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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on 03/18/2024, 07/01/2024, and 09/22/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The specification filed on 03/18/2024 was reviewed and is acceptable.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 7-9, and 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Morita et al. (EP 3786110 A1, hereinafter Morita ‘110), as cited in IDS filed 03/18/2024.
Regarding Claim 1, Morita ‘110 discloses the limitations regarding a conductive pigment paste (Morita ‘110, carbon nanotube dispersion, Abstract) comprising:
a pigment dispersion resin (A) (Morita ‘110, polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVP) is used as a dispersant, [0009]);
a conductive pigment (B) (Morita ‘110, carbon nanotubes, [0009]);
a solvent (C) (Morita ‘110, N-methyl-2-pyrrolidone as a solvent that exhibits excellent viscosity, dispersibility, and storage stability, [0008]);
a fluororesin (D) (Morita ‘110, binders such as polyvinylidene fluoride can be added to create electrodes for lithium-ion secondary batteries, [0044]); and
a high-polarity low-molecular weight component (E) (Morita ‘110, amine compound, such as octylamine, having a molecular weight of 129, as used in Example 1-1, [0060], Table 1A), wherein
the pigment dispersion resin (A) comprises at least one polar functional group selected from the group consisting of a pyrrolidone group (Morita ‘110, polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVP) is used as a dispersant, [0009]), and
a concentration of the polar functional group in the pigment dispersion resin (A) is 0.3 mmol/g or greater and 23 mmol/g or less (Morita ‘110, polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVP) is used as a dispersant, [0009]; PVP has a chemical formula of C6H9NO, having a molecular weight of 114.14 g/mol | 1 g / 114.14 gmol = 0.009 mol = 9 mmol/g; the Examiner notes that the claimed PVP has a polar functional group concentration of 9 mmol/g, which falls within the claimed range of 0.3 mmol/g or greater and 23 mmol/g or less),
the conductive pigment (B) comprises carbon nanotubes (B1) (Morita ‘110, carbon nanotubes, [0009]), and
the high-polarity low-molecular weight component (E) comprises an amine compound (E1) (Morita ‘110, amine compound, such as octylamine, having a molecular weight of 129, as used in Example 1-1, [0060], Table 1A).
The Examiner recommends to amend Claim 1 to “A conductive pigment paste for lithium ion battery…” to specify that the paste is used in a battery.
Regarding Claim 2, Morita ‘110 discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Morita ‘110 discloses the limitations regarding a conductive pigment paste (Morita ‘110, carbon nanotube dispersion, Abstract), wherein a content of the amine compound (El) is 12 mass% or greater and 500 mass% or less based on a solid content of the conductive pigment (B) being 100 mass% (Morita ‘110, 2 parts by weight or more and 10 parts by weight or less of the amine compound per 100 parts by weight of carbon nanotubes, [0010]).
The Examiner notes that the disclosed range of Morita ‘110 of 10 parts by weight or less of the amine compound per 100 parts by weight of carbon nanotubes is close to the claimed range of 12 mass% or greater and 500 mass% or less based on a solid content of the conductive pigment (B) being 100 mass%, such that one of ordinary skill of the art would have expected them to have the same properties (see MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Further, Morita ‘110 discloses that there is a critical range between the amount of PVP used and the amount of amine compound used that greatly contributes to dispersibility (Morita ‘110, [0009]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to routinely optimize the result-effective variables, PVP amount and amine amount, in order to improve dispersibility (see MPEP 2144.05 (II)).
Regarding Claim 7, Morita ‘110 discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Morita ‘110 discloses the limitations regarding a conductive pigment paste (Morita ‘110, carbon nanotube dispersion, Abstract), wherein a weight average molecular weight of the amine compound (El) is less than 1000 (Morita ‘110, the molecular weight of the amine compound is particularly preferably 89 or more and 500 or less, [0027]).
Regarding Claim 8, Morita ‘110 discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Morita ‘110 discloses the limitations regarding a conductive pigment paste (Morita ‘110, carbon nanotube dispersion, Abstract), wherein an amine value of the amine compound (El) is 105 mgKOH/g or greater and 1000 mgKOH/g or less (Morita ‘110, Example 1-1: octylamine has formula C8H17NH2 and molecular weight = 129 g/mol | mgKOH/g = amine value = (nitrogen atoms * (56.1 g/mol KOH 1000 mg/g)) / MW = (1 * 56,100 mgKOH/mol) / 129 g/mol = 434.88 mgKOH/g, Table 1A, [0050]; the disclosed amine value of 434.88 mgKOH/g falls within the claimed range of 105 mgKOH/g or greater and 1000 mgKOH/g or less.
Regarding Claim 9, Morita ‘110 discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Morita ‘110 discloses the limitations regarding a conductive pigment paste (Morita ‘110, carbon nanotube dispersion, Abstract), wherein the solvent (C) is N-methyl-2-pyrrolidone (Morita ‘110, N-methyl-2-pyrrolidone as a solvent that exhibits excellent viscosity, dispersibility, and storage stability, [0008]).
Regarding Claim 11, Morita ‘110 discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Morita ‘110 discloses the limitations regarding a mixture paste produced by blending the conductive pigment paste and an electrode active material (F) (Morita ‘110, a carbon nanotube dispersion for electrodes comprising the carbon nanotube dispersion and an electrode active material, [0012]).
Regarding Claim 12, Morita ‘110 discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Morita ‘110 discloses the limitations regarding a mixture paste (Morita ‘110, carbon nanotube dispersion for electrodes, [0012]) comprising
a pigment dispersion resin (A) (Morita ‘110, polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVP) is used as a dispersant, [0009]);
a conductive pigment (B) (Morita ‘110, carbon nanotubes, [0009]);
a solvent (C) (Morita ‘110, N-methyl-2-pyrrolidone as a solvent that exhibits excellent viscosity, dispersibility, and storage stability, [0008]);
a fluororesin (D) (Morita ‘110, binders such as polyvinylidene fluoride can be added to create electrodes for lithium-ion secondary batteries, [0044]); and
a high-polarity low-molecular weight component (E) (Morita ‘110, amine compound, such as octylamine, having a molecular weight of 129, as used in Example 1-1, [0060], Table 1A), wherein
the pigment dispersion resin (A) comprises at least one polar functional group selected from the group consisting of a pyrrolidone group (Morita ‘110, polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVP) is used as a dispersant, [0009]), and
a concentration of the polar functional group in the pigment dispersion resin (A) is 0.3 mmol/g or greater and 23 mmol/g or less (Morita ‘110, polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVP) is used as a dispersant, [0009]; PVP has a chemical formula of C6H9NO, having a molecular weight of 114.14 g/mol | 1 g / 114.14 gmol = 0.009 mol = 9 mmol/g; the Examiner notes that the claimed PVP has a polar functional group concentration of 9 mmol/g, which falls within the claimed range of 0.3 mmol/g or greater and 23 mmol/g or less),
the conductive pigment (B) comprises carbon nanotubes (B1) (Morita ‘110, carbon nanotubes, [0009]), and
the high-polarity low-molecular weight component (E) comprises an amine compound (E1) (Morita ‘110, amine compound, such as octylamine, having a molecular weight of 129, as used in Example 1-1, [0060], Table 1A).
Regarding Claim 13, Morita ‘110 discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Morita ‘110 discloses the limitations regarding a lithium ion battery electrode produced using the mixture paste (Morita ‘110, a lithium-ion secondary battery comprising a carbon nanotube dispersion for electrodes comprising the carbon nanotube dispersion and an electrode active material, [0012-0014]).
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) 3 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morita et al. (EP 3786110 A1, hereinafter Morita ‘110), as cited in IDS filed 03/18/2024, as applied to Claim 1 above, and in view of Motoki et al. (US 20220367875 A1, hereinafter Motoki).
Regarding Claim 3, Morita ‘110 discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Morita ‘110 discloses the limitations regarding a conductive pigment paste (Morita ‘110, carbon nanotube dispersion, Abstract). Morita ‘110 is silent regarding an acidic group content of the carbon nanotubes (B1) is 0.01 mmol/g or greater and 0.5 mmol/g or less.
Motoki discloses a conductive pigment paste (Motoki, paste for a secondary battery comprises a conductive additive, a polymer, and a dispersion medium, [0011]), wherein an acidic group content of the carbon nanotubes (B1) is 0.01 mmol/g or greater and 0.5 mmol/g or less (Motoki, the conductive additive includes one or more carbon nanotubes having a surface acid content of not less than 0.01 mmol/g and not more than 0.15 mmol/g, [0011]; the disclosed range of not less than 0.01 mmol/g and not more than 0.15 mmol/g falls within the claimed range of 0.01 mmol/g or greater and 0.5 mmol/g or less).
Motoki teaches that the CNT-containing paste has excellent adhesiveness, and it is possible to reduce internal resistance of a secondary battery (Motoki, [0011]).
Morita ‘110 and Motoki are analogous to the current invention as they are all directed towards a conductive paste.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the carbon nanotubes of Morita ‘110 to have a surface acid content of not less than 0.01 mmol/g and not more than 0.15 mmol/g, as taught by Motoki, in order to improve adhesiveness of the paste.
Regarding Claim 10, modified Morita ‘110 discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Morita ‘110 discloses the limitations regarding a conductive pigment paste (Morita ‘110, carbon nanotube dispersion, Abstract), wherein the conductive pigment (B) further contains acetylene black (Motoki, conductive additives include conductive carbon materials such as acetylene black, [0042]).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morita et al. (EP 3786110 A1, hereinafter Morita ‘110), as cited in IDS filed 03/18/2024, as applied to Claim 1 above, and in view of Kim et al. (US 20210246028 A1, hereinafter Kim).
Regarding Claim 4, Morita ‘110 discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Morita ‘110 discloses the limitations regarding a conductive pigment paste (Morita ‘110, carbon nanotube dispersion, Abstract). Morita ‘110 is silent regarding a median diameter (D50) in terms of volume of the carbon nanotubes (B1) is 10 μm or greater and 250 μm or less.
Kim discloses a a conductive pigment paste (Kim, carbon nanotube dispersion including carbon nanotubes and a polymer dispersant containing an amine,, Abstract), wherein a median diameter (D50) in terms of volume (Kim, an average particle size “D50” means a particle size corresponding to 50% of a volume accumulation amount, [0020]) of the carbon nanotubes (B1) is 10 μm or greater and 250 μm or less (Kim, the average particle size (D50) of the carbon nanotubes may be from 10 μm to 200 μm, [0032]; the disclosed range of 10 μm to 200 μm falls within the claimed range of 10 μm or greater and 250 μm or less).
Kim teaches that carbon nanotubes within the range has improved dispersibility (Kim, [0008]).
Morita ‘110 and Kim are analogous to the claimed invention as they are all directed towards a paste comprising carbon nanotubes and amines.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the carbon nanotubes of Morita ‘110 to have an average particle size (D50) of the carbon nanotubes to be from 50 μm to 150 μm, as taught by Kim, in order to improve dispersibility.
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morita et al. (EP 3786110 A1, hereinafter Morita ‘110), as cited in IDS filed 03/18/2024, as applied to Claim 1 above, and in view of Morita et al. (US 20210214229 A1, hereinafter Morita ‘229).
Regarding Claim 5, Morita ‘110 discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Morita ‘110 discloses the limitations regarding a conductive pigment paste (Morita ‘110, carbon nanotube dispersion, Abstract). Morita ‘110 is silent regarding a BET specific surface area of the carbon nanotubes (B1) is 100 m2/g or greater and 800 m2/g or less, and a ratio of G/D is 0.1 or greater and 5.0 or less, where, in a Raman spectrum of the carbon nanotubes (B1), G is a maximum peak intensity in a range of 1560 cm-1 or greater and 1600 cm-1 or less, and D is a maximum peak intensity in a range of 1310 cm-1 or greater and 1350 cm-1 or less.
Morita ‘229 a conductive pigment paste (Morita ‘229, carbon nanotube dispersion, [0001]) wherein a BET specific surface area of the carbon nanotubes (B1) is 100 m2/g or greater and 800 m2/g or less (Morita ‘229, a Brunauer-Emmett-Teller (BET) specific surface area of the carbon nanotube (A) is preferably 100 m2/g to 800 m2/g, [0061]), and
a ratio of G/D is 0.1 or greater and 5.0 or less, where, in a Raman spectrum of the carbon nanotubes (B1) (Morita ‘229, a carbon nanotube has a G/D ratio of 1.5 to 5.0, [0062]; the disclosed ratio range of 1.5 to 5.0 overlaps the claimed range of 0.1 or greater and 5.0 or less),
G is a maximum peak intensity in a range of 1560 cm-1 or greater and 1600 cm-1 or less (Morita ‘229, G represents a maximum peak intensity in a range from 1560 to 1600 cm-1 in a Raman Spectrum, [0062]), and
D is a maximum peak intensity in a range of 1310 cm-1 or greater and 1350 cm-1 or less (Morita ‘229, D represents a maximum peak intensity in a range from 1310 to 1350 cm-1 in a Raman Spectrum, [0062]).
Morita ‘229 teaches that a carbon nanotube with properties within these ranges will have high dispersibility (Morita ‘229, [0016]).
Morita ‘110 and Morita ‘229 are analogous to the current invention as they are all directed towards a carbon nanotube dispersion.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the carbon nanotubes of Morita ‘110 to have a BET surface area of 100 m2/g to 800 m2/g and a G/D ratio of 1.5 to 5.0, as taught by Morita ‘229, in order to improve dispersibility of the carbon nanotubes.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the current invention to select the overlapping portions of the disclosed because selection of overlapping portions of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Regarding Claim 6, modified Morita ‘110 discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Morita ‘110 discloses the limitations regarding a conductive pigment paste (Morita ‘110, carbon nanotube dispersion, Abstract), wherein a moisture content of the solvent (C) is 1 mass% or less (Morita ‘229, a water content in the solvent is preferably 500 ppm or less, or 0.05 mass%, [0067]; the disclosed water content of 0.05 mass% or less falls within the claimed range of 1 mass% or less) and
an amine compound content of the solvent (C) is 1 mass% or less (Morita ‘110, Example 1-1: Amine content is 0.2% and NMP Content is 97.30%, so amine content in the solvent (NMP) = 0.2/97.3 = 0.00205 = 0.21 mass% of amine compound, Table 1A; the disclosed amine content of 0.21 mass% falls within the claimed range of 1 mass% or less).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN NGUYEN whose telephone number is (703)756-1745. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9:50 - 7:50 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, NICHOLAS A SMITH can be reached at (571) 272-8760. 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.
/K.N./Examiner, Art Unit 1752
/OSEI K AMPONSAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752
Prosecution Insights