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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 August 3rd, 2026 has been entered.
Claim Status
Applicant’s arguments submitted on August 3rd, 2026 have been entered into the file.
Currently claims 1-2 are amended and claim 3 is cancelled, resulting in claims 1-2, 4-20 pending for examination.
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed August 3rd, 2026 have been received.
Applicant’s amendment to claim 2 has overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 112(b) rejection of claim 2 set forth in the Final Rejection mailed April 1st, 2026.
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.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (Korean Patent Publication No. 20140085822 A) in view of Eweka (W.O. 2023021296 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Park teaches an electrode (Page 10, Paragraph 2) comprising an active layer (Page 24, Paragraph 1). Park teaches the negative electrode active material layer comprising complex particles (Figure 1) including a core of carbon-based particles, voids, and active particles (Page 11, Paragraph 1). Park teaches the carbon elements (first carbon-based particles) (Figure 1, Element 12) assist in the uniform dispersion of the active material particles (Page 17, Paragraph 4), with the pores inside the core of the particle forming a network (Page 20, Paragraphs 1-2). Thus, as described by Park and annotated in the Figure below, Park is considered to meet the claimed limitations of carbon elements defining void spaces within the network.
PNG
media_image1.png
506
476
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 1 of Park
As illustrated in the annotated Figure above, Park teaches a plurality of electrode active material particles (Figure 1, Element 11) disposed in the void spaces within the network. Park teaches the active material particles (active particles) are silicon-containing having an average particle diameter of 1 nm to 5 µm (Page 16, Paragraphs 11-12). Thus, Park teaches at least some portion of the silicon active material particles having a diameter in the micron range or it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan to select a size within the micron range, and is considered to meet the instant claimed limitations of the active material particles comprising microsilicon.
As the active layer of the electrode comprises the complex particles (including the network of carbon elements with active material particles disposed therein), the active layer of the electrode is considered to comprise the aforementioned network and electrode active material particles, meeting the instant claimed limitations.
Park teaches the active layer of the element comprising a polymeric additive (binder), the polymeric additive being at least one of a polyolefin (polyethylene, polypropylene) and a styrene-butadiene rubber (SBR) (Page 24, Paragraphs 1-2).
Park is silent as to the carbon elements being high aspect carbon elements.
As discussed above, Park teaches the negative electrode active material comprising carbon elements (first carbon-based particles) that may be a combination of scaly graphite (Figure 1, Element 12) and spherical-shaped crystalline graphite fine particles (Figure 1, Element 15) (Page 15, Paragraph 1) (Page 17, Paragraph 4).
Eweka discloses a composite electrode including graphite particles that are high aspect ratio graphite (Abstract). Eweka teaches the shape of such high aspect ratio graphite is flake, plate, sheet (Page 3, Lines 5-10). Eweka teaches that when used in conjunction with round graphite particles, the high aspect ratio graphite particles enhance electrical conductivity and power capability of the electrode (Pages 2-3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the graphite network of Park to incorporate the teachings of Eweka in which the aspect ratio of the scaly graphite carbon element is high. Because Park also teaches the active material comprising round (spherical) graphite particles, according to the teachings of Eweka the combination of the round graphite particles and the high aspect ratio scaly graphite would result in enhanced electrical conductivity and power capability of the electrode, as recognized by Eweka.
Park is silent regarding the active layer exhibiting an expansion of less than 50% when wetted with an electrolyte.
However it is reasonable to presume that the expansion of less than 50% when wetted with an electrolyte is inherent to Park in view of Eweka.
Support for said presumption is found in that modified Park teaches the electrode comprising the following components and features, as discussed above:
Network of high aspect carbon elements which define void spaces in the network
Active material particles comprising microsilicon disposed in the void spaces of the network
A polymeric additive in the active layer, the polymeric additive being at least one of a polyolefin and a styrene butadiene rubber
Modified Park, as discussed above, teaches the overlapping structural and compositional features of the electrode as the instant invention. Therefore it is reasonable to conclude that the expansion of the active layer is less than 50% after being wetted with an electrolyte is inherent to Park in view of Eweka.
Regarding claim 2, Park teaches the electrode of claim 1, wherein the electrode active material particles further comprise silicon oxide in the form of SiO (the active particles may use a mixture of Si and SiO) (Page 17, Paragraphs 10-11).
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view Eweka as applied to claims 1-2 above, further in view Kawanaka (U.S. Patent Publication No. 20130260256 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Park teaches the electrode as discussed above with respect to claim 1, including an active layer comprising active particles of microsilicon, as described above.
Park is silent as to the microsilicon comprised in the electrode active material is greater than fifty percent of the active layer by weight.
However, Kawanaka discloses a negative electrode active material used in an electrode of a lithium ion secondary battery (Paragraphs 0002, 0016). Ikeda teaches the negative electrode active material layer containing a negative electrode active material which contains silicon and silicon oxide. Ikeda teaches that the silicon and silicon oxide active material comprises 90 mass% or more with respect to the total mass of the negative electrode active material contained in the negative electrode active material layer, preferably 95 mass% or more in order to achieve higher theoretical capacity (Paragraph 0016).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the microsilicon in the active material layer of Park to incorporate the teachings of Kawanaka in which silicon-containing particles comprise 95 mass% or more with respect to the total mass of the negative electrode active material layer. Doing so would advantageously result in large theoretical capacity of the electrode, as recognized by Kawanaka.
The resulting range of the microsilicon in the active material layer of modified Park lies within the range disclosed by the instant claim, meeting the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 5, Park teaches the electrode as discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Park is silent as to the microsilicon comprised in the comprised in the electrode active material is at least eighty percent of the active layer by weight.
However, as discussed above, the modification of Park by Kawanaka resulted in the microsilicon in the active material layer comprising 95 mass% or more with respect to the total mass of the negative electrode active material layer.
The resulting range of the microsilicon in the active material layer of modified Park lies within the range disclosed by the instant claim, meeting the claimed limitations.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Eweka as applied to claims 1-2 above, further in view of Rutger (U.S. Patent Publication No. 20240421308 A1) and Song (previously cited, Non-Patent Literature “Effects of the Aspect Ratio of the Conductive Agent on the Kinetic Properties of Lithium Ion Batteries”), as evidenced by the OED definition of “mesh”.
Regarding claims 6 and 7, modified Park teaches the electrode as discussed above with respect to claim 1, wherein the network of high aspect ratio carbon elements comprises a network of carbon elements (Figure 1, Element 12).
As discussed above and illustrated in Figure 1 of Park, Park teaches a network structure made up of a plurality of carbon elements overlapping one another including pores and the silicon active particles located in the voids inside the carbon network structure. The OED definition of mesh is “any of the open spaces or interstices between the threads or cords of a net”. As the network of Park describes a network of open spaces (pores) resulting from the overlapping of carbon elements, the network of carbon elements is considered to comprise a mesh of carbon nanotubes, meeting the limitations of the instant claim.
As the taught by Park the mesh of carbon elements comprises an overlapping structure of carbon elements (Figure 1, Element 12) with spaces which act as a buffering space for the volume expansion of silicon particles that occurs during charging and discharging (Page 15, Paragraph 3). The overlapping structure of the network carbon elements which defines void spaces for silicon active materials particles to be disposed within provides the same electrode structure as the instant claim, therefore there is reasonable basis to conclude at least some of the mesh of carbon elements maintains electrical connection among at least a subset of the carbon elements comprised in the mesh during expansion of the silicon that occurs during charging and discharging of the battery.
In the event that it is established the prior art lacks a reasonable basis to make such a conclusion, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make at least a subset of the carbon elements maintain electrical connection during the expansion of silicon in order to contribute to the overall conductivity of the mesh as well as provide the continuous buffering for the expansion of silicon, according to the teachings of Park. The ordinary artisan would find it obvious to maintain the structure of overlapping carbon elements in order to maintain the buffer space provided by the carbon element network to support the expansion of silicon which occurs during charging and discharging of the battery.
Park teaches the carbon elements may be graphite (Page 18, Paragraph 1), and is thus silent as to the high aspect ratio carbon elements comprising carbon nanotubes.
However, Rutger discloses an improved anode for rechargeable batteries (Paragraph 0001) comprising carbon nanofiber networks in anode active material layers (Paragraph 0013). Rutger teaches the stability over extended cycling of the anode can be improved by increasing electron conductivity. Rutger further teaches the electron conductivity of the carbon nanofibers of the carbon network is greater than the electron conductivity of graphite (Paragraph 0013).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the graphite carbon network of Park to incorporate the teachings of Rutger in which the carbon element network is comprised of carbon nanotubes (nanofibers). Doing so would advantageously result in improved electron conductivity of the anode, leading to extended lifetime, as recognized by Rutger.
Further, Song discloses the effect of aspect ratio of a conductive agents such as carbon nanotubes on its kinetic properties in lithium ion batteries. Song teaches the aspect ratio influencing the diffusion of lithium ions (Abstract), and showed through a series of experiments the carbon nanotubes with a high aspect ratio exhibited superior rate capability and stable performance in lithium-ion batteries (Page 40886, Column 1, Paragraph 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the carbon nanotubes of Park in view of Rutger to incorporate the teachings of Song in which the aspect ratio is high. Doing so would advantageously result in superior rate capability and stable performance of the conductive carbon in batteries, as recognized by Song.
Claims 8-11, 13, 16, 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Eweka as applied to claims 1-2, further in view of Rutger (cited above) and Kim (previously cited, Non-Patent Literature “Three-dimensional SWCNT and MWCNT hybrid networks for extremely high-loading and high rate cathode materials”), as evidenced by the OED definition of “mesh”.
Regarding claim 8, modified Park teaches the electrode as discussed above with respect to claim 1.
As discussed above in the modification of Park by Rutger, the substitution of the network of carbon nanotubes of Rutger for the network of graphite of Park results in improved conductivity and prolonged lifetime of the abode, as recognized by Rutger. Thus, this modification is obvious to the ordinary artisan, teaching the instant claimed limitation of the network of high aspect ratio carbon elements comprises carbon nanotubes.
Modified Park is silent as to the carbon nanotubes of the electrode comprising a first set of carbon nanotubes, wherein the first set of carbon nanotubes comprise a plurality of first carbon nanotubes or a plurality of bundles of first carbon nanotubes; and a second set of carbon nanotubes, wherein: the second set of carbon nanotubes comprise a plurality of second carbon nanotubes or a plurality of bundles of second carbon nanotubes; and the second set of carbon nanotubes has one or more properties different from the first set of carbon nanotubes.
However, Kim discloses an electrode comprising a hybrid 3D network of multi-wall carbon nanotubes (MWCNT) and single-wall carbon nanotubes (SWCNT) assembly (Page 17413, Column 1, Paragraph 2). Kim teaches the MWCNTs aggregating at the grain boundaries of the electrode active material particles, while the SWCNT adsorb onto the surface of the particles due to their length and flexibility (Page 17414, Column 1, Paragraph 1). Kim teaches the addition of SWCNTs stable 3D network structure formed by the MWCNTs increases the electron conductivity, energy density, C-rate and cyclability of lithium batteries (Page 17419, Column 1, Paragraph 1).
The MWCNTs of Kim are considered to be the first set of carbon nanotubes of the instant claim, as they are a plurality of carbon nanotubes. The SWCNTs of Kim are considered to be the second set of carbon nanotubes of the instant claim, as they are a plurality of carbon nanotubes. Kim teaches the length MWCNTs to be 500 nm and the length of the SWCNTs to be 5-10 µm, therefore the second set of carbon nanotubes has one property (length) different from the first set of carbon nanotubes, meeting the limitations of the instant claim.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electrode of Park to incorporate the teachings of Kim in which the network of high aspect ratio carbon elements comprises a first and second set of carbon nanotubes, multi-wall carbon nanotubes and single wall carbon nanotubes, respectively. Doing so would advantageously result in increased electron conductivity, energy density, C-rate and cyclability of lithium batteries, as recognized by Kim.
Regarding claim 9, modified Park teaches the electrode as discussed above with respect to claim 8, wherein the first set of carbon nanotubes comprises multi-wall nanotubes.
Regarding claim 10, modified Park teaches the electrode as discussed above with respect to claim 8, wherein the second set of carbon nanotubes comprises single wall nanotubes.
Regarding claim 11, modified Park teaches the electrode as discussed above with respect to claim 8, wherein the first set of carbon nanotubes comprises multi-wall carbon nanotubes; the second set of carbon nanotubes comprises single-wall carbon nanotubes.
Park does not explicitly teach the ratio of an amount by weight of the first set of carbon nanotubes to the second set of carbon nanotubes is about 2:1.
However, Kim teaches the benefit of combining both MWCNT and SWCNT for an electrode material as increasing the electrical conductivity and accessibility during the charge-discharge reactions of a battery, resulting in high cyclability (Page 17414, Column 2, Paragraph 1). Kim teaches the MWCNT are used for the stabilization of the network structure while SWCNT are used to provide electron conductivity that the MWCNTs lack (Page 17414, Column 1, Paragraph 1) by forming robust electron conduction pathways (Page 17416, Column 2, Paragraph 1).
Absent unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the amount of SWCNT and MWCNT forming the network structure of modified Park since it has been held that where general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05. In the present invention, one would have been motivated to optimize the amount of SWCNT and MWCNT to provide the ratio of the first set of carbon nanotubes (MWCNT) to the second set of carbon nanotubes (SWCNT) at 2:1. For example, the ordinary artisan would recognize that the amount of SWCNT and MWCNT (and therefore the ratio of them) may be tuned to optimize the features which are desirable in the carbon nanotube network it is implemented in, striking a balance between stabilizing the electrode structure while maintaining a sufficient conductivity of the electrode.
Regarding claim 13, modified Park teaches the electrode as discussed above with respect to claim 8.
Park is silent regarding after being wetted with an electrolyte, an average thickness of the multi-wall carbon nanotubes increases less than 10%.
However it is reasonable to presume that the increase in the average thickness of the multi-wall carbon nanotubes after being wetted with electrolyte is inherent to Park modified by Song and Kim.
Support for said presumption is found in that modified Park teaches the electrode comprising the following components and features, as discussed above:
Network of high aspect carbon elements which define void spaces in the network
The high aspect carbon elements comprise a mesh of single-wall (second set) and multi-wall (first set) carbon nanotubes, where the second set of carbon nanotubes has a different length than the single-wall carbon nanotubes
Active material particles of microsilicon and polymeric additive (polyolefin or styrene butadiene rubber) disposed in the void spaces of the network
Modified Park, as discussed above, teaches the overlapping structural features of the electrode as the instant invention. Therefore it is reasonable to conclude that the thickness of the multi-wall carbon nanotubes increasing less than 10% after being wetted with an electrolyte is inherent to Park in view of Song, Rutger, and Kim.
Regarding claim 16, Park teaches the electrode as discussed above with respect to claim 1.
As discussed above in the modification of Park by Kim in claim 8, Park in view of Kim teaches the network of high aspect ratio carbon elements comprises: a first set of carbon nanotubes, wherein the first set of carbon nanotubes comprise a plurality of first carbon nanotubes or a plurality of bundles of first carbon nanotubes; a second set of carbon nanotubes, wherein: the second set of carbon nanotubes comprise a plurality of second carbon nanotubes or a plurality of bundles of second carbon nanotubes; and the second set of carbon nanotubes has one or more properties different from the first set of carbon nanotubes.
Further discussed above, Park teaches a complex particle including a core comprising a network structure made up of a plurality of overlapping scaly graphite carbon elements and silicon active particles located within the spaces of the network. Park further teaches that the first carbon-based particles in the core of the complex may be a carbon fine particle that may be used in addition to the scaly graphite (Page 11, Paragraph 1). Park teaches the carbon fine particles (Figure 1, Element 15) in the core may be crystalline graphite fine particles (Page 12, Paragraph 14), which may be plate-shaped (Page 17, Paragraph 4). As seen in the annotated Figure below, the crystalline graphite fine particles of Park are included in the network of carbon elements of Park, meeting the instant claimed limitations.
PNG
media_image2.png
365
364
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 1 of Park
Regarding claim 18, modified Park teaches the electrode as discussed above with respect to claim 16, wherein the first set of carbon nanotubes comprises multi-wall carbon nanotubes; the second set of carbon nanotubes comprises single-wall carbon nanotube.
Park modified by Kim does not explicitly teach the network of high aspect ratio carbon elements is approximately 2% single-wall carbon nanotubes by weight.
However, Kim teaches the benefit of combining both MWCNT and SWCNT for an electrode material as increasing the electrical conductivity and accessibility during the charge-discharge reactions of a battery, resulting in high cyclability (Page 17414, Column 2, Paragraph 1). Kim teaches the MWCNT are used for the stabilization of the network structure while SWCNT are used to provide electron conductivity that the MWCNTs lack (Page 17414, Column 1, Paragraph 1) by forming robust electron conduction pathways (Page 17416, Column 2, Paragraph 1).
Absent unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the amount of single wall carbon nanotubes forming the network structure of Park in view of Kim since it has been held that where general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05. In the present invention, one would have been motivated to optimize the amount of SWCNT to provide the amount of single wall carbon nanotubes comprise 2% of the network of high aspect ratio carbon elements. For example, the ordinary artisan would recognize that the amount of SWCNT may be tuned to optimize the conductivity is desirable in the carbon nanotube network in which it is implemented in.
Regarding claim 19, modified Park teaches the electrode as discussed above with respect to claim 16, wherein the first set of carbon nanotubes comprises multi-wall carbon nanotubes; the second set of carbon nanotubes comprises single-wall carbon nanotubes.
Park modified by Kim does not explicitly teach the network of high aspect ratio carbon elements is approximately 0.5% single-wall carbon nanotubes by weight of the active layer.
However, Kim teaches the benefit of combining both MWCNT and SWCNT for an electrode material as increasing the electrical conductivity and accessibility during the charge-discharge reactions of a battery, resulting in high cyclability (Page 17414, Column 2, Paragraph 1). Kim teaches the MWCNT are used for the stabilization of the network structure while SWCNT are used to provide electron conductivity that the MWCNTs lack (Page 17414, Column 1, Paragraph 1) by forming robust electron conduction pathways (Page 17416, Column 2, Paragraph 1).
Absent unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the amount of single wall carbon nanotubes forming the network structure of Park in view of Kim since it has been held that where general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05. In the present invention, one would have been motivated to optimize the amount of SWCNT to provide the amount of single wall carbon nanotubes comprising 0.5% by weight of the active layer. For example, the ordinary artisan would recognize that the amount of SWCNT may be tuned to optimize the conductivity is desirable in the carbon nanotube network in which it is implemented in.
Regarding claim 20, modified Park teaches the electrode as discussed above with respect to claim 16, wherein the first set of carbon nanotubes comprises multi-wall carbon nanotubes; the second set of carbon nanotubes comprises single-wall carbon nanotubes.
Park modified by Kim does not explicitly teach the network of high aspect ratio carbon elements is less than or approximately equal to 2% single-wall carbon nanotubes by weight of the active layer.
However, Kim teaches the benefit of combining both MWCNT and SWCNT for an electrode material as increasing the electrical conductivity and accessibility during the charge-discharge reactions of a battery, resulting in high cyclability (Page 17414, Column 2, Paragraph 1). Kim teaches the MWCNT are used for the stabilization of the network structure while SWCNT are used to provide electron conductivity that the MWCNTs lack (Page 17414, Column 1, Paragraph 1) by forming robust electron conduction pathways (Page 17416, Column 2, Paragraph 1).
Absent unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the amount of single wall carbon nanotubes forming the network structure of Park in view of Kim since it has been held that where general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05. In the present invention, one would have been motivated to optimize the amount of SWCNT to provide the amount of single wall carbon nanotubes comprise less than or approximately equal to 2% by weight of the active layer. For example, the ordinary artisan would recognize that the amount of SWCNT may be tuned to optimize the conductivity is desirable in the carbon nanotube network in which it is implemented in.
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Song, Rutger, and Kim as applied to claims 1-2, 8-11, 13, 16, 18-20 above, further in view of Ohata (previously cited, U.S. Patent Publication No. 20040160156 A1).
Regarding claim 14, modified Park teaches the electrode as discussed above with respect to claim 8.
Park is silent as to the first average aspect ratio of the first set of carbon nanotubes is larger than a second average aspect ratio of the second set of carbon nanotubes.
It would be obvious to an ordinary artisan to select the aspect ratio of the first set of carbon nanotubes to be larger than the aspect ratio of the second set of carbon nanotubes, more specifically by tuning the length and the diameter of the first set of carbon nanotubes.
Ohata teaches the aspect ratio of carbon nanotubes in an electrode is desirably not less than 100 (Paragraph 0006). Further, Ohata teaches that when the aspect ratio of the carbon nanotubes is too small, the conductive paths of the electrode may not be formed while when the aspect ratio of the carbon nanotubes is too large the carbon nanotubes are unlikely to be sufficiently straightened.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the multi wall carbon nanotubes of the electrode of Park to incorporate the teachings of Ohata in which the aspect ratio is not less than 100. Doing so would advantageously result in the establishment of conductive pathways and straight carbon nanotubes which form the network, as recognized by Ohata.
Further, absent unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the aspect ratio of the multi wall carbon nanotubes of Park in view of Ohata since it has been held that where general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05. In the present invention, one would have been motivated to optimize the length and diameter of MWCNT to provide the aspect ratio of multi wall carbon nanotubes to be larger than the aspect ratio of the single wall carbon nanotubes. For example, the ordinary artisan would recognize that the length and diameter (and thus, the aspect ratio) of MWCNT may be tuned to optimize the conductive path formation and straightness of the carbon nanotube network in which it is implemented in.
In the alternative, an ordinary artisan would recognize for a network of high aspect ratio carbon element, more specifically multi-wall carbon nanotubes and single-wall carbon nanotubes as described above in the modification of Park in view of Song, Rutger, and Kim, there are only three possible options for the aspect ratios of the first and second set of carbon nanotubes: the aspect ratios of the first and second sets of carbon nanotubes are equal, the aspect ratio of the first set of carbon nanotubes is larger than the aspect ratio of the second set of carbon nanotubes, or the aspect ratio of the second set of carbon nanotubes is larger than the aspect ratio of the first set of carbon nanotubes.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to select the aspect ratio of the first set of carbon nanotubes is larger than the aspect ratio of the second set of carbon nanotubes from the finite lists of possible combinations for the possible relationship between the aspect ratios of the first and second set of carbon nanotubes to arrive at the first set of carbon nanotubes having a larger aspect ratio than the second set of carbon nanotubes of the instant claim since the combination of components would have yielded predictable results as a battery electrode, absent a showing of unexpected results commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
Regarding claim 15, modified Park teaches the electrode as discussed above with respect to claim 8. As discussed above in the modification of Park by Ohata, Ohata teaches the aspect ratio of carbon nanotubes in an electrode is desirably not less than 100 (at least 100 microns) (Paragraph 0006) in order to develop sufficient conductive pathways and straight carbon nanotubes (Paragraph 0020).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the multi wall carbon nanotubes of the electrode of Park to incorporate the teachings of Ohata in which the aspect ratio is not less than 100. Doing so would advantageously result in the establishment of conductive pathways and straight carbon nanotubes which form the network, as recognized by Ohata.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Song, Rutger, and Kim, as evidenced by the OED definition of “mesh”.
Regarding claim 12, modified Park teaches the electrode as discussed above with respect to claim 8, wherein the network of high aspect ratio carbon elements comprises a mesh of carbon nanotubes.
As discussed above, the modification of Park by Rutger resulted in a three-dimensional network structure made up of a plurality of carbon nanotube particles overlapping with one another and the silicon active particles located in the space (voids) inside the carbon nanotube network structure. The modification of Park by Kim resulted in the carbon nanotubes of Park in view of Rutger comprising a first set of carbon nanotubes and a second set of carbon nanotubes. The OED definition of mesh is “any of the open spaces or interstices between the threads or cords of a net”. As the network of Park in view of Rutger describes a network of open spaces resulting from the overlapping of carbon nanotubes (the first and second set), the network of carbon elements is considered to comprise a mesh of carbon nanotubes, meeting the limitations of the instant claim.
As the taught by Park the mesh of carbon nanotubes comprises an overlapping structure of carbon elements (Figure 1, Element 12) with spaces which act as a buffering space for the volume expansion of silicon particles that occurs during charging and discharging (Page 15, Paragraph 3). The overlapping structure of the network carbon elements which defines void spaces for silicon active materials particles to be disposed within provides the same electrode structure as the instant claim, therefore there is reasonable basis to conclude at least some of the mesh of the first and second set of carbon nanotubes maintains electrical connection among at least a subset of the carbon nanotubes comprised in the mesh during expansion of the silicon that occurs during charging and discharging of the battery.
In the event that it is established the prior art lacks a reasonable basis to make such a conclusion, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make at least a subset of the first and second set of carbon nanotubes maintain electrical connection during the expansion of silicon in order to contribute to the overall conductivity of the mesh as well as provide the continuous buffering for the expansion of silicon, according to the teachings of Park. The ordinary artisan would find it obvious to maintain the structure of overlapping carbon elements in order to maintain the buffer space provided by the carbon element network to support the expansion of silicon which occurs during charging and discharging of the battery.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Song, Rutger, and Kim as applied to claims 1-2, 8-11, 13, 16, 18-20 above, further in view of Kim (W.O. 2023063787 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Park teaches the electrode as discussed above in claim 16.
Park is silent as to the network of high aspect ratio carbon elements comprises approximately 5% graphite by weight of the active layer.
However, as discussed above, Park teaches the network of high-aspect ratio carbon elements comprising plate-shaped crystalline graphite fine particles (Figure 1, Element 15) (Page 12, Paragraph 14) (Page 17, Paragraph 4).
Further, Kim discloses a lithium secondary battery comprising an electrode including flaky graphite (Abstract). Kim teaches the flaky graphite included in the electrode active material layer in an amount of 0.05% to 5% by weight. Kim teaches when the content of the flaky graphite in the electrode is in the above range, the electrode density may be improved. Kim further teaches that when the flaky graphite is greater than 5% by weight, the electrode resistance may increase (Page 21, Paragraph 21).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the network of high aspect ratio carbon elements that contains the plate-shaped crystalline graphite as taught by Park to incorporate the teachings of Kim in which graphite is provided at approximately 5% by weight of the active layer. Doing so would advantageously result in the desired electrode density and reduce electrode resistance, as recognized by Kim.
Response to Arguments
In the remarks filed August 3rd, 2026, applicant arguers that the prior art of Dong, Byrd, and Man cited in the rejection of Claim 1 in the Final Rejection mailed April 1st, 2026 fail to disclose or suggest the instant amended limitations.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 and therefore claims 2, and 4-20 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 OLIVIA A JONES whose telephone number is (571)272-1718. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30 AM - 4:30 PM.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached at (571) 270-7692. 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.
/O.A.J./Examiner, Art Unit 1789 /MARLA D MCCONNELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights