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
1. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/25/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
2. Applicant’s amendments with respect to claims filed on 12/29/2025 have been entered. Claims 1-3, 6, 19, 21, 23-24, 30, 32, 37, 41, 44, 48, 70, 78, 80, 86, and 106-107 remain pending in this application and are currently under consideration for patentability under 37 CFR 1.104.
The amendments and remarks filed are sufficient to cure the previous drawing objections, specification objections, and 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections set forth in the Non-Final office action mailed on 08/26/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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.
4. Claim(s) 1-3, 32, 37, 48, 78, 80, and 86 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Motoki et al. (Pub. No. US 20220407076 A1) in view of Sugimoto et al. (Pub. No. KR 102060429 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Motoki teaches a dispersion of carbon nanotubes (paste, see [0035] where the conductive additive includes carbon nanotubes) comprising: an organic medium (dispersion medium, see [0035], see [0105] where dispersion medium is an organic solvent and therefore an organic medium), carbon nanotubes (CNTs, see [0035] where the conductive additive includes CNTs) dispersed in the organic medium (dispersion medium, see [0035], see [0040] good dispersion of CNTs in the dispersion medium), a dispersant (polymer, see [0035], see [0054] the polymer is a dispersant enabling dispersion) comprising an addition polymer (polymer comprised of multiple different monomer units, see [0060]) comprising constitutional units (structural units, see [0060]) but fails to explicitly teach the constitutional units comprising a residue of an alkyl ester of (meth)acrylic acid containing from 1 to 3 carbon atoms in an alkyl group in an amount of 20% to 98% by weight, based on the total weight of the addition polymer; and a fluoropolymer in an amount of 50% by weight to 90% by weight based on total binder solids weight.
However, Motoki teaches that the constitutional units (structural units, see [0060]) comprise the residue of an alkyl ester of (meth)acrylic acid ((meth)acrylic alkyl esters, see [0087]) containing from 1 to 3 carbon atoms in the alkyl group (see [0091], where the (meth)acrylic alkyl esters are methyl acrylate and/or ethyl acrylate) in an amount of 20% to 98% by weight (24 mass % or more, 55 mass % or less, see [0094]), based on the total weight (all structural units are 100% by mass) of the addition polymer (polymer comprised of multiple different monomer units, see [0060]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Motoki such that the constitutional units comprise residue of an alkyl ester of (meth)acrylic acid in 24% to 55% by mass as Motoki teaches it is known in the art to do so.
Motoki fails to teach a fluoropolymer in an amount of 50% by weight to 90% by weight (70-85 mass%, see [00196]) based on total binder solids weight (based on 100mass% of binder, see [00196], .
However, Sugimoto teaches a fluoropolymer (fluorine-containing polymer, see [00174]) in an amount of 50% by weight to 90% by weight (70-85 mass%, see [00196]) based on total binder solids weight (based on 100 mass% of binder, see [00196], see [00195] where the binder includes the fluorine-containing polymer and nitrile-group containing acrylic polymer, further as evidenced by [0060] and [0084] of Motoki a nitrile-group containing acrylic polymer is a polymer which can act as a dispersant).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Motoki to add a fluorine-containing polymer in an amount of 70-85% by weight of weight of dispersant and fluorine-containing polymer as taught by Sugimoto to improve stability, reduce swelling when used as a binder, and improve cycle characteristics (see [00174] of Sugimoto. Further Motoki teaches that other components can be may be mixed into the paste (see [0107] of Motoki).
Regarding claim 2, Motoki in view of Sugimoto teaches wherein the carbon nanotubes (CNTs, see [0035] where the conductive additive includes CNTs) comprise single-wall carbon nanotubes (single-walled CNTs, see [0044]).
Regarding claim 3, Motoki in view of Sugimoto teaches wherein the carbon nanotubes (CNTs, see [0035] where the conductive additive includes CNTs) comprise multi-wall carbon nanotubes (multi-walled CNTs, see [0044]).
Regarding claim 19, Motoki in view of Sugimoto fails to teach wherein the carbon nanotubes are present in the dispersion in an amount of 0.1% to 10% by weight, based on the total solids weight of the dispersion.
However, Motoki teaches that the carbon nanotubes (CNTs, see [0035] where the conductive additive includes CNTs) are present in the dispersion (paste, see [0035] where the conductive additive includes carbon nanotubes) in an amount of 2 mass % or more and 8 mass % or less by weight based on the entire mass of the dispersion (paste, see [0035], see [0051] mass of the entire paste). Although these two ranges are not measured based on the same total mass content it is the examiners position if the range taught by Motoki were measured using the same metric the ranges would overlap or be close to the claimed range in a way that would not cause unexpected results.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Motoki in view of Sugimoto to such that the weight percent of carbon nanotubes in the dispersion based on total weight of solids of the dispersion is within the claimed range as a prima facie case of obviousness exists “in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” (MPEP 2144.05.I) and further modify the weight percent of carbon nanotubes in the dispersion as it is a result effective variable for solid content concentration of a slurry for an electrode produced using the paste, productivity in forming of an electrode mixed material layer, and viscosity of the paste (see [0051] of Motoki).
Regarding claim 32, Motoki in view of Sugimoto teaches wherein the dispersant (polymer, see [0035], see [0054] the polymer is a dispersant enabling dispersion) comprises functional groups (monomers having a hydrophilic group, see [0070), wherein the functional groups (monomers having a hydrophilic group, see [0070) comprise hydroxyl groups (hydroxy group, see [0070]), primary or secondary amino groups, amide groups, carboxylic acid groups (carboxy group, see [0070], see [0071] where the carboxy group includes a monocarboxylic acid), thiol groups, lactams, lactones, epoxides, or any combination thereof.
Regarding claim 37, Motoki in view of Sugimoto fails to teach wherein the addition polymer further comprises constitutional units comprising a residue of an alpha, beta-ethylenically unsaturated carboxylic acid, wherein constitutional units comprising the residue of the alpha, beta-ethylenically unsaturated carboxylic acids may comprise 1% to 50% by weight, based on the total weight of the addition polymer.
However, Motoki teaches that the addition polymer (polymer comprised of multiple different monomer units, see [0060]) further comprises constitutional units (structural units, see [0060]) comprising the residue of an alpha, beta-ethylenically unsaturated carboxylic acid (fumaric acid, see [0074], see [0060] where the polymer comprises a hydrophilic group-containing monomer unit, see [0070] the hydrophilic group is a carboxy group containing monomer, see [0071] where the carboxy group-containing monomer is a dicarboxylic acid, see [0074] where the dicarboxylic acid is fumaric acid) wherein constitutional units (structural units, see [0060]) comprising the residue of the alpha, beta-ethylenically unsaturated carboxylic acids (fumaric acid, see [0074]) may comprise 1% to 50% by weight (3 mass % or more and 10 mass % or less, see [0085], this specifies the hydrophilic group-containing monomer unit see above where this monomer is fumaric acid), based on the total weight (all structural units takes to be 100% by mass) of the addition polymer (polymer comprised of multiple different monomer units, see [0060]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Motoki in view of Sugimoto such that the constitutional units comprise alpha, beta-ethylenically unsaturated carboxylic acid in a weight percent of 3-10% as Motoki teaches it is known in the art to do so.
Regarding claim 48, Motoki in view of Sugimoto fails to teach wherein the addition polymer further comprises constitutional units comprising a residue of a hydroxyalkyl ester, wherein constitutional units comprising the residue of the hydroxyalkyl ester comprise 0.5% to 30% by weight, based on the total weight of the addition polymer.
However, Motoki teaches that the addition polymer (polymer comprised of multiple different monomer units, see [0060]) further comprises constitutional units (structural units, see [0060]) comprising the residue of a hydroxyalkyl ester (2-hydroxyethyl acrylate, see [0083], see [0060] where the polymer has a hydrophilic group containing monomer unit, see [0070] where it is a hydroxy group-containing monomer, see [0083] where the hydroxy group-containing monomer is 2-hydroxyethyl acrylate), wherein constitutional units (structural units, see [0060]) comprising the residue of the hydroxyalkyl ester (2-hydroxyethyl acrylate, see [0083]) comprise 0.5% to 30% by weight (1 mass % or more and 10 mass % or less, see [0085]), based on the total weight (100% of all structural units, see [0094]) of the addition polymer (polymer comprised of multiple different monomer units, see [0060]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Motoki in view of Sugimoto such that the addition polymer further comprises constitutional units comprising the residue of a hydroxyalkyl ester, wherein constitutional units comprising the residue of the hydroxyalkyl ester as Motoki teaches it is known in the art to do so.
Regarding claim 78, Motoki in view of Sugimoto teaches wherein the dispersant (polymer, see [0035], see [0054] the polymer is a dispersant enabling dispersion) is present in an amount of 0.5% to 40% by weight (16.7% by weight, see example [0201] where 4 parts CNTs and 0.8 parts of dispersant are added, (0.8/4.8)*100 = 16.7%) based on the total solids weight of the dispersion (paste, see [0035] where the conductive additive includes carbon nanotubes).
Regarding claim 80, Motoki in view of Sugimoto teaches wherein the weight ratio of carbon nanotubes (polymer, see [0035], see [0054] the polymer is a dispersant enabling dispersion) to dispersant (polymer, see [0035], see [0054] the polymer is a dispersant enabling dispersion) is 250:1 to 1:1 (mass percent of CNTs is 2-20 mass %, see [0052], mass percent of dispersant is 0.1-6 mass %, see [0103], ratio is 200:1 to 1:3 which overlaps the claimed range, and see [0201] where ratio of CNTs to dispersant is 50:1 which lies inside the claimed range, therefore the range is considered taught by Motoki).
Regarding claim 86, Motoki in view of Sugimoto fails to explicitly teach wherein the dispersion further comprises an electrically conductive agent other than carbon, and/or a fluoropolymer.
However, Motoki teaches that the dispersion (paste, see [0035] where the conductive additive includes carbon nanotubes) further comprises an electrically conductive agent other than carbon nanotubes (see [0038] where the paste comprises conductive additives other than CNTs), and/or a fluoropolymer.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Motoki in view of Sugimoto to add an electrically conductive additive other than carbon nanotubes to the dispersion as Motoki teaches it is known in the art to do so.
5. Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Motoki et al. (Pub. No. US 20220407076 A1) in view of Sugimoto et al. (Pub. No. KR 102060429 B1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hwang et al. (Pub. No. KR 20210012805 A).
Regarding claim 6, Motoki in view of Sugimoto fails to teach wherein the carbon nanotubes are substituted with functional groups comprising carbonyl, hydroxyl, amine, and/or amide functional groups.
However, Hwang teaches carbon nanotubes (carbon nanotubes, see [28]) are substituted with functional groups (functionalized, see [28]) comprising carbonyl, hydroxyl (hydroxy functional groups, see [28]), amine, and/or amide functional groups.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Motoki in view of Sugimoto such that the carbon nanotubes are substituted with functional groups as taught by Hwang to improve the dispersibility and wettability in aqueous and non-aqueous solvents (see [28] of Hwang).
6. Claim(s) 21, 23, 41, 44, and 70 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Motoki et al. (Pub. No. US 20220407076 A1) in view of Sugimoto et al. (Pub. No. KR 102060429 B1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hellring et al. (Pub. No. US 20200176777 A1).
Regarding claim 21, Motoki in view of Sugimoto fails to teach wherein the organic medium comprises, trialkyl phosphate, and the trialkyl phosphate comprises trimethylphosphate, triethylphosphate, tripropylphosphate, tributylphosphate, or a combination thereof.
However, Hellring teaches an organic medium (organic medium, see [0029]) comprising trialkyl phosphate (trialkyl phosphate, see [0025] where the organic medium is trialkyl phosphate), and the trialkyl phosphate (trialkyl phosphate, see [0025] where the organic medium is trialkyl phosphate) comprises trimethylphosphate (trimethylphosphate, see [0025]), triethylphosphate (triethylphosphate, see [0025]), tripropylphosphate (tripropylphosphate, see [0025]), tributylphosphate (tributylphosphate, see [0025]), or a combination thereof.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Motoki in view of Sugimoto to substitute the organic medium as taught by Motoki in view of Sugimoto for the organic medium as taught by Hellring as an art effective equivalent organic medium.
Regarding claim 23, Motoki in view of Sugimoto fails to teach wherein the organic medium comprises, triethyl phosphate and ethyl acetoacetate.
However, Hellring teaches an organic medium (organic medium, see [0028]) comprising, triethyl phosphate (triethyl phosphate, see [0028] where the organic medium comprises combinations, see where trialkyl phosphate is the triethyl phosphate) and ethyl acetoacetate (ethyl acetoacetate, see [0028], see where combinations of solvents can be made).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Motoki in view of Sugimoto to substitute the organic medium as taught by Motoki in view of Sugimoto for the organic medium as taught by Hellring as an art effective equivalent organic medium.
Regarding claim 41, Motoki in view of Sugimoto fails to explicitly teach wherein the addition polymer further comprises constitutional units comprising a residue of an alkyl ester of (meth)acrylic acid containing from 4 to 7 carbon atoms in an alkyl group, wherein constitutional units comprising the residue of the alkyl ester of (meth)acrylic acid containing from 4 to 7 carbon atoms in the alkyl group comprise 2% to 70% by weight, based on the total weight of the addition polymer.
However, Motoki teaches that the addition polymer (polymer comprised of multiple different monomer units, see [0060]) further comprises constitutional units (structural units, see [0060]) comprising the residue of an alkyl esters of (meth)acrylic acid ((meth)acrylic alkyl esters, see [0087]) containing from 4 to 7 carbon atoms in the alkyl group (see [0091] where the (meth)acrylic alkyl ester is hexyl acrylate and/or heptyl acrylate, see [0093] where the (meth)acrylic acid ester monomers may be used individually or in combination), but fails to teach wherein constitutional units comprising the residue of the alkyl esters of (meth)acrylic acid containing from 4 to 7 carbon atoms in the alkyl group comprise 2% to 70% by weight, based on the total weight of the addition polymer.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Motoki in view of Sugimoto such that the addition polymer further comprises constitutional units of a residue of an alkyl esters of (meth)acrylic acid containing from 4 to 7 carbon atoms in the alkyl group as Motoki teaches it is known in the art to do so.
However, Hellring teaches an addition polymer (addition polymer, see [0046]) wherein constitutional units (constitutional units, see [0046]) comprising the residue of the alkyl esters of (meth)acrylic acid (see [0046]) containing from 4 to 7 carbon atoms in the alkyl group (4 to 18, see where the alky ester of (meth)acrylic acid is buty(meth)acrylate or hexyl(meth)acrylate) comprise 2% to 70% by weight (2% to 70% by weight, see [0046]), based on the total weight of the addition polymer (addition polymer, see [0046] based on the total weight of the addition polymer).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Motoki in view of Sugimoto such that the constitutional units comprising the residue of the alkyl esters of (meth)acrylic acid containing from 4 to 7 carbon atoms in the alkyl group is comprise 2% to 70% by weight based on total weight of the addition polymer as taught by Hellring to produce high quality electrodes for batteries and other electrical storage devices (see [0008] of Hellring), and assist in dispersing electrically conductive agents in a liquid medium (see [0037] of Hellring) and may comprise any material having phases compatible with electrically conductive agents (see [0037] of Hellring).
Regarding claim 44, Motoki in view of Sugimoto fails to teach wherein the addition polymer further comprises constitutional units comprising a residue of an alkyl ester of (meth)acrylic acid containing from 8 to 22 carbon atoms in an alkyl group, wherein constitutional units comprising the residue of the alkyl ester of (meth)acrylic acid containing from 8 to 22 carbon atoms in the alkyl group comprise 2% to 70% by weight, based on the total weight of the addition polymer, or wherein the addition polymer further comprises constitutional units comprising the residue of an ethylenically unsaturated monomer comprising a heterocyclic group, wherein constitutional units comprising the residue of the ethylenically unsaturated monomers comprising a heterocyclic group may comprise 0.5% to 99% by weight, based on the total weight of the addition polymer, or wherein the addition polymer comprises constitutional units comprising the residue of a self-crosslinking monomer, and the addition polymer comprises a self-crosslinking addition polymer, wherein constitutional units comprising the residue of the self-crosslinking monomer may comprise 0.5% to 30% by weight, based on the total weight of the addition polymer.
However, Hellring teaches an addition polymer (addition polymer, see [0041]) wherein the addition polymer (addition polymer, see [0041]) further comprises constitutional units (constitutional units, see [0041]) comprising the residue of an ethylenically unsaturated monomer comprising a heterocyclic group (heterocyclic group-containing ethylenically unsaturated monomer, see [0041]), wherein constitutional units (constitutional units, see [0041]) comprising the residue of the ethylenically unsaturated monomers comprising a heterocyclic group (heterocyclic group-containing ethylenically unsaturated monomer, see [0041]) may comprise 0.5% to 99% by weight (0.5% to 99% by weight, see [0041]), based on the total weight of the addition polymer (addition polymer, see [0041] based on the total weight of the addition polymer).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Motoki in view of Sugimoto to add constitutional units comprising a residue of ethylenically unsaturated monomers comprising a heterocyclic group 0.5% to 99% by weight as taught by Hellring to produce high quality electrodes for batteries and other electrical storage devices (see [0008] of Hellring), and assist in dispersing electrically conductive agents in a liquid medium (see [0037] of Hellring).
Regarding claim 70, Motoki in view of Sugimoto fails to teach wherein the addition polymer has a Tg of 100° C. or less.
However, Hellring teaches an addition polymer (addition polymer, see [0054]) has a Tg of 100° C. or less.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Motoki in view of Sugimoto such that the Tg of the addition polymer is 100° C. or less as taught by Hellring to ensure acceptable battery performance at low temperatures (see [0054]).
7. Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Motoki et al. (Pub. No. US 20220407076 A1) in view of Sugimoto et al. (Pub. No. KR 102060429 B1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cahana et al. (Pub. No. WO 2014141279 A1).
Regarding claim 24, Motoki in view of Sugimoto teaches wherein the organic medium (dispersion medium, see [0035], see [0105] where dispersion medium is an organic solvent and therefore an organic medium) comprises a primary solvent (cyclopentanone, see [0105] see where the dispersion medium can be a combination of two or more types) and a co-solvent (acetonitrile, see [0105] see where the dispersion medium can be a combination of two or more types) with the carbon nanotubes (CNTs, see [0035] where the conductive additive includes CNTs) as a dispersed phase (good dispersion of the CNTs in the dispersion medium, see [0040] therefore the CNTs are the dispersed phase). But fails to teach wherein the primary solvent and co-solvent form a homogenous continuous phase.
However, Cahana teaches an organic medium (liquid medium, see [33] where the liquid medium is organic solvents and water) comprising a primary solvent (first organic solvent use, see [33] solvents can be organic solvents, implying multiple, therefore the first solvent is the primary) and a co-solvent (second solvent used, see [33] solvents can be organic solvents, implying multiple, therefore the second solvent is the co-solvent) that form a homogenous continuous phase (see [33] the liquid medium is a continuous liquid phase with a component dispersed homogenously therefore a homogenous continuous phase).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Motoki in view of Sugimoto such that the primary and co-solvent form a homogenous continuous phase as taught by Cahana as it is known in the art to do so to enable homogenous distribution of CNTs within matrices (see [9] of Cahana).
Claim(s) 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Motoki et al. (Pub. No. US 20220407076 A1) in view of Sugimoto et al. (Pub. No. KR 102060429 B1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (Pub. No. US 20220166027 A1).
Regarding claim 30, Motoki in view of Sugimoto fails to teach wherein the dispersant comprises a reactive group and a tail group, wherein the reactive group comprises silanes, carboxylic acids, phosphonic acids, quaternary ammonium ion, groups capable of hydrogen bonding, and the tail group comprises a second functionality that helps to prevent the interaction of carbon nanotubes with each other.
However, Motoki teaches that the dispersant (polymer, see [0035], see [0054] the polymer is a dispersant enabling dispersion) comprises a reactive group (hydroxy group containing monomers, see [0070] where the hydrophilic group is a hydroxy group containing monomer, see [0060] where the polymer comprises a hydrophilic group containing monomer) wherein the reactive group (hydroxy group containing monomers, see [0070] where the hydrophilic group is a hydroxy group containing monomer, see [0060] where the polymer comprises a hydrophilic group containing monomer) comprises silanes, carboxylic acids, phosphonic acids, quaternary ammonium ion, groups capable of hydrogen bonding (hydroxy group of the hydroxy group containing monomer, see [0070]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Motoki in view of Sugimoto such that the dispersant comprises a reactive group as Motoki teaches it is known in the art to do so.
Motoki in view of Sugimoto fails to teach the dispersant comprising a tail group and the tail group comprises a second functionality that helps to prevent the interaction of carbon nanotubes with each other.
However, Kim teaches a dispersant (dispersant, see [0038]) comprising a tail group (amine and phenolic compound, see [0038] polymer dispersant containing an amine and phenolic compound) the tail group comprises a second functionality (function of preventing agglomeration) that helps to prevent the interaction of carbon nanotubes with each other (see dispersant allows carbon nanotubes to evenly disperse without agglomeration, which is preventing their interaction with one another, as the dispersant is the polymer dispersant with amine and phenolic compound groups, these groups prevent the agglomeration as part of their function).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Motoki in view of Sugimoto to add the tail group as taught by Kim to prevent the carbon nanotubes from agglomerating (see [0038] of Kim).
8. Claim(s) 106-107 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Motoki et al. (Pub. No. US 20220407076 A1) in view of Sugimoto et al. (Pub. No. KR 102060429 B1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yoo et al. (Pub. No. US 20200343541 A1).
Regarding claim 106, Motoki in view of Sugimoto teaches a slurry composition (slurry, see [0134]) for producing a battery electrode (secondary battery positive electrode, see [0134]) comprising the dispersion of claim 1 (paste, see [0035] where the conductive additive includes carbon nanotubes, see claim 1 above, see [0134] where the paste is the paste presently disclosed), an electrochemically active material (positive electrode active material, see [0134]), but fails to teach a binder.
However, Yoo teaches a slurry composition (positive electrode slurry, see [0037]) comprising a binder (binder, see [0037]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Motoki in view of Sugimoto to add a binder as taught by Yoo to increase a content of positive electrode active material and increase output characteristics of a battery (see [0011] of Yoo).
Regarding claim 107, Motoki in view of Sugimoto in view of Yoo teaches an electrode (positive electrode, see [0152]) comprising an electrical current collector (current collector, see [0152]) and a film (coating film, see [0152]) formed on the electrical current collector (current collector, see [0152], see slurry put on surface of current collector to form coating film), wherein the film (coating film, see [0152]) is deposited from the slurry composition of claim 106 (slurry, see [0134], see [0152] the film is made of the slurry, see modification to claim 106 above).
Response to Arguments
9. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-3, 6, 19, 21, 23-24, 30, 32, 37, 41, 44, 48, 70, 78, 80, 86, and 106-107 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the same combination of references previously applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 DOUGLAS CALEB MARROQUIN whose telephone number is (571)272-0166. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30-5:00 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, Tiffany Legette can be reached at 571-270-7078. 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.
/DOUGLAS C MARROQUIN/Examiner, Art Unit 1723 /TIFFANY LEGETTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1723