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. This is the initial office action for US Patent Application No. 18/252720 by Ito et al. Claims 1-15 are currently pending and have been fully considered. Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Double Patenting The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg , 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman , 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi , 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum , 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington , 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA/25, or PTO/AIA/26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer . Claim s 1, 11, 14 and 15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1 and 7 of copending Application No. 18/252719 in view of Matsumura et al. (US 2018/0277848 A1), herein referred to as Matsumura ( provided in Applicant’s Information Disclosure Statement filed 7/5/2023 ) . Regarding claims 1, 11 and 14 of the pending application, the copending application recites (Claim 1) a n electrode for an electrochemical device comprising an electrode mixed material layer containing an electrode active material, a conductive material, and a binder, wherein the conductive material includes a fibrous conductive material, the binder includes a polymer A that includes a nitrile group-containing monomer unit and an alkylene structural unit and that has a Mooney viscosity (ML 1+4 , 100°C) of not less than 70 and not more than 150, and the electrode mixed material layer contains more than 50 parts by mass and not more than 200 parts by mass of the polymer A per 100 parts by mass of the conductive material. Regarding claim 15 of the pending application, the copending application recites (Claim 7) an electrochemical device comprising the electrode discussed above. T he copending application differs from the pending application because the copending application recites the electrode mixed material layer contain ing the fibrous conductive material in a proportion of not less than 0.3 mass percent and not more than 1.5 mass percent. The mass percent range of the conductive material falls outside of the mass percent range of the conductive material recited in the pending application . However, from the same field of technology, Matsumura recites a conductive material paste composition for a secondary battery electrode and a secondary battery containing said secondary battery electrode . In view of claim s 1, 11, 14 and 15, Matsumura teaches [0146] the percentage content of fibrous carbon conductive material contained in the paste composition is preferably 50 mass percent or more. The content of fibrous carbon conductive material taught by Matsumura overlaps the mass percent range of 2 mass percent or more of conductive material recited in claim 1 of the pending application. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the electrode mixture layer taught by copending Application No. 18/252719 to include the conductive material content taught by Matsumura in order to reduce the internal resistance of the electrode mixture, thereby improving the capacity properties of an electrode and secondary battery that utilize the modified electrode mixture. Therefore, claims 1, 11, 14 and 15 of the pending application are considered to be an obvious variation of the pending claimed invention in view of the copending Application No. 18/252719 and Matsumura. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection. 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. Claims 1 , 2, 5 and 11 - 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Annaka et al. (US 2019/0348681 A1), herein referred to as Annaka (provided in Applicant’s Information Disclosure Statement filed 8/11/2025) . Regarding claim s 1, 11 , 14 and 15, Annaka teaches [0026-0030] a negative electrode comprising an electrode mixed layer made from a slurry composition. The slurry composition comprises [0027] a negative electrode active material ( electrode active material ) , a conductive material, and a binder . The slurry composition [0111] is formed from a mixture of a binder, conductive material and solvent (thereby meeting the limitations of claim 1 of a conductive material, polymer A and a dispersion medium). After the mixture is formed, a negative electrode active material is added to the mixture [0112] to obtain the slurry composition. The slurry composition is then applied to a current collector [0119] and subsequently dried [0122] to obtain a negative electrode for a secondary battery. Annaka proceeds to teach [0099-010 4 ] the conductive material includes a fibrous conductive material, such as carbon fiber, and the slurry composition contains the fibrous conductive material in a proportion of 10 mass percent or less . The amount of fibrous conductive material taught by Annaka is considered to overlap the claimed range of the paste containing 2 mass percent or more of the conductive material recited in claim 1. Additionally, Annaka teaches [0027-0028] the binder comprises a copolymer that includes a nitrile group-containing monomer unit and an alkylene structural unit wherein the copolymer has a Mooney viscosity (ML 1+4 , 100° C.) of not less than 50 and not more than 200. The Mooney viscosity is considered to overlap the claimed range of Mooney viscosity of not less than 70 and not more than 150 recited in claim 1. Annaka further teaches [0182] the slurry composition contains 4 parts of the copolymer and 4 parts of conductive material (3 parts acetylene black plus 1 part carbon nanotubes), thereby equation to a 1:1 part by mass ratio (100:100), which lies within Applicant’s claimed range of 50 parts by mass and not more than 200 parts by mass of polymer per 100 parts by mass of the conductive material. The ranges of the mass percent of conductive material present in the slurry composition and the Mooney viscosity of the binder taught by Annaka overlap the claimed ranges recited in claim 1. MPEP Chapter 2144.05, Section I states “ 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 ). Therefore, claims 1-5 and 7 are rejected as being obvious over Annaka . Regarding claim 2, Annaka teaches the copolymer [0084] has an iodine value of less than 10 mg /100 mg. The iodine value taught by Annaka falls within Applicant’s claimed range of 0.1 mg/100 mg and 70 mg/100 mg and therefore is considered to anticipate the claimed range. Regarding claim 5, Annaka teaches [01 11 ] an organic solvent is used as a dispersion medium when forming the mixture of the binder and conductive material , prior to forming the slurry composition. Regarding claims 12 and 13, Annaka teaches [0092-0094] the slurry composition may further comprise an additional polymer that includes fluorine atoms such as polyvinylidene fluoride. The proportion of the additional polymer may be 60 mass percent or less which overlaps the limitation of 50 mass percent or less recited in claim 12. 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. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Annaka et al. (US 2019/0348681 A1), herein referred to as Annaka , in view of Matsumura et al. (US 2018/0277848 A1), herein referred to as Matsumura (provided in Applicant’s Information Disclosure Statement filed 7/5/2023 ) . Annaka teaches a negative electrode comprising an electrode mixed layer made from a slurry composition as discussed above. Annaka however does not appear to explicitly teach the limitations recited in claim 10 wherein the conductive material includes the fibrous conductive material and a conductive material other than the fibrous conductive material in a mass ratio of 100:0 to 50:50. However, from the same field of technology, Matsumura recites a slurry composition for a secondary battery electrode. In view of claim 10 , Matsumura teaches [0131 and 0146] a fibrous carbon nanomaterial is added to the slurry composition as a conductive material. Matsumura teaches it is advantageous to use at least 50 mass percent of the fibrous carbon nanomaterial because the electrical conductivity properties of the electrode mixed material layer are improved and the internal resistance of a secondary battery that includes the electrode mixed material layer is reduced. At the time of the filing date of the pending application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the slurry composition taught by Annaka to include the teachings of Matsumura directed to including a conductive material comprising fibrous carbon nanomaterial in the slurry composition in order to form an electrode with improved electrical properties and thereby improving the capacity of the secondary battery containing the aforementioned electrode. Claim s 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Annaka et al. (US 2019/0348681 A1), herein referred to as Annaka , in view of Lee et al. (US 2019/0334161 A1), herein referred to as Lee . Annaka teaches a negative electrode comprising an electrode mixed layer made from a slurry composition as discussed above. Annaka however does not appear to explicitly teach the limitations recited in claims 6-9 directed to further limitations regarding the conductive material. However, from the same field of technology, Lee recites the formation of a negative electrode for a rechargeable lithium battery. In view of claim 6, Lee teaches [0063-0065] a co nductive agent (conductive material) ha s a flake shape (analogous to a plate-shape based on Applicant’s specification Pre-Grant Publication [0024]) . In view of claim 7, Lee teaches [0073] the conductive agent may have an aspect ratio (ratio of a maximum length to a thickness of the conductive material) of about 10 to about 3000. The aspect ratio taught by Lee overlaps the claimed range and therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05, Section I). In view of claim 8, Lee teaches [0063] the conductive agent has an average size (long diameter which is construed as length ) of 1 µm to 20 µm. The average size range taught by Lee overlaps the claimed range and therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05, Section I). In view of claim 9, Lee teaches the conductive material may have a range of aspect ratios and average sizes. Since Lee teaches [0073] the aspect ratio for flake-shaped conductive agents is calculated as a length divided by a thickness (Aspect Ratio = Length/Thickness) , one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to optimize the length and aspect ratios taught by Lee in order to achieve a desired thickness for the flake-shaped conductive agents. As an example, if a conductive agent having an aspect ratio of 100 is selected and the length of the conductive agent is 1 µm, the thickness is then calculated (Thickness = Length/ Aspect Ratio) to be 0.01 µm (10 nm) which falls within Applicant’s claimed range. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the thickness of the conductive agents based on the ranges of the long diameters and aspect ratios taught by Lee. Claim s 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Annaka et al. (US 2019/0348681 A1), herein referred to as Annaka , in view of Al- Harthi et al. (US 2017/0206997 A1), herein referred to as Al- Harthi . Annaka teaches a negative electrode comprising an electrode mixed layer made from a slurry composition as discussed above. Annaka however does not appear to explicitly teach the limitations recited in claims 3 and 4 directed to limitations regarding the fibrous conductive material having a residual acid and base content . However, Al- Harthi recites [0130] the formation of nanocomposite films that may be employed in lithium-ion batteries . In view of claims 3 and 4, Al- Harthi teaches [0083] treating carbon nanotubes (fibrous conductive material) with an acid treatment and a base treatment. Although Al- Harthi does not explicitly teach the ratio of surface acid to surface base or the specific residual concentrations of surface acid and surface base , it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to expect a residual amount of acid and base to be remaining on the surface of the carbon nanotubes. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT STEWART A FRASER whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-5126 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F, 7am-4pm, 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Miriam Stagg can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-270-5256 . 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. /STEWART A FRASER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1724