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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 09/04/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claim 1 is amended. Claims 3-4 & 7 are canceled. Claims 11-13 are newly added. Claims 1-2, 5-6 & 8-13 are currently pending.
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.
Claims 1-2, 5, 10 & 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abdesalam (US 2015/0280221 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Abdeselam teaches an electrode for a lithium secondary battery comprising: an electrode foil ([0103] & [0238]); and a mixture layer including an active material disposed on the electrode foil, wherein the mixture layer can comprise three or more composite anode layers, wherein if more than two composite anode layers are present, the major active component of two or more of the composite anode layers may be the same, provided that the major active component of at least two of the composite anode layers are different ([0103]-[0104] & [0158]). Accordingly, Abdeselam renders obvious a mixture layer comprising four composite anode layers, wherein two of the four composite anode layers each comprise a first major active material and the other two of the four composite anode layers each comprise a second major active material which is different from the first major active material ([0158]). Abdeselam also discloses a multilayer composite electrode in which each layer comprises a different major active material to that of an adjacent layer to enhance charge discharge capacity characteristics ([0114]). As such, Abdeselam’s teachings renders obvious the use of four composite anode layers with two of the four composite anode layers using silicon as a major active material and the other two of the four composite anode layers using carbon as a major active material, wherein the four composite anode layers are stacked on the electrode foil such that a composite anode layer having the first major active material (i.e silicon or carbon) and an adjacent composite anode layer having the second major active material (i.e carbon or silicon) are alternately stacked to ensure that adjacent composite anode layers have different major active materials. While Abdeselam’s preferred embodiments uses silicon as a major active material in the composite anode layer closest to the cathode and carbon as a major active material in the composite anode layer closest to the electrode foil, it is noted that Abdeselam more broadly encompasses an inverted structure in which the first composite electrode layer (i.e composite anode layer closest to the electrode foil) contains, as the major active component, a material that undergoes a relatively large volume change upon metal insertion or alloying (i.e corresponding to silicon in the context of Abdeselam’s invention) and the overlying second composite anode layer (i.e composite anode layer closest to the cathode) contains, as the major active material, a material that doesn’t show significant expansion upon lithium insertion and therefore may allow for a lower porosity of the composite anode layer ([0142], [0148] & [0158]). Thus, when four composite anode layers including a first composite anode layer comprising silicon as a major active material, a second composite anode layer comprising carbon/graphite as a major active material, a third composite anode layer comprising silicon as a major active material, and a fourth composite anode layer comprising carbon/graphite as a major active material is used for Abdeselam’s anode, the resulting structure would read on the subject matter of claim 1 since the first and third composite anode layers comprising silicon as a major active material each have a greater porosity than the second and fourth composite anode layers comprising carbon/graphite as a major active material ([0142] & [0148]). In the above example for four composite anode layers, the first and third composite anode layers would correspond to the first composite anode layer (or the second composite anode layer depending on the preferred/non-preferred configuration of Abdeselam [0158]) and the second composite anode layer and the fourth composite anode layer correspond to the second composite anode layer (or the first composite anode layer depending on the specific configuration of Abdeselam). It is noted that the first and third composite anode layers are equated, respectively, to the claimed lower layer and the claimed upper layer of the claimed inner layer with the second composite anode layer equated to the claimed intermediate layer and the fourth composite anode layer equated to the claimed surface layer. As such the first and third composite anode layers in the above 4-layer example would have the same thickness and the second and fourth composite anode layers would have the same thickness ([0157]) such that the second composite anode layer would necessarily be in a central portion of the inner layer of Abdeselam. Abdeselam further teaches each of the first to the fourth composite anode layer (i.e lower layer, intermediate layer, upper layer and surface layer) including an auxiliary agent such as a conductive additive and a binder along with the major active material and the minor active material of the respective composite anode layer having different particle diameters ([0212]-[0223] & [0238]-[0239]). Furthermore, since the first and third composite anode layers (i.e corresponding the claimed lower layer and upper layer of the inner layer respectively) have the same composition with the second and fourth composite anode layers (i.e corresponding to the claimed intermediate layer of the inner layer and the surface layer respectively) having the same composition, the inner layer would necessarily have a different ratio of the at least one active material and the auxiliary agent than the surface layer since the ratio of the inner layer is an average based on the compositions of the first anode composite layer, the second anode composite layer and the third composite anode layer whereas the ratio of the surface layer is solely based on the composition of the fourth anode composite layer which would be different from that of the inner layer. Using an exemplary composition of the first composite anode layer and the second composite anode layer in Abdeselam ([0238]-[0239]), the third and fourth composite anode layer can be formed similarly to the respective first and second composite anode layer compositions such that the intermediate layer of Abdeselam (i.e second composite anode layer) would necessarily have a different ratio of the at least one active material and the auxiliary agent than each of the lower layer and the upper layer which have the same composition (i.e corresponding to the first anode composite layer and the third composite anode layer having the same composition). Note that the first composite anode layer in Abdeselam (and by extension the third composite anode layer) has a first ratio of the at least one active material and the auxiliary agent of 93:3 ([0238]) and the second composite anode layer in Abdeselam (and by extension the fourth composite anode layer) has a second ratio of the at least one active material and the auxiliary agent of (70+12):4 = 82:4 ([0239]) which is different from the first ratio. Accordingly, the second composite anode layer, equated to the claimed intermediate layer would have a different ratio than the upper layer and lower layer which correspond, respectively, to the first and third composite anode layers having the first ratio of 93:3. While Abdeselam does not explicitly teach an average particle diameter of an active material in the inner layer being larger than an average particle diameter of an active material in the surface layer, it is noted that the graphite particles in each of the composite anode layers (whether the graphite is present as a major active component or minor active component of the corresponding composite anode) can have particle sizes ranging from 0.5 nm to 100 microns (preferably 50 microns) ([0164]). Accordingly, an average particle diameter of an arbitrarily chosen larger half of the graphite particles in the inner layer (i.e graphite particles in the inner layer having particle sizes ranging from d50 to d100) would be larger than an average particle diameter of all of the graphite particles in the surface layer. Notwithstanding, unless the silicon particles and the graphite particles in the composite anode layers have the same average particle size, an average particle diameter of an active material in the inner layer (equated to a combined structure of a first composite anode, a second composite anode and a third composite anode in Abdeselam) would necessarily be larger than an average particle diameter of an active material in the surface layer (equated to a fourth composite anode in Abdeselam). Silicon and graphite, when used as anode active material, typically have different average particle sizes (Table 2; [0161]-[0164] & [0241]-[0247]).
Regarding claim 2, Abdeselam teaches the first and third composite anode layers which comprise silicon as a major active material can have a porosity of preferably 30% to 70% and the second and fourth composite anode layers which comprises carbon/graphite as a major active material can have a porosity of preferably 20% to 25% ([0132]-[0133], [0142], [0148] & [0150]).
Regarding claim 5, Abdeselam teaches a lithium secondary battery comprising a battery container, a positive electrode and a negative electrode composed of the electrode of claim 1, the positive electrode and the negative electrode sandwiching a separator in the battery container, and an electrolyte injected into the battery container ([0224]-[0231]).
Regarding claim 10, Abdeselam teaches wherein the porosity of the composite anode layer comprising silicon as the major active material can be 30% to 70% and the porosity of the composite anode layer comprising carbon/graphite as the major active material can be 20% to 25% in some examples which accounts for the large volume expansion of silicon relative to carbon-based active materials and prevent cracking of the electrode ([0029]-[0034], [0121], [0142] & [0148]). Thus, when carbon/graphite is used in the second and fourth composite anode layers for the 4-layer configuration described above, the fourth composite anode layer would read on the claimed porosity of the surface layer of 10% to 30% since Abdeselam renders obvious a porosity of 20% to 25%. Similarly, when silicon is used in the first and third composite anode layers in the 4-layer configuration described above, the average void ratio of the corresponding inner layer would be slightly less than a range of 30% to 70% since the inner layer also includes the second composite anode layer of Abdeselam which has a lower porosity (i.e 20% to 25%) relative to the first and third composite anode layers including silicon as a major active material. The porosity can be estimated based on the thickness of the second composite anode layer (i.e 20-40 microns based on [0157] of Abdeselam) and the combined thicknesses of the first and third composite anode layers (i.e 10-40 microns which is simply double the thickness for a single layer of 5-20 microns based on [0157] of Abdeselam). Thus, in the case where the thickness of the second composite anode layer and the combined thicknesses of the first and third composite anode layers is roughly equal (20-40 microns vs 10-40 microns), the porosity of the resulting inner layer (i.e first, second and third composite anode layers) would simply be the average of the porosity of the second composite anode layer (i.e 20% to 25%) and the porosity of the first or third composite anode layer (i.e 30% to 70% since they each have the same porosity). When the porosity is greater than 35% (which encompasses the vast majority of Abdeselam’s range), the resulting porosity of the inner layer would read on the claimed range of 30% to 60%.
Regarding claim 12, Abdeselam teaches the inner layer and the surface layer each being mixtures including at least two kinds of active materials (i.e Si and graphite) having different particle diameters and a conductive auxiliary agent as noted in the rejection of claim 1 above, wherein the silicon has a small particle diameter in a range of 4.5 microns to 6.5 microns (Table 2) and the graphite has a large particle diameter in a range of 10 microns to 15 microns ([0161]-[0166]).
Regarding claim 13, Abdeselam teaches the thickness of the first composite anode layer and the thickness of the second composite anode layer respectively ranging from 20-40 microns and 5-20 microns ([0157]). Thus, for a configuration using four composite anode layers, the third and fourth composite anode layer would respectively have thicknesses of 20-40 microns and 5-20 microns to mirror the structure and composition of the first and second composite anode layers. Therefore, the smallest possible ratio of the thickness of the intermediate layer relative to the thickness of the inner layer would be 5/(40+40+5) = 5.9% and the largest possible ratio of the thickness of the intermediate layer relative to the thickness of the inner layer would be 20/(20+20+20) = 33.3% which encompasses the claimed range of 10% to 25%.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abdesalam (US 2015/0280221 A1) in view of Kim (US 2020/0243848 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Abdeselam teaches the electrode of claim 1, wherein the electrode foil can be a metal such as copper having a thickness of 10 microns ([0159] & [0231]) but is silent as to the electrode foil comprising aluminum and having a thickness of 15 microns. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention, to use aluminum having a thickness of 3 microns to 500 microns as a suitable current collector for a negative electrode comprising a bilayer of active materials having different ratios of silicon and carbon as active materials (fig. 2; [0031]-[0033] & [0072]-[0073]). Moreover, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the thickness of the current collector in view of increasing the energy density of the battery (i.e higher energy per unit volume of the battery which can be increased by reducing the thickness of the current collector while ensuring sufficient support for the active material layers of Abdeselam).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 & 8-9 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art of record, Abdeselam, teaches the inner layer and the surface layer being mixtures including at least two kinds of active material having different particle diameters but does not fairly teach or suggest a relative amount of the active material having a small particle diameter of the active materials in the surface layer being more than a relative amount of the active materials having a small particle diameter of the active materials in the inner layer, wherein the small particle diameter is in a range of 4.5 microns to 6.5 microns.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/04/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to applicant’s arguments that Abdeselam does not fairly teach or suggest the subject matter of claim 1, as presently amended, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Specifically, applicant argues that Abdeselam is silent as to the inner layer and the surface layer of the mixture layer each including at least one active material and an auxiliary agent, wherein the inner layer includes one of (a) the at least one active material and (b) the auxiliary agent having different particle diameters, wherein the inner layer has a different ratio of the at least one active material and the auxiliary agent than the surface layer, and wherein the intermediate layer has a different ratio of the at least one active material and the auxiliary agent than each of the lower layer and upper layer. However, as noted in the above updated rejection of claim 1, Abdeselam teaches first to fourth composite anode layers equated to the presently claimed lower layer, intermediate layer, upper layer and surface layer respectively of the present invention, where each composite anode layer can comprise a major active material such as Si or graphite and a minor active material such as silicon or graphite along with a conductive auxiliary agent. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would readily recognize that the silicon and graphite material would have different particle diameters in addition to the silicon particles themselves having different diameters and the graphite particles themselves having different diameters which reads on the presently claimed subject matter. For a configuration having four composite anode layers, since the first and third composite anode layers (i.e corresponding the claimed lower layer and upper layer of the inner layer respectively) have the same composition with the second and fourth composite anode layers (i.e corresponding to the claimed intermediate layer of the inner layer and the surface layer respectively) having the same composition, the inner layer would necessarily have a different ratio of the at least one active material and the auxiliary agent than the surface layer since the ratio of the inner layer is an average based on the compositions of the first anode composite layer, the second anode composite layer and the third composite anode layer whereas the ratio of the surface layer is solely based on the composition of the fourth anode composite layer which would be different from that of the inner layer. In other words the claimed ratio of the surface layer (i.e equated to the fourth composite anode layer) would be equal to that of the intermediate layer (i.e equated to the fourth composite anode layer of Abdeselam) but different than that of the inner layer since the first and third composite anode layers have different ratio of the at least one active material and the auxiliary agent. Using an exemplary composition of the first composite anode layer and the second composite anode layer in Abdeselam ([0238]-[0239]), the third and fourth composite anode layer can be formed similarly to the respective first and second composite anode layer compositions such that the intermediate layer of Abdeselam (i.e second composite anode layer) would necessarily have a different ratio of the at least one active material and the auxiliary agent than each of the lower layer and the upper layer which have the same composition (i.e corresponding to the first anode composite layer and the third composite anode layer having the same composition).
Thus, in view of the foregoing, claims 1-2, 5 & 10 stand rejected and claims 6 & 8-9 are allowed.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHANAEL T ZEMUI whose telephone number is (571)272-4894. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm (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, BARBARA GILLIAM can be reached on (571)272-1330. 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.
/NATHANAEL T ZEMUI/Examiner, Art Unit 1727
Prosecution Insights