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 .
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)(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, 10-14, 16-17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Morita et al., (US 2023/0242402A1), hereinafter Morita.
Regarding Claim 1, Morita discloses a carbon nanotube dispersed liquid, comprising:
a dispersion resin (A); ([0033] a carbon nanotube resin composition containing the carbon nanotube dispersion liquid of the above embodiment and a binder resin.)
carbon nanotubes (B); ([0033] a carbon nanotube resin composition containing the carbon nanotube dispersion liquid of the above embodiment and a binder resin.)
and water, ([0026] a carbon nanotube dispersion liquid containing the carbon nanotubes of the above embodiment, a dispersant, and an aqueous liquid medium.)
wherein the dispersion resin (A) contains a polar functional group-containing resin (a). ([0034] the binder resin includes at least one selected from the group consisting of carboxymethyl cellulose, styrene butadiene rubber, and polyacrylic acid.)
Regarding Claim 2, Morita discloses the carbon nanotube dispersed liquid to Claim 1, wherein
the polar functional group-containing resin (a) is at least one selected from the group consisting of an ionic polyvinyl alcohol resin (a1) and a carboxymethyl celluloses (a2). ([0103] In addition, specific examples of resin type dispersants include cellulose derivatives (carboxymethyl cellulose, etc.), polyvinyl alcohol, Particularly, carboxymethyl cellulose, polyvinyl alcohol, are preferable.)
Regarding Claim 10 (Currently amended), Morita teaches A carbon nanotube dispersed liquid according to Claim 1
further comprising an electrode active material ([0035] a mixture slurry containing the carbon nanotubes of the above embodiment resin composition and an active material.)
Regarding Claim 11 (Currently amended), Morita teaches
an electrode layer formed from the carbon nanotube dispersed liquid according to Claim 10. ([0041] a resin composition, a mixture slurry, and an electrode film having excellent conductivity and adhesion .)
Regarding Claim 12 (Currently amended), Morita teaches an electrode, comprising the electrode layer according to Claim 11; and
a metal current collector. ([0149] a mixture slurry is applied and dried on a current collector, and thus a coating film in which an electrode mixture layer is formed is obtained. [0150] examples of materials of current collectors include metals such as aluminum, copper, nickel, titanium, stainless steel, and alloys)
Regarding Claim 13 (Currently amended), Morita teaches a lithium ion battery comprising:
the electrode according to Claim 12, as a positive electrode, a negative electrode, or both the positive electrode and the negative electrode. ([0153] The nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery of the present embodiment includes a positive electrode, a negative electrode, and an electrolyte.)
Regarding Claim 14 (Currently amended), Morita teaches a lithium ion battery comprising:
the electrode according to Claim 12, as a positive electrode. ([0153] The nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery of the present embodiment includes a positive electrode, a negative electrode, and an electrolyte.)
Regarding Claim 16 (New), Morita teaches the carbon nanotube dispersed liquid according to Claim 2, wherein
the polar functional group-containing resin (a) contains the carboxymethyl celluloses (a2), ([0103] examples of resin type dispersants include: carboxymethyl cellulose and polyvinyl alcohol)
a weight-average molecular weight of the carboxymethyl celluloses (a2) is 5,000 to 500,000, and ([0103] The molecular weight of the resin type dispersant is preferably 10,000 to 150,000, and more preferably 10,000 to 100,000.)
a degree of etherification of the carboxymethyl celluloses (a2) is 0.5 to 1.5. ([0126] Carboxymethyl cellulose as a binder resin preferably has a high degree of etherification. For example, the degree of etherification is preferably 0.6 to 1.5, and more preferably 0.8 to 1.2.)
Regarding Claim 17 (New), Morita teaches the carbon nanotube dispersed liquid according to Claim 1 wherein
the carbon nanotubes (B) is a single-walled carbon nanotubes, a multi-walled carbon nanotubes, or a combination of the single-walled carbon nanotubes and the multi-walled carbon nanotubes. ([0044] The carbon nanotubes may be a mixture of single-walled carbon nanotubes. Single-walled carbon nanotubes have a structure in which one layer of graphite is wound.)
Regarding Claim 20 (New), Morita teaches the carbon nanotube dispersed liquid according to Claim 1,
in a case where an electrode layer is formed from the carbon nanotube dispersed liquid, a volume resistivity of the electrode layer is less than 12 Ω·cm. ([0090] The volume resistivity of the carbon nanotubes of the present embodiment is preferably 1.0×10-2 to 3.0×10-2 Ω·cm and more preferably 1.0×10-2 to 2.0×10-2 Ω·cm.)
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 6-9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morita et al, (US 2023/02424021A1), hereinafter Morita.
Regarding Claim 6, Morita teaches the carbon nanotube dispersed liquid according to Claim 1,
wherein a BET specific surface area of the carbon nanotubes (B) is 50 to 1,800 m2/g, and ([0021] the BET specific surface area of the carbon nanotubes is 200 to 800 m.sup.2/g)
in a Raman spectrum of the carbon nanotubes (B), in a case where a maximum peak intensity in a range of 1560 to 1600 cm-1 is defined as G and a maximum peak intensity in a range of 1310 to 1350 cm-1 is defined as D, a G/D ratio is 5 to 200. ([0085] the Raman spectrum, the G/D ratio is preferably 0.5 to 10 when the maximum peak intensity in a range of 1,560 to 1,600 cm.sup.-1 is G and the maximum peak intensity in a range of 1,310 to 1,350 cm.sup.-1 is D)
Morita teaches a G/D ration of 0.5 to 10 which overlaps the claimed ratio of 5 to 200. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (MPEP §2144.05)
Regarding Claim 7, Morita does not teach the carbon nanotube dispersed liquid according to claim 1, wherein,
in a Bode plot obtained by an impedance measurement, in which reactance is plotted on a vertical axis and frequency is plotted on a horizontal axis, a minimal value of reactance exists in a frequency range of 170 to 600 kHz, and the minimum value of the reactance existing in the frequency range of 170 to 600 kHz is 1.8 times or more a value of reactance at a frequency of 1 kHz.
It has been held that when the difference between a claimed invention and the prior art is the range or value of a particular variable, then a prima facie rejection is properly established when the difference in the range or value is minor. Titanium Metals Corp. of Am. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Generally, differences in ranges will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such ranges is critical. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969).
Claims that differ from the prior art only by slightly different (non-overlapping) ranges are prima facie obvious without a showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art. (In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935,1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990))Also see MPEP §2144.05(I).
Prior art does not mention the characteristics illustrated by the claimed Bode plot (i.e., minimal value of reactance exists in a frequency range of 170 to 600 kHz and is 1.8 times or more a value of reactance at a frequency of 1 kHz); however, the characteristics would be either (a) expected or (b) obvious. With respect to (a) being expected: Prior art/combination renders obvious the same composition. Thus, the characteristic would be expected. With respect to (b) obviousness: If it is shown that characteristic is not present in the prior art/combination, any differences would be small such that obviousness exists, due to the same composition/mixture being present.
Regarding Claim 8, Morita teaches a carbon nanotube dispersed liquid, comprising:
a dispersion resin (A); ([0033] a carbon nanotube resin composition containing the carbon nanotube dispersion liquid of the above embodiment and a binder resin.)
carbon nanotubes (B); and ([0033] a carbon nanotube resin composition containing the carbon nanotube dispersion liquid of the above embodiment and a binder resin.)
water, ([0026] a carbon nanotube dispersion liquid containing the carbon nanotubes of the above embodiment, a dispersant, and an aqueous liquid medium.)
wherein the dispersion resin (A) contains a polar functional group-containing resin (a), and ([0034] the binder resin includes at least one selected from the group consisting of carboxymethyl cellulose)
Morita does not teach
in a Bode plot obtained by an impedance measurement, in which reactance is plotted on a vertical axis and frequency is plotted on a horizontal axis, a minimal value of reactance exists in a frequency range of 170 to 600 kHz.
The rationale for rejecting this limitation has been set forth in the rejection of claim 7 above and are incorporated herein but are not reiterated for brevity’s sake.
Regarding Claim 9 (Currently amended), Morita does not teach the carbon nanotube dispersed liquid according to Claim 8, wherein,
in the Bode plot obtained by the impedance measurement, in which reactance is plotted on a vertical axis and frequency is plotted on a horizontal axis, a minimal value of reactance exists in the frequency range of 170 to 600 kHz, and the minimum value of the reactance existing in the frequency range of 170 to 600 kHz is 1.8 times or more a value of reactance at a frequency of 1 kHz.
The rationale for rejecting this limitation has been set forth in the rejection of claim 7 above and are incorporated herein but are not reiterated for brevity’s sake.
Regarding Claim 18 (New), Morita teaches the carbon nanotube dispersed liquid according to Claim 1, wherein
an average value of outer diameters of the carbon nanotubes (B) is 0.5 to 30 nm, ([0086] The average outer diameter of the carbon nanotubes of the present embodiment is preferably 5 to 25 nm, more preferably 5 to 20 nm, and still more preferably 5 to 15 nm.)
an average value of lengths of the carbon nanotubes (B) is 1 to 100 µm, and ([0082] The fiber length of the carbon nanotube in the conductive material dispersion is preferably 0.3 to 5 μm and more preferably 0.5 to 3.5 μm.)
an average particle size (D50) of aggregates of primary particles of the carbon nanotubes (B) is less than 7 µm. ([0031] In the carbon nanotube dispersion liquid of the above embodiment, preferably, the 50% particle size (D50) calculated according to laser diffraction particle size distribution measurement is 1 to 20 µm.)
Morita teaches a carbon nanotube length of 0.3 to 5 μm which overlaps claimed range of 1 to 100 μm [0082]. Morita also teaches an average particle size (D50) of 1 to 20 µm which overlaps the claimed range of less than 7 µm [0031]. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (MPEP §2144.05)
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morita et al., (US 2023/0242402A1), hereinafter Morita as applied to claims above, and further in view of Endo et al., (US 2017/0373319A1), hereinafter Endo.
Regarding Claim 3, Morita does not teach the carbon nanotube dispersed liquid according to Claim 2, wherein
the ionic polyvinyl alcohol resin (a1) is at least one selected from the group consisting of a sulfonic acid-modified polyvinyl alcohol resin (a1-1) and a carboxylic acid-modified polyvinyl alcohol resin (a1-2).
Endo teaches a conductive paste that contains a dispersion resin (Abstract). Endo also teaches the sulfonic acid modified polyvinyl alcohol resin (A2b) [0067]. The sulfonic acid modified polyvinyl alcohol resin is a component of a conductive paste for positive electrodes of lithium-ion batteries that are inhibited from increasing in viscosity and gelling, and having an easy-to-apply viscosity [0011-0013]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to incorporate the sulfonic acid modified polyvinyl alcohol resin of Endo into the nanotube dispersed liquid of Morita to impart improved application viscosity.
Regarding Claim 4, the teachings of Morita as modified by Endo are incorporated herein. Morita does not teach the carbon nanotube dispersed liquid according to Claim 3, wherein
the ionic polyvinyl alcohol resin (a1) is the sulfonic acid-modified polyvinyl alcohol resin (al-1), and
a proportion of a monomer unit having a sulfonic acid group in the sulfonic acid- modified polyvinyl alcohol resin (al-1) is 0.1% to 30% by mass
Endo teaches the sulfonic acid modified polyvinyl alcohol resin (A2b) is a polyalcohol resin to which sulfonic acid is imparted by one of the following production methods. The polyvinyl alcohol resin (A2b) does not contain a polymerizable unsaturated group-containing monomer (A2a-1) represented by formula (1), and can be clearly distinguished from the polyvinyl alcohol resin (A2a). [0067] The use of a dispersion resin that comprises a polyvinyl alcohol resin that is used in electrode pastes to have easy-to-apply viscosity [0011-0013] Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to incorporate the sulfonic acid modified polyvinyl alcohol resin of Endo into the carbon nanotube dispersed liquid of Morita to help improve application viscosity.
Endo also teaches the proportion of the sulfonic acid group-containing polymerizable unsaturated monomer in the sulfonic acid-modified polyvinyl alcohol resin (A2b) is preferably 0.1 to 10 mass %, and more preferably 0.2 to 5 mass % [ 0071] The proportion range of 0.2 to 5 mass % taught by Endo falls within the claimed range of 0.1% to 30% by mass. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (MPEP §2144.05)
Regarding Claim 5, Morita does not teach the carbon nanotube dispersed liquid according to Claim 2, wherein
a saponification degree of the ionic polyvinyl alcohol resin (a1) is 50 to 100 mol%.
Endo teaches the saponification degree of the sulfonic acid-modified polyvinyl alcohol resin (A2b) is preferably in a range of 88 to 99.9 mol %. [0073]. The saponification degree of 88 to 99.9 mol% in Endo falls within the claimed range of 50 to 100 mol%. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (MPEP §2144.05). The reasons for combining Endo et al. have been set forth in the rejection of claim 4 above, those reasons are incorporated herein but are not reiterated for brevity’s sake.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morita et al., (US2023/0242402A1), hereinafter Morita, as applied to claims above, and further in view of Endo et al., (US2017/0373319A1), hereinafter Endo, and in further view of Seki et al., (US 20240258505 A1), hereinafter Seki.
Regarding Claim 15 (New), the teachings of Morita as modified by Endo are incorporated herein. Morita does not teach the carbon nanotube dispersed liquid according to Claim 3, wherein
a degree of polymerization of the sulfonic acid-modified polyvinyl alcohol resin (a1-1) is 100 to 4,000, and
Endo teaches the polymerization degree of 300 for a production example of sulfonic acid-modified polyvinyl alcohol resin [0125]. The polymerization degree of 300 in endo falls within the claimed range of 100 to 4,000. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (MPEP §2144.05)
Morita does not teach
a degree of polymerization of the carboxylic acid-modified polyvinyl alcohol resin (a1- 2) is 100 to 4,000.
Seki teaches a polyvinyl resin-derived compound that is obtained by saponification of a polycarboxylic acid vinyl ester obtained by polymerization of a carboxylic acid vinyl ester monomer such as vinyl acetate [0127]. Seki further teaches that when the PVOH-based resin has a modified group, the average degree of polymerization is usually 100 or more, preferably 200 or more, more preferably 250 or more. This range can prevent the solubility from being too high. The average degree of polymerization is usually 4000 or less, preferably 3500 or less, more preferably 2800 or less. This range can prevent the solubility from being too low. [0137]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to incorporate the polymerization degree range of 100 to 4000 of Seki into degree polymerization of the carboxylic acid-modified polyvinyl alcohol resin in Morita to prevent the solubility from being too high or low, respectively.
Furthermore, the polymerization degree of 100 to 4000 in Seki matches the claimed polymerization degree of 100 to 4000. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (MPEP §2144.05)
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morita et al., (US2023/0242402A1), hereinafter Morita as applied to claims above, and further in view of Seki et al., (US 20240258505 A1), hereinafter Seki.
Regarding Claim 19 (New), Morita does not teach the carbon nanotube dispersed liquid according to Claim 1, wherein
an initial viscosity of the carbon nanotube dispersed liquid is less than 15 Pa·s,
Seki teaches a polyvinyl alcohol with reactive substituent introduced (degree of saponification: 98.0 to 99.0% by mol, viscosity: 24.0 to 30.0 mPa·s (aqueous 4% solution, 20° C. [0285] The viscosity of 24 to 30 mPa·s (0.024 to 0.030 Pa·s) of Seki is within the claimed range of less than 15 Pa·s. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (MPEP §2144.05)
an absorbance of the carbon nanotube dispersed liquid at a wavelength of 268 nm is 1.3 or more, and
It has been held that when the difference between a claimed invention and the prior art is the range or value of a particular variable, then a prima facie rejection is properly established when the difference in the range or value is minor. Titanium Metals Corp. of Am. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985).Generally, differences in ranges will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such ranges is critical. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969).
Claims that differ from the prior art only by slightly different (non-overlapping) ranges are prima facie obvious without a showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art. (In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935,1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990))Also see MPEP §2144.05(I).
Prior art does not mention the characteristic (i.e., absorbance at a wavelength of 268 nm is 1.3 or more); however, the characteristics would be either (a) expected or (b) obvious. With respect to (a) being expected: Prior art/combination renders obvious the same composition. Thus, the characteristic would be expected. With respect to (b) obviousness: If it is shown that characteristic is not present in the prior art/combination, any differences would be small such that obviousness exists, due to the same composition/mixture being present.
a ratio of a minimal value of a reactance in a frequency range of 170 to 600 kHz to a reactance at a frequency of 1 kHz, which is represented by a following expression, is more than 1.5 and 5.0 or less: Ratio of minimal value of reactance to reactance at frequency of 1 kHz = [Minimal value of reactance in frequency range of 170 to 600 kHz] ÷ [Reactance at frequency of 1 kHz].
The rationale for rejecting this limitation has been set forth in the rejection of claim 7 above and are incorporated herein but are not reiterated for brevity’s sake
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mario Gamboa whose telephone number is (571)272-9213. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thur 8:00 -5:00, Fri 8:00- 12:00 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, Ula Ruddock can be reached at (571) 272-1481. 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.
/MARIO R GAMBOA/Examiner, Art Unit 1729
/ULA C RUDDOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729
