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 submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 5/17/2026 and 5/16/2026 have been considered by the examiner. Initialed copies accompany this action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 2, 6, 8, and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hirose et al. (US20220376238).
Regarding claims 1, 2, 8, 11, and 12, Hirose discloses a conductive slurry for a secondary battery electrode, the slurry comprising: a conductive material (carbon nanotube), a cellulose-based compound (carboxymethyl cellulose) and an organic acid salt (sodium polyacrylate), see para 0151.
Regarding claim 6, Hirose discloses a content of the conductive material is less than 2.7% by weight based on a total weight of the conductive slurry (para 0151 when silicon and graphite are considered negative electrode materials).
Regarding claims 13 and 14, Hirose discloses a secondary electrode comprising an electrode material, which is a silicon compound, a conductive slurry for a secondary battery electrode, the slurry comprising: a conductive material; a cellulose-based compound (carboxymethyl cellulose) and an organic acid salt (sodium polyacrylate), see para 0151.
Regarding claim 15, Hirose discloses a secondary battery comprising the secondary battery electrode of claim 13 (para 0162).
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.
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.
Claims 2-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirose et al. (US20220376238) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (US20180198129).
Hirose discloses a conductive slurry for a secondary battery electrode as described above. Hirose discloses a weight ratio between the carbon nanotube and the dispersant is 1:1 to 1:2 (para 0151) but does not specifically disclose the carbon nanotube is single-walled or multi-walled carbon nanotube and the carbon nanotube has a maximum intensity of D band with respect to a maximum intensity of G band (Id/Ig) of from 0.01 to 2 as claimed. Kim discloses the carbon nanotube, which includes single-walled or multi-walled carbon nanotube, has a maximum intensity of D band with respect to a maximum intensity of G band (Id/Ig) of from 0.01 to 2 (para 0042 and 0050). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filling date of the invention to use the carbon nanotube taught by Kim as the carbon nanotube in the conductive slurry of Hirose, thereby obtaining the conductive slurry having excellent conductivity.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirose et al. (US20220376238) in view of Wei (Journal of The Electrochemical Society, 166 (14) A33217-A3221 (2010), cited in the IDS filed by applicant on 5/17/2026).
Hirose discloses a conductive slurry for a secondary battery electrode as described above. Hirose discloses the cellulose-based compound (carboxymethyl cellulose) and the organic acid salt (sodium polyacrylate) are used as binder (para 0094) but does not disclose a weight ratio between the cellulose-based compound (carboxymethyl cellulose) and the organic acid salt (sodium polyacrylate) is 1:0.15 to 1:0.5. Wei discloses using small amount of sodium polyacrylate as the binder can improve the capacity retention of Si-based electrodes (abstract). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filling date of the invention to determine an optimum weight ratio between carboxymethyl cellulose) and sodium polyacrylate, such that it may fall in a range of 1:0.15 to 1:0.5, thereby improving the capacity retention of Si-based electrodes, resulting in improved cycling performance of the Li-ion batteries, in the absence of new or unexpected results that are fully commensurate in scope with the claimed subject matter and for which objective evidence is offered across the entire ranges, a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirose et al. (US20220376238) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Morita et al. (US20230187644).
Hirose discloses a conductive slurry for a secondary battery electrode as described above. Hirose does not disclose the cellulose-based compound (carboxymethyl cellulose or CMC) has a weight average molecular weight (Mw) of 400,000 g/mol or less as claimed. Morita discloses when setting the weight average molecular weight of the CMC is 150,000 or less, the intermolecular forces of the CMC, and the CNT, and the intermolecular forces of the CMC and water are well balanced, and the CMC can be satisfactorily dispersed and maintained in a state (para 0066). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filling date of the invention to use the CMC, which has an appropriate weight average molecular weight 150,000 or less, the adsorbability to the CNT is enhanced, and the stability of a dispersion element is further enhanced as suggested by Morita (para 0067).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAIDUNG D NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5455. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 10a-3p.
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 at 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.
/HAIDUNG D NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761
7/25/2026
Prosecution Insights