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 in response to the amendment filed 3/31/2026.
Claim 1 has been amended, support is found on page 7.
Claim 14 has been added; support is found in page 7
Claims 1, 3, 6-9, 11 and 13-14 are currently pending.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 8, 9, 11, 13 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura et al. (US 2019/0312258 A1).
As to claim 1, 3, 8, 9, and 14 Nakamura et al. discloses a secondary battery with an anode for a lithium secondary battery (title), comprising:
a positive electrode [0020]; a negative electrode/anode [0019]; a separator [0021] between the positive and negative electrodes, and an electrolyte solution [0022] (applies to claim 9);
Nakamura discloses an anode active material comprising a plurality of graphite particles [0058; 0029] and silicon based compound [0028] (applies to claim 8);
a binder ([0053] discloses carboxymethyl cellulose or a salt thereof is added as a binder); and
a multi-composite conductive agent [0031] (discloses a mixture of two or more of the materials listed in [0031] can be used) comprising:
a carbon-based conductive agent comprising a plurality of carbon nanoparticles (carbon black which is considered an amorphous material applies to claim 3, 8 and 11, 14), and
a metal-based conductive agent comprising a plurality of metal nanowires (metal fibers which include silver applies to claim 3, 8, and 11, 14)
wherein each of the plurality of metal nanowires extends over two adjacent ones of the plurality of graphite particles (paragraph 75 discloses two types of conductors are mixed one of which is carbon black and the other of which is in fiber form and then the graphite active material is added and mixed), thus the resulting mixing the fiber form would extend over two adjacent of the ,
and wherein the carbon-based conductive agent and the metal-based conductive agent have different shapes (particles (carbon black) and metal wires).
While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997.) In this case, the limitation of “ such that the multi-composite conductive agent improves an electrical conductivity and electron mobility in the anode by utilizing a difference in shape between the conductive agents included in the multi-composite conductive agent.” Is considered functional language. The structure of composite conductive agent having different shapes is achieved by Nakamura as is discussed above.
While the conductive materials are listed as particles and wires and nanotubes Nakamura does not explicitly state that the materials are all nanosized. However "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). However it is known that the size of the particles can increase the points of contact, thus nanosized particles are well known to be used as conductive materials (MPEP 2144.03).
As to claim 6, Modified Nakamura discloses the anode of claim 1, wherein in the multi- composite conductive agent further teaches the amount of the conductive agent to be added is preferably 0.1 mass % to 30 mass % and particularly preferably 0.2 mass % to 20 mass %, relative to the amount of the negative electrode active material , but does not state that a content of the carbon-based conductive agent is higher than a content of the metal-based conductive agent.
However the Supreme Court decided that a claim can be proved obvious merely by showing that the combination of known elements was obvious to try. In this regard, the Supreme Court explained that, "[w]hen there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill in the art has a good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp." An obviousness determination is not the result of a rigid formula disassociated from the consideration of the facts of the case. Indeed, the common sense of those skilled in the art demonstrates why some combinations would have been obvious where others would not. Therefore, choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation for success, is likely to be obvious to a person if ordinary skill in the art. (see MPEP § 2143, E.). In this case it would have been obvious to include more carbon based than metal based because carbon is cheaper than metal wire.
As to claim 13. Nakamura discloses the anode of claim 1, wherein the plurality of metal nanowires comprise at least one metal nanowire interconnecting three graphite particles. Paragraph 75 discloses the graphite is mixed with conductive material; thus the mixing would cause at least one nanowire to interconnect with three graphite particles.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura et al. (US 2019/0312258 A1) in view of Shim et al. (US 2017/0263925).
As to claim 7. Nakamura discloses the anode of claim 1, wherein the multi-composite conductive agent is 1 wt.% or less (0.1-30 by mass percent [0031]), but does not disclose wherein the anode active material is 97 wt.% or more, wherein the binder is 2 wt.% or less, and wherein a content of the binder is higher than a content of the multi-composite conductive agent.
Shim et al. discloses a battery and teaches the anode active material is 97 wt.% or more (90-98 wt. percent), wherein the binder is 2 wt.% or less (1-5 wt. percent) [0063]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to include these amount of binder and active material because these are known to be effective amount of active material and binder in a battery.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/31/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Nakamura does not disclose a dual agent conductive system with a nanowire bridging two adjacent graphite particles (page 6). Furthermore Nakamura’s example is of carbon black and carbon nanotubes but not nanowires.
As applicant has stated, Nakamura does disclose a mixture of two of the conductive materials in an example, therefore Nakamura does envision having two conductive materials mixed together. It has been held that "disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments" (MPEP 2123).
Applicant states that Nakamura does not disclose that the fibers contact the graphite particles (page 6)
Applicant’s work also state that the two electro conductive materials are mixed, thus since Nakamura discloses mixing the two electroconductive materials, it is expected to touch the graphite particle twice by the fiber.
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 J LAIOS whose telephone number is (571)272-9808. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 10am-6pm.
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.
/Maria Laios/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1727
Prosecution Insights