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 without traverse of Group I, claims 1-12 in the reply filed on 7/1/26 is acknowledged.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-8 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Morita et al. (JP 6860740 B1, hereinafter Morita, cited by applicant, see US 2023/0187644 A1 for English translation).
Re Claim 1. Morita teaches a method for producing a resin composition for secondary battery electrodes, comprising
adding a binder resin (para. 66-70) to a carbon nanotube dispersion solution containing carbon nanotubes (para. 51-61), a dispersing agent (para. 72), and a non-aqueous dispersion medium (para. 71) and having a product (X×Y) of a complex elastic modulus X(Pa) and a phase angle Y(°) at 25° C and 1 Hz obtained by dynamic viscoelastic measurement that is 100 or more and 1,500 or less (para. 78) and a phase angle of 5° or more and 90° or less (para. 77), without adding an active material (para. 50).
"[W]hen, as by a recitation of ranges or otherwise, a claim covers several compositions, the claim is ‘anticipated’ if one of them is in the prior art." Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2131.03.
Re Claim 2. Morita teaches wherein the carbon nanotube dispersion solution has a complex elastic modulus at 25° C and 1 Hz obtained by dynamic viscoelastic measurement that is 0.1 Pa or more and 50 Pa or less (para. 77).
Re Claim 3. Morita teaches wherein the resin composition for secondary battery electrodes has a complex elastic modulus at 25° C and 1 Hz obtained by dynamic viscoelastic measurement that is 0.1 Pa or more and 300 Pa or less (Table 3).
Re Claim 4. Morita teaches wherein the resin composition for secondary battery electrodes has a phase angle at 25° C and 1 Hz obtained by dynamic viscoelastic measurement that is 3° or more and 90° or less (Table 3).
Re Claim 5. Morita teaches wherein the binder resin in a powder form is added to the carbon nanotube dispersion solution (para. 66-70).
Re Claim 6. Morita teaches wherein the content of the carbon nanotubes contained in the carbon nanotube dispersion solution based on a total amount of the carbon nanotube dispersion solution is 1 mass % or more and 10 mass % or less (para. 51-61).
Re Claim 7. Morita teaches wherein the carbon nanotubes contained in the carbon nanotube dispersion solution include single-walled carbon nanotubes and multi-walled carbon nanotubes (para. 51-61).
Re Claim 8. Morita teaches wherein a mass proportion of the binder resin with respect to the carbon nanotubes contained in the carbon nanotube dispersion solution is 20 mass % or more and 100 mass % or less (para. 66-70).
Re Claim 11. Morita teaches wherein the carbon nanotube dispersion solution further contains carbon black (para. 62-65).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 9, 10, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morita.
Re Claim 9. Morita discloses that the addition timing of the material to be used may be arbitrarily adjusted and a multistage treatment in which treatment is performed two or more times may be adopted (para. 83).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the invention of Morita to add to carbon nanotube dispersion solution including one of single-walled carbon nanotubes and multi-walled carbon nanotubes, the other of single-walled carbon nanotubes and multi-walled carbon nanotubes before, after, at the same time, or a combination thereof as when a binder resin is added to the carbon nanotube dispersion solution, to produce desired state of dispersion solution (para. 85).
Re Claim 10. Morita teaches wherein a mass proportion of the binder resin based on a total amount of the carbon nanotubes contained in the resin composition is 20 mass % or more and 100 mass % or less (para. 66-70).
Re Claim 12. Morita discloses that the addition timing of the material to be used may be arbitrarily adjusted and a multistage treatment in which treatment is performed two or more times may be adopted (para. 83).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the invention of Morita to add carbon black before, after, at the same time, or a combination thereof as when a binder resin is added to the carbon nanotube dispersion solution, to produce desired state of dispersion solution (para. 85).
Claim(s) 1-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (KR 10-2017-0113250 A, hereinafter Kim).
Re Claim 1. Kim teaches a method for producing a resin composition for secondary battery electrodes, comprising
adding a binder resin (P14) to a carbon nanotube dispersion solution containing carbon nanotubes (P3), a dispersing agent (P3), and a non-aqueous dispersion medium (P10) and having a product (X×Y) of a complex elastic modulus X(Pa) and a phase angle Y(°) at 25° C. and 1 Hz obtained by dynamic viscoelastic measurement that is 160 or more and 4700 or less (a complex elastic modulus X of 20 to 500 Pa - P4 × a phase angle Y of 8° = 160 to 4000) and a phase angle of 8° (Fig. 2), without adding an active material.
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). "[A] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness." In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). See MPEP § 2144.05, I.
Re Claim 2. Kim teaches wherein the carbon nanotube dispersion solution has a complex elastic modulus at 25° C and 1 Hz obtained by dynamic viscoelastic measurement that is 20 Pa or more and 500 Pa or less (P4).
Re Claim 3. Kim does not explicitly disclose that the resin composition for secondary battery electrodes has a complex elastic modulus at 25° C and 1 Hz obtained by dynamic viscoelastic measurement that is 0.1 Pa or more and 300 Pa or less.
However, since Kim and the claimed method employ substantially similar materials and process, it is reasonable to believe that the claimed properties (a complex elastic modulus of the resin composition at 25° C and 1 Hz obtained by dynamic viscoelastic measurement being 0.1 Pa or more and 300 Pa or less) would have naturally flowed following the teachings of Kim. See MPEP 2112.01 & In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). MPEP 2145 & Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Re Claim 4. Kim does not explicitly disclose that the resin composition for secondary battery electrodes has a phase angle at 25° C and 1 Hz obtained by dynamic viscoelastic measurement that is 3° or more and 90° or less.
However, since Kim and the claimed method employ substantially similar materials and process, it is reasonable to believe that the claimed properties (a phase angle at 25° C and 1 Hz obtained by dynamic viscoelastic measurement that being 3° or more and 90° or less) would have naturally flowed following the teachings of Kim. See MPEP 2112.01 & In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). MPEP 2145 & Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Re Claim 5. Kim fails to specifically teach that the binder resin in a powder form is added to the carbon nanotube dispersion solution.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the invention of Kim to use the binder resin in a powder form, since PVdF is usually sold in a powder form.
Re Claim 6. Kim teaches wherein the content of the carbon nanotubes contained in the carbon nanotube dispersion solution based on a total amount of the carbon nanotube dispersion solution is 1 mass % or more and 5 mass % or less (P11).
Re Claim 7. Kim teaches wherein the carbon nanotubes contained in the carbon nanotube dispersion solution include single-walled carbon nanotubes and multi-walled carbon nanotubes (P4).
Re Claim 8. Kim teaches wherein a mass proportion of the binder resin with respect to the carbon nanotubes contained in the carbon nanotube dispersion solution is 200 mass % (P18 & 19, 200 parts by weight of PVdF binder and 100 parts by weight of carbon nanotubes).
Re Claim 9. Kim teaches wherein the carbon nanotubes contained in the carbon nanotube dispersion solution include one of single-walled carbon nanotubes and multi-walled carbon nanotubes (P4), the method comprises additionally adding, when one of single-walled carbon nanotubes and multi-walled carbon nanotubes is dispersed in the carbon nanotube dispersion solution, the other of single-walled carbon nanotubes and multi-walled carbon nanotubes before a binder resin is added to the carbon nanotube dispersion solution (P18, Manufacturing Example 2).
Re Claim 10. Kim teaches wherein a mass proportion of the binder resin based on a total amount of the carbon nanotubes contained in the resin composition is 200 mass % (P18 & 19, 200 parts by weight of PVdF binder and 100 parts by weight of carbon nanotubes).
Re Claim 11. Kim teaches wherein the carbon nanotube dispersion solution further contains carbon black (P10).
Re Claim 12. Kim teaches additionally adding carbon black before a binder resin is added to the carbon nanotube dispersion solution (P10).
Conclusion
The rejections above rely on the references for all the teachings expressed in the text of the references and/or one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably understood from the texts. Only specific portions of the texts have been pointed out to emphasize certain aspects of the prior art, however, each reference as a whole should be reviewed in responding to the rejection, since other sections of the same reference and/or various combinations of the cited references may be relied on in future rejections in view of amendments.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN E YOON whose telephone number is (571)270-5932. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9 AM- 5 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Keith Walker can be reached at 571-272-3458. 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.
/KEVIN E YOON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735
7/17/2026
Prosecution Insights