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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/28/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This is a non-final Office action in response to Applicant’s remarks and amendments filed on 11/28/2025. Claim 1 is amended. Claims 2 – 4 and 11 are canceled. Claims 12 – 14 remain withdrawn. Claims 1, 5 – 10, and 15 are pending review in the current Office action.
The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection set forth in the previous Office action are withdrawn, and a new grounds of rejection is presented below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, with respect to claim(s) 1, and more specifically regarding the combination of the previously applied prior art: Park and Takeda and the coating weight teachings of Chang and Lee, have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 8 – 10, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto (JP5061718B2, Machine translation provided) in view of Uchida (JP2009252421A, Machine translation provided), Krasovitsky (US PG Pub. 2018/0198161 A1) and Lee (US PG Pub. 2015/0017527 A1, cited in previous Office action mailed 07/31/2025).
Regarding Claims 1 and 8 – 10, Yamamoto discloses an anode active material for a lithium secondary battery ([0011];[0015]) comprising carbon-based particles (graphite particles; [0015];[0019]); a first coating layer coupled to at least a portion of the carbon-based particles, wherein the first coating layer comprises an oxide consisting of boron oxide, that is Yamamoto teaches heat treating and carbonizing graphite particles with a mixture of a fusible organic substance and boron oxide to adhere material non-graphitic carbon and boron oxide to the surface of the graphite particles ([0014 – 0016];[0026];[0039]), which one with ordinary skill in the art would recognize to provide a particle surface coating structure within the claimed scope of a first coating layer coupled to at least a portion of the carbon-based particles, wherein the first coating layer comprises an oxide consisting of boron oxide.
Yamamoto does not explicitly disclose a second coating layer which comprises a titanic acid and is coupled to at least a portion of a surface of the first coating layer.
Uchida teaches a negative electrode active material for a second battery that comprises carbon-based particles, such as natural graphite, artificial graphite (for example, MCMB), low-graphitization materials or non-graphitization carbon materials, and a surface coating made of lithium titanate that coats a surface of the carbon-based particles (Fig. 1;[0006];[0016 – 0017]). The lithium titanate coating material of Uchida is one or more compounds selected from Li4Ti5O12, LiTi2O4, and Li2TiO3 and is taught to inactivate and stabilize the surface of the carbon-based particles so that lithium ions can be inserted and extracted ([0018 – 0019]). Specifically, the coatings prevents SEI caused by the reductive composition of electrolyte from being generated during initial charge ([0018];[0022]).
Since Yamamoto’s active material comprises graphite particles and, since Krasovitsky shows that it is known in the art to include more than one coating on anode active material particles for the purpose of enhancing the material (Krasovitsky: [0101];[0103];[0106]), it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the particles of Yamamoto to further include a coating of lithium titanate, as taught by Uchida, with a reasonable expectation of success in furthering Yamamoto’s goal of achieving an active material having high capacity and low reactivity with electrolytes (Yamamoto: [0011 – 0012]; Uchida: [0022]).
As established above, modified Yamamoto includes a lithium titanate coating selected from one or more of one or more Li4Ti5O12, LiTi2O4, and Li2TiO3 , on the surface of graphite-based active material particles that include a coating layer of non-graphitic carbon and boron oxide (Yamamoto: [0014 – 0016]; Uchida: [0018 – 0019]); therefore, modified Yamamoto provides the claimed structure of a second coating coupled to at least a portion of the first coating layer, wherein the second coating layer is directly coated on the first coating layer (Claim 9) and further wherein the second coating layer is formed on an outermost side of the anode active material (Claim 10).
Modified Yamamoto does not particularly disclose an embodiment of the second coating layer comprising lithium titanic acid and further, more particularly a lithium titanic acid represented by claimed Formula 1 (Claim 8).
However, Li4Ti5O12 , from Uchida’s taught finite list of lithium titanate coating compounds, is a compound within the scope of claimed Formula 1. Therefore, since Uchida includes, within a finite list of lithium titanate coating material options, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to select as the lithium titanate coating material of modified Yamamoto, Li4Ti5O12, and thus obtain the claimed lithium titanic acid represented by claimed Formula 1, with a reasonable expectation of success that such a selection would be suitable for the anode active material particles of modified Yamamoto and further capable of performing the desired function of preventing SEI generation.
As established above, the active material of modified Yamamoto includes graphite-based active material particles having a first coating of non-graphitic carbon and boron oxide and a second, outermost, coating of Li4Ti5O12 (Yamamoto: [0014 – 0016]; Uchida: [0018 – 0019]).
When forming the active material, Yamamoto teaches solid mixing graphite powder, a fusible organic powder, and powders of one or more boron compounds selected from "boron oxide and its precursors" in a ratio of 1 to 10 parts by mass of the fusible organic powder and 0.3 to 6 parts by mass of the boron compound powder per 100 parts by mass of the graphite powder ([0016]), as such, Yamamoto implicitly teaches using 1 – 16 parts by mass of coating material {i.e. it is the fusible organic powder and boron compound powder that makes up the coating in Yamamoto} per 100 parts by mass of graphite powder. The amount of the fusible organic substance and boron compound are taught to be controlled for the purpose of achieving a sufficient reduction in irreversible capacity ([0030];[0033]). The amount of boron oxide compound is also selected to ensure that the content of boron oxide after heat treatment is 0.1 to 1.7 wt % in terms of boron as amounts less than 0.1 wt% do not achieve sufficient irreversible capacity reduction and amount greater than 1.7 wt% cause a decrease in discharge capacity ([0033]). With respect to the fusible organic substance, amounts that are too large are taught to decrease the capacity of the material ([0030]).
Uchida further teaches having the thickness of the lithium titanate coating be within the range of 100 – 2000 nm, and more specifically 200 – 500 nm, for the purpose of achieving a uniform thickness and the effect of preventing SEI generation without decreasing capacity density of the material ([0023]). Uchida does not teach the particulars of the amount of lithium titanate coating; however, one with ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that coating thickness is relevant to the amount of coating {i.e. thicker, more uniform coatings would require more material}.
Modified Yamamoto does not particularly disclose; however, wherein the first coating layer is included in amount of 0.1 – 1.5% by weight based on a total weight of the active material and further wherein the second coating layer is included in an amount of 0.1 – 5% by weight based on a total weight of the active material.
Lee teaches a negative electrode active material including a carbon-based active material with a ceramic coating layer, and further teaches an embodiment where a low crystalline carbon layer is included between the ceramic coating layer and the carbon-based active material surface ([0056 – 0058];[0064]). Lee further teaches the ceramic to be a metal oxide, a non-metal oxide, a complex metal oxide, a rare earth oxide, a compound containing halogens, an oxide generated from a ceramic precursor, or a combination thereof, and further includes titanate materials in their list of examples ([0072 – 0073]). The content of ceramic coating material is taught to be 0.1 to 10 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the active material to form a uniform ceramic coating layer and achieve the effect of improved cycle life characteristics ([0075]). Contents outside the claimed range are taught to cause deterioration of cycle life characteristics due to a reduction in capacity caused by the ceramic and the other side reactions ([0075]). Lee further teaches thicknesses of 10 – 1000 nm for the ceramic coating layer ([0076]).
Since Lee teaches coating thicknesses that overlap the thicknesses taught by Uchida, and since lithium titanate, as evidenced by Lee is a type of ceramic coating material, it have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to control the coating weight of modified Yamamoto’s lithium titanate coating to be within the range taught by Lee with a reasonable expectation of success in obtaining a lithium titantate coating of Uchida’s desired thickness.
Furthermore, when considering the entire composition of modified Yamamoto’s active material and the coating amounts suggested by the prior art {i.e. the coating amounts taught by Yamamoto and Lee}, one with ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect the first and second coating layer amounts of modified Yamamoto to encompass/at least overlap the claimed ranges of 0.1 – 1.5% by weight and 0.1 – 5% by weight, based on the total weight of the anode active material.
Selection of coating amounts within the claimed range would have been obvious to optimize the effects of each individual coating layer {i.e. irreversible capacity reduction and SEI generation prevention} as well as the thickness of the second coating layer while also maintaining the high capacity of the material {i.e. both Lee and Yamamoto teach/suggest that larger coating amounts result in decreases in capacity}, with a reasonable expectation of success and without undue experimentation [See MPEP 2144.05(II)].
Regarding Claim 15, modified Yamamoto discloses all limitations as set forth above. Yamamoto further discloses a lithium secondary battery: comprising an anode ([0018];[0045]) which comprises the anode for a lithium secondary battery according to claim 1 (Refer to rejection of claim 1 above).
Claim(s) 5 – 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto (JP5061718B2), Uchida (JP2009252421A), Krasovitsky (US PG Pub. 2018/0198161 A1) and Lee (US PG Pub. 2015/0017527 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sudo (US PG Pub. 2004/0247872 A1).
Regarding Claims 5 – 6, modified Yamamoto discloses all limitations as set forth above. The corresponding first coating layer of modified Yamamoto is a coating comprising non-graphitic carbon and boron oxide and a second, outermost, coating of Li4Ti5O12 (Yamamoto: [0014 – 0016]).
Modified Yamamoto does not explicitly disclose wherein the first coating layer further comprises a linear conductive material (Claim 5).
Sudo teaches a negative electrode active material that is carbon material including carbon particles having a graphitic structure, the particles having a carbonaceous material deposited on at least of portion thereof, and fibrous carbon ([0083]). Sudo further teaches having a preference for depositing the fibrous carbon on a surface of the carbon particles and that the carbonaceous coating layer can also include boron ([0112 – 0113];[0150 – 0151]). The fibrous carbon is taught to be included to increase the conductivity of the carbon material and is further taught to preferably be vapor grown carbon fiber ([0112];[0115 – 0118]).
Since the first coating layer of modified Yamamoto is taught to be formed from a mixture of a fusible organic substance and boron oxide that forms a non-graphitic carbon and boron oxide coating (Yamamoto: [0014 – 0016]), and Sudo teaches depositing the carbon fibers on the surface of the carbon-based particles by adding the fibers to a phenol resin that is used to form a carbonaceous coating on the carbon particles ([0099];[0134 – 0135]), it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the active material particles of modified Yamamoto to include fibrous carbon, as taught by Sudo, and further specifically include the fibrous carbon in the first coating layer, with a reasonable expectation of success in improving the conductivity of the active material and adhering the fibrous carbon onto the modified particle (Sudo:[0097];[0112]).
Modified Yamamoto, as established above, includes the fibrous carbon as taught in Yamamoto, which is a vapor grown carbon fiber ([0115 – 0118]); therefore, modified Yamamoto incudes a linear conductive material within the claimed selection of at least one of carbon nanotube (CNT), carbon nanofiber (CNF), metal fiber, vapor-grown carbon fiber (VGCF) and graphene (Claim 6).
Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto (JP5061718B2), Uchida (JP2009252421A), Krasovitsky (US PG Pub. 2018/0198161 A1), Lee (US PG Pub. 2015/0017527 A1) and Sudo (US PG Pub. 2004/0247872 A1), as applied to claims 1 and 5 above, and further in view of Han (US PG Pub. 2011/0262812 A1, cited in previous Office action mailed 07/31/2025).
Regarding Claim 7, modified Yamamoto discloses all limitations as set forth above. Modified Yamamoto teaches including the fibrous carbon material in an amount of 0.1 – 20 mass %, which overlaps the claimed range of 5 – 70 % by weight based on a total weight of the first coating layer (Sudo: [0124]).
Han teaches coating a carbon material for a negative electrode active material with a mixture including VGCF and amorphous graphite ([0014 – 0016]). The inclusion of carbon fiber is taught to prevent the occurrence of damage to the conductive paths/electrolyte solution infiltration paths of the electrode, and further provide improved conductivity ([0029];[0032]). Han teaches a content of carbon fiber in an amount of 0.5 weight parts to 5 weight parts with respect to 100 weight parts of the carbon material ([0030]). Han further teaches that if the content is less than the taught value, the effect of adding the carbon fiber {i.e. conductivity improvement} is minimal, and if the content is higher than the taught value, carbon fiber undesirably conglomerates ([0030]).
Therefore, selection of an amount of fibrous carbon within the overlapping portion of the taught range and the claimed range would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to optimize the effects {i.e. conductivity improvement} and dispersion of the fibrous carbon in the first coating layer of modified Yamamoto, with a reasonable expectation of success and without undue experimentation [MPEP 2144.05(II)].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARYANA Y ORTIZ whose telephone number is (571)270-5986. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00 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, Jonathan Leong can be reached at (571) 270-1292. 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.
/A.Y.O./Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 12/23/2025