be controlled below a predetermined level and teaches that problems arise for a dispersion having a high amount of water. Applicant argues that such teachings should direct the ordinary skilled artisan away from using a water solvent of the amended claims. Thus, applicant argues that at least for reasons that the types of solvents, state of the dispersion and particle size distribution, and viscosities of the dispersion liquids taught by Ito, Nakajo, and Choy are different, it is difficult for a person of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the present invention from the aforementioned combination.
These arguments have been fully considered and are found persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments, the Examiner presents that the prior art of both Ito and Nakajo teach water present in their conductive material dispersion. While the amounts of water taught by the references may differ, the Examiner presents that the instant claim does not require a specific amount of concentration of water solvent in the conductive material dispersion.
Further, the Examiner presents that in the modification of Ito by Nakajo presented in the Final Rejection mailed April 28th, 2026, the teachings of Nakajo directed toward the particle size peaks of the carbonaceous material (carbon nanotubes) of the particle size distribution were incorporated in into the teachings of Ito. The Examiner did not incorporate any other teachings of Nakajo directed toward the components or content of the conductive material dispersion into Ito, such as a water content of Nakajo. In the above rejection, the Examiner explicitly provided motivation for such peaks of the carbon nanotubes in the particle size distribution of Nakajo being good dispersibility and fluidity, as recognized in Paragraph 0094 of Nakajo.
Further, the Examiner provides that Nakajo teaches that when the conductive material dispersion is prepared in the disclosed way, the resulting dispersion includes carbonaceous material, such as carbon nanotubes, having two or more particle size peaks (Paragraph 0094). In the process of preparing the dispersion, Nakajo indicates that factors such as the particle size of the beads used in the media mill influence how the carbonaceous material is broken up, affecting the final material’s size, morphology, and aspect ratio (Paragraph 0086), for example. Thus, the Examiner alleges that the ordinary artisan would understand in light of the teachings of Nakajo, the variable of size of the beads of the mill used to disperse the carbon nanotubes in the conductive material dispersion plays a role in determining the resulting size of the nanotubes in the dispersion, and thus the location and intensity of the carbon nanotube size peaks in the resulting particle size distribution.
As such, the ordinary artisan can tune the particle size of the beads in the mill used to disperse the carbon nanotubes in order to control the nanotube peaks in the particle size distribution, irrespective of the solvent used in the dispersion. Therefore, because Nakajo does not establish a link between the peaks of the particle size distribution and the presence of aqueous solvent (and rather correlates the mill bead size with the peaks of the particle size distribution), the ordinary artisan would not expect that the modification of Ito to incorporate the particle size peaks of the particle size distribution of Nakajo would render Ito unsatisfactory for its intended purpose, as there is nothing to suggest that such a modification would require altering the amount of aqueous solvent in the dispersion of Ito in any way.
Rather, Nakajo suggests such a particle size distribution tunable by the particle size of the beads in the mill during the dispersion. The primary reference of Ito teaches an aqueous solvent in the dispersion whose quantity is not altered by the modification of Nakajo relating to the particle size distribution and thus, as described in the rejection of claim 1 above, the prior art of records meets the instant claimed limitations.
Conclusion
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