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 .
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.
Specification
The specification and drawings have been reviewed and no clear informalities or objections have been noted.
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.
Claim(s) 1-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (WO 2015/020280 A1 with references made to the machine translation) in view of Morita (EP 3786110 A1) and Sivarajan (US 2011/0048277).
Regarding claim 1, Kim teaches a conductive material dispersion, comprising:
a conductive material including carbon nanotubes (as described in lines 98-100);
a hydrogenated nitrile-based copolymer (nitrile rubber, as described in lines 98-100);
a solvent (as described in lines 98-100).
Kim teaches that the conductive/carbon dispersion can also include a diisopropylamine (see lines 117-188), but does teach the inclusion of a multivalent amine or the claimed amine value.
Morita also discloses a carbon nanotube dispersion (see abstract).
Morita, like Kim, teaches a dispersion which comprises a carbon nanotube, a solvent and an amine compound (see abstract). Morita, also like Kim, teaches the presence of an amine-based compound for purposes of stability (paragraph 31). Morita goes on to teach a number of amine compounds that can be utilized for stability including polyamines (see paragraphs 24-26) as well as aliphatic secondary amines (which is similar to the diisopropylamine disclosed by Kim).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to utilize the polyamine/multivalent amine of Morita in the dispersion of Kim in order to enhance stability of the dispersion. Furthermore, such a modification is nothing more than a simple substitution of one know amine for another to yield entirely predictable results.
Kim, as modified above, teaches a polyamine compound in the dispersion, but does not explicitly disclose the claimed amine value.
Sivarajan also discloses a dispersion comprising a nanotube (see abstract).
Sivarajan, like Kim, teaches the inclusion of an amine for the purposes of stabilization (see paragraph 65). Sivarajan teaches that this stabilization can be accomplished with an amine such as the polyamine diethylenetriamine DETA (see paragraphs 20 and 65). Sivarajan teaches yet another polyamine that is suitable in the service of stabilizing carbon nanotube dispersions.
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to utilize the DETA of Sivarajan in the material of modified Kim in order to provide a stabilizing effect on the carbon nanotube dispersion. Furthermore, such a modification is nothing more than a simple substitution of one know amine for another to yield entirely predictable results.
Regarding the limitation of the amine value being between 5-30 mgKOH/g, modified Kim teaches:
Kim, as modified by Morita, teaches that the polyamine is important and should be up to 10 parts amine per 100 parts CNT (see paragraphs 9 and 39-41 of Morita).
Kim goes on to teach that the dispersion comprises 3.5wt% CNT (see examples 1-2 of Kim).
These values provide:
3.5% (wt% CNT) x 0.10 (amine/polyamine per 100 parts CNT) = 0.35% (polyamine or DETA).
Based on DETA’s three amine groups and molecular weight of 103.17 g/mol, that composition has an expected theoretical amine value of approximately 5.71 mgKOH/g which falls within the claimed range.
Regarding claim 2, Kim further discloses a content of the conductive material is 3 wt % to 10 wt % based on a total weight of the conductive material dispersion (see examples 1-2 of Kim which discloses 3.5% CNT).
Regarding claim 3, Kim further discloses a content of the hydrogenated nitrile-based copolymer is 10 parts by weight to 50 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the conductive material.
Example 4 of Kim teaches:
3.5 wt% CNT
12.5 wt% nitrile rubber solution (which is defined as containing 8wt% rubber from Example 1)
1 wt% amine
NMP solvent
This example expressly teaches a hydrogenated nitrile base copolymer of:
12.5% parts solution x 0.08 (parts hydrogenated nitrile/part solution) = 1.0-part hydrogenated nitrile
Taking this into account along with the 3.5% content of the CNT in the dispersion, Kim teaches:
(part/%)/3.5 (part/%) = 28.6 parts of hydrogenated nitrile/100 parts CNT.
Regarding claim 4, Kim, as modified by Morita, teaches 2-10 parts amine compound per 100 parts CNT (see paragraphs 9 and 39-41 of Morita) which overlaps the claimed range. While not explicitly teach the claimed range, modified Kim does teach an overlapping range. As such, arriving at the claimed range would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP §2144.05(I)).
Regarding claim 5, Kim, as modified above, further discloses The conductive material dispersion according to claim 1, wherein a weight ratio of the multivalent amine-based compound relative to the hydrogenated nitrile-based copolymer is 0.5 to 2 (a discussed above, the amount of amine disclosed in example 4 of Kim is 1% and the amount of hydrogenated nitrile is 1.0%/part as calculated in the rejection of claim 3 above which gives a ratio of 1.0/1.0 which falls within the claimed range.
Regarding claim 6, Kim further discloses the hydrogenated nitrile-based copolymer comprises a hydrogenated nitrile butadiene rubber (lines 168-172).
Regarding claims 7 and 8, Kim as modified above, further discloses the multivalent amine-based compound has at least two amine groups selected from the group consisting of a primary amine group (NH2) and a secondary amine group (NH) (the DETA has 3 amine groups of either a primary or secondary amine group and also falls within the range of Chemical formula 1 of claim 8).
Regarding claim 9, the DETA of modified Kim has a = 1 and b = 1.
Regarding claims 10 and 11, Kim further discloses the solvent comprises a non-aqueous solvent (such as NMP as disclosed in lines 184-186 which is a polar organic solvent).
Regarding claim 12, Kim, as modified above, teaches the identical claimed materials (carbon nanotube, NMP solvent, polyamine and butadiene rubber) in ranges that overlap the claimed ranges (as discussed in rejections of claims 2-5 above). As such, the US absorbance of the conductive dispersion of modified Kim is assumed to be the same as the instant claim. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding claims 13-15, Kim further discloses an electrode slurry comprising: the conductive material dispersion according to claim 1; a positive electrode active material; and a binder (see lines 250-254) to form a battery.
Relevant Prior Art
WO 2023/137147 A1 – Discloses a nanotube dispersion which comprise an amine which acts as a dispersant, similar to the instant invention.
US 2017/0190840 – Discloses a number of polyamines that are known to be used as dispersants, but does not go into detail regarding a dispersion comprising carbon nanotubes.
WO 2012/045727 A1 – Discloses a carbon nanotube dispersion that includes polyamines but does not teach a hydrogenated nitrile group.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW J MERKLING whose telephone number is (571)272-9813. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8am-6pm.
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, Basia Ridley can be reached at 571-272-1453. 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.
/MATTHEW J MERKLING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights