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
This application claims priority to JP 2024-038689 (filed 03/13/24), and claims priority to JP 2004-202411 (filed 11/20/24).
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claims 1-9 are pending.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-6) in the Reply filed 04/23/26 is acknowledged.
Drawings
The Drawings filed 02/28/25 are approved by the examiner.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS statements filed 02/08/25 and 09/22/25 have been considered. Initialed copies accompany this action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 and/or 103
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.
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 Construction
Applicant’s definition of the claim values “tan δ1”, “tan δ2” and “tan δ3” at para 0073-0075 of instant PGPUB 2025/0293229 A1 is noted.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by either Reynolds et al (Energy Technol. 2022), Bitsch et al (JPS 2014), or Akuzum et al (ACS Appl Mater Interfaces).
Reynolds et al (Energy Technol. 2022) discloses cathode slurries comprising solvent, binder, carbon black and NMC622 (Experimental). Fig 1 sample GRA=CB+SBR possess the claimed ηA and ηB values for shear rate (s-1) vs viscosity (Pa.s) (extrapolated out to 105 shear rate).
Bitsch et al (JPS 2014) discloses cathode slurries comprising solvent, binder, carbon black and synthetic graphite (2.1 Experimental). Fig 8 sample 15vol-% solid possess the claimed ηA and ηB values for shear rate (s-1) vs viscosity (Pa.s) (extrapolated out to 105 shear rate).
Akuzum et al (ACS Appl Mater Interfaces) discloses cathode slurries comprising solvent, binder, carbon nanotubes and graphene nanoplatelets (Preparation). Fig 2a samples 5vol-%CB and 10vol%CB solid possess the claimed ηA and ηB values for shear rate (s-1) vs viscosity (Pa.s) (extrapolated out to 105 shear rate).
The references are anticipatory.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ko US 2024/0243294 A1.
Ko discloses conductive material solution for an anode slurry (0016) comprising solvent, binder, and MW carbon nanotubes (Examples). Table 3 and Fig 1 examples 1-3 each possess the claimed ηA and ηB values for shear rate (s-1) vs viscosity (Pa.s) (extrapolated out to 105 shear rate).
Claim(s) 2, 5 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reynolds et al (Energy Technol. 2022), Bitsch et al (JPS 2014), Akuzum et al (ACS Appl Mater Interfaces), or Ko US 2024/0243294 A1, any in view of WO 2023/228806 A1.
Note that US 2025/0070228 is referenced below as the English language equivalent of WO 2023/228806 A1.
Each of the primary reference are relied upon as set forth above.
While the references do not specify the claimed tangent loss values recited in dependent claims 2, 5, and 6, the examiner respectfully submits that the skilled artisan would only have to utilize routine experimentation in order to arrive at the optimum values in order to tailor processing characteristics, as tangent loss is/are known result effective values in the art. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). WO 2023/228806 (US 2025/0070228) is cited as additional evidence that loss tangent (at both high and low distortion rate) values within the claimed range are known in the art for electrode compositions (see para 0518-0159; Table 6).
In view of the foregoing, the above claims have failed to patentably distinguish over the applied art.
The remaining references listed on forms 892 and 1449 have been reviewed by the examiner and are considered to be cumulative to or less material than the prior art references relied upon in the rejection above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK T KOPEC whose telephone number is (571)272-1319. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00a-5:00p 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, Robert Jones can be reached at 5712707733. 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.
/MARK KOPEC/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1762
MK
July 25, 2026
Prosecution Insights