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 .
Response to Amendment
1. Applicant’s amendments with respect to claims filed on 10/02/2025 have been entered. Claims 1-2 and 4-6 remain pending in this application and are currently under consideration for patentability under 37 CFR 1.104. Claim 3 has been cancelled.
The amendments and remarks filed are sufficient to cure the previous 35 USC 103 set forth in the Non-Final office action mailed on 07/10/2025.
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.
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.
2. Claim(s) 1-2 and is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kondo et al. (Pub. No. US 2017/0200948) in view of Teranishi (Pub. No. JP 2020061381).
Regarding claim 1, Kondo teaches a secondary battery (see [0023]) comprising: a positive electrode (see [0084]); a negative electrode (see [0023]) including a negative electrode active material (see [0023]) and a negative electrode binder (see [0073]); and an electrolytic solution (see [0084]), wherein the negative electrode active material (see [0023]) includes a silicon-containing material (nano silicon material, see [0073]), based on an analysis of the negative electrode active material (see [0023]) by Raman spectroscopy (Fig. 3, see [0096]), a first absorption peak (Fig. 3, only one peak visible) is non-detectable within a range of Raman shift (Fig. 3, [0030]) that is greater than or equal to 1200 wavenumbers and less than or equal to 1700 wavenumbers (Fig. 3, no visible peak in the range of 1200 to 1700 wavenumbers), and a second absorption peak (peak at 470 cm-1, Fig. 3, [0096]) is detectable within a range of the Raman shift (Fig. 3, [0030]) that is greater than or equal to 400 wavenumbers and less than or equal to 530 wavenumbers (470 cm-1, Fig. 3, [0096]), the second absorption peak (peak at 470 cm-1, Fig. 3, [0096]) has a half-width (98 cm-1, Fig. 3, [0096]) that is greater than or equal to 30 wavenumbers (98 cm-1, Fig. 3, [0096]), wherein the negative electrode (see [0023]) further includes a negative electrode conductor (conductive additive, see [0073]), but fails to explicitly teach the negative electrode conductor includes a fibrous carbon material, and the negative electrode binder includes a polycarboxylic acid metal salt, the polycarboxylic acid metal salt includes a polycarboxylic acid alkali metal salt, a polycarboxylic acid alkaline earth metal salt, or both, and the polycarboxylic acid metal salt has a neutralization rate that is greater than or equal to 10 percent and less than or equal to 90 percent.
However, Kondo further teaches wherein the negative electrode conductor (conductive additive, see [0073]) includes a fibrous carbon material (vapor grown carbon fiber, see [0081] where the conductive additive is vapor grown carbon fiber).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Kondo such that conductive additive is a fibrous carbon material as the negative electrode conductive additive as Kondo teaches it is known in the art to use vapor grown carbon fiber (see [0081]) as the negative electrode conductor (see [0073]).
Teranishi teaches a negative electrode binder (see [19]) including a polycarboxylic acid metal salt (poly(meth) acrylic acid salt, see [35]), the polycarboxylic acid metal salt (poly(meth) acrylic acid salt, see [35]) includes a polycarboxylic acid alkali metal salt (replaced with alkali metal, see [37]), a polycarboxylic acid alkaline earth metal salt (replaced with alkaline earth metal, see [37]), or both, and the polycarboxylic acid metal salt (poly(meth) acrylic acid salt, see [35]) has a neutralization rate (hydrogen atoms replaced with lithium ions, see [32]) that is greater than or equal to 10 percent and less than or equal to 90 percent (10 to 50%, see [32]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Kondo to substitute the negative electrode binder as taught by Kondo for the negative electrode binder as taught by Teranishi as an art effective equivalent for binding the active materials to each other and to the current collector (see [19] of Teranishi) and increasing binding force between the active material and polymer compound (see [30] of Teranishi).
Regarding claim 2, Kondo in view of Teranishi teaches wherein the polycarboxylic acid metal salt (poly(meth) acrylic acid salt, see [35] of Teranishi, see modification of Kondo above) includes at least one of a polyacrylic acid metal salt, a polyalginic acid metal salt, a polymethacrylic acid metal salt (poly(meth) acrylic acid salt, see [35] of Teranishi, see modification of Kondo above), or a polymaleic acid metal salt.
Regarding claim 5, Kondo in view of Teranishi teaches wherein the secondary battery (see [0023]) comprises a lithium-ion secondary battery (see [0018]).
Regarding claim 6, Kondo teaches negative electrode (see [0023]) for a secondary battery (see [0023]), the negative electrode (see [0023]) comprising: a negative electrode active material (see [0023]); and a negative electrode binder (see [0073]), wherein the negative electrode active material (see [0023]) includes a silicon-containing material (nano silicon material, see [0073]), based on an analysis of the negative electrode active material (see [0023]) by Raman spectroscopy (Fig. 3, see [0096]), a first absorption peak (Fig. 3, only one peak visible) is non-detectable within a range of Raman shift (Fig. 3, [0030]) that is greater than or equal to 1200 wavenumbers and less than or equal to 1700 wavenumbers (Fig. 3, no visible peak in the range of 1200 to 1700 wavenumbers), and a second absorption peak (peak at 470 cm-1, Fig. 3, [0096]) is detectable within a range of the Raman shift (Fig. 3, [0030]) that is greater than or equal to 400 wavenumbers and less than or equal to 530 wavenumbers (470 cm-1, Fig. 3, [0096]), the second absorption peak (peak at 470 cm-1, Fig. 3, [0096]) has a half-width (98 cm-1, Fig. 3, [0096]) that is greater than or equal to 30 wavenumbers (98 cm-1, Fig. 3, [0096]), wherein the negative electrode (see [0023]) further includes a negative electrode conductor (conductive additive, see [0073]), but fails to explicitly teach the negative electrode conductor includes a fibrous carbon material, and the negative electrode binder includes a polycarboxylic acid metal salt, the polycarboxylic acid metal salt includes a polycarboxylic acid alkali metal salt, a polycarboxylic acid alkaline earth metal salt, or both, and the polycarboxylic acid metal salt has a neutralization rate that is greater than or equal to 10 percent and less than or equal to 90 percent.
However, Kondo further teaches wherein the negative electrode conductor (conductive additive, see [0073]) includes a fibrous carbon material (vapor grown carbon fiber, see [0081] where the conductive additive is vapor grown carbon fiber).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Kondo such that conductive additive is a fibrous carbon material as the negative electrode conductive additive as Kondo teaches it is known in the art to use vapor grown carbon fiber (see [0081]) as the negative electrode conductor (see [0073]).
Teranishi teaches a negative electrode binder (see [19]) including a polycarboxylic acid metal salt (poly(meth) acrylic acid salt, see [35]), the polycarboxylic acid metal salt (poly(meth) acrylic acid salt, see [35]) includes a polycarboxylic acid alkali metal salt (replaced with alkali metal, see [37]), a polycarboxylic acid alkaline earth metal salt (replaced with alkaline earth metal, see [37]), or both, and the polycarboxylic acid metal salt (poly(meth) acrylic acid salt, see [35]) has a neutralization rate (hydrogen atoms replaced with lithium ions, see [32]) that is greater than or equal to 10 percent and less than or equal to 90 percent (10 to 50%, see [32]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Kondo to substitute the negative electrode binder as taught by Kondo for the negative electrode binder as taught by Teranishi as an art effective equivalent for binding the active materials to each other and to the current collector (see [19] of Teranishi) and increasing binding force between the active material and polymer compound (see [30] of Teranishi).
3. Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kondo et al. (Pub. No. US 2017/0200948) in view of Teranishi (Pub. No. JP 2020061381) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Park et al. (Pub. No. EP 4366018).
Regarding claim 4, Kondo in view of Teranishi fails to teach wherein the fibrous carbon material includes a single-wall carbon nanotube.
However, Park teaches single-wall carbon nanotubes (see [0088]) as a negative electrode conductor (conductive agent, [0086]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Kondo in view of Teranishi to substitute the negative electrode conductor and therefore the fibrous carbon material as taught by Kondo in view of Teranishi for the negative electrode conductor as taught by Park as an art effective equivalent for increasing durability, reducing resistance and achieving excellent life characteristics (see [0088] of Park).
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant's arguments filed 10/02/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that Kondo in view of Teranishi fails to teach the enhanced battery characteristics resulting from use of fibrous carbon material in combination with other claimed features, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). Further, Kondo in view of Teranishi teaches all the claimed features and Kondo teaches it is known in the art to use a fibrous carbon material as a conductive additive in the form of vapor grown carbon fiber, see rejection of claim 1 above.
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 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