CTNF 18/563,561 CTNF 98641 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on November 22, 2023, February 27, 2025, April 1, 2025, and August 19, 2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claim 13-14 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. 07-34-05 Claim 13 recites the limitation "the first mixing step.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 14 recites the limitation "the first and second mixing step.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1, 3-4, and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morita et al. (JP 6860740 B1, cited in Applicant’s IDS, citations taken from corresponding Published Patent Application US 20230187644 A1), hereinafter referred to as Morita Regarding claim 1 , Morita teaches a conductive material dispersion (see e.g., Abstract) for a negative electrode (“a negative electrode pre-dispersion solution”) (see e.g., paragraph [0001]). Morita teaches the conductive material dispersion contains at least one kind selected from the group consisting of carbon nanotubes (CNT) and carbon black as conductive materials, carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC) or its salt (“a pre-dispersion material comprising carbon nanotubes and a dispersant; wherein the dispersant comprises carboxyl groups as a functional group”), and water (see e.g., paragraph [0050]) as a dispersion medium (“a dispersion medium”) (see e.g., paragraph [0071]). Morita teaches the content of the conductive material dispersion in the mixture composition is 0.01 mass % or more and 10 mass % or less (“wherein a solid content of the pre-dispersion material is 5% or less based on the negative electrode pre-dispersion solution”) (see e.g., paragraph [0092]). Morita teaches the content of the CNT is 0.2 mass % or more and 30 mass % or less of the non-volatile content of the conductive material dispersion (“wherein 20 parts by weight or more and 60 parts by weight or less of the carbon nanotubes are present based on 100 parts by weight of the pre-dispersion material”) (see e.g., paragraph [0061]). Morita teaches the content of the CMC or its salt is 10 mass % or more and 100 mass % or less (“wherein 40 parts by weight or more and 80 by weight or less of the dispersant are present based on 100 parts by weight of the pre-dispersion material”) (see e.g., paragraph [0070]). It has been held in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” and because the mass percentages overlap with the recited range, a “ prima facie ” case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05(l)). Regarding claim 3 , Morita teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 1, as previously described. Morita teaches the weight average molecular weight of the CMC is 10,000 or more and 150,000 or less (“wherein a weight average molecular weight of the dispersant is 10,000 g/mol or more and 100,000 g/mol or less”) (see e.g., paragraph [0066]). It has been held in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” and because the weight average molecular weight overlaps with the recited range, a “ prima facie ” case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05(l)). Regarding claim 4 , Morita teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 1, as previously described. Morita teaches the viscosity of the conductive material dispersion is excellent if the viscosity is less than 500 mPas and good if the viscosity is 500 mPas or more and less than 2,000 mPa (“wherein a viscosity of the negative electrode pre-dispersion solution is 100 cP or more and 10,000 cP or less”) (see e.g., paragraph [0135]). It has been held in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” and because the viscosity overlaps with the recited range, a “ prima facie ” case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05(l)). Regarding claim 12 , Morita teaches a preparation of a negative electrode (“a preparation method of a negative electrode composition”) (see e.g., paragraph [0001]). Morita teaches the negative electrode is formed by the preparation of a conductive material dispersion, wherein carbon nanotubes and CMC (“mixing carbon nanotubes and a dispersant comprising carboxyl groups as a functional group to form a pre-dispersion material”) are mixed into water (see e.g., paragraph [0083]), wherein the content of the conductive material dispersion in the mixture composition is 0.01 mass % or more and 10 mass % or less (“adding a dispersion medium in the pre-dispersion material wherein a solid content of the pre-dispersion material is 5% or less”) (see e.g., paragraph [0092]). Morita teaches the conductive material is dispersed by using a dispersing device (“dispersing the pre-dispersion material comprising the dispersion medium” (see e.g., paragraph [0083]). Morita teaches a binder resin is then added to the composition (“mixing a negative electrode binder with water and adding and first mixing the pre-dispersion material to the mixture to form a mixed mixture”) (see e.g., paragraph [0087]). Morita teaches the negative electrode active material is then added to the composition (“adding and second mixing a silicon-containing active material to the mixed mixture”) (see e.g., paragraph [0091]). Morita teaches the content of the CNT is 0.2 mass % or more and 30 mass % or less of the non-volatile content of the conductive material dispersion (“wherein 20 parts by weight or more and 60 parts by weight or less of the carbon nanotubes are present based on 100 parts by weight of the pre-dispersion material”) (see e.g., paragraph [0061]). Morita teaches the content of the CMC or its salt is 10 mass % or more and 100 mass % or less (“wherein 40 parts by weight or more and 80 by weight or less of the dispersant are present based on 100 parts by weight of the pre-dispersion material”) (see e.g., paragraph [0070]). It has been held in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” and because the mass percentages overlap with the recited range, a “ prima facie ” case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05(l)). Regarding claim 13 , Morita teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 12, as previously described. Morita teaches the negative electrode further includes artificial graphite (“a negative electrode conductive material”) (see e.g., paragraph [0199]). Artificial graphite is a dot-type conductive material as described in Instant Specification paragraph [0094]; therefore, Morita teaches the claim limitation of “wherein in the first mixing step, at least one selected from the group consisting of a dot-type conductive material are further included.” Regarding claim 14 , Morita teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 12, as previously described. Morita teaches the addition of the binder and the negative electrode active materials is performed at 2,000 rpm for at least 180 seconds (“wherein the first mixing and second mixing steps are steps performed at 2,000 rpm to 3,000 rpm for 10 minutes to 60 minutes”) (see e.g., paragraph [0199]). Regarding claim 15 , Morita teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 12, as previously described. Morita teaches examples of the dispersing device include a kneader, a two-roll mill, a three-roll mill, a planetary mixer, a ball mill, a horizontal sand mill, a vertical sand mill, an annular bead mill, an attriter, a high-shear mixer, a high-pressure homogenizer, an ultrasonic homogenizer, and the like (“wherein the dispersing of the pre-dispersion material performed using a dispersing device capable of dispersing”) (see e.g., paragraph [0084]) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 5-11 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morita et al. (JP 6860740 B1, cited in Applicant’s IDS, citations taken from corresponding Published Patent Application US 20230187644 A1), in view of Li et al. (CN 110571412 A), hereinafter referred to as Li . Regarding claim 5 , Morita teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 1, as previously described. Morita teaches the negative electrode (“a negative electrode composition”) further comprises as a negative electrode active material such as a silicon alloy (see e.g., paragraph [0091]) and silicon monoxide SiO (“a silicon-containing active material”) with the CNT dispersion (“the negative electrode pre-dispersion solution according to claim 1”) and binding agent such as styrene-butadiene rubber (SBR) (“a negative binder”) (see e.g., paragraph [0199]). Morita teaches the ratio of negative electrode active material to CNT to CMC to the non-volatile content of the binder SBR is 87:0.5:1:1.5 (see e.g., paragraph [0199]); however, Morita does not explicitly teach wherein the silicon-containing active material is present in an amount of 60 parts by weight or more based on 100 parts by weight of the negative electrode composition. However, Li teaches a lithium-ion battery (see e.g., Abstract), wherein the battery comprises a silicon active material, a carbon nanotube conductive agent with a thickener and an adhesive (see e.g., paragraphs [0015]-[0024]) to solve the technical problems of existing silicon anode materials such as easy breakage of anode particles, easy powder shedding, anode foil detachment, and cycle failure caused by volume expansion. Li teaches the carbon nanotube conductive is mixed with the thickener, carboxymethyl cellulose (see e.g., paragraph [0027] and [0023]) and then mixed with the silicon active material to obtain a silicon-based functional material with carbon nanotubes coated on the surface (see e.g., paragraph [0026]). Li teaches the anode comprises 90% to 99.3% silicon-based function materials (“wherein the silicon- containing active material is present in an amount of 60 parts by weight or more based on 100 parts by weight of the negative electrode composition”) (see e.g., paragraph [0046]) in order to produce a battery with high specific capacity, excellent conductivity, and high safety and stability (see e.g., paragraph [0048]). Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill would modify the amount of silicon in the negative electrode of Morita to comprise 90% to 99.3% of silicon, as taught by Li, in order to produce a battery with high specific capacity, excellent conductivity, and high safety and stability (see e.g., paragraph [0048]). Regarding claim 6 , Morita, as modified by Li, teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 5, as previously described. Morita teaches the negative electrode further includes a conductive material other than CNT and carbon black such as graphite (“a negative electrode conductive material”) (see e.g., paragraph [0199]). Graphite is a dot-type conductive material as described in Instant Specification paragraph [0094]; therefore, Morita teaches the claim limitation of “wherein in the first mixing step, at least one selected from the group consisting of a dot-type conductive material are further included.” Regarding claim 7 , Morita, as modified by Li, teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 6, as previously described. Morita, as modified by Li, does not explicitly teach wherein the negative electrode conductive material is present in an amount of 5 parts by weight or more and 40 parts by weight or less based on 100 parts by weight of the negative electrode composition. However, Li teaches a lithium-ion battery (see e.g., Abstract), wherein the battery comprises a silicon active material, a carbon nanotube conductive agent with a thickener and an adhesive (see e.g., paragraphs [0015]-[0024]) to solve the technical problems of existing silicon anode materials such as easy breakage of anode particles, easy powder shedding, anode foil detachment, and cycle failure caused by volume expansion. Li teaches the carbon nanotube conductive is mixed with the thickener, carboxymethyl cellulose (see e.g., paragraph [0027] and [0023]) and then mixed with the silicon active material to obtain a silicon-based functional material with carbon nanotubes coated on the surface (see e.g., paragraph [0026]). Li teaches the negative electrode further comprises 0% to 5% of a carbon black conductive agent (see e.g., paragraph [0046]) in order to produce a battery with high specific capacity, excellent conductivity, and high safety and stability (“wherein the negative electrode conductive material is present in an amount of 5 parts by weight or more and 40 parts by weight or less based on 100 parts by weight of the negative electrode composition”) (see e.g., paragraph [0048]) in order to enhance the conductivity of the silicon-based anode material and reduce the problem of excessive battery impedance caused by poor conductivity of the silicon-based anode material (see e.g., paragraph [0063]). Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill would modify the conductive material other than CNT in the negative electrode of Morita, as modified by Li, to comprise 0% to 5% of a conductive agent, as taught by Li, in order to enhance the conductivity of the silicon-based anode material and reduce the problem of excessive battery impedance caused by poor conductivity of the silicon-based anode material (see e.g., paragraph [0063]). Regarding claim 8 , Morita, as modified by Li, teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 5, as previously described. Morita teaches the content of the conductive material dispersion in the mixture composition is 0.01 mass % or more and 10 mass % or less (“wherein the negative electrode pre-dispersion solution is present in an amount of 0.01 part by weight or more and 20 parts by weight or less based on 100 parts by weight of the negative electrode composition”) (see e.g., paragraph [0092]). It has been held in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” and because the mass percentages overlap with the recited range, a “ prima facie ” case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05(l)). Regarding claim 9 , Morita, as modified by Li, teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 5, as previously described. Morita teaches the negative electrode further comprises as a negative electrode active material such as a silicon alloy (see e.g., paragraph [0091]) and silicon monoxide SiO (“wherein the silicon-containing active material comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of SiO x , wherein x = 0, SiO x , wherein 0 < x < 2, SiC, and Si alloys”) (see e.g., paragraph [0199]). Regarding claim 10 , Morita, as modified by Li, teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 5, as previously described. Morita teaches the negative electrode further comprises as a negative electrode active material such as a silicon alloy (see e.g., paragraph [0091]) and silicon monoxide SiO (“wherein the silicon-containing active material comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of SiO x , wherein x = 0, SiO x , wherein 0 < x< 2, and metal impurities”) (see e.g., paragraph [0199]). Morita teaches the silicon-containing active material is only SiO (“the SiO x , wherein x = 0 present in an amount of 70 parts by weight or more based on 100 parts by weight of the silicon-containing active material”) (see e.g., paragraph [0199]). Regarding claim 11 , Morita, as modified by Li, teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 5, as previously described. Morita teaches the negative electrode composition comprises a silicon-containing active material, such as SiO, and a conductive material dispersion comprising carbon nanotubes and a dispersant comprising a carboxyl group as a function group as claimed and described in the Instant Application ; therefore, regarding product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. See In re Schreiber , 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.). Therefore, Morita teaches the claim limitation of “wherein hydroxyl groups (-OH) on the surface of the silicon-containing active material and carboxyl functional groups of the negative electrode pre-dispersion solution form hydrogen bonds with each other.” Regarding claim 16 , Morita, as modified by Li, teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 5, as previously described. Morita teaches a negative electrode for a secondary battery (“a negative electrode for a lithium secondary battery”) (see e.g., paragraph [0102]) comprising a current collector (“a negative electrode current collector layer”) and an electrode film as previously described in claim 5 on the surface of the current collector (“a negative electrode active material layer comprising a negative electrode composition according to claim 5 on one surface or both surface of the negative electrode current collector layer”) (see e.g., paragraph [0097]). Regarding claim 17 , Morita, as modified by Li, teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 16, as previously described. Morita teaches a lithium secondary battery (“a lithium secondary battery”) (see e.g., paragraph [0102]) comprising a positive electrode (“a positive electrode”), a negative electrode as described in claim 16 (“the negative electrode for the lithium secondary battery according to claim 16”), an electrolyte (“an electrolyte”), and a separator (“separator between the positive electrode and the negative electrode”) (see e.g., paragraph [0105]) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morita et al. (JP 6860740 B1, cited in Applicant’s IDS, citations taken from corresponding Published Patent Application US 20230187644 A1), in view of Kwon et al. (“SWNT Networks with Polythiophene Carboxylate Links for High-Performance Silicon Monoxide Electrodes” (2018)), hereinafter referred to as Kwon . Regarding claim 2 , Morita teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 1, as previously described. Morita does not explicitly teach wherein the dispersant comprises on selected from the group consisting of xanthan gum; alginate; and a compound represented by Chemical Formula 1. However, Kwon teaches an electrode with the use of a carboxylated polythiophene linker, such as poly[3-(potassium-4-butanoate) thiophene] (PPBT), to securely construct single-walled carbon nanotube (SWNT) electrical networks on the surface of carbon-coated silicon monoxide (denoted as c-SiOx), thereby ensuring electrical and structural stability of the silicon monoxide electrode (see e.g., page 2418). Kwon teaches a mixture of SWNT and PPBT (“a pre-dispersion material comprising carbon nanotubes and a dispersant; wherein the dispersant comprises carboxyl groups as a function group”) is dispersed in deionized water (“a dispersion medium”) (see e.g., Supporting Information, Experimental Methods). Kwon teaches the mixture comprises the carboxylated polythiophene linker, such as poly[3-(potassium-4-butanoate) thiophene] (PPBT) (see e.g., page 2418) that is claimed in Applicant’s Chemical Formula 1. Kwon teaches the PPBT-conjugated backbone physically interacts with SWNT π-electron-rich surfaces, assisting with debundling the SWNTs and subsequent spontaneous connection to the active material and demonstrates the commercial viability of PPBT-mediated SWNT network integration for advanced high-energy battery systems (page 2422). Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill would modify the dispersant of Morita to be as poly[3-(potassium-4-butanoate) thiophene] (PPBT), as taught by Kwon, in order to demonstrate the commercial viability of PPBT-mediated SWNT network integration for advanced high-energy battery systems in part because the PPBT-conjugated backbone physically interacts with SWNT π-electron-rich surfaces, assisting with debundling the SWNTs and subsequent spontaneous connection to the active material (page 2422) . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Tiquet (Published U.S. Patent Application US 20150303469 A1) teaches a nanocomposite material comprising nano-objects made of at least one first electron conducting material, such as carbon, and nano-objects or submicron objects made of at least one second material, such as silicon, different from the first material (see e.g., Abstract). Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Katherine N Higgins whose telephone number is (703)756-1196. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays - Thursdays 7:30-4:30 EST, Fridays 7:30 - 11:30 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, Matthew T Martin can be reached at (571) 270-7871. 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. /KATHERINE N HIGGINS/Examiner, Art Unit 1728 /MATTHEW T MARTIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1728 Application/Control Number: 18/563,561 Page 2 Art Unit: 1728 Application/Control Number: 18/563,561 Page 3 Art Unit: 1728 Application/Control Number: 18/563,561 Page 4 Art Unit: 1728 Application/Control Number: 18/563,561 Page 5 Art Unit: 1728 Application/Control Number: 18/563,561 Page 6 Art Unit: 1728 Application/Control Number: 18/563,561 Page 7 Art Unit: 1728 Application/Control Number: 18/563,561 Page 8 Art Unit: 1728 Application/Control Number: 18/563,561 Page 9 Art Unit: 1728 Application/Control Number: 18/563,561 Page 10 Art Unit: 1728 Application/Control Number: 18/563,561 Page 11 Art Unit: 1728 Application/Control Number: 18/563,561 Page 12 Art Unit: 1728 Application/Control Number: 18/563,561 Page 13 Art Unit: 1728 Application/Control Number: 18/563,561 Page 14 Art Unit: 1728
Prosecution Insights