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 .
The amendment filed 8/21/26 has been considered and entered. Claims 1-21 remain in the application.
Considering the amendment filed 8/21/26, the 35 USC 103 rejections have been withdrawn. However, the following rejections have been necessitated by the amendment.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claims 1-17 and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brambilla et al. (2020/0227211) in combination with WO 2020/144298 and Rampel et al. (5,064,735) (a) in combination with Ma et al. (2014/0332731) or (b) in combination with Dai et al. (2010/0059706) or Sawada et al. (10/998,551).
Brambilla et al. (2020/0227211) teaches a composite electrode includes an active storage layer including a network of carbon nanotubes defining void spaces and a carbonaceous material located in the void spaces and bound by the network of carbon nanotubes in forming energy storage devices (abstract). Brambilla et al. (2020/0227211) teaches the composite electrode useful in ultracapacitors or capacitors [0093]-[0095].
Brambilla et al. (2020/0227211) fails to teach the active material in the void spaces to be silicon and not carbonaceous material.
WO 2020/144298 teaches a similar composite electrode whereby a segregated network of carbon nanotubes is formed with a particulate active material therein whereby the particulate active material can include carbon material such as graphite and graphene as well as micron sized silicon powder (abstract and pg. 5, lines 6-13).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Brambilla et al. (2020/0227211) process to substitute silicon for the carbon materials in the carbon nanotube network as taught by WO 2020/144298 with the expectation of forming an anode.
Brambilla et al. (2020/0227211) in combination with WO 2020/144298 fail to teach a polymeric additive including polyamide, modified polyamide or derivative of polyamide.
Rampel et al. (5,064,735) teaches an electrode material including polyamide dispersed within the electrochemically active material which serves as an anti-agglomerant retarding cadmium agglomeration during use of electrode (col. 3, lines 38-41).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Brambilla et al. (2020/0227211) in combination with WO 2020/144298 electrode to include polyamide therein as taught by Rampel et al. (5,064,735) with the expectation of preventing agglomeration of the active material.
Brambilla et al. (2020/0227211) in combination with WO 2020/144298 and Rampel et al. (5,064,735) fails to teach the claimed weight ratio of first and second carbon nanotubes to be 2:1.
(a)Ma et al. (2014/0332731) teaches mixing a polymeric binder including polyamide with CNT network and an active material along with a polymeric binder including polyamide for use as electrode in lithium ion batteries (abstract, Fig.1, [0032]-[0034] and [0059]-[0061]. Ma et al. (2014/0332731) teaches a ratio of carbon nanotube(A) to carbon nanotubes (B) of 7:3 which would equate to 2.33:1 which would meet the claimed “about 2:1”.
(b) Dai et al. (2010/0059706) teaches forming cathode materials including first and second carbon nanotubes whereby the ratio of these is 2-10:1 (abstract and [0007]) or Sawada et al. (10/998,551) teaches forming electrode material having first (A) and second (B) carbon materials whereby the weight ratio of A/B is from 0.01:100 which would be inclusive of 2:1 (abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Brambilla et al. (2020/0227211) in combination with WO 2020/144298 and Rampel et al. (5,064,735) electrode to have the claimed 2:1 ratio of first and second carbon nanotubes as evidenced by either Ma et al. (2014/0332731) or (b) in combination with Dai et al. (2010/0059706) or Sawada et al. (10/998,551)with the expectation of providing improved packing of the electrode materials to produce improved electrode device.
Regarding claims 1-3, WO 2020/144298 teaches the active material to include a silicon powder and this can include micron sized silicon powder (abstract and pg. 5, lines 6-13). Both Rampel et al. (5,064,735) and Ma et al. (2014/0332731) teach adding the polymeric binder including polyamide along with the CNT’s and electrode active material in forming paste which would meet the claimed “surface treatment” as they would all be mixed, and the polyamide binder would increase adhesion of the active material with the CNT network.
Regarding clams 4 and 5, WO 2020/144298 teaches the active material to include 90-99.9 wt% and therefore would meet the claimed greater than 50% or greater than 80% since the active material can include only silicon.
Regarding 6 and 7, WO 2020/144298 teaches allowing expansion of the network and silicon particles to avoid electrode cracking (pg. 26, lines 10)
Regarding claims 8-10,12-14 and 16, Brambilla et al. (2020/0227211) teaches the carbon nanotube network can comprise SWNT, DWNT, MWNT or mixtures thereof which would meet the claimed first and second set of carbon nanotubes which have differing properties [0035].
Regarding claim 11, WO 2020/144298 teaches particulate active material include cathode materials such as NMC, LCO, NCA, etc. (col. 5, lines 6-13). Both Rampel et al. (5,064,735) and Ma et al. (2014/0332731) teach adding the polymeric binder including polyamide along with the CNT’s and electrode active material in forming paste which would meet the claimed “surface treatment” as they would all be mixed, and the polyamide binder would increase adhesion of the active material with the CNT network.
Regarding claim 15, Brambilla et al. (2020/0227211) teaches SWNT and MWNT and wt% of less than 10wt% which would be inclusive or overlapping ranges [0035],[0048].
Regarding claims 17 and 19, Brambilla et al. (2020/0227211) teaches the carbon nanotube network to have from less than 10wt% to 1 wt% or less [0048].
Regarding claim 20, Brambilla et al. (2020/0227211) teaches the CNT network can include bundles, clusters or aggregates which would be entangle [0035] or interconnected [0049].
Regarding claim 21, Brambilla et al. (2020/0227211) teaches MWNT and SWNT and hence would inherently swell at differing amounts due to the different nanotube materials.
Claims 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brambilla et al. (2020/0227211) in combination with WO 2020/144298 and Rampel et al. (5,064,735) (a) in combination with Ma et al. (2014/0332731) or (b) in combination with Dai et al. (2010/0059706) or Sawada et al. (10/998,551) further in combination with WO 2020/197673.
Features detailed above concerning the teachings of Brambilla et al. (2020/0227211) in combination with WO 2020/144298 and Rampel et al. (5,064,735) (a) in combination with Ma et al. (2014/0332731) or (b) in combination with Dai et al. (2010/0059706) or Sawada et al. (10/998,551) are incorporated here.
Brambilla et al. (2020/0227211) in combination with WO 2020/144298 and Rampel et al. (5,064,735) (a) in combination with Ma et al. (2014/0332731) or (b) in combination with Dai et al. (2010/0059706) or Sawada et al. (10/998,551) fails to teach the carbon nanotube network to have branched or entangles network of CNTs.
WO 2020/197673 teaches a carbon nanotube network that includes entangled CNTs which can be branched (abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Brambilla et al. (2020/0227211) in combination with WO 2020/144298 and Rampel et al. (5,064,735) (a) in combination with Ma et al. (2014/0332731) or (b) in combination with Dai et al. (2010/0059706) or Sawada et al. (10/998,551) composite electrode to include carbon nanotube network being entangled and/or branched as taught by WO 2020/197673 with the expectation of similar success.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made because of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-21 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. US 2023/0178750 in view of WO 2020/144298.
The only difference between the instant application and the Application No. US 2023/0178750 application is the active material particle to be silicon (claims 1-11) and the electrode to be a cathode (claims 12-21).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Response to Amendment
Applicant's arguments filed 2/23/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argued the newly claimed limitation of the network of high aspect ratio carbon elements wherein the first set of carbon nanotubes comprise multi-wall nanotubes, wherein the second set of carbon nanotubes comprise single-wall carbon nanotubes is not taught or suggested by Brambilla et al. (2020/0227211) [0035] which states “the carbon nanotube network may include single-wall nanotubes, double wall nanotubes, multi-wall nanotubes or mixtures thereof”, specifically stating that the term “mixtures thereof” does not supply the claimed subject matter of two separately identified sets each of a specified type and weight ratio.
The Examiner disagrees. While the Examiner acknowledges the fact that Brambilla et al. (2020/0227211) does not recite a first set of multi-wall carbon nanotubes or a second set of single-wall nanotubes, the reference clearly teaches the multi-wall and single wall nanotubes individually as well as combinations thereof and hence meet the claimed limitation as the use of only single wall and multi-wall nanotubes is envisioned from the reference. Applicant’s arguments are not commensurate in scope with the claims as recited as the claims do not limit the first or second set of nanotubes to be “consisting entirely of” as the claims recite comprising and therefore can include other types of nanotubes whereby the claim only requires that the first and second set of nanotubes “comprise/include” the claimed nanotubes which is clearly taught by Brambilla et al. (2020/0227211). Furthermore, the claim even if reciting the narrow breath argued by Applicant, Brambilla et al. (2020/0227211) teaches mixtures thereof which would teach or at the least suggest one set of solely multi-wall nanotube and a second set of multi-wall nanotubes. Regarding the claimed limitation of “differing properties” between the two set of nanotubes (claims 12 and 21), the Examiner has taken the position that since the nanotubes are the same, they would possess the same properties and therefore would have one or more different properties from one another as the materials are the same Single-wall and multi-wall nanotubes.
Applicant argued Ma et al. (2014/0332731) or (b) in combination with Dai et al. (2010/0059706) or Sawada et al. (10/998,551) fails to teach the claimed carbon nanotube weight ratio of the first and second carbon nanotubes to be 2:1.
The Examiner disagrees. As detailed in the rejection above, Ma et al. (2014/0332731) or (b) in combination with Dai et al. (2010/0059706) or Sawada et al. (10/998,551) teaches two types of carbon nanotubes in a mixture with a ratio of about 2:1.
Applicant argued claim 11 claims a cathode and not an anode and is therefore not disclosed in the references.
The Examiner disagrees. WO 2020/144298 teaches particulate active material include cathode materials such as NMC, LCO, NCA, etc. (col. 5, lines 6-13).
Applicant has requested to hold in abeyance the Double Patenting Rejection over US 2023/0178750 as neither case has been issued or allowed.
Considering this stance, the Examiner has maintained the ODP rejection until the time at which the US 2023/0178750 is issued or allowed.
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 BRIAN K TALBOT whose telephone number is (571)272-1428. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday 7-4PM.
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, MICHAEL CLEVELAND can be reached at 571-272-1418. 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.
/BRIAN K TALBOT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
