Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/698,355

CARBON NANOTUBE DISPERSION, PREPARATION THEREOF, ELECTRODE SLURRY COMPOSITION INCLUDING SAME DISPERSION, ELECTRODE INCLUDING SAME COMPOSITION, AND SECONDARY BATTERY INCLUDING SAME ELECTRODE

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Apr 03, 2024
Examiner
CAI, JIAJIA JANIE
Art Unit
1761
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
BETTERIAL CO., LTD.
OA Round
4 (Final)
25%
Grant Probability
At Risk
5-6
OA Rounds
3y 6m
To Grant
41%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants only 25% of cases
25%
Career Allow Rate
10 granted / 40 resolved
-40.0% vs TC avg
Strong +16% interview lift
Without
With
+15.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 6m
Avg Prosecution
47 currently pending
Career history
87
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
2.0%
-38.0% vs TC avg
§103
54.0%
+14.0% vs TC avg
§102
10.4%
-29.6% vs TC avg
§112
20.3%
-19.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 40 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . This action is responsive to Applicant's amendments/remarks filed 12/11/2025. Claims 1-3 and 5-16 are currently pending and under examination. The rejection of claims 1-3, 5, 8-14, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pan (US 2020/0067101 A1, hereinafter Pan) in view of Kim (US 2021/0246028 A1, hereinafter Kim) is withdrawn in view of the above amendment. The rejection of claims 6 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pan (US 2020/0067101 A1, hereinafter Pan) in view of Kim (US 2021/0246028 A1, hereinafter Kim), and further in view of Long (“Bifunctional polyvinylpyrrolidone generates sulfur-rich copolymer and acts as “residence” of polysulfide for advanced lithium-sulfur battery”, Long et al., Chemical Engineering Journal 414:128799, 2021, hereinafter Long) is withdrawn in view of the above amendment. The rejection of claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pan (US 2020/0067101 A1, hereinafter Pan) in view of Kim (US 2021/0246028 A1, hereinafter Kim), and further in view of Zhamu (US 2019/0260015 A1, hereinafter Zhamu) is withdrawn in view of the above amendment. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. 1. Claims 1-3 and 5-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 2021/0246028 A1, hereinafter Kim) in view of Long (“Bifunctional polyvinylpyrrolidone generates sulfur-rich copolymer and acts as “residence” of polysulfide for advanced lithium-sulfur battery”, Long et al., Chemical Engineering Journal 414:128799, 2021, hereinafter Long). Regarding claims 1 and 7, Kim teaches a carbon nanotube dispersion comprising carbon nanotubes, a polymer dispersant containing an amine, a phenolic compound including two or more aromatic rings, and a solvent ([0012], claim 1). Kim teaches (para [0040]) that the polymer dispersant can be polyvinylpyrrolidone which comprises an amide group, which reads on the claimed first dispersant comprising an amide group. Kim teaches (para [0043]) that the phenolic compound can be tannic acid which comprises a hydroxyl group, which reads on the claimed second dispersant comprising a hydroxyl group. Kim also teaches that sulfur as an additive is further included in the dispersion to improve life characteristics of a battery, to restrain the decrease of battery capacity, and to improve battery discharge capacity ([0085]). Kim further teaches that the carbon nanotube dispersion is used in an electrode slurry for a lithium secondary battery ([0064]). Kim does not teach that a portion or the entirety of the first dispersant is substituted with sulfur by a chemical bond. However, Long teaches a sulfur-polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVPS) copolymer which is synthesized by using sulfur powder as raw material to generate chemically stable copolymer (abstract; Fig. 1(g)). Long also teaches that the sulfur-polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVPS) copolymer has a strong chemical confinement of C-S bond (abstract), and has a same lithiation process as sulfur (p. 6, left column; Fig. 4 (a) and (b)); thus, the sulfur-polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVPS) copolymer is added to prevent the lithiation of sulfur and prevent the dissolution of polysulfides in a lithium secondary battery (abstract; p. 1, right column, 1st para). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make a carbon nanotube dispersion comprising carbon nanotubes, polyvinylpyrrolidone as a polymer dispersant, a phenolic compound, a solvent, and sulfur as taught by Kim, further comprising a sulfur-polyvinylpyrrolidone copolymer as taught by Long, in order to prevent the lithiation of sulfur in lithium battery with a reasonable expectation of success, because a sulfur-polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVPS) copolymer has a strong chemical confinement of C-S bond, and has a same lithiation process as sulfur, thereby the sulfur-polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVPS) copolymer is added to prevent the lithiation of sulfur in a lithium secondary battery as recognized by Long. Thus, in the carbon nanotube dispersion as taught by the combination of Kim and Long, the combination of polyvinylpyrrolidone and sulfur-polyvinylpyrrolidone copolymer reads on the claimed portion of the first dispersant being substituted with sulfur by a chemical bond. Therefore, the invention as a whole would be obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art. Regarding claims 2 and 3, Kim teaches that a carbon nanotube dispersion comprising carbon nanotubes, a polymer dispersant containing an amine, and a phenolic compound containing two or more aromatic rings, and a solvent, wherein the polymer dispersant and the phenolic compound are in a weight ratio of 100:1 to 100:90 ([0012], [0013]), the polymer dispersant can be polyvinylpyrrolidone ([0040]), and the phenolic compound can be tannic acid ([0043]). Kim teaches that the dispersion comprises 11 parts by weight to 100 parts by weight of the combination of the polymer dispersant and the phenolic compound based on 100 parts by weight of the carbon nanotube ([0049]). Kim teaches that the carbon nanotube is in an amount of 2 parts by weight to 10 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the carbon nanotube dispersion ([0033]). Kim also teaches that sulfur as an additive can be in an amount of 0.1 wt % to 5 wt % based on the total weight of the electrolyte ([0085]). Thus, the sulfur of Kim can be in an amount of about 0.5 wt % to 5 wt % based on the total weight of a solid content of the dispersion, which falls within the claimed range of “0.01 to 10 wt%”. The sulfur of Kim can be in an amount of about 2 wt % to 20 wt % based on the total content of oxygen (O) and nitrogen (N) in a solid content of the dispersion, which falls within the claimed range of “0.01% to 20% by weight”. Regarding claim 5, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the proportion of the sulfur-polyvinylpyrrolidone in the total amount of polyvinylpyrrolidone and sulfur-polyvinylpyrrolidone, in order to prevent the lithiation of sulfur via a routine optimization thereby obtaining the present invention with a reasonable expectation of success, because the sulfur-polyvinylpyrrolidone is added to prevent the lithiation of sulfur in a lithium secondary battery as recognized by Long. Therefore, the invention as a whole would be obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art. Regarding claim 6, "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). See MPEP 2112.01 I. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to reasonably expect that the claimed Fourier-transform infrared (FTIR) spectrum peak of the first dispersant would flow naturally from the teaching of the combination of Kim and Long, because the teaching of the combination of Kim and Long provides substantially the same first dispersant that is a portion of polyvinylpyrrolidone being substituted with sulfur by a chemical bond as claimed. Therefore, the invention as a whole would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. Regarding claim 8, Kim teaches (para [0023]) that the phenolic compound (the claimed second dispersant) comprises an aromatic ring. Regarding claim 9, Kim teaches that the polymer dispersant containing an amine (the claimed first dispersant) and the phenolic compound containing two or more aromatic rings (the claimed second dispersant) are in a weight ratio of 100:1 to 100:90 (para [0023]), which overlaps with the claimed range of “1:10 to 10:1”. Regarding claim 10, Kim teaches (para [0031]) that the carbon nanotube has a BET specific surface area of from 30 m2/g to 200 m2/g, which falls within the claimed range of “10 to 5,000 m2/g”. Regarding claim 11, Kim teaches (para [0032]) that the carbon nanotube has an average particle size (D50) of from 3 μm to 300 μm, which overlaps with the claimed range of “0.1 to 20 µm”. Regarding claim 12, Kim teaches ([0056]) that a method for preparing a carbon nanotube dispersion comprises mixing carbon nanotubes, a polymer dispersant containing an amine, and a phenolic compound containing two or more aromatic rings. Regarding claim 13, Kim teaches that an electrode slurry composition comprises the carbon nanotube dispersion, an electrode active material, and a binder ([0066]). Regarding claims 14-16, Kim teaches (para [0073], [0074], [0076], [0077]) that an electrode comprises an electrode active material layer formed by the electrode slurry composition. Kim teaches (para [0076], [0077], [0086]) that the electrode can be a negative electrode. Kim teaches (para [0086]) that a secondary battery comprises the electrode. 2. Claims 1-3 and 5-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 2021/0246028 A1, hereinafter Kim) in view of Yoshiwara (US 2016/0340521 A1, hereinafter Yoshiwara). Regarding claims 1 and 7, the limitation “polycarboxylic amide” in claim 7 is interpreted as a polymer containing both a carboxylic acid group and an amide group. Kim teaches a carbon nanotube dispersion comprising carbon nanotubes, a polymer dispersant containing an amine, a phenolic compound including two or more aromatic rings, and a solvent ([0012], claim 1). Kim teaches that the polymer dispersant can be polyacrylamide ([0040]), which reads on the claimed first dispersant comprising an amide group. Kim teaches that the phenolic compound contains one or more hydroxyl groups ([0041]), which reads on the claimed second dispersant comprising a hydroxyl group. Kim teaches that the interaction between the aromatic ring of the phenolic compound and the carbon nanotube, and the interaction due to the hydrogen bond between the hydroxyl group (—OH) of the phenolic compound and the polymer dispersant containing an amine keep appropriate balance, thereby restraining the viscosity change over time of the carbon nanotube dispersion ([0042]). Kim also teaches that sulfur as an additive is further included in the dispersion to improve life characteristics of a battery, to restrain the decrease of battery capacity, and to improve battery discharge capacity ([0085]). Kim further teaches that the carbon nanotube dispersion is used in an electrode slurry for a lithium secondary battery ([0064]). Kim does not teach that a portion or the entirety of the first dispersant is substituted with sulfur by a chemical bond. However, Yoshiwara teaches a carbon nanotube dispersion comprising carbon nanotubes (A), a polymeric dispersant (B) including a sulfonic acid group-containing monomeric unit and an ethylenically unsaturated aliphatic carboxylic acid monomeric unit, and a solvent (C) ([0015], claim 1), wherein the sulfonic acid group-containing monomeric unit is preferably acrylamide-t-butyl-sulfonic acid ([0059]), and the ethylenically unsaturated aliphatic carboxylic acid monomeric unit is preferably acrylic acid ([0064]). Thus, the polymeric dispersant including acrylamide-t-butyl-sulfonic acid monomer and acrylic acid monomer in Yoshiwara reads on the claimed first dispersant being polycarboxylic amide, and the claimed first dispersant being substituted with sulfur by a chemical bond, and also reads on the polymer dispersant containing an amine as taught by Kim. Yoshiwara also teaches that when the polymeric dispersant includes both a sulfonic acid group-containing monomer and a carboxylic acid group-containing monomer, the aggregation of carbon nanotubes can be inhibited ([0014]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the polymeric dispersant including acrylamide-t-butyl-sulfonic acid monomer and acrylic acid monomer as taught by Yoshiwara as the polymer dispersant in Kim, in order to inhibit the aggregation of carbon nanotubes and also restrain the viscosity change over time of the carbon nanotube dispersion with a reasonable expectation of success, because the polymeric dispersant including both a sulfonic acid group-containing monomer (i.e. acrylamide-t-butyl-sulfonic acid monomer) and a carboxylic acid group-containing monomer (i.e. acrylic acid monomer) inhibits the aggregation of carbon nanotubes as recognized by Yoshiwara, and also because the interaction between the aromatic ring of the phenolic compound and the carbon nanotube, and the interaction due to the hydrogen bond between the hydroxyl group (—OH) of the phenolic compound and the polymer dispersant containing an amine keep appropriate balance, thereby restraining the viscosity change over time of the carbon nanotube dispersion as recognized by Kim, the polymeric dispersant including acrylamide-t-butyl-sulfonic acid monomer and acrylic acid monomer as taught by Yoshiwara still contains an amine group. Therefore, the invention as a whole would be obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art. Regarding claims 2 and 3, Kim teaches that a carbon nanotube dispersion comprising carbon nanotubes, a polymer dispersant containing an amine, and a phenolic compound containing two or more aromatic rings, and a solvent, wherein the polymer dispersant and the phenolic compound are in a weight ratio of 100:1 to 100:90 ([0012], [0013]), the polymer dispersant can be polyacrylamide ([0040]), and the phenolic compound can be tannic acid ([0043]). Kim teaches that the dispersion comprises 11 parts by weight to 100 parts by weight of the combination of the polymer dispersant and the phenolic compound based on 100 parts by weight of the carbon nanotube ([0049]). Kim teaches that the carbon nanotube is in an amount of 2 parts by weight to 10 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the carbon nanotube dispersion ([0033]). Kim also teaches that sulfur as an additive can be in an amount of 0.1 wt % to 5 wt % based on the total weight of the electrolyte ([0085]). Thus, the sulfur of Kim can be in an amount of about 0.5 wt % to 5 wt % based on the total weight of a solid content of the dispersion, which falls within the claimed range of “0.01 to 10 wt%”. The sulfur of Kim can be in an amount of about 2 wt % to 20 wt % based on the total content of oxygen (O) and nitrogen (N) in a solid content of the dispersion, which falls within the claimed range of “0.01% to 20% by weight”. Regarding claim 5, the polymeric dispersant including acrylamide-t-butyl-sulfonic acid monomer and acrylic acid monomer in Yoshiwara reads on the claimed proportion of the first dispersant substituted with sulfur in the first dispersant being 100 mol%. Regarding claim 6, "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). See MPEP 2112.01 I. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to reasonably expect that the claimed Fourier-transform infrared (FTIR) spectrum peak of the first dispersant would flow naturally from the teaching of Yoshiwara, because the teaching of Yoshiwara provides substantially the same first dispersant (i.e. polycarboxylic amide) substituted with sulfur by a chemical bond as claimed. Therefore, the invention as a whole would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. Regarding claim 8, Kim teaches (para [0023]) that the phenolic compound (the claimed second dispersant) comprises an aromatic ring. Regarding claim 9, Kim teaches that the polymer dispersant containing an amine (the claimed first dispersant) and the phenolic compound containing two or more aromatic rings (the claimed second dispersant) are in a weight ratio of 100:1 to 100:90 (para [0023]), which overlaps with the claimed range of “1:10 to 10:1”. Regarding claim 10, Kim teaches (para [0031]) that the carbon nanotube has a BET specific surface area of from 30 m2/g to 200 m2/g, which falls within the claimed range of “10 to 5,000 m2/g”. Regarding claim 11, Kim teaches (para [0032]) that the carbon nanotube has an average particle size (D50) of from 3 μm to 300 μm, which overlaps with the claimed range of “0.1 to 20 µm”. Regarding claim 12, Kim teaches ([0056]) that a method for preparing a carbon nanotube dispersion comprises mixing carbon nanotubes, a polymer dispersant containing an amine, and a phenolic compound containing two or more aromatic rings. Regarding claim 13, Kim teaches that an electrode slurry composition comprises the carbon nanotube dispersion, an electrode active material, and a binder ([0066]). Regarding claims 14-16, Kim teaches (para [0073], [0074], [0076], [0077]) that an electrode comprises an electrode active material layer formed by the electrode slurry composition. Kim teaches (para [0076], [0077], [0086]) that the electrode can be a negative electrode. Kim teaches (para [0086]) that a secondary battery comprises the electrode. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments with respect to the prior rejections have been considered but are moot, because the arguments do not apply to all of the references being used in the current rejection. As stated above, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 2021/0246028 A1) in view of Long (“Bifunctional polyvinylpyrrolidone generates sulfur-rich copolymer and acts as “residence” of polysulfide for advanced lithium-sulfur battery”, Long et al., Chemical Engineering Journal 414:128799, 2021). Claim 1 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 2021/0246028 A1) in view of Yoshiwara (US 2016/0340521 A1). Conclusion Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIAJIA JANIE CAI whose telephone number is 571-270-0951. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 am - 5:00 pm. 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, Angela Brown-Pettigrew can be reached on 571-272-2817. 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. /JIAJIA JANIE CAI/Examiner, Art Unit 1761 /ANGELA C BROWN-PETTIGREW/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1761
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 03, 2024
Application Filed
Apr 03, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
May 30, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Aug 08, 2024
Interview Requested
Aug 15, 2024
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Aug 19, 2024
Examiner Interview Summary
Oct 04, 2024
Response Filed
Dec 17, 2024
Final Rejection — §103
Mar 24, 2025
Notice of Allowance
May 22, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jun 07, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Sep 27, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Dec 11, 2025
Response Filed
Jan 13, 2026
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600893
LIGHT-HEAT ENERGY CONVERSION AND HEAT ENERGY STORAGE SHAPE-STABILIZED PHASE-CHANGE COMPOSITE MATERIAL AND PRODUCTION METHOD THEREFOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12534654
COMPOSITION INCLUDING 1,1,2-TRIFLUOROETHANE (HFC-143)
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 27, 2026
Patent 12531242
DOPED LITHIUM IRON PHOSPHATE ENCAPSULATED IN LIGAND, AND PREPARATION METHOD THEREFOR AND USE THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 20, 2026
Patent 12516232
CURED MATERIAL OF THERMAL CONDUCTIVE SILICONE COMPOSITION
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 06, 2026
Patent 12459892
ORGANIC COMPOUND, LIGHT-EMITTING ELEMENT, LIGHT-EMITTING DEVICE, ELECTRONIC DEVICE, AND LIGHTING DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Nov 04, 2025
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

5-6
Expected OA Rounds
25%
Grant Probability
41%
With Interview (+15.6%)
3y 6m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 40 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month