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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/13/2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 4 recites “a minimum value at in a shearing velocity”. The phrase “at in a” is grammatically incorrect and appears to be a typo. Appropriate correction is required.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 11/06/2025 contains a reference that fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 because it has no apparent relevance to the claimed or disclosed invention. JP 2010/262564 (publication 11/18/2010) is listed on the IDS but is not relevant. The title of JP ‘564 is “Settlement confirmation response system and settlement confirmation response method”.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2016046188 (Takahashi) (cited on IDS filed 11/06/2025) in view of JP 2020071932 (Hirabayashi) (cited on IDS filed 11/06/2025).
Takahashi discloses a carbon black dispersion for a cell electrode where the carbon black dispersion comprises carbon black, a dispersant, an active substance, a binder, an acidic compound, and a solvent. The dispersant may be polyvinyl butyral (abstract) and one or more solvents may be used in combination as long as the effect of the dispersant and the battery performance are not impaired. The amount of polyvinyl butyral is preferably 0.2 parts by mass or more and 40 parts by mass or less with respect to 100 parts by mass of carbon black (0.2-40%) which overlaps the claimed range of 25-35 wt% of the carbonaceous material by mass. Absent a showing of unexpected results, the overlapping range is considered to obviate the claimed range (See MPEP 2144.05). Takahashi does not disclose the additional solvents that may be combined with N-methyl-2-pyrrolidone (NMP). Hirabayashi discloses a carbon black dispersion for a cell electrode comprising carbon black, a dispersant such as polyvinyl butyral, and a solvent. Examples of the solvent include alcohols, glycols, cellosolves, amino alcohols, amines, ketones, carboxylic acid amides, phosphoric acid amides, sulfoxides, carboxylic acid esters, and phosphoric acid. Examples thereof include esters, ethers, nitriles, water and the like. Among them, it is preferable to contain N-methyl-2-pyrrolidone (NMP). Based upon the teachings of Hirabayashi, it would have been obvious to select any solvent from the list, including esters, as the solvent for the dispersion of Takahashi as Hirabayashi discloses that esters are known as solvents for carbon black dispersions and thus establishes a reasonable expectation of successfully using the ester as a solvent. While NMP is disclosed, the disclosure thereof is noted as a preference and does not negate the disclosure of esters as a solvent.
Claims 1, 4, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2020071932 (Hirabayashi) (cited on IDS filed 11/06/2025) in view of US 2015/0311533 (Tachibana) (cited on IDS filed 04/27/2023).
Regarding claims 1, 8 and 9, Hirabayashi discloses a carbon black mixture slurry for a battery electrode comprising 10-30wt% carbon black (examples use acetylene black), a non-ionic dispersant such as polyvinyl butyral, and a solvent. The amount of carbon black overlaps the claimed amount of 10-25wt%, thus obviating the claimed range. The dispersant is provided in an amount of 0.5-100wt% by mass of carbon black which also overlaps the claimed range. Further regarding the amount of dispersant, Hirabayashi discloses that if the amount of the nonionic dispersant is too large, the resistance value of the positive electrode mixture layer formed from the mixture slurry may be increased, which is not preferable. On the other hand, if the amount of the nonionic dispersant is too small, the dispersibility of carbon black in the carbon black dispersion may not be sufficiently obtained, which is not preferable. The amount of the dispersant added to the carbon black dispersion is determined by the specific surface area of the carbon black to be added, the average particle size of the carbon black particles after dispersion, the amount adsorbed on the carbon black, and the like. Based upon the disclosure of Hirabayashi, the amount of dispersant relative to the carbon content is a result effective variable and one of ordinary skill can readily determine the amount to add based upon the characteristics of the carbon black and based upon the desired degree of dispersibility and resistance of the electrode.
Regarding the solvent, Hirabayashi discloses Examples of the solvent include alcohols, glycols, cellosolves, amino alcohols, amines, ketones, carboxylic acid amides, phosphoric acid amides, sulfoxides, carboxylic acid esters, and phosphoric acid. Examples thereof include esters, ethers, nitriles, water and the like. Based upon the teachings of Hirabayashi, it would have been obvious to select any solvent from the list, including esters, as the solvent for the dispersion of carbon black as Hirabayashi discloses that esters are known as solvents for carbon black dispersions and thus establishes a reasonable expectation of successfully using an ester as a solvent.
Regarding the amount of solvent, Hirabayashi discloses that the carbon black dispersion may contain 10-30wt% carbon black and the dispersant may be 0.5-100wt% of the mass of carbon black. The addition of nitrogen-containing heterocycle may be 0.001-10% by mass with respect to 100% by mass carbon black. Thus, at most, the dispersant, carbon black and heterocycle compound may account for 70wt% of the dispersion and the remaining 30wt% is solvent.
Hirabayashi does not expressly disclose the viscosity of the carbon dispersion. Tachibana discloses a carbon material-dispersion comprising acetylene black, a dispersant such as butyral and a solvent. Regarding viscosity, Tachibana explains that it has been found that by regulating the dispersed state within where the solvent (dispersion medium) is at least 60% by mass or more and the acetylene black is 10-30wt% mass, so as to allow the viscosity to fall within a range of 100-5000 mPa-s, excellent performances are revealed on the occasion of fabricating a battery. In addition, in the case where the viscosity is lower than the foregoing range, the viscosity of an electrode paste to coat an electrode plate becomes excessively low, so that a problem that the coating workability becomes difficult is generated. It would have been obvious to form the carbon dispersion of Hirabayashi with a viscosity as disclosed by Tachibana to provide a slurry with excellent performance for fabricating a battery. Tachibana and Hirabayashi use similar base materials (carbon containing material, dispersant and solvent), and one of ordinary have found it obvious to provide a viscosity in the slurry that is demonstrative of coating workability and which would be beneficial for forming a battery with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 4, Tachibana states that by regulating the shear rate at which the viscosity becomes a minimum value to the range of from 100 to 1,000 s-1, the acetylene black-dispersed slurry having excellent performances according to the present invention may be obtained [0037]. Tachibana explains that it has been found that a slurry in which a shear rate at which the viscosity becomes a minimum value exists within the range of from 100 to 1,000 s-1 is excellent in electrical characteristics. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to regulate the shear rate at which the viscosity becomes a minimum to within the range of from 100 to 1,000 s-1 to provide a slurry having excellent electrical characteristics.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2020071932 (Hirabayashi) (cited on IDS filed 11/06/2025) in view of US 2015/0311533 (Tachibana) (cited on IDS filed 04/27/2023) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of JP 2015/030777 (Takahashi) (cited on IDS filed 04/27/23).
Hirabayashi and Tachibana do not disclose the use of pH regulators in the carbon dispersion. Takahashi discloses a carbon black dispersion comprising acetylene black, polyvinyl butyral as a dispersant and a solvent. Takahashi also discloses amines such as aliphatic primary, secondary and tertiary amines and alkanolamines for improving the dispersibility of the slurry. These materials are disclosed in the instant specification as pH regulators (see page 12). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to add amines such as those disclosed by Takahashi to the dispersion of Hirabayashi to improve the dispersibility of the slurry as suggested by Takahashi.
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2020071932 (Hirabayashi) (cited on IDS filed 11/06/2025) in view of US 2015/0311533 (Tachibana) (cited on IDS filed 04/27/2023) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of JP 2019-46796 (Ishida) with reference to US PGPUB 2020/0295371 for citations.
Hirabayashi in view of Tachibana disclose esters as solvents but do not give specific examples as claimed. Ishida discloses a carbon dispersion for making electrodes using ester-based solvents such as butyl butyrate, amyl butyrate, hexyl butyrate, heptyl butyrate, butyl valerate, amyl valerate, hexyl valerate, and amyl caproate [0075]. Ishida states that preferred examples are butyl esters in order to inhibit reaction of the organic solvent and solid electrolyte. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to use the ester solvents exemplified by Ishida as the ester solvents of Hirabayashi to inhibit reaction with a solid electrolyte and as Ishida discloses these esters as known solvents for carbon black dispersions for making batteries.
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2016046188 (Takahashi) in view of JP 2020071932 (Hirabayashi) and further in view of JP 2018206694 (Otsubo).
Takahashi does not disclose the solids content of the electrode slurry. Hirabayashi discloses that the viscosity of the electrode mixture slurry is generally 100 mPa s-1 to 30000 mPa s-1 but does not specify the solids content thereof. Otsubo discloses an electrode forming composition which is a slurry comprising a carbon black slurry for electrodes and an electrode active material. The carbon black slurry comprises carbon black, dispersants and a solvent. The electrode forming composition comprises the carbon black slurry, a binder and an electrode active material. Otsubo discloses that the content of all solid components in the electrode-forming composition is preferably 50 to 99% by mass, more preferably 50 to 90% by mass, and 50 to 85% by mass with respect to the total mass of the electrode-forming composition and that the viscosity of the electrode forming composition is preferably 1000-10000 mPa s-1. These ranges overlap the claimed ranges and provide a prima facie case for obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to provide a solids content and viscosity property as described by Otsubo to the composition of Takahashi as modified by Hirabayashi and Otsubo recognizes that these are workable ranges in the art to provide the desired properties of an electrode forming slurry that contains a carbon black slurry for formation of an electrode.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 4-11, and 14-15 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER C MCNEIL whose telephone number is (571)272-1540. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Tong Guo can be reached at 5712723066. 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.
JENNIFER C. MCNEIL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1723
/Jennifer McNeil/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights