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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 14-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 06/05/2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 04/29/2025 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of the following:
“comprises” is legalese,
“dispersing the of carbon nanotube material” contains a typographical error,
“containing nitrogen molecules to from the dispersion liquid” contains a typographical error,
“and adding a dispersant obtain a nitrogen-doped carbon nanotube solution precursor” contains a typographical error.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: “functional groups are dispersed an ammonia water” contains a typographical error. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 5 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 5, the claim states “a mass ratio between the plurality of carbon nanotubes and the ammonia water is in a range from 1 wt% to 5 wt%”. It is unclear whether this mass ratio is intended to be between the plurality of carbon nanotubes and the entire ammonia-water solution or between the plurality of carbon nanotubes and the ammonia itself, subsequently dissolved in water. For examination purposes, this mass ratio has been interpreted to be between the plurality of carbon nanotubes and the entire ammonia-water solution.
Regarding claim 13, the claim states “the lithium salt comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of two (trifluoromethylsulfonyl) lithium amides (LiTFSI), lithium hexafluorophosphate (LiPF), lithium bisfluorosulfonium imide (LiFSI), lithium tetrafluoroborate (LiBF4), lithium dioxalate borate (LiBOB) and lithium difluorooxalate borate (LiDFOB).” It is unclear whether “two” applies to the class of “(trifluoromethylsulfonyl) lithium amides” or the entire list of lithium salts, which is further rendered improper in combination with the prior claim limitation of “at least one”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 6, and 8-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhong et al (CN 108511692 A, English translation attached) in view of Zhamu et al (WO 2018222348 A1).
Regarding claims 1-3, 6, and 8-11, Zhong discloses a preparation method of a nitrogen-doped carbon nanotube paste for lithium-ion batteries (page 1, lines 54-60), involving: acid-treating carbon nanotubes (chemical modification, page 2, lines 6-7), filtering (page 4, lines 11-13), dispersing said acid-treated carbon nanotubes in a melamine (nitrogen-containing) solution (page 2, lines 11-12), heat-treating the dispersed carbon nanotubes under inert gas for 0.5 hours or more (page 2, lines 14-15), and dispersing the resultant nitrogen-doped carbon nanotubes with a PVP dispersant (polymer material colloid) and NMP as an organic mixed solvent (page 2, lines 17-18). Zhong does not disclose uniform mixing of a lithium salt with the above composition.
In the same field of endeavor, Zhamu discloses a conductive polymer electrode preparation method suitable for lithium-ion batteries. Zhamu discloses dispersing a conductive filament (such as single-walled carbon nanotubes or multi-walled carbon nanotubes, page 41, lines 18-19) in a liquid solvent, adding a lithium salt active material, and dispersing an ion-conducting polymer which is one or more selected from a group containing PVDF, PMMA, PAN, and combinations thereof (page 9, lines 19-25).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the polymeric composition preparation methods of Zhong and Zhamu as the two are considered to be equivalents known for the same purpose. “It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art.” In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 12, Zhamu lists PVDF, PMMA, and combinations thereof (page 9, lines 19-25) as suitable lithium ion-conducting polymers as discussed in the above rejection of claim 11. Zhamu does not explicitly disclose a mass ratio of PVDF to PMMA of 5 or more.
It is well established that ordinary creativity is presumed on the part of one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007) (“[a] person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.”). Thus, it would have been prima facie obvious, using no more than ordinary creativity, to vary the amounts of PVDF and PMMA anywhere within the range of 1:10 to 10:1, so long as the desired ion conductivity is achieved, which thus renders the claimed ratio prima facie obvious. See Ex Parte Jean-Paul Mardon, Jean Senevat, & Daniel Charquet, 101728,237, 2012 WL 1141738, at *2 (2012); In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276 (CCPA 1980) (“[D]iscovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable...is ordinarily within the skill of the art.”); In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.”).
Regarding claim 13, Zhamu discloses preferred organic-soluble lithium salts as lithium borofluoride (LiBF4), lithium bis-trifluoromethyl sulfonylimide (LiTFSI), and lithium bis(oxalate)borate (LiBOB) (page 49, lines 20-26).
As set forth in the above rejection for claims 1-3, 6, and 8-11, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the composition preparation methods of Zhong and Zhamu as the two are considered to be equivalents known for the same purpose.
Claims 4, 5, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhong et al (CN 108511692 A, English translation attached) in view of Zhamu et al (WO 2018222348 A1) as applied to claims 1, 3, and 6 above, and further in view of Zhou et al (CN 104030263 A, English translation attached). The discussion with respect to Zhong and Zhamu set forth in the above rejection is incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Zhong and Zhamu discloses all limitations of claim 3 as set forth in the above rejection. Neither Zhong nor Zhamu discloses that the functional groups on the carbon nanotube material of S1 are carbonyl or hydroxyl groups.
In the same field of endeavor, Zhou discloses functionalization of carbon nanotubes with alkali metal hydroxides or alkaline earth metal hydroxides to introduce defects [0007], which result in hydroxyl functional groups [0030]. Zhou further discloses that the introduction of said defects increases the nitrogen content of the carbon nanotubes following nitrogen-doping [0030] and that such nitrogen doping improves the energy storage of carbon nanotubes [0003].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the disclosures of Zhong and Zhamu with the hydroxyl-functionalized carbon nanotubes taught by Zhou with the expected result of higher nitrogen-doping and improved energy storage.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Zhong and Zhamu discloses all limitations of claim 1 as set forth in the above rejection. Neither Zhong nor Zhamu discloses nitrogen-doping using ammonia water.
In the same field of endeavor, Zhou discloses dispersing the functionalized carbon nanotubes with a nitrating agent [0008] such as ammonia water [0012]. It is prima facie obvious to select a known material based on its suitability for its intended use. See MPEP 2144.07.
Zhou further discloses mass ratios of carbon nanotubes to nitrating agent of 1:1 to 1:5 [0012] but is silent on the concentration of either component in solution.
Zhamu discloses an ammonia water concentration of 28 wt% for nitration of graphene oxide (page 46, lines 23-27). This concentration overlaps with the specification of the instant application, which recites 10-30 wt% ammonia water concentrations [0014].
The 28% ammonia water concentration disclosed by Zhamu, combined with the carbon nanotube to nitrating agent mass ratios of 1:1 to 1:5 disclosed by Zhou, results in mass ratios of carbon nanotubes to ammonia water between 4.38 and 21.88 wt%. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Zhong and Zhamu discloses all of the limitations of claim 6 as set forth in the above rejection. Zhong further discloses heat-treatment of nitrogen-doped carbon nanotubes at 600-800°C but does not disclose higher temperatures.
In the same field of endeavor, Zhou discloses heat-treatment of nitrogen-doped carbon nanotubes at 800-900°C [0013-0014]. Zhou further discloses that high-temperature treatment of carbon nanotubes during nitrogen-doping increases the resultant nitrogen quantity [0030].
Zhou does not teach heat treatment temperatures above 1000°C. Nevertheless, when there is a design need to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. Zhou recognizes a design need (improved nitrogen quantity in nitrogen-doped carbon nanotubes) that is solved by an identified and predictable solution (high heat treatment temperatures). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to determine through routine experimentation the optimum heat treatment temperature in order to improve nitrogen quantity, thereby arriving at the claimed temperature range. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Ning et al (CN 108511692 A, English translation attached) discloses a method for the preparation of a lithium friendly coating involving preparing a plurality of carbon nanotubes according to the needs in the art, which may be nitrogen-doped carbon nanotubes, dispersing said carbon nanotubes in an organic solvent (preferably NMP or DMSO among others), and adding an active material (such as a lithium salt), additive (the carbon nanotubes), and a binder (such as PVDF or PTFE). Wang et al (CN 106698410 A, English translation attached) discloses hybrid fluorination and nitrogen-doping of single and multi-walled carbon nanotubes in an ammonia/argon mixed gas atmosphere at high temperatures. Kim et al (US 20180034055 A1) discloses uniformly mixing a nitrogen-doped, oxygen-functionalized carbon nanotube dispersion with a metal salt, PVDF binder, and NMP solvent. The nitrogen-doping occurs under an ammonia gas atmosphere at about 900°C.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Savannah G Phillips whose telephone number is (571)270-0822. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 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, Joseph Del Sole can be reached at (571)272-1130. 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.
/SAVANNAH G. PHILLIPS/Examiner, Art Unit 1763
/JOSEPH S DEL SOLE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1763
Prosecution Insights