DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 3-4 and 8-9 are pending, wherein claims 1, 3 and 9 are amended. Claims 1, 3-4 and 8-9 are being examined on the merits in this office action.
Remarks
Applicant’s amendments and arguments have been entered. A reply to the Applicant’s remarks/arguments is presented after addressing the claims.
Any rejections and/or objections made in the previous Office Action and not repeated below, are hereby withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments or/and arguments.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. References cited in the current Office action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1, 3-4, and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luo et al. (US 20180277839 A1, hereafter Luo) in view of Son et al. (US 20230170470 A1, hereafter Son).
Regarding claim 1, Luo teaches an electrode mixture (“a modified super-hydrophobic material-coated high-nickel cathode material”, see Abstract, [0011], [0055], Fig. 1, etc.), comprising:
an electrode active material (See, “1” in Fig. 1 and [0055]) including secondary particles, wherein each of the secondary particles is an assemblage of primary particles, and the primary particles including a first primary particle and a second primary particle (See the annotated Fig. 1 below);
a conductive fibrous carbon material including carbon nanotubes (“2” in Fig. 1; [0055]); and
inorganic nanoparticles (“3”, Fig. 1; such as alumina, [0025]-[0026]) directly adhered on an outer circumferential surface of each of the primary particles and distributed over an entire outer circumferential surface of each of the primary particles with spacing therebetween (See, e.g., the three circles in the annotated Fig. 1; alternatively, see [0034]-[0035]: coated by a coating layer of alumina composed of particles),
wherein a carbon nanotube of the carbon nanotubes includes a first portion and a second portion, the first portion adheres to at least one of the inorganic nanoparticles adhered to the outer circumferential surface of the first primary particle, and the second portion adheres to at least one of the inorganic nanoparticles adhered to the outer circumferential surface of the second primary particle (See the annotated Fig. 1).
Luo further teaches the inorganic nanoparticles include inorganic nanoparticles that are not adhered to the carbon nanotubes (See [0034]-[0035], a coating layer alumina composed of particles that are not adhered to the carbon nanotubes).
Luo further teaches the inorganic nanoparticles have an average diameter of 30 nm ([0028], [0025], [0055], Fig. 1), for example.
Luo appears silent as to a diameter of the conductive fibrous carbon. In the same field of endeavor, however, Son discloses a similar particle structure wherein inorganic particles (“21”, Fig. 1) and carbon nanotubes (“23”, Fig. 1) having a diameter of about 1 nm to about 10 nm ([0055]), for example. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to incorporate the teachings of Son into Luo such that conductive fibrous carbons (carbon nanotubes) having a diameter of about 1 nm to about 10 nm, as taught by Son, are used in Luo, because one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to carry out such a substitution, and the results were reasonably predictable. Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is prima facie obvious. See MPEP § 2143 I(B). As a result, based on all the teachings mentioned above, a diameter ratio of the inorganic nanoparticles (10 nm of diameter, above) and the conductive fibrous carbon material (carbon nanotubes) (about 1 nm to about 10 nm of diameter, above) would be in the range of about 1 to about 10. The claimed diameter ration of 1.1 to 3.5 lies inside the range of about 1 to about 10 taught by prior arts. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP § 2144.05 (I).
PNG
media_image1.png
720
1280
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 3-4, Luo in view of Son teaches the electrode mixture according to claim 1, and further teaches the components of the electrode mixture are adjustable ([0019], [0039], Luo).
For example, Luo teaches a weight ratio of the inorganic nanoparticles (“the nano-material”, [0019]) to the conductive fibrous carbon material (“the super-hydrophobic material”, [0019]) may be 20:100 ([0019]), i.e., 0.2.
Further, Luo teaches the weight ratio of the combination of the inorganic particles and the carbon nanotubes (“the modified super-hydrophobic material” in [0039]) to the high-nickel cathode material may be 1:100 ([0039]). Combining the teachings of above “0.2” and “1:100”, one of ordinary skill in the art would have easily obtained a value of about 0.2 wt% for a weight ratio of the inorganic particles to the electrode mixture.
Further, Luo teaches the average diameter of the inorganic nanoparticles may be 30 nm ([0028]), and then the “0.0106x-0.0033” will be 0.3147. The above about 0.2 is less than 0.3147, satisfying the claimed y ≤ 0.0106x-0.0033.
Regarding claim 8, Luo in view of Son teaches a rechargeable battery (at least: [0001]) manufactured using the electrode mixture according to claim 1.
Regarding claim 9, Luo teaches a rechargeable battery (at least: [0001]) manufactured using an electrode mixture (“a modified super-hydrophobic material-coated high-nickel cathode material”, see Abstract, [0011], [0055], Fig. 1, etc.) including an electrode active material (See, “1” in Fig. 1 and [0055]) and a conductive fibrous carbon material including carbon nanotubes (“2” in Fig. 1; [0055]), wherein:
the electrode active material includes secondary particles, each of the secondary particles is an assemblage of primary particles, and the primary particles including a first primary particle and a second primary particle (See the annotated Fig. 1 below),
the electrode mixture includes inorganic nanoparticles (“3”, Fig. 1; such as alumina, [0025]-[0026]) directly adhered on an outer circumferential surface of each of the primary particles and distributed over an entire outer circumferential surface of each of the primary particles with spacing therebetween (See, e.g., the three circles in the annotated Fig. 1; alternatively, see [0034]-[0035]: coated by a coating layer of alumina composed of particles),
a carbon nanotube of the carbon nanotubes includes a first portion and a second portion, and the first portion adheres to at least one of the inorganic nanoparticles adhered to the outer circumferential surface of the first primary particle and the second portion adheres to at least one of the inorganic nanoparticles adhered to the outer circumferential surface of the second primary particle (See the annotated Fig. 1).
Luo further teaches the inorganic nanoparticles include inorganic nanoparticles that are not adhered to the carbon nanotubes (See [0034]-[0035], a coating layer alumina composed of particles that are not adhered to the carbon nanotubes).
Luo further teaches the inorganic nanoparticles have an average diameter of 30 nm ([0028], [0025], [0055], Fig. 1), for example.
Luo further teaches the components of the electrode mixture are adjustable ([0019], [0039], Luo).
For example, Luo teaches a weight ratio of the inorganic nanoparticles (“the nano-material”, [0019]) to the conductive fibrous carbon material (“the super-hydrophobic material”, [0019]) may be 20:100 ([0019]), i.e., 0.2.
Further, Luo teaches the weight ratio of the combination of the inorganic particles and the carbon nanotubes (“the modified super-hydrophobic material” in [0039]) to the high-nickel cathode material may be 1:100 ([0039]). Combining the teachings of above “0.2” and “1:100”, one of ordinary skill in the art would have easily obtained a value of about 0.8 wt% for a weight ratio of the conductive fibrous carbon material to the electrode mixture, and a value of about 0.2 wt% for a weight ratio of the inorganic particles to the electrode mixture.
Further, Luo teaches the average diameter of the inorganic nanoparticles may be 30 nm ([0028]), and then the “0.0106x-0.0033” will be 0.3147. The above about 0.2 is less than 0.3147, satisfying the claimed y ≤ 0.0106x-0.0033.
Luo appears silent as to a diameter of the conductive fibrous carbon. In the same field of endeavor, however, Son discloses a similar particle structure wherein inorganic particles (“21”, Fig. 1) and carbon nanotubes (“23”, Fig. 1) having a diameter of about 1 nm to about 10 nm ([0055]), for example. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to incorporate the teachings of Son into Luo such that conductive fibrous carbons (carbon nanotubes) having a diameter of about 1 nm to about 10 nm, as taught by Son, are used in Luo, because one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to carry out such a substitution, and the results were reasonably predictable. Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is prima facie obvious. See MPEP § 2143 I(B). As a result, based on all the teachings mentioned above, a diameter ratio of the inorganic nanoparticles (10 nm of diameter, above) and the conductive fibrous carbon material (carbon nanotubes) (about 1 nm to about 10 nm of diameter, above) would be in the range of about 1 to about 10. The claimed diameter ration of 1.1 to 3.5 lies inside the range of about 1 to about 10 taught by prior arts. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP § 2144.05 (I).
PNG
media_image1.png
720
1280
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 25, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's arguments are based on the claims as amended. The amended claims have been addressed in the new rejections above.
1) As addressed in the above rejections, Luo does teach “inorganic nanoparticles directly adhered … with spacings therebetween.
2) In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually (the Luo or Son reference, see the 3rd and 4th paragraphs on page 8/10), one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
3) The arguments presented in paragraphs 5-6 (p8/10) and paragraphs 2-3 (p9/ are not commensurate with the scope of the claim(s). The argument did not point out which claim limitation is not met.
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 ZHONGQING WEI whose telephone number is (571)272-4809. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:30 - 6:00.
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.
/ZHONGQING WEI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1727
Prosecution Insights