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
Claims 9-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected method of manufacturing the negative electrode and a secondary battery, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on August 4th, 2026.
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-8 corresponding to group I in the reply filed on August 4th, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claims 2, and 4-7 are objected to because of the following informalities.
Regarding claims 2, and 4-7, preceding claim 1 recites, “a single-walled carbon nanotube (SWCNT)”, while the other claims recite “the single-walled carbon nanotube”. For the sake of consistency in the claim set its suggest to either include the recitation the acronym (SWCNT) in the dependent claims or delete it the acronym in independent claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding Claim 4, there appear to be underscores between the numerals and the recitation “nm”. Appropriate action is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 7 is 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.
Regarding Claim 7, Applicant recites, “the single-walled carbon nanotube has a secondary shape aggregated in a bundle type”. Its unclear from the phrase, “secondary shape” if there is a primary shape now required in the claim from the SWCNT.
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, 4-6, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lau et al. (US 2022/0020997 A1).
In view of Claim 1, Lau et al. discloses a negative electrode for a secondary battery comprising a negative electrode mixture disposed on at least one surface of a negative current collector (Paragraph 0082), wherein the negative electrode mixture comprises a negative electrode active material (Fig. 5A, #100 & #130 represent – Paragraph 0056 SiO & graphite), and a conductive material (Fig. 5A, #120 & Paragraph 0056), and wherein the negative electrode active material comprises a silicon based active material (Fig. 5A, #100 & #130 represent – Paragraph 0056 SiO & graphite), and wherein the conductive material is composed of a single walled carbon nanotube (Fig. 5A, #120 & Paragraph 0056 – SWCNT).
In view of Claim 2, Lau et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Lau et al. discloses the SWCNT comprises a first shape that connects surfaces of two or more negative electrode active material particles (Fig. 5A, #120 – Paragraph 0056 – the SWCNTs may provide long range conductivity across multiple particles 100, and 130), and a second shape that that covers surfaces of respective negative electrode active material particles (Fig. 5A, #120 – Paragraph 0056 - the SWCNTs may extend between the mixture of active material particles 100 and the graphite particles 130).
In view of Claim 4, Lau et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Lau et al. teaches a diameter of the SWCNT is 1-2nm (Paragraph 0064).
In view of Claim 5, Lau et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Lau et al. teaches that the length of the SWCNT is 1-10 microns (Paragraph 0064).
In view of Claim 6, Lau et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Lau et al. teaches a diameter of the SWCNT is 1-2nm (Paragraph 0064). Lau et al. teaches that the length of the SWCNT is 1-10 microns or 1000 nm to 10000 (Paragraph 0064). Thus, when the diameter is 1 nm and the length is 1000 nm, the aspect ratio is 1000. Likewise, when the diameter is 1 nm and the length is between 1000-5000 nm, as aspect ratio of the SWCNT is 1000 to 5000.
In view of Claim 8, Lau et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. In view of Claim 8, Lau et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Lau et al. discloses that the negative electrode mixture further comprises a binder (Paragraph 0056, 0062-0063), and that a dispersant may be present during the preparation of the active material particles (Paragraph 0074).
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.
Claims 3 & 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lau et al. (US 2022/0020997 A1) in view of Predtechenskiy et al. (US 2023/0246166 A1).
In view of Claim 3, Lau et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 2. Lau et al. does not teach that the content of the conductive material formed in the first shape is 40-70% of a total amount of the conductive material.
Predtechenskiy et al. discloses conductive material of SWCNT that comprise a first shape (long bundles that of SWCNT and provide conductivity over the entire anode layer – Paragraph 0016) that are in an amount of 54 weight % of the total amount of conductive material (Paragraph 0078). Predtechenskiy et al. discloses that the uses of these SWCNTs are known to cover SiO material which is analogous to Lau et al. configuration (Paragraph 0030). Predtechenskiy et al. discloses that this configuration of the SWCNT being aggregated in a bundle type ensures preservation of secondary agglomerates of nanoparticles (such as SiO), while also preserving the integrity of the anode material while preserving the mechanical bond between the secondary agglomerate nanoparticles and improving conductivity of the anode layer (Paragraph 0016). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the content of the conductive material formed in the first shape is 40-70% of a total amount of the conductive material in Lau et al. for the advantage of preserving the integrity of the anode material, improving the bond of the associated agglomerated particles while improving the conductivity of the anode layer.
In view of Claim 7, Lau et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Lau et al. does not explicitly teach that the SWCNT has a secondary shape aggregated in a bundle type.
Predtechenskiy et al. discloses that SWCNT are known to be capable of agglomerating to form bundles, wherein nanotubes are bound to each other by van der Waals forces (Paragraph 0023). Predtechenskiy et al. discloses that the uses of these SWCNTs are known to cover SiO material which is analogous to Lau et al. configuration (Paragraph 0030). Predtechenskiy et al. discloses that this configuration of the SWCNT being aggregated in a bundle type ensures preservation of secondary agglomerates of nanoparticles (such as SiO), while also preserving the integrity of the anode material while preserving the mechanical bond between the secondary agglomerate nanoparticles and improving conductivity of the anode layer (Paragraph 0016). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the SWCNT of Lau et al. that are in the secondary shape, be aggregated in a bundle type for the advantage of preserving the integrity of the anode material, improving the bond of the associated agglomerated particles while improving the conductivity of the anode layer.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL P MALLEY JR. whose telephone number is (571)270-1638. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-430pm 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, Jeffrey T Barton can be reached at 571-272-1307. 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.
/DANIEL P MALLEY JR./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726
Prosecution Insights