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 .
Status of Claims
This is a final office action for application 18/030,019 in response to the amendment(s) filed on 01/30/2026. Claims 1 and 3-12 are under examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 01/30/2026 have been fully considered but were not found persuasive over the prior art rejections of record for the reasons set forth below. See claims 1, 3-12 rejections below.
Applicant argues that “the amendment to independent claim 1, particularly the incorporation of the limitation reciting that “the SDS is present in an amount of 0.25 wt% to 5 wt% in the electrode active material layer,” distinguishes over the prior art of Kim et al.” (see e.g. pages 4-5 of Applicant’s arguments):
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As set forth in the rejection above, Kim et al. discloses an electrode active material layer including a dispersant identified as sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS), and newly identified Lin et al. discloses SDS-containing CNT dispersion systems with overlapping or corresponding compositional regimes, including specific embodiments in which SDS is present within or effectively within the claimed concentration range when incorporated into a CNT composite system. Lin further teaches that SDS functions as a surfactant to stabilize CNT dispersions, and it would have been obvious to optimize SDS loading within a predictable range to achieve dispersion stability and electrode uniformity. The claimed range therefore represents a result-effective variable. For the above reason, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “Jeong Han Kim does not render the originally claimed SDS limitation obvious because it allegedly pertains to a different context or does not address electrode active material layer composition in the same manner” (see e.g. page 5 of Applicant’s arguments):
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Although Jeong Han Kim was relied upon in the previous rejection, the present rejection has been updated and no longer relies on Jeong Han Kim. Instead, Lin et al. is applied in combination with Kim et al. to address the SDS limitation. Lin is in the same field of endeavor (CNT dispersion systems for conductive composites) and explicitly teaches SDS as a dispersant for CNT stabilization in aqueous systems, including overlapping concentration regimes and CNT:SDS weight ratios that encompass or render obvious the claimed ranges when applied to electrode fabrication. Accordingly, Applicant’s argument is moot with respect to the current rejection and is not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “the claimed weight ratio of carbon nanotube structures to SDS (1:3 to 1:30) is not suggested or motivated by the cited art because Kim et al. discloses a different ratio range” (see e.g. page 5 of Applicant’s arguments):
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Kim et al. discloses CNT-to-dispersant ratios that overlap or are proximate to the claimed range, and Lin et al. further discloses broader CNT:SDS ratios (e.g., 1:0.1 to 100:1, including preferred sub-ranges) and specific working examples that fall within or render obvious optimization to the claimed range. Where the prior art teaches overlapping ranges or ranges that reasonably suggest optimization of known process parameters, a prima facie case of obviousness is established. See MPEP 2144.05(I). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to adjust the CNT:SDS ratio to balance dispersion stability and electrical conductivity, both of which are expressly recognized by Lin et al. For the above reason, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “the combination of Kim et al. with a secondary reference is improper because it allegedly represents hindsight reconstruction and lacks a teaching or motivation to combine” (see e.g. pages 5-6 of Applicant’s arguments):
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Both Kim et al. and newly applied Lin et al. are directed to the same field of endeavor, CNT-based conductive systems in electrochemical electrodes and related dispersions, and both address the same problem of achieving stable, well-dispersed CNT networks to improve conductivity and electrode performance. Lin et al. explicitly teaches the use of SDS to stabilize CNT dispersions and improve uniformity, which directly corresponds to the conductive agent dispersion system disclosed in Kim et al. The combination merely applies known, predictable techniques to improve a known electrode system, which is proper under KSR principles. The rationale to combine is supported by the shared problem addressed and the predictable nature of surfactant optimization in CNT systems. For the above reason, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
In conclusion, the arguments and amendments filed were not found to be persuasive over the prior art rejections of record. The rejection of claim 1 has been updated to reflect the substitution of Lin et al. in place of Jeong Han Kim, and the remaining rejections of claims 3-12 are maintained as set forth above. See claims 1 and 3-12 rejections below.
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
Claims 1, 3-7 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US-2022/0238886-A1) and further in view of Lin et al. (US-20070067881-A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Kim discloses an electrode (see e.g. "negative electrode" in paragraph [0012]), comprising:
an electrode active material layer (see e.g. "negative electrode active material layer" in paragraph [0012]),
wherein the electrode active material layer comprises:
an electrode active material (see e.g. "a negative electrode active material" in paragraph [0012]);
a conductive agent (see e.g. "a conductive agent" in paragraph [0012]); and
sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS) (see e.g. "a dispersant" in paragraph [0013] and "The dispersant may include... sodium dodecyl sulfate" in paragraph [0075]),
wherein the conductive agent comprises carbon nanotube structures wherein 2 to 5,000 single- walled carbon nanotube units are bonded to each other (see e.g. "the conductive agent includes a carbon nanotube structure in which 2 to 5,000 single-walled carbon nanotube units are bonded side by side" in paragraph [0012]), and
wherein a weight ratio of the carbon nanotube structures to the dispersant is in a range of 1:0.1 to 1:10 (see e.g. "A weight ratio of the bundle-type carbon nanotubes to the dispersant in the conductive agent dispersion may be in a range of 1:0.1 to 1:10, specifically, 1:1 to 1:10." in paragraph [0076]).
Kim, however, does not explicitly disclose that a weight ratio of the carbon nanotube structures to the SDS is in a range of 1:3 to 1:30, and the SDS is present in an amount of 0.25 wt% to 5 wt% in the electrode active material layer.
Lin, however, in the same field of endeavor, carbon nanotube dispersions, discloses a CNT/polymer composite system in which carbon nanotubes are dispersed in an aqueous system using sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS) as a surfactant/dispersant (see e.g. paragraph [0009]–[0011] and [0016] of Lin). Lin further discloses that the CNT and SDS may be combined at a weight ratio of CNT:SDS of 1:0.1 to 100:1, more preferably 0.2:1 to 5:1 (see e.g. paragraph [0011] of Lin), and further exemplifies specific embodiments including a CNT:SDS weight ratio of 1:10 (see e.g. Example 13 in Table 1 of Lin). Lin further discloses that in Example 13, CNT is present at 0.1 wt% and SDS is correspondingly present at about 1 wt% in the dispersion system (see e.g. Example 13 in Table 1 of Lin).
Lin discloses points that lie within the range claimed by the instant application. In the case where the prior art discloses a point within the claimed range, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Lin further teaches that the use of SDS within the disclosed ranges improves dispersion stability and uniformity of CNT-based conductive systems in aqueous media (see e.g. paragraph [0004]–[0007] and [0051]–[0053] of Lin). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the electrode of Kim et al. such that the weight ratio of carbon nanotube structures to SDS is about 1:10 and the SDS is present in an amount of about 1 wt% as taught by Lin et al. in order to improve dispersion stability and uniformity of CNT conductive networks within the electrode active material layer as suggested by Lin et al.
Regarding Claim 3, Kim in view of Lin discloses the electrode of claim 1 (see e.g. claim 1 rejection above).
Kim further discloses that the carbon nanotube structure is present in an amount of 0.10 wt% in the electrode active material layer (see e.g. Conductive agent amount (wt %) being 0.10 wt% in Example 2 of Table 1).
Kim discloses a point that lies within the range claimed by the instant application. In the case where the prior art discloses a point within the claimed range, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 (I). Regarding Claim 4, Kim in view of Lin discloses the electrode of claim 1 (see e.g. claim 1 rejection above).
Kim further discloses that the carbon nanotube structures are interconnected in the electrode to form a network structure (see e.g. "The carbon nanotube structures may be connected to each other to represent a network structure in the electrode." in paragraph [0048]). Regarding Claim 5, Kim in view of Lin discloses the electrode of claim 1 (see e.g. claim 1 rejection above).
Kim further discloses that the single-walled carbon nanotube units are arranged side by side in the carbon nanotube structures (see e.g. " the single-walled carbon nanotube units may be arranged side by side and bonded " in paragraph [0048]).
Regarding Claim 6, Kim in view of Lin discloses the electrode of claim 1 (see e.g. claim 1 rejection above).
Kim further discloses that the carbon nanotube structures have an average diameter of 10 nm (see e.g. Average diameter (nm) of carbon nanotube structure being 10 nm in Example 2 of Table 1).
Kim discloses a point that lies within the range claimed by the instant application. In the case where the prior art discloses a point within the claimed range, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding Claim 7, Kim in view of Lin discloses the electrode of claim 1 (see e.g. claim 1 rejection above).
Kim further discloses that the electrode active material layer further comprises polyvinylidene fluoride (see e.g. "The negative electrode active material layer may further include a binder... The binder, for example, may include a polyvinylidene fluoride-hexafluoropropylene copolymer (PVDF-co-HFP)" in paragraph [0064]).
Regarding Claim 12, Kim in view of Lin discloses a secondary battery comprising the electrode (see e.g. "The secondary battery according to another embodiment of the present invention may include the negative electrode of the above-described embodiment." in paragraph [0093] of Kim) of claim 1 (see e.g. claim 1 rejection above).
Claims 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US-20220238886-A1) in view of Lin et al. (US-20070067881-A1) as applied to claims 1 and 7 above, and further in view of Seul Ki Kim et al. (US-2021/0020907-A1).
Regarding Claim 8, Kim in view of Lin discloses the electrode of claim 7 (see e.g. claim 7 rejection above).
Kim in view of Lin is silent as to the properties of the polyvinylidene fluoride. Thus, Kim does not disclose that a weight-average molecular weight of the polyvinylidene fluoride is in a range of 10,000 g/mol to 1,000,000 g/mol.
Seul Ki Kim, however, in the same field of endeavor, secondary battery electrodes with carbon nanotubes, discloses an electrode active material layer that comprises polyvinylidene fluoride (see e.g. "The polyvinylidene fluoride may be a substance that starts to be included in the electrode from the conductive agent dispersion necessary for the preparation of the electrode slurry " in paragraph [0056] of Seul Ki Kim). Seul Ki Kim further discloses that a weight-average molecular weight of the polyvinylidene fluoride is in a range of 10,000 g/mol to 1,000,000 g/mol (see e.g. "The polyvinylidene fluoride may have a weight-average molecular weight of 10,000 g/mol to 1,000,000 g/mol" in paragraph [0057] of Seul Ki Kim).
Seul Ki Kim discloses the same range as the range claimed by the instant application. In the case where the prior art discloses a range that is the same as the claimed range, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Seul Ki Kim further teaches that the polyvinylidene fluoride helps to facilitate the dispersion of the bundle-type carbon nanotubes in the conductive agent dispersion and thus the carbon nanotubes may be appropriately dispersed and phase stability of the conductive agent dispersion may be improved (see e.g. paragraphs [0056] and [0057] of Seul Ki Kim). Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the polyvinylidene fluoride of Kim et al. in view of Lin et al. such that a weight-average molecular weight of the polyvinylidene fluoride is in a range of 10,000 g/mol to 1,000,000 g/mol as taught by Seul Ki Kim et al. in order to facilitate the dispersion of the bundle-type carbon nanotubes in the conductive agent dispersion as suggested by Seul Ki Kim.
Regarding Claim 9, Kim in view of Lin discloses the electrode of claim 7 (see e.g. claim 7 rejection above).
Kim in view of Lin does not disclose that the polyvinylidene fluoride comprises modified polyvinylidene fluoride including at least one functional group of an acid functional group and an ester functional group.
Seul Ki Kim, however, discloses that the polyvinylidene fluoride comprises modified polyvinylidene fluoride including at least one functional group of an acid functional group and an ester functional group (see e.g. "the polyvinylidene fluoride may include modified polyvinylidene fluoride including at least one functional group selected from an acid functional group and an ester functional group." in paragraph [0059] of Seul Ki Kim).
Seul Ki Kim further teaches that the polyvinylidene fluoride helps to facilitate the dispersion of the bundle-type carbon nanotubes in the conductive agent dispersion and thus the carbon nanotubes may be appropriately dispersed and phase stability of the conductive agent dispersion may be improved (see e.g. paragraphs [0056] and [0057] of Seul Ki Kim). Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the polyvinylidene fluoride of Kim et al. in view of Lin et al. such that the polyvinylidene fluoride comprises modified polyvinylidene fluoride including at least one functional group of an acid functional group and an ester functional group as taught by Seul Ki Kim et al. in order to facilitate the dispersion of the bundle-type carbon nanotubes in the conductive agent dispersion as suggested by Seul Ki Kim.
Regarding Claim 10, Kim in view of Lin and further in view of Seul Ki Kim discloses the electrode of claim 9 (see e.g. claim 9 rejection above).
Kim in view of Lin does not disclose that the functional group is present in an amount of 0.1 wt% to 5 wt% in the modified polyvinylidene fluoride.
Seul Ki Kim, however, discloses that the functional group is present in an amount of 0.1 wt% to 5 wt% in the modified polyvinylidene fluoride (see e.g. "The functional group may be included in an amount of 0.1 wt % to 5 wt %" in paragraph [0060] of Seul Ki Kim).
Seul Ki Kim discloses the same range as the range claimed by the instant application. In the case where the prior art discloses a range that is the same as the claimed range, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Seul Ki Kim further teaches that the polyvinylidene fluoride helps to facilitate the dispersion of the bundle-type carbon nanotubes in the conductive agent dispersion and thus the carbon nanotubes may be appropriately dispersed and phase stability of the conductive agent dispersion may be improved (see e.g. paragraphs [0056] and [0057] of Seul Ki Kim). Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the polyvinylidene fluoride of Kim et al. in view of Lin et al. such that the functional group is present in an amount of 0.1 wt% to 5 wt% in the modified polyvinylidene fluoride as taught by Seul Ki Kim et al. in order to facilitate the dispersion of the bundle-type carbon nanotubes in the conductive agent dispersion as suggested by Seul Ki Kim.
Regarding Claim 11, Kim in view of Lin discloses the electrode of claim 1 (see e.g. claim 1 rejection above).
Kim in view of Lin, however, discloses that the electrode is a negative electrode (see e.g. "negative electrode" in paragraph [0012] of Kim). Thus, Kim in view of Lin does not disclose that the electrode is a positive electrode.
Seul Ki Kim, however, discloses an electrode having a substantially similar structure, i.e. an electrode active material layer comprising an electrode active material, a conductive agent including a carbon nanotube structure in which 2 to 5,000 single-walled carbon nanotube units are bonded to each other, and a binder such as PVDF (see e.g. Abstract and paragraph [0011] of Seul Ki Kim). Seul Ki Kim further discloses that the electrode may be either a positive electrode or a negative electrode, and preferably a positive electrode (see e.g. " in this case, at least one of the positive electrode and the negative electrode may be the above-described electrode of the present invention, that is, the electrode which includes the electrode active material layer including the electrode active material and the carbon nanotube structure. Preferably, the electrode of the present invention may be the positive electrode." in paragraph [0093] of Seul Ki Kim).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the electrode of Kim to be a positive electrode, as taught by Seul Ki Kim, because Seul Ki Kim explicitly teaches that electrodes of this structure are suitable for use as positive electrodes as well as negative electrodes, and thus applying the teachings to Kim would have been nothing more than the predictable use of known alternatives to achieve a positive electrode with the same electrode structure.
Seul Ki Kim further teaches that this electrode improves the electrical conductivity, input and output characteristics of the battery due to uniform dispersion of the conductive agent. Furthermore, the life characteristics of the battery are improved due to excellent electrode adhesion (see e.g. paragraph [0009] of Seul Ki Kim). Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the electrode of Kim et al. in view of Lin et al. such that it is a positive electrode as taught by Seul Ki Kim et al. in order to improve the electrical conductivity, input and output characteristics of the battery due to uniform dispersion of the conductive agent.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 JESSE EFYMOW whose telephone number is (571)270-0795. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 10:30 am - 8:30 pm EST.
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 (571) 272-3066. 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.
/J.J.E./Examiner, Art Unit 1723
/NICHOLAS P D'ANIELLO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights