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 § 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.
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) 1 and 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugimori et al. (US 2013/0313486) in view of Kwon et al. (US 2018/0251638) and Yoo et al. (US 2019/0051887).
Regarding claim 1, Sugimori discloses an electrode for a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery that has improved dispersibility of a conducting agent and a method for making said electrode (abstract). In the manufacture, it is preferable to mix the carbon nanotubes, the non-fibrous conductive carbon material, and the polyvinylpyrrolidone-based polymer [binding material] in advance before the active material is added ([0032]). The non-fibrous conductive carbon is preferably carbon black, such as acetylene black ([0023]).
In an example, polyvinylpyrrolidone-based polymer [binding material] was dissolved in N-methyl-2-pyrrolidone [first liquid medium] [thereby mixing a first agent] ([0046]). Then, carbon nanotubes and acetylene black [carbon black] were added into the solution and mixed ([0046]-[0047]); thereby obtaining a conducting agent paste [mixed solution]. Thereafter, positive electrode active material was mixed into the conducting agent paste [mixed solution] to obtain a positive electrode composition ([0048]-[0050]).
However, while Sugimori a first step of mixing a first agent containing a binding material and a first liquid medium, and then mixing in carbon black and carbon nanotubes, Sugimori does not explicitly disclose wherein the carbon black is in a second agent containing a second liquid medium or wherein the carbon nanotubes are in a third agent containing a third liquid medium.
Kwon discloses a carbon black dispersion solution comprising a carbon black, a dispersion medium [a liquid] and partially hydrogenated nitrile rubber for preparing an electrode slurry (abstract, [0002], [0048]). Separately dispersing carbon black before mixing the carbon black to electrode slurry allows for the carbon black to be efficiently and uniformly dispersed ([0012], [0019]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine preparing a dispersion of carbon black with a liquid medium [a second agent containing carbon black and a second liquid medium] beforehand as taught by Kwon with the carbon black of Sugimori for the purpose of efficiently and uniformly dispersing the carbon black.
Yoo discloses a carbon nanotube dispersion including carbon nanotubes, a dispersion medium [a liquid], and partially hydrogenated nitrile rubber for preparing an electrode slurry (abstract, [0002], [0053]). Separately dispersing carbon nanotubes before mixing the carbon nanotubes to the electrode slurry allows for the carbon nanotubes to be efficiently and uniformly dispersed ([0011], [0021]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine preparing a dispersion of carbon nanotubes with a liquid medium [a third agent containing carbon nanotubes and a third liquid medium] beforehand as taught by Yoo with the carbon nanotubes of Sugimori for the purpose of efficiently and uniformly dispersing the carbon nanotubes.
Regarding claim 5, modified Sugimori discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Sugimori teaches that the ratio of carbon nanotubes to the non-fibrous carbon material [carbon black] is preferably in the range of 1:9 to 3:2 ([0024]), and within such a ratio range, a better conductive network can be formed ([0024]). Sugimori further provides an example of carbon nanotubes to acetylene black [carbon black] in a ratio of 3:2 ([0046]); which is 60% carbon nanotubes by mass on the basis of the total amount of carbon black and carbon nanotubes.
Regarding claim 6, modified Sugimori discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Sugimori teaches that a positive electrode mixture slurry is prepared [by the method according to claim 1] ([0049]), and said mixture slurry is applied to current collector ([0052]).
Claim(s) 2 and 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugimori et al. (US 2013/0313486) in view of Kwon et al. (US 2018/0251638), Yoo et al. (US 2019/0051887), and Liu (CN 112054201, see Applicant supplied machine translation).
Regarding claim 2, Sugimori discloses an electrode for a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery that has improved dispersibility of a conducting agent and a method for making said electrode (abstract). In the manufacture, it is preferable to mix the carbon nanotubes, the non-fibrous conductive carbon material, and the polyvinylpyrrolidone-based polymer [binding material] in advance before the active material is added ([0032]). The non-fibrous conductive carbon is preferably carbon black, such as acetylene black ([0023]).
In an example, polyvinylpyrrolidone-based polymer [binding material] was dissolved in N-methyl-2-pyrrolidone [first liquid medium] [thereby mixing a first agent] ([0046]). Then, carbon nanotubes and acetylene black [carbon black] were added into the solution and mixed ([0046]-[0047]); thereby obtaining a conducting agent paste [mixed solution]. Thereafter, positive electrode active material was mixed into the conducting agent paste [mixed solution] to obtain a positive electrode composition ([0048]-[0050]).
However, while Sugimori a first step of mixing a first agent containing a binding material and a first liquid medium, and then mixing in carbon black and carbon nanotubes, Sugimori does not explicitly disclose wherein the carbon black is in a second agent containing a second liquid medium or wherein the carbon nanotubes are in a third agent containing a third liquid medium.
Kwon discloses a carbon black dispersion solution comprising a carbon black, a dispersion medium [a liquid] and partially hydrogenated nitrile rubber for preparing an electrode slurry (abstract, [0002], [0048]). Separately dispersing carbon black before mixing the carbon black to electrode slurry allows for the carbon black to be efficiently and uniformly dispersed ([0012], [0019]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine preparing a dispersion of carbon black with a liquid medium [a second agent containing carbon black and a second liquid medium] beforehand as taught by Kwon with the carbon black of Sugimori for the purpose of efficiently and uniformly dispersing the carbon black.
Yoo discloses a carbon nanotube dispersion including carbon nanotubes, a dispersion medium [a liquid], and partially hydrogenated nitrile rubber for preparing an electrode slurry (abstract, [0002], [0053]). Separately dispersing carbon nanotubes before mixing the carbon nanotubes to the electrode slurry allows for the carbon nanotubes to be efficiently and uniformly dispersed ([0011], [0021]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine preparing a dispersion of carbon nanotubes with a liquid medium [a third agent containing carbon nanotubes and a third liquid medium] beforehand as taught by Yoo with the carbon nanotubes of Sugimori for the purpose of efficiently and uniformly dispersing the carbon nanotubes.
However, while Sugimori discloses mixing the binding material, liquid medium, carbon black, and carbon nanotubes before mixing in the active material ([0046]-[0050]), Sugimori does not explicitly disclose wherein the mixing is performed as a first step of mixing (of binding material, liquid medium, and carbon black to obtain a first mixed solution) and a second step of mixing (of mixing the first mixed solution and carbon nanotubes to obtain a second mixed solution.
Liu discloses a method of making a negative electrode comprising an active material, conductive agent, and binder (abstract). The conductive agent includes carbon black and/or carbon nanotubes (abstract). In the method of manufacture, (i) the binder is mixed with water to obtain a glue liquid, (ii) the conductive agent is mixed with the glue liquid to obtain a conductive glue, (iii) active material is mixed with the conductive glue to obtain a mixed slurry ([0020]). In an example, the binders are mixed with water for 1 to 4 hours to obtain the glue liquid, then carbon black is mixed with the glue liquid and is stirred for 1 to 3 hours, and then the carbon nanotubes are mixed in and is stirred for 1-3 hours to obtain the conductive glue liquid, and then the active material is mixed with the conductive glue liquid to obtain the electrode slurry ([0021]). That is, Liu teaches a [first] step of mixing binders, solvent, and carbon black [to obtain a first mixed solution], and then a [second] step of mixing carbon nanotubes into the first mixed solution. Liu teaches the mixing steps can improve the stability and uniformity of the slurry, and to make the conductive agent evenly dispersed ([0048], [0052]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of mixing the carbon black with the binder solution [first step of mixing] before mixing in the carbon nanotubes [second step of mixing] with the binder solution as taught by Liu with the mixing method of Sugimori for the purpose of improving the stability and uniformity of the electrode slurry, and to make the conductive agents evenly dispersed.
Regarding claim 9, modified Sugimori discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Sugimori teaches that the ratio of carbon nanotubes to the non-fibrous carbon material [carbon black] is preferably in the range of 1:9 to 3:2 ([0024]), and within such a ratio range, a better conductive network can be formed ([0024]). Sugimori further provides an example of carbon nanotubes to acetylene black [carbon black] in a ratio of 3:2 ([0046]); which is 60% carbon nanotubes by mass on the basis of the total amount of carbon black and carbon nanotubes.
Regarding claim 10, modified Sugimori discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Sugimori teaches that a positive electrode mixture slurry is prepared [by the method according to claim 2] ([0049]), and said mixture slurry is applied to current collector ([0052]).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugimori et al. (US 2013/0313486) in view of Kwon et al. (US 2018/0251638) and Yoo et al. (US 2019/0051887), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Takano et al. (US 2013/0130113).
Regarding claim 3, modified Sugimori discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. While Sugimori discloses carbon black (abstract), modified Sugimori does not explicitly disclose wherein the carbon black has a BET specific surface area of 100 to 400 m2/g and a crystalline size (Lc) of 15 to 26 Å.
Takano discloses a positive electrode comprising an active material and a conductive material of carbon black (abstract). The carbon black has a nitrogen adsorption specific surface area [BET surface area] of 70-300 m2/g (abstract), and is preferably 150 m2/g or larger and 280 m2/g or less ([0255]). Takano teaches that less than the range does not ensure conduction paths or high-output performance, and if greater than the range there is a possibility of molding trouble or irreversible reactions which result in decreased life ([0256]). The carbon black has a crystallite size Lc of 10-40 Å ([0042]), and is preferably 13 Å or larger and 17 Å or less ([0275]). Takano teaches that within the range, electrical conductivity of the positive electrode can be maximized, and if outside the value, there is a possibility that sufficient electrical conductivity might not be obtained ([0275]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a carbon black having a surface area within the range of 100-300 m2/g and a crystalline size Lc within the range of 15-26 Å as taught by Takano as the carbon black of modified Sugimori for the purpose of having a carbon black that can maximize electrical conductivity.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugimori et al. (US 2013/0313486) in view of Kwon et al. (US 2018/0251638), Yoo et al. (US 2019/0051887), and Liu (CN 112054201, see Applicant supplied machine translation), as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Takano et al. (US 2013/0130113).
Regarding claim 7, modified Sugimori discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. While Sugimori discloses carbon black (abstract), modified Sugimori does not explicitly disclose wherein the carbon black has a BET specific surface area of 100 to 400 m2/g and a crystalline size (Lc) of 15 to 26 Å.
Takano discloses a positive electrode comprising an active material and a conductive material of carbon black (abstract). The carbon black has a nitrogen adsorption specific surface area [BET surface area] of 70-300 m2/g (abstract), and is preferably 150 m2/g or larger and 280 m2/g or less ([0255]). Takano teaches that less than the range does not ensure conduction paths or high-output performance, and if greater than the range there is a possibility of molding trouble or irreversible reactions which result in decreased life ([0256]). The carbon black has a crystallite size Lc of 10-40 Å ([0042]), and is preferably 13 Å or larger and 17 Å or less ([0275]). Takano teaches that within the range, electrical conductivity of the positive electrode can be maximized, and if outside the value, there is a possibility that sufficient electrical conductivity might not be obtained ([0275]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a carbon black having a surface area within the range of 100-300 m2/g and a crystalline size Lc within the range of 15-26 Å as taught by Takano as the carbon black of modified Sugimori for the purpose of having a carbon black that can maximize electrical conductivity.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugimori et al. (US 2013/0313486) in view of Kwon et al. (US 2018/0251638) and Yoo et al. (US 2019/0051887), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Morita (JP 2020/011873, see Applicant supplied machine translation).
Regarding claim 4, modified Sugimori discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. While Sugimori teaches the diameter of the carbon nanotubes is preferably 50 nm or less ([0022]), Sugimori does not explicitly disclose wherein the carbon nanotubes have an average diameter of 5 to 15 nm, and wherein a ratio (average diameter/BET specific surface area) of the average diameter with respect to a BET specific surface of the carbon nanotubes is 0.01 to 0.068 nm/(m2/g).
Morita discloses a carbon nanotube dispersion that is used to form an electrode ([0001]), characterized in that the BET specific surface of the carbon nanotube is 200-550 m2/g ([0013]). The carbon nanotube have an average outer diameter greater than 4 nm and less than 16 nm ([0018]). Morita further provides examples of the carbon nanotubes having outer diameters and specific surface areas within this range ([0129], Table 1). See portion of Table 1 reproduced below with outer diameter, specific surface area, and a calculated ratio of outer diameter / specific surface area.
CNT
Outer Diameter (nm)
SSA (m2/g)
ratio (diameter/SSA)
A
9.9
400
0.025
B
8.6
473
0.018
C
7.5
550
0.014
D
6.7
538
0.012
E
5.5
695
0.008
F
5.6
478
0.012
G
8.5
376
0.023
As seen above, Morita discloses carbon nanotubes having the claimed average diameter and ratio of average diameter to BET specific surface area of 0.01 to 0.068. Morita teaches that smaller average outer diameters can provide a conductive network efficiently formed ([0005]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a carbon nanotube having an outer diameter within the range of 5-15 nm and a ratio of outer diameter to SSA (including the range of 0.01 to 0.068) as taught by Morita with the carbon nanotubes of Sugimori for the purpose of having a carbon nanotube that can efficiently form a conductive network.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugimori et al. (US 2013/0313486) in view of Kwon et al. (US 2018/0251638), Yoo et al. (US 2019/0051887), and Liu (CN 112054201, see Applicant supplied machine translation), as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Morita (JP 2020/011873, see Applicant supplied machine translation).
Regarding claim 8, modified Sugimori discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. While Sugimori teaches the diameter of the carbon nanotubes is preferably 50 nm or less ([0022]), Sugimori does not explicitly disclose wherein the carbon nanotubes have an average diameter of 5 to 15 nm, and wherein a ratio (average diameter/BET specific surface area) of the average diameter with respect to a BET specific surface of the carbon nanotubes is 0.01 to 0.068 nm/(m2/g).
Morita discloses a carbon nanotube dispersion that is used to form an electrode ([0001]), characterized in that the BET specific surface of the carbon nanotube is 200-550 m2/g ([0013]). The carbon nanotube have an average outer diameter greater than 4 nm and less than 16 nm ([0018]). Morita further provides examples of the carbon nanotubes having outer diameters and specific surface areas within this range ([0129], Table 1). See portion of Table 1 reproduced below with outer diameter, specific surface area, and a calculated ratio of outer diameter / specific surface area.
CNT
Outer Diameter (nm)
SSA (m2/g)
ratio (diameter/SSA)
A
9.9
400
0.025
B
8.6
473
0.018
C
7.5
550
0.014
D
6.7
538
0.012
E
5.5
695
0.008
F
5.6
478
0.012
G
8.5
376
0.023
As seen above, Morita discloses carbon nanotubes having the claimed average diameter and ratio of average diameter to BET specific surface area of 0.01 to 0.068. Morita teaches that smaller average outer diameters can provide a conductive network efficiently formed ([0005]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a carbon nanotube having an outer diameter within the range of 5-15 nm and a ratio of outer diameter to SSA (including the range of 0.01 to 0.068) as taught by Morita with the carbon nanotubes of Sugimori for the purpose of having a carbon nanotube that can efficiently form a conductive network.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB BUCHANAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1186. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00 PM (ET).
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, Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at 571-270-3879. 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.
/JACOB BUCHANAN/ Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/NICOLE M. BUIE-HATCHER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights