DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim 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 1-10, 12-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuasa et al. (US 20100261061 A1, “Yuasa”).
Regarding claim 1, Yuasa discloses a positive electrode sheet for a secondary battery (see [0039] “positive electrode plate 10” & “lithium secondary battery”), comprising a carbon-based conductive agent, wherein the carbon-based conductive agent comprises carbon tubes (see abstract “a conductive network between primary particles is formed by the carbon composite” & [0023] “carbon fiber 2 electrically interconnects neighboring primary particles”), each carbon tube comprises a tube wall and a hollow region enclosed by the tube wall, at least one of the tube walls comprises pores (see [0027] “carbon fiber 2 is preferably hollow carbon fiber having an opening on its side wall” & opening reads on pore & see claim 3 describes “openings on their side walls” which reads on pores & see [0025] “conductive network” & “carbon fiber 2” & “a carbon nanotube”), and an average length of the carbon tubes is L1 µm and 2.5 ≤ L1 ≤ 20 (see [0014] “length” & “carbon fiber is preferably set to 1 to 8 µm”).
Yuasa discloses a range of 1 to 8 µm, which overlaps with the claimed range of 2.5 to 20 µm. MPEP 2144.05 I states that 'In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)'.
Regarding claim 2, Yuasa discloses the positive electrode sheet of claim 1 and further discloses wherein a number of the pores is n, and n is greater than or equal to 3 (see [0029] “pores are provided in the inside of the carbon particles” and see FIG. 1 describes more than 3 of “3”,”2”, and “1” which reads on greater than 3 pores).
Regarding claim 3, Yuasa discloses the positive electrode sheet of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the carbon tubes satisfy (1) an outer diameter of the carbon tubes is Φ1 µm and 0.1 ≤ Φ1 ≤ 2 (see [0026] “diameter of the carbon fiber 2 is preferably 100 nm or less” and 100 nm is equivalent to 0.1 µm).
Yuasa discloses a range of 100 nm (equivalent to 0.1 µm), which overlaps with the claimed range of 0.1 to 2 µm. MPEP 2144.05 I states that 'In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)'.
Regarding claim 4, Yuasa discloses the positive electrode sheet of claim 1 and further discloses wherein an outer diameter of the carbon tubes is Φ1 and satisfies 0.1 ≤ Φ1 ≤ 1.5 (see [0026] “diameter of the carbon fiber 2 is preferably 100 nm or less” and 100 nm is equivalent to 0.1 µm).
Yuasa discloses a range of 100 nm (equivalent to 0.1 µm), which overlaps with the claimed range of 0.1 to 1.5 µm. MPEP 2144.05 I states that 'In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)'.
Regarding claim 5, Yuasa discloses the positive electrode sheet of claim 1 and further discloses wherein an area ratio of a pore region to the tube wall is 5% to 30% (see [0025] “carbon nanotube” & “high aspect ratio” & “fiber length of 1 to 8 µm” & see [0027] “opening on its side wall” & “diameter of the opening is preferably 10 to 50 nm” which together reads on area ratio of a pore region to the tube wall).
Regarding claim 6, Yuasa discloses a secondary battery (see [0039] “lithium secondary battery”), comprising a positive electrode sheet (see [0039] “positive electrode plate 10”), wherein the positive electrode sheet comprises a positive current collector and a positive active material layer (see [0047] “slurry was regularly coated on the aluminum charge collector foil” & foil reads on pos. current collector & “slurry” reads on pos. active material layer; see abstract “positive electrode active material”), and the positive active material layer comprising a positive active material and the carbon-based conductive agent (see abstract “positive electrode active material containing lithium oxide and a carbon composite obtained by dispersing carbon fiber” & see [0023] “positive electrode active material 1 containing lithium oxide with a carbon composite obtained by dispersing carbon fiber 2”), the carbon-based conductive agent comprising carbon tubes, wherein each carbon tube comprises a tube wall and a hollow region enclosed by the tube wall, at least one of the tube walls comprises pores (see abstract “a conductive network between primary particles is formed by the carbon composite” & [0023] “carbon fiber 2 electrically interconnects neighboring primary particles”; see [0027] “carbon fiber 2 is preferably hollow carbon fiber having an opening on its side wall” & see [0025] “conductive network” & “carbon fiber 2” & “carbon nanotube”), and an average length of the carbon tubes is L1 µm and satisfies 2.5 ≤ L1≤20 (see [0014] “length” & “carbon fiber is preferably set to 1 to 8 µm”).
Yuasa discloses a range of 1 to 8 µm, which overlaps with the claimed range of 2.5 to 20 µm. MPEP 2144.05 I states that 'In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)'.
Regarding claim 7, Yuasa discloses the secondary battery of claim 6 and further discloses wherein a number of the pores is n, and n is greater than or equal to 3 (see [0029] “pores are provided in the inside of the carbon particles” and see FIG. 1 describes more than 3 of “3”, ”2”, and “1” which reads on greater than 3 pores).
Regarding claim 8, Yuasa discloses the secondary battery of claim 6 and further discloses wherein the carbon tubes satisfy (1) an outside diameter of the carbon tubes is Φ1 µm and 0.1 ≤ Φ1 ≤ 2 (see [0026] “diameter of the carbon fiber 2 is preferably 100 nm or less” and 100 nm is equivalent to 0.1 µm).
Yuasa discloses a range of 100 nm (equivalent to 0.1 µm), which overlaps with the claimed range of 0.1 to 2 µm. MPEP 2144.05 I states that 'In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)'.
Regarding claim 9, Yuasa discloses a secondary battery (see [0039] “lithium secondary battery”), comprising a positive electrode sheet (see [0039] “positive electrode plate 10”), wherein the positive electrode sheet comprises a positive current collector and a positive active material layer (see [0047] “slurry was regularly coated on the aluminum charge collector foil” & foil reads on pos. current collector & “slurry” reads on pos. active material layer; see abstract “positive electrode active material”), and the positive active material layer comprising a positive active material and the carbon-based conductive agent comprising carbon tubes (see abstract “positive electrode active material containing lithium oxide and a carbon composite obtained by dispersing carbon fiber” & see [0023] “positive electrode active material 1 containing lithium oxide with a carbon composite obtained by dispersing carbon fiber 2”), wherein each carbon tube comprises a tube wall and a hollow region enclosed by the tube wall, at least one of the tube walls comprises pores (see abstract “a conductive network between primary particles is formed by the carbon composite” & [0023] “carbon fiber 2 electrically interconnects neighboring primary particles”; see [0027] “carbon fiber 2 is preferably hollow carbon fiber having an opening on its side wall” & see [0025] “conductive network” & “carbon fiber 2” & “carbon nanotube”), and wherein an outside diameter of the carbon tubes is Φ1 and satisfies 0.1 ≤ Φ1 ≤ 1.5 (see [0026] “diameter of the carbon fiber 2 is preferably 100 nm or less” and 100 nm is equivalent to 0.1 µm).
Yuasa discloses a range of 100 nm (equivalent to 0.1 µm), which overlaps with the claimed range of 0.1 to 1.5 µm. MPEP 2144.05 I states that 'In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)'.
Regarding claim 10, Yuasa discloses the secondary battery of claim 9 and further discloses wherein an area ratio of a pore region to the tube wall is 5% to 30% (see [0025] “carbon nanotube” & “high aspect ratio” & “fiber length of 1 to 8 µm” & see [0027] “opening on its side wall” & “diameter of the opening is preferably 10 to 50 nm” which together reads on area ratio of a pore region to the tube wall).
Regarding claim 12, Yuasa discloses the secondary battery of claim 6 and further discloses wherein the positive active material layer further comprises carbon nanotubes (see [0025] “conductive network” & “carbon fiber 2” & “carbon nanotube”).
Regarding claim 13, Yuasa discloses the secondary battery of claim 12 and further discloses wherein the carbon nanotubes satisfy an average length of the carbon nanotubes is L2 µm and satisfies 0.1 ≤L2≤5 (see [0014] “length” & “carbon fiber is preferably set to 1 to 8 µm”).
Yuasa discloses a range of 1 to 8 µm, which overlaps with the claimed range of 0.1 to 5 µm. MPEP 2144.05 I states that 'In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)'.
Regarding claim 14, Yuasa discloses the secondary battery of claim 12 and further discloses wherein an average length of the carbon nanotubes is L2 µm and satisfies 1 ≤ L2 ≤ 4 (see [0014] “length” & “carbon fiber is preferably set to 1 to 8 µm”).
Yuasa discloses a range of 1 to 8 µm, which overlaps with the claimed range of 1 to 4 µm. MPEP 2144.05 I states that 'In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)'.
Regarding claim 15, Yuasa discloses the secondary battery of claim 6 and further discloses wherein the positive active material layer satisfies (8) a specific surface area of the positive active material layer is S m2/g and satisfies 0.1 ≤ S ≤ 15 (see [0037] “positive electrode active material 1” & “specific surface area of 1 m2/g or more”).
Regarding claim 16, Yuasa discloses the secondary battery of claim 6 and further discloses a specific surface area of the positive active material layer is S m2/g and satisfies 0.17 ≤ S ≤ 11 (see [0037] “positive electrode active material 1” & “specific surface area of 1 m2/g or more”).
Regarding claim 17, Yuasa discloses the secondary battery of claim 12 and further discloses wherein a specific surface area of the positive active material layer is S m2/g (see [0037] “positive electrode active material 1” & “specific surface area of 1 m2/g or more”, for example S = 2) and the average length of the carbon tubes is L1 µm, satisfying L1 ≥ 0.5 S (see [0014] “length” & “carbon fiber is preferably set to 1 to 8 µm” & when S = 2, L1 is satisfied since 0.5*(2) = 1).
Regarding claim 18, Yuasa discloses the secondary battery of claim 6 and further discloses an electrical device (see [0041] “various industrial devices” & “electrical vehicle”).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuasa et al. (US 20100261061 A1, “Yuasa”) as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Seol et al. (US 20180159131 A1, “Seol”).
Regarding claim 11, Yuasa discloses the secondary battery of claim 6 and further discloses “carbon fiber 2 in the carbon composite preferably has a weight percentage of 50 wt.% or more in order to provide a conductive network” (see [0033]). Yuasa does not explicitly disclose wherein, based on a total mass of the positive active material layer, a mass percentage of the carbon tubes in the positive active material layer is 0.1% to 1.0%.
Seol teaches “about 1 wt% of carbon nanotubes” (see [0127]).
Seol teaches a range of about 1 wt%, which overlaps with the claimed range of 0.1 to 1.0 %. MPEP 2144.05 I states that 'In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)'.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s arguments, see P3 par 5, filed 12/12/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (TW 200921970 A, “Chen”) in view of Wang et al. (CN 110817845 A, “Wang”) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuasa et al. (US 20100261061 A1, “Yuasa”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAH APPLEGATE whose telephone number is (571)270-0370. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm ET.
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, Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at (571) 270-3879. 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.
/S.A.A./Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/JAMES M ERWIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725 02/03/2026