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 .
Response to Amendment
This is a final Office action in response to Applicant’s remarks and amendments filed on 04/29/2026. Claim 1 is amended. Claims 2 – 4, 9, and 11 are canceled. Claims 12 – 14 remains withdrawn.
The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections set forth in the previous Office action are maintained and included below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. {Examiner note: For citations of the instant specification, the examiner utilizes the US PG Pub. version of the instant application: US20220246917A1.}
Applicant argues that the present invention yields unexpected results, specifically applicant argues that, per Example 1 vs. comparative Examples 3 – 4 in Table 1, the claimed structure of two coating layers provides the unexpected results of improved initial efficiency, rate characteristics, and capacity retention rate.
Examiner acknowledges that in Table 1, Example 1, which includes both coating layers, illustrate improved initial efficiency, rate characteristics, and capacity retention rate over comparative Examples 3 and 4, which were prepared in the same manner except that one of the first/second coating layer was not formed; however, the examiner notes that the presence of both coating layers only appears critical when the first coating layer is included in an amount of 0.5 wt% and the second coating layer is included in an amount of 2 – 4 wt% (Refer to Table 1, Examples 1 – 3 and Instant specification: [0106];[0114 – 0115]), and as claim 1 allows for broader, and in the case of the fist coating layer amount, a significantly broader, coating amount than what is shown to provide applicant’s allegedly unexpected results, it is unclear that the presence of both coatings would be critical across the broader coating amounts {i.e. the claimed invention appears incommensurate with the scope of invention argued to provide unexpected results} and applicant’s argument regarding unexpected results is unpersuasive
The examiner further notes that applicant’s most superior results appear to occur when the first coating layer, in addition to boron oxide, includes carbon nanotubes (See Examples 1 – 2 vs. 3 in Table 1). Particularly, Examples 1 – 2 vs. Example 3 appears to demonstrate that the presence of CNT is a factor that also affects/is responsible for the applicant’s unexpected results {i.e. improved initial efficiency, rate characteristics, and capacity retention rate}. As such the data of the instant specification appears to suggests that there are other factors responsible for the unexpected results, but there is no limitation in ind. claim 1 addressing such a factor and applicant’s results appear to be further incommensurate in scope with claimed invention.
Assuming arguendo that the results were persuasive, examiner further respectfully submits that the data is incommensurate with claim 1’s scope, because claim 1 is directed to an anode active material whereas, as acknowledged in [0121 – 0129] of the instant specification, the results {i.e. initial efficiency, rate characteristics, and capacity retention rate} are obtained from incorporating the active material in a lithium secondary battery. Absent additional evidence or a declaration explaining that, for example, the components of the battery {i.e. the cathode material/electrolyte composition/etc.} are not necessary for applicant’s unexpected results, applicant’s argument regarding unexpected results are further rendered unpersuasive per MPEP 716.02(d).
Applicant further argues that Uchida and Yamamoto cannot be readily combined because introducing a non-conductive boron oxide coating layer as taught by Yamamoto under a lithium titanate coating as taught by Uchida would contradict the inventive concept recognized by Uchida {i.e. Uchida teaches a lithium ion conductive coating for carbon particles while the boron oxide coating in Yamamoto is electrically non-conductive} and that instead, from the teachings of Uchida, one with ordinary skill in the art would consider the insertion of an intermediate layer that can supplement electronic conductivity.
Examiner respectfully disagrees for the following reasons: First, the examiner respectfully reminds applicant that Yamamoto was utilized as the primary prior art in the rejection. As such, in the rejection, the examiner modified the particle as taught by Yamamoto to include the coating as taught by Uchida and not the particle as taught by Uchida to include the coating of Yamamoto as seemingly argued by the applicant. Furthermore, in response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
In the instant case, Yamamoto teaches a carbon-based active material coated by boron oxide and the boron oxide coating is taught to achieve the effect of reducing irreversible capacity (Yamamoto: [0014];[0033]). The examiner notes that Yamamoto also indicates a concern for controlling the reactivity of the active material with the electrolyte (Yamamoto: [0022]). Uchida teaches a carbon-based anode active material having a surface coating of lithium titantate that prevents SEI cause by reductive composition of electrolyte from being generated during initial charge (Uchida: [0018 – 0022]). As such, the teachings of Uchida appear applicable to Yamamoto especially in light of Kasovitsky, as established in the Office action previously and below, showing that it is known in the art to include multiple layers on anode active materials for the purpose of enhancing the material (Krasovitsky: [0101];[0103];[0106]). Further the examiner notes that based on Uchida teaching the titanate coating layer having a function of preventing SEI generated by electrolyte, it still would have been further obvious to include the titanate layer taught by Uchida on the outermost surface of the particle in Yamamoto and thus obtain the claimed two layer configuration Therefore, in light of the above discussion, applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive and the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection set forth in previous Office action is maintained and further included below.
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) in view of Uchida (JP2009252421A), Krasovitsky (US PG Pub. 2018/0198161 A1) and Lee (US PG Pub. 2015/0017527 A1). {Examiner Note: All prior art was cited in previous Office action mailed 12/29/2025}
Regarding Claims 1, 8 and 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 comprising 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 comprising boron oxide and directly coating a surface of the carbon-based particles.
Yamamoto does not explicitly disclose a second coating layer comprising a titanic acid and directly coating 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 directly coating a surface of the first coating layer 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). {Examiner Note: All prior art was cited in previous Office action mailed 12/29/2025}
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). {Examiner Note: All prior art was cited in previous Office action mailed 12/29/2025}
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
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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
/Haroon S. Sheikh/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1751
Prosecution Insights