CTNF 18/275,702 CTNF 87839 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-6, 9-12 and 14 in the reply filed on April 20, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the prior Office action does not establish that each and every feature of the subject matter of claims 1-15 is known in the prior art, that the ISA found that claims 1-15 have unity of invention, and that there would not be a burden to search claims 1-15. The first argument is not found persuasive because the remarks do not specify what feature(s) common to claims 1 and 7 were not taught or suggested by the prior art. The second argument is not persuasive because, “[t]he examiner may make a lack of unity requirement in a national stage application even if no such requirement was made by the ISA or IPEA.” (MPEP at 1893.03(d)). The third argument is not persuasive because as was set forth in the prior Office action, Groups I and II are classified in separate areas and there would therefore be a serious search and/or examination burden to search both groups (see MPEP at 808.02). The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. 08-05 AIA Claim s 7-8, 13 and 15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention , there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on April 20, 2026 . Claim Objections 07-29-01 AIA Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: there is a typographical error and the claim number is listed as “7” instead of “1” . Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1, 3-6, 9-12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song (KR 20190101651; machine translation relied upon) in view of Tsuchiya (US Pub. No. 2022/0131147) . Regarding claim 1, Song teaches a negative electrode slurry (claimed negative electrode composition) comprising a negative electrode active material comprising silicon-based particles (claimed silicon-containing active material), a negative electrode conductive material, and a negative electrode binder, where the negative electrode conductive material comprises soft carbon which can be microbeads (claimed dotted conductive material) and plate-like graphite (claimed plate-like conductive material), the negative electrode active material is 50 wt% to 80 wt% of the negative electrode slurry (machine translation at pages 3-5). Song does not specifically disclose that the dotted conductive material comprises at least one functional group in an amount of 0.01% or more to less than 0.05%. Similarly directed to a negative electrode material, Tsuchiya teaches using functional groups in carbon particles of 0.15% by mass or less, preferably 0.12% by mass or less, further preferably 0.04% by mass or less (paragraph [0038]), where the carbon can be spherical particles (paragraph [0041]), such ranges fully encompassing or overlapping the claimed range. “In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” MPEP at 2144.05 citing In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a functional group content amount as taught by Tsuchiya in the dotted conductive material of Song in order to have an improved charge/discharge efficiency (see Tsuchiya at paragraph [0036]). Regarding claim 3, Song teaches that the conductive material is 10 wt% to 30 wt% of the negative electrode slurry (machine translation at page 5, first paragraph), such a range being completely encompassed by the claimed range. Regarding claim 4, Song teaches an average particle diameter D50 of the graphite of 0.5 μm to 5 μm, more specifically 3 μm to 4 μm (machine translation at page 5, fourth paragraph), completely encompassing and overlapping the range of D50 as claimed. It is noted that the ranges D10 and D90 are closely related to the range D50 although they are not specifically disclosed. “’[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.’” MPEP at 2145.05, citing In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). It is further noted that Applicant has not provided any evidence of unexpected results to establish a criticality for D10 and D90, at least for the reasons that these values are not disclosed for any of the specific embodiments, only D50 is specified, and Song teaches a range overlapping the claimed range as well as the specific D50 of 3.5 μm used in the inventive examples. Regarding claims 5-6, Song teaches that the silicon-containing active material comprise Si, SiOx where 0<x≤2, and an Si alloy (machine translation at page 4, fifth paragraph), with the specific embodiments being 100% Si (machine translation at pages 9-10). Regarding claims 9-11, Song teaches using the negative electrode slurry in a negative electrode in a battery with a positive electrode and a separator between the positive and negative electrodes, an electrolyte, and a negative electrode current collector having a thickness of 3 μm to 500 μm (machine translation at pages 6-8), the thickness overlapping the range of claim 10. Regarding claim 12, Tsuchiya teaches that the functional group can be a hydroxy group or a carboxy group (paragraph [0035]). Regarding claim 14, the claims are directed to a negative electrode composition, such a composition inherently has a certain amount of functional group present, whereas claim 14 is directed to method steps for measuring an amount of the functional group present, but such does not further limit the structure of the negative electrode composition and therefore does not further limit the claim . 07-22-aia AIA Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song in view of Tsuchiya as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Atanassova (US Pub. No. 2020/0056050) . Regarding claim 2, Song does not specifically disclose the amount of the dotted conductive material and plate-like conductive material. Similarly directed to an electrode active material, Atanassova teaches using a carbon black to graphite ratio of from 0.25:1 to 4:1, resulting in composition amounts fully encompassing the claimed ranges. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a carbon black to graphite ratio as taught by Atanassova in the composition of Song (combined) in order to reduce the total concentration of conductive additives used while still providing excellent battery performance or improving battery performance (see Atanassova at paragraph [0006]). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHILIP N SCHWARTZ whose telephone number is (571)270-1612. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-5:30. 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, Katelyn Smith can be reached at 571-270-5545. 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. /P.N.S/ Examiner, Art Unit 1749 June 10, 2026 /KATELYN W SMITH/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1749 Application/Control Number: 18/275,702 Page 2 Art Unit: 1749 Application/Control Number: 18/275,702 Page 3 Art Unit: 1749 Application/Control Number: 18/275,702 Page 4 Art Unit: 1749 Application/Control Number: 18/275,702 Page 5 Art Unit: 1749 Application/Control Number: 18/275,702 Page 6 Art Unit: 1749
Prosecution Insights