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 .
Claim Status
This Office action is responsive to amendments and remarks filed on 4/6/2026.
Claim 1 and 11 have been amended.
Claim 14 is newly added.
Claims 1-14 are currently pending.
Response to Amendment
In light of the amendment the objection to the specification/title is withdrawn.
In light of the amendment the objection to the abstract is withdrawn.
In light of the amendment the objection to the claims is withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/6/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues that SAITO uses the resin and the polysaccharide polymer separately in the coating layer and the active material layer respectively as opposed as being combined in the active material layer being instantly claimed. The examiner finds this to be obvious over the prior art of record, because mixing the binding components of the layers together instead of separately would perform the same function in the electrode as a whole and would not have any effect on the electrode.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-5, and 9-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20170331115 A1, SAITO et al.
Regarding claim 1. SAITO discloses [0016] an electrode for an energy storage device,
the electrode comprising
[0015] a substrate, called a current collector and
[0016] an active material layer [0024] indirectly disposed on the substrate with an intermediate layer, called a coating layer interposed therebetween,
the active material layer containing
[0016] an active material,
[0070] fibrous carbon,
[0017] a binder mainly containing
[0017] an acrylic resin, and
[0062] a polysaccharide polymer, wherein
SAITO [0064] discloses a content ratio of the polysaccharide polymer to the acrylic resin on a mass basis is 0.01 or more and 0.40 or less.
SAITO does not disclose that an acrylic resin, and a polysaccharide polymer are in the in the active material layer both are used as binding materials in the electrode.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have used both an acrylic resin and a polysaccharide polymer in the active material layer in the electrode disclosed by SAITO.
Regarding claim 2. The electrode according to claim 1, wherein tables 1 thru 15 of SAITO disclose a content ratio of the polysaccharide polymer to the fibrous carbon in the claimed range of a mass basis is 1 or more and 20 or less.
SAITO does not disclose that an acrylic resin, and a polysaccharide polymer are in the in the active material layer both are used as binding materials in the electrode.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have used both an acrylic resin and a polysaccharide polymer in the active material layer in the electrode disclosed by SAITO.
Regarding claim 3. The electrode according to claim 1, wherein [0062] a content of the acrylic resin in [0064] the binder is 90% by mass or more.
Regarding claim 4. The electrode according to claim 1, wherein a content of [0062] a styrene-butadiene rubber in [0064] the binder is 3% by mass or less.
Regarding claim 5. The electrode according to claim 1, wherein [0070] the fibrous carbon includes a carbon nanotube.
Regarding claim 9. The electrode according to claim 1, wherein [0062] the polysaccharide polymer includes a cellulose derivative.
Regarding claim 10. The electrode according to claim 1, wherein the active material includes an active material containing [0063] a silicon element.
Regarding claim 11. The electrode according to claim 10, wherein the active material layer further includes a carbon material [0065] as the active material [0070] as a carbon fiber.
Regarding claim 12. [0016] An energy storage device comprising the electrode according to claim 1.
Regarding claim 13. [0097] An energy storage apparatus comprising a plurality of energy storage devices which is called a plurality of batteries, and one or more of the energy storage devices according to claim 12.
Regarding claim 14. SAITO [0071] discloses the electrode according to claim 1, wherein the fibrous carbon has an average diameter of 10 to 100nm which is within the claimed range of 1 nm or more and 80 nm or less.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the to have used fibrous carbon within the instantly claimed range.
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20170331115 A1, SAITO et al. in view of US 20010018150 A1, MORITA et al.
Regarding claims 6-8. SAITO discloses the electrode according to claim 1,
SAITO does not disclose the fibrous carbon has an average aspect ratio of 10 or more and 200 or less as per claim 6, or the fibrous carbon has an average diameter of 1 nm or more and 100 nm or less as per claim 7 or the fibrous carbon has an average length of 1 µm or more and 20 µm or less as per claim 8.
MORITA [title] discloses A Nonaqueous Electrolyte Secondary Battery, Carbon Material For Negative Electrode, And Method For Manufacturing Carbon Material For Negative Electrode where it is further disclosed that
MORITA [0124] discloses that “It is possible for the carbon material to be spherical, fibrous, or a granular. In other words, it is possible for the negative electrode included in the secondary battery of the present invention to contain at least one kind of a carbon material selected from the group consisting of a fibrous carbon material, a spherical carbon material and a granular carbon material.”
MORITA [0125] further discloses that “It is desirable for the average fiber length of the fibrous carbon material to fall within a range of between 5 µm and 100 µm, more desirably between 10 µm and 60 µm.” meeting the limitations of claim 8
MORITA [0126] then discloses “It is desirable for the average fiber diameter of the fibrous carbon material to fall within a range of between 0.1 µm and 30 µm.” Thereby meeting the limitation of claim 7 and,
MORITA [0127] continues that “it is desirable for the average aspect ratio of the fibrous carbon material to fall within a range of between 1 and 50, more desirably between 1.5 and 20. Incidentally, the term "aspect ratio" represents a ratio of the fiber length to the fiber diameter (a ratio of fiber length/fiber diameter)” meeting the limitation of claim 6.
MORITA [0123] discloses that the carbon fiber “permits improving the lithium absorption-desorption site of the negative electrode and also permits improving the affinity between the carbon material and the nonaqueous electrolyte. It follows that it is possible to markedly improve the discharge capacity and the cycle characteristics of the secondary battery.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have used the dimensions of the fibrous carbon disclosed by MORITA in the electrode disclosed by SAITO in order to improve the lithium absorption-desorption site of the negative electrode, and thereby improve the discharge capacity and the cycle characteristics of the secondary battery.
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 LAWRENCE LA RAIA III whose telephone number is (703)756-5441. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thur 6:00am-4:00pm.
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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at (571) 272-1330. 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.
LAWRENCE LA RAIA III
Examiner
Art Unit 1727
/L.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1727
/BARBARA L GILLIAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1727
Prosecution Insights