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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS filed on 2/10/2026 has been considered by examiner.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed on 11/13/2025 has been entered. Claims 2 and 3 are cancelled, and claims 20 and 21 are added. Claims 1 and 4-21 remain pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 12 and dependent claims 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. Claim 12 contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 12 recites the limitation “wherein an average diameter of the carbon nanotubes is greater than 5 nm and less than 10 nm” in lines 2-3. However, paragraph [0015] and Table 2 of the specification only disclose the use of carbon nanotubes (CNTs) having an average diameter of 10 nm, which would not be included in the recited range. There is no support in the specification for an upper limit of the average diameter of the carbon nanotubes being 10 nm or less.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 4, 5, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohsawa et al. (US 2020/0020926, hereinafter "Ohsawa") in view of Pan et al. (US 2023/0068865, hereinafter "Pan").
Regarding claim 1, Ohsawa teaches a negative electrode for a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery comprising a negative electrode mixture including a negative electrode active material capable of electrochemically absorbing and releasing lithium ions [Abstract, “The negative electrode for a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery according to the invention has a configuration in which a negative electrode active material layer containing a negative electrode material and a binder is formed on the surface of a current collector”]. Ohsawa teaches that the negative electrode active material includes a silicon-containing material [0011, “the negative electrode material has a core portion containing carbonaceous negative electrode active material particles; and a shell portion containing a polyimide and silicon-based negative electrode active material particles”]. Ohsawa further discloses that the negative electrode mixture may include a conductive aid, and that the conductive aid may include carbon nanotubes [0096, “it is particularly preferable that the negative electrode active material layer includes a conductive aid”, “0067, “Examples of the conductive aid include … carbon nanotubes (CNT)”]. The negative electrode mixture taught by Ohsawa also includes a polymer including a hydrophilic structural unit and a hydrophobic structural unit [Abstract, “Furthermore, there is a feature that the binder is formed of a hydrophilic unit and a hydrophobic unit bonded together”]. Ohsawa discloses that the hydrophilic unit may be an acrylic polymer having a carboxyl group such as poly(meth)acrylic acid, which is derived from an ethylenically unsaturated carboxylic acid [0017, “the hydrophilic unit (particularly, a carboxyl group) of the binder interacts with the silicon-based negative electrode active material particles”, 0078, “Examples of the hydrophilic unit include poly(meth)acrylic acid”]. Ohsawa further teaches that in the polymer of the binder, the proportion of the hydrophilic unit to the hydrophobic unit is preferably 99:1 to 80:20 [0092, “the mass proportion between the hydrophilic unit and the hydrophobic unit in the amphoteric binder is preferably 99:1 to 80:20”]. Therefore, Ohsawa teaches that the ratio of the hydrophobic structural units to a total of the hydrophilic structural units and the hydrophobic structural units ranges from 1% to 20%, which overlaps the claimed range of 0.5% or more and 5% or less. According to guidance issued in In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976), in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05 I). Ohsawa does not specifically teach that the hydrophobic structural unit is derived from a compound represented by a general formula: H2C=CR1-X where R1 is a hydrogen atom or methyl group, X is COOR2 or a cyano group, and R2 is a hydrocarbon group having 1 to 8 carbon atoms. Pan teaches analogous art of negative electrode plate comprising a binder, or adhesive, with a polymer including hydrophilic and hydrophobic units [Abstract, “Disclosed are a battery binder, a lithium-ion battery negative electrode plate and a lithium-ion battery. The adhesive contains a polymer having both hydrophilic and hydrophobic units”]. Pan teaches that the hydrophobic unit is introduced by a lipophilic monomer [0013] which has a structural formula of CH2=CR1R2, where R1 is selected from a hydrogen atom or a methyl group, and R2 is selected from a cyano group or from a list including —COOCH3, —COOCH2CH3, —COOCH2CH2CH2CH3, —COOC(CH3)3, or —COOCH2CH(CH2CH3)CH2CH2CH2CH3 [0014].
Pan teaches that the binder containing the polymer which includes the hydrophobic monomer has a high adhesive force and can improve the performance of the batteries to which it is applied [0029, “The battery binder provided by the invention has high adhesive force, and can be applied to the preparation of lithium ion battery plates to improve the performance of batteries”]. Pan also teaches that the binder including the polymer is simple to prepare and low in cost, and that due to its high adhesive properties, less binder is needed meaning that more negative electrode active material can be used [0036, “The binder provided by the invention is strong in adhesive force, simple in preparation method and low in cost, and not only can reflect higher adhesive force, but also can increase the proportion of the active material”].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the negative electrode and the acrylic polymer taught by Ohsawa by having the hydrophobic structural unit with the structural formula taught by Pan as described above, in order to increase the adhesive property of the binder, increase the proportion of negative electrode active material in the negative electrode, reduce the cost of making the binder, and improve battery performance.
Regarding claim 4, modified Ohsawa teaches the negative electrode of claim 1, as described in the rejection of instant claim 1 above. As described previously, Ohsawa teaches that in the polymer of the binder, the proportion of the hydrophilic unit to the hydrophobic unit is preferably 99:1 to 80:20 [0092, “the mass proportion between the hydrophilic unit and the hydrophobic unit in the amphoteric binder is preferably 99:1 to 80:20”]. Therefore, Ohsawa teaches that the ratio of the hydrophobic structural units to a total of the hydrophilic structural units and the hydrophobic structural units ranges from 1% to 20%, which overlaps the claimed range of 1% or more and 3% or less. According to guidance issued in In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976), in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05 I).
Regarding claim 5, Ohsawa teaches the negative electrode of claim 1 as described in the rejection of instant claim 1 above. Ohsawa is silent regarding the carboxyl groups in the hydrophilic structural unit being at least partially in a form of a carboxylic acid salt which includes a lithium salt.
Pan teaches analogous art of negative electrode plate comprising a binder, or adhesive, with a polymer including hydrophilic and hydrophobic units [Abstract]. Pan teaches that the hydrophilic structural unit may contain a carboxyl group [0054, “the hydrophilic unit contains carboxyl or sulfonic acid groups”]. Pan further teaches that the formula of the hydrophilic structural unit may be CHR3═CR4R5, where R3 and R4 may be a hydrogen atom, a methyl group, or a carboxylic acid salt which may include lithium, and R5 can be selected from a list including a carboxylic acid salt which may include lithium [0059, “the hydrophilic monomer has a structural formula of CHR3═CR4R5”, 0060, “R3 is selected from —H, —CH3 or —COOM1; M1 comprises H, Li, Na, K, Ca, Zn or Mg”, 0061, “R4 is selected from —H, —CH3 or —COOM2; M2 comprises H, Li, Na, K, Ca, Zn or Mg”, 0062, “R5 is selected from —COOM3, —CH2COOM3 … M3 comprises H, Li, Na, K, Ca, Zn or Mg”].
Pan teaches that hydrophilic structural units can be adjusted by neutralizing the carboxyl groups with an alkaline solution to form a salt in order to ensure that the polymer precipitates and to improve the hydrophilicity of the hydrophilic structural unit [0066, “The monomer containing carboxyl or sulfonic acid groups can be adjusted in terms of hydrophilicity to ensure that the polymer precipitates in water and takes the form of a salt after an alkaline solution is added, so as to improve the hydrophilicity and dissolve in water”].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the negative electrode and the acrylic polymer taught by modified Ohsawa by having the hydrophilic structural unit include carboxyl groups in the form of a carboxylic acid by adding an alkaline solution (such as a lithium ion solution) as taught by Pan, in order to increase ensure that the polymer precipitates, and to improve the hydrophilicity of the hydrophilic structural unit.
Regarding claim 19, modified Ohsawa teaches the negative electrode of claim 1, as described in the rejection of instant claim 1. Ohsawa teaches a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery which includes the negative electrode [0001, “ The present invention relates to a negative electrode for a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery and a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery using the same”]. Ohsawa teaches that the non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery also includes a positive electrode [0020, “the power generating element 21 of the bipolar secondary battery 10 of the present embodiment has a plurality of bipolar electrodes 23, in which a positive electrode active material layer 13 is formed on one surface of a current collector”]. The non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery of Ohsawa also includes a non-aqueous electrolyte [0121, “The liquid electrolyte that constitutes the electrolyte solution layer has a form in which a lithium salt is dissolved in an organic solvent”].
Regarding claim 20, modified Ohsawa teaches the negative electrode of claim 1, as described in the rejection of instant claim 1. Ohsawa does not specifically teach that the hydrophobic structural units are alkyl (meth)acrylate or methyl acrylate units.
As described in the rejection of instant claim 1, Pan teaches that the hydrophobic unit is introduced by a lipophilic monomer [0013] which has a structural formula of CH2=CR1R2, where R1 is selected from a hydrogen atom or a methyl group, and R2 is selected from a cyano group or from a list including —COOCH3, —COOCH2CH3, —COOCH2CH2CH2CH3, —COOC(CH3)3, or —COOCH2CH(CH2CH3)CH2CH2CH2CH3 [0014]. When R1 is a methyl group, and R2 is —COOCH2CH3, the resulting lipophilic monomer is an ethyl (meth)acrylate, which is an alkyl (meth)acrylate.
Pan teaches that the binder containing the polymer which includes the hydrophobic monomer, such as ethyl (meth)acrylate, has a high adhesive force and can improve the performance of the batteries to which it is applied [0029]. Pan also teaches that the binder including the polymer is simple to prepare and low in cost, and that due to its high adhesive properties, less binder is needed meaning that more negative electrode active material can be used [0036].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the negative electrode and the acrylic polymer taught by modified Ohsawa to include ethyl (meth)acrylate as the hydrophobic structural unit as taught by Pan, in order to increase the adhesive property of the binder, increase the proportion of negative electrode active material in the negative electrode, reduce the cost of making the binder, and improve battery performance.
Claims 6-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohsawa (US 2020/0020926) in view of Pan (US 2023/0068865) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ohsawa in view of Oh et al. (US 2022/0367855, hereinafter "Oh").
Regarding claim 6, modified Ohsawa teaches the negative electrode of claim 1 as described in the rejection of instant claim 1 above. Ohsawa is silent regarding the average diameter of the carbon nanotubes.
Oh teaches analogous art of a composite negative electrode active material including a silicon-containing material and carbon nanotubes [Abstract, “Disclosed is a composite negative electrode active material comprising silicon-based core particles, an outer carbon coating layer present on the silicon-based core particles, and single-walled carbon nanotubes”]. Oh teaches that the single-walled carbon nanotubes (SWCNT) in the composite are used to form a conductive network in the negative electrode [0017, “since a part of the single-walled carbon nanotubes is attached and fixed to the outer carbon coating layer, the conductive network can be uniformly and stably formed in a negative electrode”]. Oh teaches that the SWCNTs may have an average diameter of 0.1 nm to 15nm, which overlaps the claimed range of 5nm or less [0055, “The SWCNTs may have an average diameter of 0.1 nm to 15 nm”].
Oh teaches that within that range, the SWCNTs are prevented from being cut off, and their flexibility is secured [0055, “When an average diameter of the SWCNTs is within the above range, it is preferable in view of preventing the SWCNTs from being cut off and securing flexibility”].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the negative electrode taught by modified Ohsawa to have carbon nanotubes having an average diameter within the range taught by Oh in order to prevent the carbon nanotubes from being cut off and to ensure they are flexible. Furthermore, according to guidance issued in In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976), in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05 I).
Regarding claim 7, modified Ohsawa teaches the negative electrode of claim 6, as described in the rejection for instant claim 6. Ohsawa does not specifically teach a content of the carbon nanotubes in the negative electrode mixture, relative to the whole negative electrode active material, being 0.0025 mass% or more and 0.1 mass% or less.
In Example 1, Oh teaches a specific embodiment of a composite negative electrode active material comprising silicon-containing material, an outer carbon coating layer, and SWCNTs in a mass ratio of 99.87:0.06:0.07 [0133, “a weight ratio of the silicon-based core particles on which an inner carbon coating layer was formed: outer carbon coating layer: SWCNTs was 99.87:0.06:0.07”]. Oh teaches that the composite was further combined with another carbon-based active material in a mass ratio of 15:85 [0165]. No further conductive agent was added to the negative electrode mixture [0166-0167]. The amount of SWCNT in the whole negative electrode active material therefore was 0.07% of the 15 parts by weight of the composite, or 0.0105 parts by mass of SWCNTs, based on the 99.9895 parts by mass of the rest of the negative electrode active material, or 0.0105 mass% of SWCNTs relative to the whole negative electrode active material, which is within the claimed range of 0.0025 mass% to 0.1 mass%.
Oh teaches that the amount of SWCNTs included in the composite, relative to the composite negative electrode active material is preferable since at an amount between 0.005 wt% to 0.2 wt%, entanglement and aggregation of the SWCNTs can be prevented, and the conductive network is formed more uniformly while improving the electrical conductivity [0058, “an amount of SWCNTs in this range is preferable in view of the fact that a phenomenon in which the SWCNTs become entangled and aggregated together with the active material due to excessive SWCNT addition is prevented, and the conductive network may be formed more uniformly while sufficiently improving electrical conductivity”].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the negative electrode taught by modified Ohsawa to have carbon nanotubes included in the amount taught by Oh in order to prevent the carbon nanotubes from being entangled and aggregated, as well as to form the conductive network in the electrode more uniformly while improving the electrical conductivity.
Regarding claim 8, modified Ohsawa teaches the negative electrode of claim 6, as described in the rejection for instant claim 6. Ohsawa does not specifically teach a content of the carbon nanotubes in the negative electrode mixture, relative to the whole negative electrode active material, being 0.004 mass% or more and 0.08 mass% or less.
In Example 1, Oh teaches a specific embodiment of a composite negative electrode active material comprising silicon-containing material, an outer carbon coating layer, and SWCNTs in a mass ratio of 99.87:0.06:0.07 [0133, “a weight ratio of the silicon-based core particles on which an inner carbon coating layer was formed: outer carbon coating layer: SWCNTs was 99.87:0.06:0.07”]. Oh teaches that the composite was further combined with another carbon-based active material in a mass ratio of 15:85 [0165]. No further conductive agent was added to the negative electrode mixture [0166-0167]. The amount of SWCNT in the whole negative electrode active material therefore was 0.07% of the 15 parts by weight of the composite, or 0.0105 parts by mass of SWCNTs, based on the 99.9895 parts by mass of the rest of the negative electrode active material, or 0.0105 mass% of SWCNTs relative to the whole negative electrode active material, which is within the claimed range of 0.004 mass% to 0.08 mass%.
Oh teaches that the amount of SWCNTs included in the composite, relative to the composite negative electrode active material is preferable since at an amount between 0.005 wt% to 0.2 wt%, entanglement and aggregation of the SWCNTs can be prevented, and the conductive network is formed more uniformly while improving the electrical conductivity [0058, “an amount of SWCNTs in this range is preferable in view of the fact that a phenomenon in which the SWCNTs become entangled and aggregated together with the active material due to excessive SWCNT addition is prevented, and the conductive network may be formed more uniformly while sufficiently improving electrical conductivity”].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the negative electrode taught by modified Ohsawa to have carbon nanotubes included in the amount taught by Oh in order to prevent the carbon nanotubes from being entangled and aggregated, as well as to form the conductive network in the electrode more uniformly while improving the electrical conductivity.
Regarding claim 9, modified Ohsawa teaches the negative electrode of claim 6, as described in the rejection for instant claim 6. Ohsawa teaches that the amount of polymer, or amphoteric binder, included in the negative electrode is preferably 2% to 15% by mass [0094, “the content of the amphoteric binder is preferably 2% to 15% by mass”]. Ohsawa further teaches that the amount of conductive aid (which may be carbon nanotubes) is preferably included in an amount of 0.5% to 5% by mass [0096, “the content of the conductive aid is preferably 0.5% to 5% by mass”]. At the low end of both ranges, the mass ratio of the polymer to the carbon nanotubes would be 4, which is within the claimed range of 0.2 to 600, as would many other points within the ranges be. According to guidance issued in In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976), in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05 I).
Regarding claim 10, Ohsawa, as modified by Oh, teaches the negative electrode of claim 6, as described in the rejection for instant claim 6. Ohsawa teaches that the amount of polymer, or amphoteric binder, included in the negative electrode is preferably 2% to 15% by mass [0094, “the content of the amphoteric binder is preferably 2% to 15% by mass”]. Ohsawa further teaches that the amount of conductive aid (which may be carbon nanotubes) is preferably included in an amount of 0.5% to 5% by mass [0096, “the content of the conductive aid is preferably 0.5% to 5% by mass”]. At the low end of both ranges, the mass ratio of the polymer to the carbon nanotubes would be 4, which is within the claimed range of 0.6 to 225, as would many other points within the ranges be. According to guidance issued in In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976), in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05 I).
Regarding claim 11, modified Ohsawa teaches the negative electrode of claim 6, as described in the rejection for instant claim 6. Ohsawa does not specifically teach that 50% or more of the carbon nanotubes are single-walled carbon nanotubes.
Oh teaches that the composite negative electrode active material includes specifically single-walled carbon nanotubes (SWCNTs) [Abstract, “Disclosed is a composite negative electrode active material comprising silicon-based core particles, an outer carbon coating layer present on the silicon-based core particles, and single-walled carbon nanotubes”]. Therefore, 100% of the carbon nanotubes in the negative electrode are SWCNTs, which is over 50%.
Oh teaches that SWCNTs have a longer fiber length since they do not break during growth, as well as a higher degree of graphitization and crystallinity compared to multi-walled carbon nanotubes [0050, “SWCNTs have a long fiber length due to no breaking occurring during the growth of tubes and also have a high degree of graphitization and high crystallinity, as compared to multi-walled carbon nanotubes”].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the negative electrode taught by modified Ohsawa to have over 50% of the carbon nanotubes in the negative electrode to be single-walled carbon nanotubes as taught by Oh in order to provide the carbon nanotubes with a longer fiber length and a higher degree of graphitization and crystallinity.
Claims 12-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohsawa (US 2020/0020926) in view of Pan (US 2023/0068865) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ohsawa in view of Nakamura et al. (US 2014/0212762, hereinafter "Nakamura").
Regarding claim 12, modified Ohsawa teaches the negative electrode of claim 1 as described in the rejection of instant claim 1 above. Ohsawa is silent regarding the average diameter of the carbon nanotubes.
Nakamura teaches analogous art of a negative electrode for a non-aqueous electrolyte battery including a composite electrode material [0096, “The lithium ion battery according to one embodiment in the present invention comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of nonaqueous electrolytic solution and nonaqueous polymer electrolyte … For the negative electrode sheet, an electrode sheet comprising the composite electrode material according to one embodiment in the present invention can be used”]. Nakamura teaches that the electrode comprises multi-walled carbon nanotubes [Abstract]. Nakamura teaches that the average diameter is preferably not less than 5nm and not more than 30nm, which is within the claimed range of greater than 5 nm [0058, “The multi-walled carbon nanotubes (C) used for the present invention essentially have a fiber diameter of preferably not less than 5 nm and not more than 30 nm”].
Nakamura teaches that that range is preferable since multi-walled carbon nanotubes with a small fiber diameter are difficult to disperse in an untangled state [0058, “ Multi-walled carbon nanotubes having a small fiber diameter are often difficult to be dispersed into a state where each of them is untangled”]. Nakamura further teaches that multi-walled carbon nanotubes having a large fiber diameter are too difficult to manufacture.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the negative electrode taught by modified Ohsawa to have carbon nanotubes having an average diameter in the range taught by Nakamura in order to be able to disperse the carbon nanotubes in an untangled state, as well as to make them easier to manufacture.
Regarding claim 13, modified Ohsawa teaches the negative electrode of claim 12 as described in the rejection of instant claim 12 above. Ohsawa does not specifically teach a content of the carbon nanotubes in the negative electrode mixture, relative to the whole negative electrode active material, being 0.1 mass% or more and 0.5 mass% or less.
Nakamura teaches that the amount of multi-walled carbon nanotubes in the composite electrode material is preferably not less than 0.1 part by mass and not more than 10 parts by mass relative to a total 100 parts by mass of the particles (A) and the carbon particles (B) in the electrode material [0070]. The particles (A) and (B) are the active material particles in the composite electrode material [0013, “particles (A) comprising an element capable of intercalating and deintercalating lithium ions”, 0014, “carbon particles (B) capable of intercalating and deintercalating lithium ions”]. Therefore, the content of the multi-walled carbon nanotubes in the negative electrode mixture relative to the whole negative electrode active material is 0.1 mass% to 10 mass%, which overlaps the claimed range.
Nakamura teaches that the addition of multi-walled carbon nanotubes to the electrode material improves the initial capacity of a lithium ion battery [0070, “Addition of the multi-walled carbon nanotubes (C) tends to improve the initial capacity of a lithium ion battery”].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the negative electrode taught by modified Ohsawa to have carbon nanotubes in an amount within the range taught by Nakamura in order to improve the initial capacity of the battery. Furthermore, according to guidance issued in In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976), in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05 I).
Regarding claim 14, modified Ohsawa teaches the negative electrode of claim 12 as described in the rejection of instant claim 12 above. Ohsawa does not specifically teach a content of the carbon nanotubes in the negative electrode mixture, relative to the whole negative electrode active material, being 0.15 mass% or more and 0.45 mass% or less.
Nakamura teaches that the amount of multi-walled carbon nanotubes in the composite electrode material is preferably not less than 0.1 part by mass and not more than 10 parts by mass relative to a total 100 parts by mass of the particles (A) and the carbon particles (B) in the electrode material [0070]. The particles (A) and (B) are the active material particles in the composite electrode material [0013, “particles (A) comprising an element capable of intercalating and deintercalating lithium ions”, 0014, “carbon particles (B) capable of intercalating and deintercalating lithium ions”]. Therefore, the content of the multi-walled carbon nanotubes in the negative electrode mixture relative to the whole negative electrode active material is 0.1 mass% to 10 mass%, which overlaps the claimed range.
Nakamura teaches that the addition of multi-walled carbon nanotubes to the electrode material improves the initial capacity of a lithium ion battery [0070, “Addition of the multi-walled carbon nanotubes (C) tends to improve the initial capacity of a lithium ion battery”].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the negative electrode taught by modified Ohsawa to have carbon nanotubes in an amount within the range taught by Nakamura in order to improve the initial capacity of the battery. Furthermore, according to guidance issued in In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976), in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05 I).
Regarding claim 15, modified Ohsawa teaches the negative electrode of claim 12, as described in the rejection for instant claim 12. Ohsawa teaches that the amount of polymer, or amphoteric binder, included in the negative electrode is preferably 2% to 15% by mass [0094, “the content of the amphoteric binder is preferably 2% to 15% by mass”]. Ohsawa further teaches that the amount of conductive aid (which may be carbon nanotubes) is preferably included in an amount of 0.5% to 5% by mass [0096, “the content of the conductive aid is preferably 0.5% to 5% by mass”]. At several points within those ranges, the mass ratio of the polymer to the carbon nanotubes would be within the claimed range of 0.5 or more and 3.8 or less. For example, when the mass % of the polymer is 10%, and the mass % of the carbon nanotubes is 5%, the mass ratio of polymer to carbon nanotubes is 2, which is within the claimed range. According to guidance issued in In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976), in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05 I).
Regarding claim 16, modified Ohsawa teaches the negative electrode of claim 12, as described in the rejection for instant claim 12. Ohsawa teaches that the amount of polymer, or amphoteric binder, included in the negative electrode is preferably 2% to 15% by mass [0094, “the content of the amphoteric binder is preferably 2% to 15% by mass”]. Ohsawa further teaches that the amount of conductive aid (which may be carbon nanotubes) is preferably included in an amount of 0.5% to 5% by mass [0096, “the content of the conductive aid is preferably 0.5% to 5% by mass”]. At several points within those ranges, the mass ratio of the polymer to the carbon nanotubes would be within the claimed range of 1.3 or more and 2.7 or less. For example, when the mass % of the polymer is 10%, and the mass % of the carbon nanotubes is 5%, the mass ratio of polymer to carbon nanotubes is 2, which is within the claimed range. According to guidance issued in In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976), in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05 I).
Regarding claim 17, modified Ohsawa teaches the negative electrode of claim 12 as described in the rejection of instant claim 12 above. Ohsawa does not specifically teach more than 50% of the carbon nanotubes being multi-walled carbon nanotubes.
Nakamura teaches that the electrode material specifically includes multi-walled carbon nanotubes, and does mention any other kind of nanotube [Abstract, entire disclosure relied upon]. Therefore, 100% of the carbon nanotubes in the negative electrode are multi-walled carbon nanotubes, which is over 50%.
Nakamura teaches that the multi-walled carbon nanotubes are able to cross link the particles in the electrode material by forming electrically conductive pathways between the active material particles [0084, “Further, the multi-walled carbon nanotubes (C) cross-linked with the particles (A) form electrically conductive pathways between the particles (A). Further, the multi-walled carbon nanotubes (C) present between two or more of the carbon particles (B) and two or more of the carbon nanofibers (D)”]. Nakamura teaches that in this way, the multi-walled carbon nanotubes are able to maintain electrically conductive pathways, even when contacts between adjacent active material particles are lost [0084, “Even when the contacts between adjacent particles are lost by expansion and contraction, the carbon nanofibers (D) or the multi-walled carbon nanotubes (C) can maintain electrically conductive pathways”].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the negative electrode taught by modified Ohsawa to have an amount of multi-walled carbon nanotubes of over 50% of the total carbon nanotubes, as taught by Nakamura in order to be able to maintain electrically conductive pathways between the active material particles even when contact between the active material particles is lost.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohsawa (US 2020/0020926) in view of Pan (US 2023/0068865) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ohsawa in view of Matsuda et al. (US 2007/0092796, hereinafter "Matsuda").
Regarding claim 18, modified Ohsawa teaches the negative electrode of claim 1, as described in the rejection for instant claim 1. Ohsawa does not teach a content of the polymer in the negative electrode mixture relative to the whole negative electrode active material being 0.02 mass% or more and 1.5 mass% or less.
Matsuda teaches analogous art of a negative electrode for a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery comprising a binder with an acrylic polymer that may include more than one type of structural unit [Abstract, “A non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery including a positive electrode, a negative electrode”, “The binder comprises a polymer having at least one selected from the group consisting of an acrylic acid unit, an acrylic acid salt unit, an acrylic acid ester unit, a mathacrylic acid unit, a methacrylic acid salt unit, and a mathacrylic acid ester unit”]. Matsuda teaches that the acrylic polymer constitutes not less than 80% by weight of the whole negative electrode binder [0046, “The negative electrode binder may contain other polymers than the acrylic polymer, but it is preferred that the acrylic polymer constitute not less than 80% by weight of the whole binder”]. Matsuda further teaches that the amount of binder contained in the negative electrode is preferably 0.5 parts by weight to 30 parts by weight per 100 parts by weight of the composite particles of the active material [0047, “The amount of the binder contained in the negative electrode is preferably 0.5 to 30 parts by weight … per 100 parts by weight of the composite particles”]. If the acrylic polymer constitutes 100% by weight of the binder, then the content of the polymer in the negative electrode mixture relative to the whole negative electrode active material is 0.5 mass% to 30 mass%, which overlaps the claimed range of 0.02 mass% or more and 1.5 mass% or less.
Matsuda teaches if the amount of binder is too low, the composite particles may not be sufficiently bound together, but if the amount of binder is too high, the flexibility of the negative electrode decreases [0047].Furthermore, Matsuda teaches that if the acrylic polymer constitutes less than 80% of the binder, the binder may not be sufficiently adhesive [0046, “ If the acrylic polymer constitutes less than 80% by weight, the adhesive properties of the binder may be insufficient”].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the negative electrode taught by modified Ohsawa to have the acrylic polymer in an amount within the range taught by Matsuda in order to provide sufficient adhesion to the active material and maintain the flexibility of the negative electrode. Furthermore, according to guidance issued in In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976), in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05 I).
Claims 1 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh et al. (US 2022/0367855, hereinafter "Oh") in view of Zhang et al. (US 2019/0225792, hereinafter "Zhang").
Regarding claim 1, Oh teaches a negative electrode comprising a negative electrode active material layer (“negative electrode mixture”) including a composite negative electrode active material including a silicon-containing material and carbon nanotubes, and a binder [Abstract, “Disclosed is a composite negative electrode active material comprising silicon-based core particles, an outer carbon coating layer present on the silicon-based core particles, and single-walled carbon nanotubes”, 0015, “Still another aspect of the present invention provides a negative electrode comprising a negative electrode current collector and a negative electrode active material layer … wherein the negative electrode active material layer comprises a negative electrode material comprising the above-described composite negative electrode active material, a binder”]. Oh also discloses that the negative electrode may be used in a secondary battery [0016], and that an electrolyte used in the secondary battery may be an organic, or non-aqueous, liquid electrolyte [0120]. Oh is silent regarding the binder including an acrylic polymer having a hydrophilic structural unit and a hydrophobic structural unit.
Zhang teaches analogous art of a multi-functionally modified polymer binder for lithium ion batteries that can be used in a negative electrode [Abstract, “A multi-functionally modified polymer binder for lithium ion batteries”, “Use of the binder in positive electrodes and negative electrodes”]. Zhang teaches that the binder is formed with a biomass or synthetic polymer substrate, a hydrophilic monomer (“hydrophilic structural unit”), and a lipophilic monomer (“hydrophobic structural unit”) in a weight ratio of 1:0-100:0-100, respectively [0006], which overlaps the claimed range of the ratio of hydrophobic structural units to a total of hydrophilic and hydrophobic structural units. According to guidance issued in In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976), in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05 I). Zhang also teaches that the hydrophilic monomer is selected from at least one of monomers having a structure of CH2═CR1R2, wherein R1 is selected from —H, —CH3 and —CH2CH3, and R2 can be selected from —COOH, or —COOM (wherein M is an alkali metal such as Li, Na or K) [0006]. This structural formula encompasses acrylic monomers having a carboxyl group derived from an ethylenically unsaturated carboxylic acid, such as when R1 is —H and R2 is —COOH. ]. Zhang also teaches that the lipophilic monomer is selected from at least one of monomers having a structure of CH2═CR3R4, wherein R3 is selected from —H, —CH3 and —CH2CH3, and R4 can be selected from one of —CN or COOR6 (wherein R6 is selected from at least one of C1-C8 alkyl groups) [0006].
Zhang teaches that the multi-functionally modified polymer binder has, among other advantages, high elasticity, binding strength and flexibility [0026]. Zhang also teaches that the binder can improve uniformity in the formation of electrode films, enhance the peel strength of the electrode to a metal substrate, and enhance the binding strength between the electrode active materials, the conductive agents and a current collector, thus improving high-rate performances and cycling stabilities of the electrode and extending battery life [0027].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the negative electrode of Oh to include the multi-functionally modified polymer binder taught by Zhang, in order to provide a binder with high elasticity, binding strength and flexibility and extend the battery life of a battery comprising the negative electrode.
Further regarding claim 21, Oh, as modified by Zhang, teaches the negative electrode of claim 1. As described previously, Zhang teaches that the lipophilic monomer is selected from at least one of monomers having a structure of CH2═CR3R4, wherein R3 is selected from —H, —CH3 and —CH2CH3, and R4 can be selected from one of —CN or COOR6 (wherein R6 is selected from at least one of C1-C8 alkyl groups) [0006]. When R3 is —H and R4 is —CN, the lipophilic monomer is acrylonitrile. When R3 is —H, R4 is —COOR6, and R6 is a methyl group, the lipophilic monomer is methyl acrylate. If one of ordinary skill in the art is able to "at once envisage" the specific compound within the generic chemical formula, the compound is anticipated [see MPEP 2131.02(III)]. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be able to draw or name each of the specific compounds included in the generic formulas taught by Zhang, therefore acrylonitrile and methyl acrylate can be “at once envisaged” from Zhang’s generic formulas.
As described previously, Zhang teaches that the multi-functionally modified polymer binder which includes the lipophilic monomer has, among other advantages, high elasticity, binding strength and flexibility [0026], and that the binder can improve uniformity in the formation of electrode films, enhance the peel strength of the electrode to a metal substrate, and enhance the binding strength between the electrode active materials, the conductive agents and a current collector, thus improving high-rate performances and cycling stabilities of the electrode and extending battery life [0027]. Zhang further teaches that polyacrylonitrile, which is derived from acrylonitrile, has good binding performance [0067, “good binding performance (of polyacrylonitrile)”].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the negative electrode of modified Oh to include the acrylonitrile or methyl acrylate as the hydrophobic structural unit as taught by Zhang, in order to provide a binder with high elasticity, binding strength and flexibility and extend the battery life of a battery comprising the negative electrode. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to have the hydrophobic structural unit be acrylonitrile due to its good binding performance, as taught by Zhang.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/13/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the rejection of claims 2-3 (now cancelled) and claims 4-5 under 35 U.S.C 103 as being obvious over Ohsawa in view of Pan, in response to applicant’s argument that the strong adhesive force of the binder taught by Pan would not be achieved if the ratio of the hydrophobic units to hydrophilic units were set outside the weight ratio disclosed by Pan, it is noted that there is no support provided for this allegation in Pan. Pan does not teach anywhere that the ratio of hydrophobic units to hydrophilic units disclosed has any impact on the adhesive force of the binder. Pan also does not criticize, discredit, or discourage setting the ratio of hydrophobic units to hydrophilic units outside the disclosed ratio. Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments [In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971), see MPEP 2123(II)]. Thus, this argument is not commensurate in scope with the disclosure of Pan and is considered unpersuasive.
Furthermore, both Ohsawa and Pan utilize a hydrophobic unit in a binder for a negative electrode. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the known hydrophobic units taught by Ohsawa with the known hydrophobic units taught by Pan to obtain the predictable result of obtaining a negative electrode binder [see MPEP 2143(I)(B)].
Additionally, the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is prima facie obvious (see MPEP 2144.07):
Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) (Claims to a printing ink comprising a solvent having the vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol so that the ink would not dry at room temperature but would dry quickly upon heating were held invalid over a reference teaching a printing ink made with a different solvent that was nonvolatile at room temperature but highly volatile when heated in view of an article which taught the desired boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of a solvent for printing inks and a catalog teaching the boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol.)
In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (selection of a known plastic to make a container of a type made of plastics prior to the invention was held to be obvious); Ryco, Inc. v. Ag-Bag Corp., 857 F.2d 1418, 8 USPQ2d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (Claimed agricultural bagging machine, which differed from a prior art machine only in that the brake means were hydraulically operated rather than mechanically operated, was held to be obvious over the prior art machine in view of references which disclosed hydraulic brakes for performing the same function, albeit in a different environment.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the known hydrophobic units taught by Pan in the binder of Ohsawa for their suitability regarding their hydrophobic properties.
In response to applicant’s argument that Ohsawa teaches away from the use of compounds having a similar structure to acrylonitrile or methyl acrylate as a hydrophobic unit due to their solubility in water, it is noted that acrylonitrile and methyl acrylate are only two examples of the hydrophobic units represented by the claimed formula. While acrylonitrile and methyl acrylate may have a solubility of 1 g or more in 100 g of water, that is not proof that all of the compounds represented by the claimed formula have a solubility of 1 g or more in 100 g of water. For example, butyl acrylate, which has a structure of CH2=CHCOOC4H9, has a solubility of 0.14 g in 100 mL (equal to 100 g) of water (National Center for Biotechnology Information, PubChem Compound Summary for CID 8846, Butyl Acrylate, 2026).
Further regarding new claim 20, ethyl (meth)acrylate, which is an alkyl (meth)acrylate, can have a solubility of 5,400 mg/L, or 0.54 g in 100 g of water (National Center for Biotechnology Information, PubChem Annotation Record for Ethyl methacrylate, 2026).
Thus, this argument is considered unpersuasive.
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 MARIA F OROZCO whose telephone number is (571)272-0172. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-6.
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, Ula Ruddock can be reached at (571)272-1481. 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.
/M.F.O./Examiner, Art Unit 1729
/ULA C RUDDOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729