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
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group 1, claims 1-5 and 7, in the reply filed on 07/16/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). Newly submitted claims 11-14 are to the invention of Group I and will be examined therewith.
Claims 8-10 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 07/16/2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 12/12/2023, 07/10/2024, and 03/03/2025 have been considered by the examiner.
The information disclosure statement filed on 11/17/2025 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 because no English translation is provided. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits. Applicant is advised that the date of any re-submission of any item of information contained in this information disclosure statement or the submission of any missing element(s) will be the date of submission for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements based on the time of filing the statement, including all certification requirements for statements under 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
Claim Interpretation
Regarding claim 1, 7, and 11-14, these claims include variation of the following phrase.
“a/the ratio of a/the number of the single-walled carbon nanotubes…to a/the total number of the carbon nanotubes present within a/the region of 15 µm x 8 µm of a surface of the negative electrode active material layer viewed in a/the thickness direction is…”
The above recited ratio is interpreted as “a/the ratio of a/the number of single-walled carbon nanotubes present within a/the region of 15 µm x 8 µm of a surface of the negative electrode active material layer viewed in a/the thickness direction to a/the total number of the carbon nanotubes present within the same region of 15 µm x 8 µm of the surface of the negative electrode active material layer viewed in the thickness direction is…”, where articles “a” and “the” remain consistent with how they are currently written in each claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 12 and 14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Regarding claims 12 and 14, both claims are depended on claim 1 of the instant application which recites “a ratio…is more than 0.15 and not more than 0.9.” in the last 4 lines of claim 1. This range, as it is written, excludes the recited end points of 0.15 and 0.9. Claims 12 and 14 each recite a similar limitation of “the ratio…is from 0.15 to 0.25.” in lines 2-5 of claim 12 and lines 11-14 of claim 14 These recited ranges are written to include the given end point values of 0.15 and 0.25. By including the end point of 0.15, dependent claims 12 and 14 are broadening the scope of the original independent claim 1. Therefore, both claims 12 and 14 fail to include all the limitations of claim 1.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 7, 11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kannan et. al (US 20240322182).
Regarding claim 1, Kannan teaches a negative electrode for a secondary battery [0016]. One embodiment of the secondary battery taught is one with a non-aqueous electrolyte solution [0148]. Kannan teaches a negative electrode mixture which is disposed on the surface of a negative electrode current collector [0016]. This embodiment of the negative electrode mixture is analogous to the negative electrode active material layer. The negative electrode active material layer contains a negative electrode active material [0018], carbon nanotubes [0019], and a binder [0023]. The negative electrode active material is a silicon-based active material [0081] and can include various alloy based (lithium alloys, silicon-based alloys, tin-based alloys) active material as well as carbon-based active materials (graphite based carbon) [0082].
The carbon nanotubes taught by Kannan are single-walled carbon nanotubes [0019], and the carbon nanotubes can be in a spirally wound bundle or rope shape [0074-0075]. A carbon nanotube that is in a spiral or wound configuration must inherently be curved. So, the shape description of the single-walled carbon nanotubes of Kannan reads on the single-walled carbon nanotubes having a curved structure of claim 1. Kannan teaches that the length of the single-walled carbon nanotubes may be 2 µm to 5 µm [0021]. Additionally, the diameter of the single-walled carbon nanotubes may be 1 nm to 2 nm [0021]. The referenced values lie within the claimed length and diameter ranges of claim 1 and therefore anticipate the claimed ranges.
The single-walled carbon nanotubes having a curved structure described by Kannan are further taught to be in an entangled or bundle type aggregated shape [0074]. This embodiment indicates that the carbon nanotubes are in contact with each other. Lines 12 and 13 of claim 1 put forward the limitation that the curved single-walled carbon nanotubes are in contact with “a particle and another particle“, and no further description of the particles is given. Therefore, the examiner is interpreting “a particle” and “another particle” to include a carbon nanotube. In light of the above interpretation, Kannan’s teaching of a bundle or entangled plurality of single-walled carbon nanotubes reads on the limitation of the curved single-walled carbon nanotube being in contact with a particle and another particle.
Kannan teaches that the negative electrode mixture (negative electrode active material layer) contains a conductive material [0017] which is made up of single-walled carbon nanotubes [0018]. Kannan further teaches that the single-walled carbon nanotubes have a first shape and a second shape [0020]. The second shape is described as spirally wound [0074-0075] and therefore reads on the curved single-walled carbon nanotubes as discussed above. Kannan states that the first shape may be 40% to 70%by weight of the total conductive material [0020]. If the conductive material is made up of the first and second shapes, this percentage translates to the curved single-walled carbon nanotubes being 30% to 60% by weight of the conductive material. Assuming the average weight of each single-walled carbon nanotube is the same in either shape configuration, the weight percent translates to a ratio of 0.3 to 0.6 which reads on the limitation in lines 14-17 of claim 1. Given that Kannan teaches a ratio of curved single-walled carbon nanotubes to total carbon nanotubes of 0.3 to 0.6 in the negative electrode mixture, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that there necessarily exists at least one 15×8 µm region of the surface of the negative electrode active material layer viewed in a thickness direction having a ratio of single-walled carbon nanotubes to total carbon nanotubes which falls within the broadly claimed range of more than 0.15 to not more than 0.9. Therefore, the weight percent taught in Kannan reads on the ratio recited in claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, Kannan teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as described above. As previously described single-walled carbon nanotube with a spiral or wound configuration is an inherently curved structure that has one or possibly more points of curving. So, the shape description of the single-walled carbon nanotubes of Kannan reads on the curved structure of claim 2.
Regarding claim 5, Kannan teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Kannan also teaches the single-walled carbon nanotubes have a spirally wound shape called a second shape (curved structure) and others having a first shape (other carbon nanotubes) [0020]. So, the carbon nanotubes taught by Kannan contain other carbon nanotubes than the single-walled carbon nanotubes having a curved structure.
Regarding claims 7 and 13, Kannan teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Kannan also teaches that the length of the carbon nanotubes may be 1 µm to 7 µm [0070]. Since this range is above 0.5 µm, the ratio of the number of single-walled carbon nanotubes having a length of 0.5 µm or more to the total number of the carbon nanotubes present in any area is 1. This ratio falls within the recited ranges of claim 7, 0.5 or more, and claim 13, 0.7 or more. Therefore, this teaching by Kannan reads on both claims 7 and 13.
Regarding claim 11, Kannan teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Claim 11 contains the same limitation as the one recited in lines 14-17 of claim 1 but with a ratio of 0.2 to 0.8. Kannan teaches a ratio of 0.3-0.6 as discussed above regarding claim 1. Given that Kannan teaches a ratio of curved single-walled carbon nanotubes to total carbon nanotubes of 0.3 to 0.6 in the negative electrode mixture, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that there necessarily exists at least one 15×8 µm region viewed in a thickness direction having a ratio of single-walled carbon nanotubes to total carbon nanotubes which falls within the broadly claimed range 0.2 to 0.8.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claims 3 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kannan et. al (US 20240322182) as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 3, Kannan teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Kannan also teaches that the conductive material, which is composed of single-walled carbon nanotubes [0019], makes up 0.01 to 10% by weight (mass %) based on the total weight of the negative electrode mixture (negative electrode active material layer) [0080]. This range taught by Kannan reads on the limitation of claim 3 that states the content of the carbon nanotubes is from 0.01 mass % to 0.2 mass % with respect to the negative electrode active material. In the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside similar ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 12, Kannan teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. As discussed previously in claim 1, Kannan recites a ratio of curved single-walled carbon nanotubes to total carbon nanotubes is 0.3-0.6. Kannan teaches that one embodiment of the curved single-walled carbon nanotubes is an entangled structure [0075]. When these entangled structures are present in the active material and the carbon nanotubes are entangled without a specific orientation, the conductive network structure is not well formed [0076]. Therefore, it would be beneficial to have a lower amount of the entangled carbon nanotubes to improve conduction.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the negative electrode active material taught by Kannan to adjust the ratio of single-walled carbon nanotubes to the total number of carbon nanotubes in a 15×8 µm region of the surface of the negative electrode active material layer viewed in the thickness direction from 0.15 to 0.25 to improve the ionic conduction in the active material.
Claims 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kannan et. al (US 20240322182) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sakamoto (US 20240186487).
Regarding claim 4, Kannan teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. Kannan also teaches that the electrode active material particles have a mixture of large and small particles where the average diameter (D50) has a bimodal distribution [0124-0125]. This size distribution improves the electrode packing density to reduce resistance and maximize contact between the active material and electrolyte solution [0126]. Kannan does not explicitly teach that the ratio of the alloy-based negative electrode active material size to the carbon-based negative electrode active material size is 0.4 or less.
Sakamoto teaches a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery [0007]. This battery has a negative electrode with a carbon-based active material, a silicon-based active material, and carbon nanotubes [0020]. The carbon- based negative material may contain graphite [0020]. The silicon-based active material (alloy-based active material) may contain an alloy [0021, 0024]. Sakamoto further teaches that the carbon-based active material has a particle size of 5-40 µm, and the alloy-based active material has a particle size of 2-20 µm [0023]. If an alloy-based particle size of 2 µm and a carbon-based particle size of 5-40 µm are considered, the ratio of particle size (D50) is 0.05-0.4. Sakamoto teaches that when particle sizes are in the above ranges, side reactions between the active material and liquid electrolyte can be reduced and the loss of conduction in the negative electrode active material can be effectively inhibited [0023].
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the negative electrode active material taught by Kannan with the teachings of Sakamoto to adjust the ratio of the particle size (D50) of the alloy-based negative electrode active material to the particle size (D50) of the carbon-based negative electrode active material to be 0.4 or less. The motivation to combine the above teachings is to improve the electrode packing density to improve conduction, and to inhibit unwanted side reactions between the active material and electrolyte. Additionally, in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside similar ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 14, Kannan teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. As previously described single-walled carbon nanotube with a spiral or wound configuration is an inherently curved structure that has one or possibly more points of curving. So, the shape description of the single-walled carbon nanotubes of Kannan reads on the curved structure of claim 14 line 3.
Regarding claim 14 lines 4-5, Kannan also teaches that the conductive material, which is composed of single-walled carbon nanotubes [0019], makes up 0.01 to 10% by weight (mass %) based on the total weight of the negative electrode mixture (negative electrode active material layer) [0080]. This range taught by Kannan reads on the limitation that states the content of the carbon nanotubes is from 0.01 mass % to 0.2 mass % with respect to the negative electrode active material. In the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside similar ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 14 lines 9-10, Kannan also teaches the single-walled carbon nanotubes have a spirally wound shape called a second shape (curved structure) and others having a first shape (other carbon nanotubes) [0020]. So, the carbon nanotubes taught by Kannan contain other carbon nanotubes than the single-walled carbon nanotubes having a curved structure.
Regarding claim 14 lines 15-18, Kannan also teaches that the length of the carbon nanotubes may be 1 µm to 7 µm [0070]. Since this range is above 0.5 µm, the ratio of the number of single-walled carbon nanotubes having a length of 0.5 µm or more to the total number of the carbon nanotubes present in any area is 1. This ratio falls within the recited range of 0.7 or more.
Regarding claim 14 lines 11-14, as discussed previously in claim 1, Kannan recites a ratio of curved single-walled carbon nanotubes to total carbon nanotubes is 0.3-0.6. Kannan teaches that one embodiment of the curved single-walled carbon nanotubes is an entangled structure [0075]. When these entangled structures are present in the active material and the carbon nanotubes are entangled without a specific orientation, the conductive network structure is not well formed [0076]. Therefore, it would be beneficial to have a lower amount of the entangled carbon nanotubes to improve conduction.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the negative electrode active material taught by Kannan to adjust the ratio of single-walled carbon nanotubes to the total number of carbon nanotubes in a 15×8 µm region of the surface of the negative electrode active material layer viewed in the thickness direction from 0.15 to 0.25 to improve the ionic conduction in the active material.
Regarding claim 14 lines 6-8, Kannan also teaches that the electrode active material particles have a mixture of large and small particles where the average diameter (D50) has a bimodal distribution [0124-0125]. This size distribution improves the electrode packing density to reduce resistance and maximize contact between the active material and electrolyte solution [0126]. Kannan does not explicitly teach that the ratio of the alloy-based negative electrode active material size to the carbon-based negative electrode active material size is 0.4 or less.
Sakamoto teaches a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery [0007]. This battery has a negative electrode with a carbon-based active material, a silicon-based active material, and carbon nanotubes [0020]. The carbon- based negative material may contain graphite [0020]. The silicon-based active material (alloy-based active material) may contain an alloy [0021, 0024]. Sakamoto further teaches that the carbon-based active material has a particle size of 5-40 µm, and the alloy-based active material has a particle size of 2-20 µm [0023]. If an alloy-based particle size of 2 µm and a carbon-based particle size of 5-40 µm are considered, the ratio of particle size (D50) is 0.05-0.4.Sakamoto teaches that when particle sizes are in the above ranges, side reactions between the active material and liquid electrolyte can be reduced and the loss of conduction in the negative electrode active material can be effectively inhibited [0023].
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the negative electrode active material taught by Kannan with the teachings of Sakamoto to adjust the ratio of the particle size (D50) of the alloy-based negative electrode active material to the particle size (D50) of the carbon-based negative electrode active material to be 0.4 or less. The motivation to combine the above teachings is to improve the electrode packing density to improve conduction, and to inhibit unwanted side reactions between the active material and electrolyte. Additionally, in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside similar ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Kannan in view of Sakamoto teaches all the limitations of claim 14 as described above. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings of Kannan and Sakamoto to create a negative electrode for a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery for the benefits discussed previously.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATALIE R ALTVATER whose telephone number is (571)270-3162. The examiner can normally be reached M-R 8:00 am - 4 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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at 571-272-1291.
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.
/N.R.A./Examiner, Art Unit 1785
/MARK RUTHKOSKY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1785
Prosecution Insights