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 . 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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-3, in the reply filed on June 10, 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 4 and 5 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Hanazaki (US 2015/0303480 A1) in view of Abe et al. (JP 2010-272287 A), hereinafter “Abe.”
Regarding claim 1, Hanazaki discloses a negative electrode manufacturing method comprising:
kneading a negative electrode active material and a negative electrode additive to form a negative electrode paste, in this case a negative electrode active material, a binder, and a thickener are placed in a kneader (¶ [0097]);
applying the negative electrode mixture paste to a negative electrode current collector, in this case the mixture is coated onto a negative electrode current collector copper foil (¶ [0097]); and
drying the negative electrode mixture paste (¶ [0097]);
wherein a viscosity of a negative electrode thickener contained in the negative electrode additive is 13000 mPa·s to 21000 mPa·s when a shear rate is 0.01 s-1, in this case the thickener is carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC) (¶ [0097]) which would exhibit a viscosity within the claimed range.
Hanazaki does not disclose the blackness of the material prepared in the kneading step. However, Abe teaches that a kneaded negative electrode material with a blackness of 9.0 to 14.0 indicates good quality (p. 8, Fig. 3). A prima facie case of obviousness exists in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. M.P.E.P. § 2144.05. Furthermore, one having ordinary skill in the art would have realized that adjusting the negative electrode material’s blackness to be 4 to 16 would have yielded a suitable negative electrode material (see p. 8, Fig. 3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to have made the blackness to be 4 to 16 in order to have yielded a suitable negative electrode material.
Regarding claim 2, Hanazaki further discloses that the negative electrode additive includes at least the negative electrode thickener, in this case CMC (¶ 0097]), and a negative electrode solvent, in this case ion exchange water (¶ [0097]). Hanazaki does not disclose the blackness property. However, Abe teaches the blackness property as set forth in the rejection of claim 1, above, and further teaches that it is measured from the primary kneaded materials (p. 8). One having ordinary skill in the art would have realized that adjusting the negative electrode material’s blackness to be 4 to 16 would have yielded a suitable negative electrode material (see p. 8, Fig. 3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to have made the blackness to be 4 to 16 in order to have yielded a suitable negative electrode material.
Regarding claim 3, Hanazaki further teaches that the solid content of the primary kneaded material is 58% to 61%, in this case the second kneaded product’s solid content is 50% to 60%. A prima facie case of obviousness exists in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. M.P.E.P. § 2144.05.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT J CHMIELECKI whose telephone number is (571)272-7641. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 am to 5 pm.
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, Ula Ruddock can be reached at (571) 272-1481. 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.
/SCOTT J. CHMIELECKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights