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
Claim 20 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 June 29, 2026.
Claim Objections
Claim 16 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 16 recites “average secondary particle agglomerate size”. Claim 16 should be corrected to recite “the average secondary particle agglomerate size”.
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 18-19 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.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "ultra-high BET carbon black". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The limitation leaves a reasonable doubt if “ultra-high BET carbon” as recited in claim 18 is the same as “[the] ultra-high BET carbon” of claim 12, a component of “[the] ultra-high BET carbon” of claim 12, or a distinct concept. For the purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the indefinite limitation as reciting ““[the] ultra-high BET carbon” of 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.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 9-11 rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kim US-20230080191-A1, and further in view of Zhang US-20230138600-A1.
Regarding claim 1, Kim US-20230080191-A1 teaches an electrode assembly comprising:
a current collector (Kim, (0007), "a current collector"); and
a slurry ((0007), "a slurry having fluidity by mixing an electrode active material that is an essential element of an electrode, a conductive material and a filler that are other additives, a binder for binding between particles and adhering to a current collector, a solvent for imparting viscosity and dispersing particles, and the like") of
lithium-manganese rich positive electrode active material ((0071), "the dry positive electrode ... active material may be …lithium manganese oxides such as chemical formula Li1+xMn2−xO4 (where x is 0 to 0.33), LiMnO3, Li2MnO3, LiMn2O3, LiMnO2") interspersed with
carbon black ((0076), "the conductive material may include at least one selected from … carbon black"),
carbon nanotubes ((0076), "the conductive material may include at least one selected from … carbon nanotubes"),
a binder ((0069), "polyvinylidene fluoride (PVdF) … In addition, it can further include other binders known in the art, and may vary depending on whether the dry electrode is a positive electrode") configured to,
after curing (it is the Examiner's position that since modified Kim (see below) teaches the same slurry composition as the instant application, especially the inclusion of a binder configured to adhere to the current collector, it is the Examiner's position that the binder of Kim has the same properties, such as being configured to adhere the slurry to the current collector after curing, as the instant application.
adhere the slurry to the current collector ((Kim, (0007), "a slurry having … a binder for … adhering to a current collector").
Kim teaches a dispersant ((0053), "surface-oxidized vapor grown carbon fiber (Ox-VGCF)"), but is silent on a polymeric dispersant.
Zhang teaches a polymeric dispersant (Zhang, (0018), "the positive electrode slurry further includes a dispersant, and the dispersant is at least one selected from polymethyl methacrylate, polyethylene glycol, polyvinylpyrrolidone")
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to substitute the dispersant of Kim with the polymeric dispersant of Zhang because the substituted component was known, their functions were known in the art, and one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known component for another and that the results of the substitution would have been predictable. See MPEP 2143 I (B).
Regarding the polymeric dispersant being configured to sterically repel particles of the slurry, it is the Examiner's position that since modified Kim teaches the same slurry composition as the instant application, especially the inclusion of polymethyl methacrylate, the polymeric dispersant of modified Kim will have the same properties, such as sterically repelling particles of the slurry, as the instant application.
Regarding claim 3, modified Kim teaches the electrode assembly of claim 1, wherein:
the carbon black of the slurry comprises ultra-high BET carbon black (Kim, (0076), "carbon black, acetylene black, ketjen black, channel black, furnace black, [other forms of carbon black]";the Examiner notes that (0019) of the instant disclosure publication US-20250140825-A1 describes that "[the] ultra-high BET carbon black 18 may be acetylene black, furnace black, ketjen black, or any other suitable form of carbon black").
Regarding claim 9, modified Kim teaches the electrode assembly of claim 1, wherein the polymeric dispersants (introduced by Zhang in claim 1) comprise at least one material from the group consisting of poly(methylmethacrylate) (PMMA), or other polymeric dispersants (Zhang, (0018), "the dispersant is at least one selected from polymethyl methacrylate, polyethylene glycol, polyvinylpyrrolidone").
Regarding claim 10, modified Kim teaches the electrode assembly of claim 1, wherein:
the current collector is a metal foil (Kim, (0113), "the current collector … For example, stainless steel, aluminum, nickel, titanium, sintered carbon, and a material formed by surface-treating a surface of aluminum or stainless steel surface with carbon, nickel, titanium, silver, or the like can be used").
Regarding claim 11, modified Kim teaches the electrode assembly of claim 10, wherein:
the metal foil is an aluminum foil (Kim, (0148), "aluminum foil").
Claim 2 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over modified Kim as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yu US-20170098817-A1.
Regarding claim 2, modified Kim teaches the electrode assembly of claim 1, but is silent on the average secondary particle agglomerate size of the carbon black.
Yu teaches wherein the average secondary particle agglomerate size of a carbon black is between 10 and 100 μm (Yu, (0017), "carbon black particles that are ... initially clustered in aggregates that are about ten micrometers to about one hundred micrometers in diameter or largest characteristic dimension").
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).
Modification of the disclosure of modified Kim by requiring the carbon black be formed into micrometer size agglomerates, as suggested by Yu, would benefit the disclosure of modified Kim by "improving electrochemical conductivity into and between particles of electrode materials in the presence of a suitable non-aqueous lithium ion-containing electrolyte" (Yu, (0017)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing of the instant disclosure to modify the disclosure of modified Kim by requiring the carbon black be formed into micrometer size agglomerates, as suggested by Yu.
Claim 4 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over modified Kim as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Cho US-20240387818-A1.
Regarding claim 4, modified Kim teaches the electrode assembly of claim 3, but is silent on the ratio of ultra-high BET carbon to carbon nanotubes in the slurry.
Cho teaches wherein the weight ratio of carbon black to carbon nanotubes is 2.0:1.2 (Cho, (0123)). It is the Examiner's position that it would have been a routine optimization to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the weight range provided by Cho to arrive at the claimed weight range when making optimization to enhance the conductive network formed by the carbon nanotubes ((0052)), while ensuring the carbon black is not added in an excessive quantity which reduces the amount of active material, hence reducing energy density ((0064)).
Modification of the disclosure of modified Kim by specifying a ratio of ultra-high BET carbon black to carbon nanotubes, as suggested by Cho, would benefit the disclosure of modified Kim by enhancing the conductive network formed by the carbon nanotubes ((0052)), while ensuring the carbon black is not added in an excessive quantity which reduces the amount of active material, hence reducing energy density ((0064)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing of the present disclosure to modify the disclosure of modified Kim by specifying a ratio of ultra-high BET carbon black to carbon nanotubes, as suggested by Cho.
Claim 5 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over modified Kim as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Choi US-20180248195-A1.
Regarding claim 5, modified Kim teaches the electrode assembly of claim 3, wherein:
the ultra-high BET carbon black comprises:
acetylene black (Kim, (0076), "acetylene black"),
furnace black ((0076), "furnace black", and
ketjen black ((0076), "ketjen black").
The Examiner notes that modified Kim is silent on the ultra-high BET carbon black comprising the combination of acetylene black, furnace black, and ketjen black as required in claim 5. However, Choi teaches that the carbon black conductive agent may comprise a plurality of carbon blacks (Choi, (0080)), "conductive agent may include ... acetylene black, Ketjen black ... furnace black ... a mixture of two or more thereof may be used").
It is the Examiner's position that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing of the present disclosure to have arrived at the claimed carbon black combination of acetylene black, furnace black, and ketjen black as required in claim 5 when making routine optimizations in selecting "a morphological condition ... having [high] conductivity" (Choi, (0080)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing of the present disclosure to have modified the disclose of modified Kim by substituting the conductive agent with a conductive agent comprising acetylene black, furnace, black, and ketjen black, as suggested by Choi.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over modified Kim as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Yu US-20170098817-A1.
Regarding claim 6, modified Kim teaches the electrode assembly of claim 5, but is silent on wherein the particles of the acetylene black have a surface area of 300 to 500 m.sup.2/g.
Yu teaches wherein the carbon black has a surface area "in the range of 10 m2/g to 1000 m2/g" (Yu, (0017)).
The Examiner notes that acetylene black is a subtype of carbon black.
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, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to use the disclosed surface area of carbon black of Yu with the acetylene black of modified Kim.
Regarding claim 7, modified Kim teaches the electrode assembly of claim 5, but is silent on wherein the particles of the ketjen black have a surface area of 500 to 1,000 m.sup.2/g.
Yu teaches wherein the carbon black has a surface area "in the range of 10 m2/g to 1000 m2/g" (Yu, (0017)).
The Examiner notes that ketjen black is a subtype of carbon black.
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, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to use the disclosed surface area of carbon black of Yu with the Ketjen black of modified Kim.
Claim 8 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over modified Kim as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cho US-20240387818-A1.
Regarding claim 8, modified Kim teaches the electrode assembly of claim 1, wherein:
single (Kim, (0076), "single-walled … carbon nanotubes") or
multi-wall ((0076), "multi-walled carbon nanotubes")
carbon nanotubes.
The Examiner notes that modified Kim is silent on the slurry comprising single and multi-wall carbon nanotubes together. However, Cho teaches a slurry comprising single and multi-wall carbon nanotubes together (Cho, (0052, "the linear conductive material may be carbon nanotubes ... the carbon nanotubes may be single-walled carbon nanotubes, multi-walled carbon nanotubes, and the like").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to substitute the single-walled or multi-walled carbon nanotubes of modified Kim with the single and multi-walled carbon nanotubes of Cho because the substituted component was known, their functions were known in the art, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known component for another and that the results of the substitution would have been predictable. See MPEP 2143 I (B).
Claims 12-13 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kim, and further in view of Zhang.
Regarding claim 12, Kim US-20230080191-A1 teaches a battery comprising:
a current collector (Kim, (0007), "a current collector"); and
an electrode ((0002), "dry electrode")
with a lithium-manganese rich (0071), "the dry positive electrode ... active material may be …lithium manganese oxides) layer ((0007), "electrode active layer") of
carbon black ((0076), "the conductive material may include at least one selected from … carbon black ... [other forms of carbon black]"),
ultra-high BET carbon ((0076), "acetylene black, ketjen black, channel black, furnace black, [other forms of carbon black]",
a percolation network (Kim, (0018), "conductive network") of the lithium-manganese rich layer, and
a binder ((0069), "polyvinylidene fluoride (PVdF) … In addition, it can further include other binders known in the art, and may vary depending on whether the dry electrode is a positive electrode") configured to,
configured to adhere the layer to the current collector ((Kim, (0007), "an electrode active layer … having … a binder for … adhering to a current collector").
Kim is silent on a polymeric network sterically contributing to the percolation network.
Kim teaches a dispersant ((0053), "surface-oxidized vapor grown carbon fiber (Ox-VGCF)"), but is silent on a polymeric dispersant.
Zhang teaches a polymeric dispersant ((0018), "the positive electrode slurry further includes a dispersant, and the dispersant is at least one selected from polymethyl methacrylate, polyethylene glycol, polyvinylpyrrolidone")
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to substitute the dispersant of Kim with the polymeric dispersant of Zhang because the substituted component was known, their functions were known in the art, and one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known component for another and that the results of the substitution would have been predictable. See MPEP 2143 I (B).
Regarding the polymeric sterically contributing to the percolation network, it is the Examiner's position that since modified Kim teaches the same lithium-manganese rich layer, current collector, and binder composition as the instant application requires in claim 12, the polymeric dispersant of modified Kim will have the same properties, such as sterically contributing to the percolating network, as the instant application requires in claim 12.
Regarding claim 13, modified Kim teaches the battery of claim 12, wherein:
the lithium-manganese rich layer of the electrode further comprises carbon nanotubes ((0076), "the conductive material may include at least one selected from … carbon nanotubes").
Regarding claim 17, modified Kim teaches the battery of claim 12, wherein:
the polymeric dispersants (introduced by Zhang in claim 12) comprise at least one material from the group consisting of poly(methylmethacrylate) (PMMA), or other polymeric dispersants (Zhang, (0018), "the dispersant is at least one selected from polymethyl methacrylate, polyethylene glycol, polyvinylpyrrolidone").
Claims 14-15 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over modified Kim as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Cho.
Regarding claim 14, modified Kim teaches the battery of claim 13, but is silent on the ratio of ultra-high BET carbon to carbon nanotubes in the slurry.
Cho teaches wherein the weight ratio of carbon black to carbon nanotubes is 2.0:1.2 (Cho, (0123)). It is the Examiner's position that it would have been a routine optimization to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the weight range provided by Cho to arrive at the claimed weight range when making optimization to enhance the conductive network formed by the carbon nanotubes ((0052)), while ensuring the carbon black is not added in an excessive quantity which reduces the amount of active material, hence reducing energy density ((0064)).
Modification of the disclosure of modified Kim by specifying a ratio of ultra-high BET carbon black to carbon nanotubes, as suggested by Cho, would benefit the disclosure of modified Kim by enhancing the conductive network formed by the carbon nanotubes ((0052)), while ensuring the carbon black is not added in an excessive quantity which reduces the amount of active material, hence reducing energy density ((0064)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing of the present disclosure to modify the disclosure of modified Kim by specifying a ratio of ultra-high BET carbon black to carbon nanotubes, as suggested by Cho.
Regarding claim 15, modified Kim teaches the battery of claim 14, but is silent on the ratio of ultra-high BET carbon to carbon nanotubes in the slurry.
Cho teaches wherein the weight ratio of carbon black to carbon nanotubes is 2.0:1.2 (Cho, (0123)).
It is the Examiner's position that it would have been a routine optimization to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the weight range provided by Cho to arrive at the claimed ratio when making optimization to enhance the conductive network formed by the carbon nanotubes ((0052)), while ensuring the carbon black is not added in an excessive quantity which reduces the amount of active material, hence reducing energy density ((0064)).
Modification of the disclosure of modified Kim by specifying a ratio of ultra-high BET carbon black to carbon nanotubes, as suggested by Cho, would benefit the disclosure of modified Kim by enhancing the conductive network formed by the carbon nanotubes ((0052)), while ensuring the carbon black is not added in an excessive quantity which reduces the amount of active material, hence reducing energy density ((0064)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing of the present disclosure to modify the disclosure of modified Kim by specifying a ratio of ultra-high BET carbon black to carbon nanotubes, as suggested by Cho.
Claim 16 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over modified Kim as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Yu.
Regarding claim 16, modified Kim teaches the battery of claim 12, but is silent on the average secondary particle agglomerate size of the carbon black.
Yu teaches wherein the average secondary particle agglomerate size of a carbon black is between 10 and 100 μm (Yu, (0017), "carbon black particles that are ... initially clustered in aggregates that are about ten micrometers to about one hundred micrometers in diameter or largest characteristic dimension").
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).
Modification of the disclosure of modified Kim by requiring the carbon black be formed into micrometer size agglomerates, as suggested by Yu, would benefit the disclosure of modified Kim by "improving electrochemical conductivity into and between particles of electrode materials in the presence of a suitable non-aqueous lithium ion-containing electrolyte" (Yu, (0017)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing of the instant disclosure to modify the disclosure of modified Kim by requiring the carbon black be formed into micrometer size agglomerates, as suggested by Yu.
Claim 18 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over modified Kim as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Choi.
Regarding claim 18, modified Kim teaches the battery of claim 12, wherein:
the ultra-high BET carbon black comprises:
acetylene black (Kim, (0076), "acetylene black"),
furnace black ((0076), "furnace black", and
ketjen black ((0076), "ketjen black").
The Examiner notes that modified Kim is silent on the ultra-high BET carbon black comprising the combination of acetylene black, furnace black, and ketjen black as required in claim 5. However, Choi teaches that the carbon black conductive agent may comprise a plurality of carbon blacks (Choi, (0080)), "conductive agent may include ... acetylene black, Ketjen black ... furnace black ... a mixture of two or more thereof may be used").
It is the Examiner's position that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing of the present disclosure to have arrived at the claimed carbon black combination of acetylene black, furnace black, and ketjen black as required in claim 5 when making routine optimizations in selecting "a morphological condition ... having [high] conductivity" (Choi, (0080)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing of the present disclosure to have modified the disclose of modified Kim by substituting the conductive agent with a conductive agent comprising acetylene black, furnace, black, and ketjen black, as suggested by Choi.
Claim 19 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over modified Kim as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Yu.
Regarding claim 19, modified Kim teaches the battery of claim 18, but is silent on wherein the particles of the acetylene black have a surface area of 300 to 500 m.sup.2/g.
Yu teaches wherein the carbon black has a surface area "in the range of 10 m2/g to 1000 m2/g" (Yu, (0017)).
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).
The Examiner notes that acetylene black is a subtype of carbon black.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to use the disclosed surface area of carbon black of Yu with the acetylene black of modified Kim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EVAN M ABELSON whose telephone number is (571)272-9302. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:30 AM - 5:00 PM U.S. 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, Allison Bourke can be reached at (303) 297-4684. 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.
/E.M.A./Examiner, Art Unit 1721
/NICHOLAS A SMITH/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752
Prosecution Insights