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 .
Priority
Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e).
Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito (WO2022045267A1, US-equivalent US20230299298A1 was used for citation).
Regarding claims 1-2, Ito discloses a carbon black dispersion composition for a battery (“Conductive Material Dispersion Liquid” in Example 1 [0223]), comprising:
5 parts of surface-treated CNTs [0224] (i.e., within “from 5 to 20wt%” of claim 2),
a dispersant (8% polymer dispersant in 12.5 parts of NMP solution [0224]),
N-methyl-2-pyrrolidone (82.5 parts of NMP as an organic solvent [0224]),
wherein terms “%” and “parts” used in expressing quantities are by mass [0172].
Ito, in Example 1, does not disclose that the carbon black dispersion composition comprises carbon black. However, Ito further discloses that the conductive material may be selected from the list comprising CNTs and carbon black to ensure electrical contact among electrode active materials [0098]. Thus, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to have used carbon black as an alternative conductive material as the CNTs of Example 1, with a reasonable expectation to provide electrical contact among electrode active materials [0098].
Ito further discloses wherein a hindered phenolic compound (i.e., BHT) is included in an amount of 0.01 mass% or more based on the total mass of the polymer [0220] (i.e., 0.01 mass% of the “8% of 12.5 parts” of the NMP solution; i.e., 0.01 part BHT [0224]). Thus, 0.01 part of BHT is included in the dispersion liquid, which is 0.002 parts by weight of BHT per 100 parts by weight of the carbon black, which is within the claimed range of “from 0.0001 to 5 parts by weight of a hindered phenolic compound per 100 parts by weight of the carbon black.”
Regarding claim 3, Ito discloses the composition of claim 1, wherein the carbon black has a BET specific surface area of 300m2/g [0224], which falls within the claimed range of “from 30 to 1,500 m2/g”.
Regarding claim 4, Ito discloses the composition of claim 1, wherein the dispersion liquid comprises polymer dispersant in 0.01 part (i.e., 8% polymer dispersant in 12.5 parts of NMP solution [0224]) and carbon black in 5 parts [0224]. As such, Ito in Example 1 does not envisage the claimed dispersant range of “amount of from 1 to 20 parts by weight per 100 parts by weight of the carbon black”.
However, Ito discloses that the amount of polymer is preferably 5 parts by mass or more and more preferably 10 parts by mass or more and preferably 50 parts by mass or less based on 100 parts by mass of the conductive material [0104], which overlaps with the claimed amount of “from 1 to 20 parts by weight per 100 parts by weight of the carbon black.” It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the amount of polymer dispersant, such that it is in the overlapping range, with a reasonable expectation to provide a dispersant that disperses conductive material while also holding components in the electrode layer so that they don’t detach (i.e., functions as a binder) [0044].
Regarding claim 6, Ito discloses the composition of claim 1, wherein the hindered phenolic compound is 2,6-di-tert-butyl-p-cresol (i.e., BHT [0218]).
Regarding claim 7, Ito discloses a mixture paste for a positive electrode (i.e., positive electrode slurry [0227]), comprising the carbon black dispersion composition of claim 1, a positive electrode active material (i.e., ternary active material [0227]) and a binder (i.e., PVdF [0227]).
Regarding claim 8, Ito discloses a positive electrode for a lithium-ion secondary battery [0229], comprising a current collector (i.e., aluminum foil [0229]) and a positive electrode mixture layer that is a dry coating of the mixture paste of claim 7 formed on the current collector [0229].
Regarding claim 9, Ito discloses a lithium-ion secondary battery comprising the positive electrode of claim 8 [0229, 0235], a negative electrode [0231-0233, 0235], an electrolyte [0236] and a separator [0235].
Claim(s) 5 s/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito (WO2022045267A1, US-equivalent US20230299298A1 was used for citation), in view of Kong (CN110808375, translation attached).
Regarding claim 5, Ito discloses the composition of claim 1, wherein the dispersant is a polymer comprising a nitrile group-containing monomer and an alkylene structural unit [0046], wherein the dispersant is used to disperse the conductive material in a slurry composition while also holding components in an electrode so that the components do not detach from the layer (i.e., acting as a binder) [0044].
However, Ito does not disclose wherein the polymer is “at least one compound selected from the group consisting of methyl cellulose, (hydroxypropyl)methyl cellulose, polyvinyl alcohol and polyvinyl pyrrolidone”, as claimed.
In this regard, Kong is also directed to a conductive liquid for preparing a graphene-carbon nanotube composite conductive liquid used to effectively improve the dispersibility and conductivity in electrodes [0004, 0007], wherein the liquid comprises graphite, an inorganic solvent, dispersant and stripping agent (e.g., phenolic compound) [0010 Kong], wherein the dispersant is selected from a list comprising polyvinylpyrrolidone and polyvinyl alcohol [0016 Kong] as claimed. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to have used dispersant such as polyvinylpyrrolidone and polyvinyl alcohol [0016 Kong] in the dispersion liquid of Ito, with a reasonable expectation to improve the dispersibility of components in the dispersion liquid.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAEYOUNG SON whose telephone number is (703)756-1427. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5pm.
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, Jonathan Leong can be reached at (571) 270-1292. 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.
/T.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 1/9/2026