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
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-4, in the reply filed on 09 September 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that “there exists no undue administrative burden for the Examiner to search and consider all claims in their entirety”. This is not found persuasive because the instant claims were filed as part of a U.S. national stage application which is subject to unity of invention practice in accordance to 31 CFR 1.475 and has no criteria based on “serious search and/or examination burden” like U.S. national applications filed under 35 USC. 111(a) which are bound to restriction practice in accordance with 37 CFR 1.141-1.46, see MPEP 803. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 5-16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 09 September 2026.
In view of the foregoing claims 1-16 are pending, with claims 1-4 being considered in the present Office action.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Applicant makes reference to “CHC” throughout the specification as the dispersing agent (see e.g., instant published [0181]); it appears the abbreviation should be “CMC”, referencing carboxymethylcellulose dispersant, see e.g., instant published [0047]. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (KR 2017/0081840) and Yamada (JP 2012/094498, of record), hereinafter Park and Yamada.
Regarding Claims 1-2, Park suggests a negative electrode pre-dispersion comprising a pre-dispersion material comprising a dotted conductive material (e.g., carbon black, [0029, 0060]), and a water-containing dispersant agent (e.g., CMC, [0034, 0060]); and a dispersion medium (e.g., water, [0030-0032, 0060]), wherein a solid content of the pre-dispersing material ranges from 10-30 % (e.g., 12% ([0060], see also [0036] where the solid content is in a range of 2-20 wt%).
Park does not disclose the functional group content of the conductive material. However, Yamada suggests a carbon material with a functional group content (e.g., O/C %) between 0.01% to 3%, which overlaps with that claimed; Yamada explains values outside the range increases the reactivity of the carbon with the electrolyte, efficiency tends to decrease, and gas generation increases ([0034]). It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art a functional group content ranges between 0.01 to 0.05 % from the standpoint of controlling the reactivity of the carbon with electrolyte and suppressing gas generation, as suggested by Yamada.
Regarding Claim 3, Park suggests the pre-dispersing material is made of 100 parts by wt. carbon black and 12.5 parts by wt. CMC, but more broadly 10-20 parts dispersant with respect to 100 parts carbon to obtain desirable dispersion power without negatively impacting battery characteristics ([0035]); thus, Parks suggests the conductive material in an amount of about 90 parts by weight carbon or more based on 100 parts by weight of the pre-dispersing material (e.g., 100/(12.5+100) = about 89 parts by weight, or 100/(10 +100) = about 91 parts by weight). From the standpoint of obtaining desirable dispersion power without negatively impacting battery characteristics, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art the negative electrode pre-dispersion comprises the conductive material in an amount of about 90 parts by weight carbon or more based on 100 parts by weight of the pre-dispersing material. The claimed range is obvious because the prior art range either overlaps with that claimed or is close, see MPEP 2144.05.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park and Yamada further in view of Kim et al. (US 2019/0044150), hereinafter Kim.
Regarding Claim 4, Park does not disclose the viscosity of the pre-dispersion is 3,000 cP or more and 10,000 cP or less. However, Kim suggests viscosity is related to how easy or difficult it is to form electrodes; a low viscosity is undesirable because dispersibility is reduced such that it becomes difficult to form electrodes, while high viscosity makes it more difficult to handle the dispersion liquid, see e.g., [0030]. Kim suggests when the conductive material dispersed liquid has a viscosity between 3000 cP to 15,000 cP excellent dispersion characteristics may be attained when applied to the production of the electrode, [0032]. It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art the pre-dispersion has a viscosity between 3,000 cP or more and 10,000 cP or less from the standpoint of obtaining desirable dispersion characteristics and ease of handling the pre-dispersion, as suggested by Kim.
Claim(s) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwon et al. (US 2018/0251638) and Yamada (JP 2012/094498), hereinafter Kwon and Yamada, both of record.
Regarding Claims 1-2, Kwon suggests a negative electrode pre-dispersion comprising a pre-dispersion material comprising a particulate conductive material (e.g., carbon black), and a water-containing dispersant agent (e.g., H-nitrile rubber); and a dispersion medium (e.g., NMP), wherein a solid content of the pre-dispersing material ranges from 10-30 % (e.g., ~16.5%, see e.g., Examples ([0076]) and Table 2, 15+1.5/(15+1.5+83.5), see e.g., Examples.
Kwon does not disclose the functional group content of the conductive material. However, Yamada suggests a carbon material with a functional group content (e.g., O/C %) between 0.01% to 3%, which overlaps with that claimed; Yamada explains values outside the range increases the reactivity of the carbon with the electrolyte, efficiency tends to decrease, and gas generation increases ([0034]). It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art a functional group content ranges between 0.01 to 0.05 % from the standpoint of controlling the reactivity of the carbon with electrolyte and suppressing gas generation, as suggested by Yamada.
Regarding Claim 3, Kwon suggests the pre-dispersing material is made of 15 parts by wt. carbon black and 1.5 parts by wt. H nitrile rubber (Table 2); thus, the negative electrode pre-dispersion comprises the conductive material in an amount of 90 parts by weight or more based on 100 parts by weight of the pre-dispersing material (e.g., 15/(15+1.5) = about 91 parts by weight).
Regarding Claim 4, Kwon suggests the viscosity of the pre-dispersion is 3,000 cP or more and 10,000 cP or less, e.g., 8,200-10,000 cP Tables 2-3.
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukumine et al. (US 2018/0301744) and Yamada (JP 2012/094498), hereinafter Fukumine and Yamada, both of record.
Regarding Claims 1-2, Fukumine suggests a negative electrode pre-dispersion comprising a pre-dispersion material comprising a particulate conductive material (e.g., acetylene black, [0303, 0053, 0055]), and a water-containing dispersant agent (e.g., CMC, [0303, 0159]); and a dispersion medium (e.g., water, [0303, 0211]), wherein a solid content of the pre-dispersing material ranges from 10-30 % (e.g., 15%, see [0303]). See also [0147-0182, 0210-0211, 0213, 0215].
Fukumine does not disclose the functional group content of the conductive material. However, Yamada suggests a carbon material with a functional group content (e.g., O/C %) between 0.01% to 3%, which overlaps with that claimed; Yamada explains values outside the range increases the reactivity of the carbon with the electrolyte, efficiency tends to decrease, and gas generation increases ([0034]). It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art a functional group content ranges between 0.01 to 0.05 % from the standpoint of controlling the reactivity of the carbon with electrolyte and suppressing gas generation, as suggested by Yamada.
Regarding Claim 3, Fukumine suggests the amount of water soluble polymer is 10 parts by mass to 100 parts of the conductive material because the dispersibility of the carbon black is ensured ([0181-0182]); Fukumine also suggests the amount of water soluble polymer has an effect on internal resistance. It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art a negative electrode pre-dispersion comprises the conductive material in an amount of 90 parts by weight or more based on 100 parts by weight of the pre-dispersing material with the expectation of ensuring dispersibility; one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate limiting the amount of water soluble polymer with respect to the conductive carbon from the standpoint of suppressing an increases internal resistance, as suggested by Fukumine.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukumine and Yamada further in view of Kim et al. (US 2019/0044150), hereinafter Kim.
Regarding Claim 4, Fukumine does not disclose the viscosity of the pre-dispersion is 3,000 cP or more and 10,000 cP or less. However, Kim suggests viscosity is related to how easy or difficult it is to form electrodes; a low viscosity is undesirable because dispersibility is reduced such that it becomes difficult to form electrodes, while high viscosity makes it more difficult to handle the dispersion liquid, see e.g., [0030]. Kim suggests when the conductive material dispersed liquid has a viscosity between 3000 cP to 15,000 cP excellent dispersion characteristics may be attained when applied to the production of the electrode, [0032]. It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art the pre-dispersion has a viscosity between 3,000 cP or more and 10,000 cP or less from the standpoint of obtaining desirable dispersion characteristics and ease of handling the pre-dispersion, as suggested by Kim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANNA KOROVINA whose telephone number is (571)272-9835. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7am - 6 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 5712721481. 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.
/ANNA KOROVINA/Examiner, Art Unit 1729
/ULA C RUDDOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729
