DETAILED ACTION
Introductory Notes
Any paragraph citation of the instant is in reference to the U.S. published patent application.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/13/2025 has been entered.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 1, 10, and 19 recite the limitation “an average particle size of the first active material is greater than an average particle size of the second active material”. Notably paragraph [0037] of the instant specification states “In this application, when the difference between the average particle size of the second active material and the average particle size of the first active material is not more than 10%, it is believed that the average particle size of the second active material and the average particle size of the first active material are identical”. Therefore, the limitation is being interpreted such that the first active material is greater than an average particle size of the second active material by more than 10%.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4-6, 8, 10-11, 13-15, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Subbaraman (US 20180358659 A1) in view of Lee (US 20160329567 A1, hereinafter Lee) in view of Lee (KR 20140080837 A, hereinafter KR’837, supplied with an IDS, English translation used for citations).
Regarding claims 10 and 19, Subbaraman teaches an electronic device (see “electronic devices and electric and hybrid-electric vehicles” in [0003]) comprising an electrochemical device (see 100, fig. 1, and [0013]) comprising a positive electrode (see 140, fig. 1, and [0013]); and a separator located between the positive electrode and the negative electrode (see 130, fig. 1, and [0016]).
Regarding claims 1, 10, and 19, Subbaraman teaches a negative electrode (see 128, fig. 1 and [0015]), comprising: a negative electrode current collector (see 110, fig. 1 and [0013]), a first active material layer (see “second ad-layer”, 125, fig. 1 and [0015]), and a second active material layer (see “first ad-layer”, 120, fig. 1 and [0015]); wherein the second active material layer (see “first ad-layer”, 120, fig. 1 and [0015]) is located between the negative electrode current collector (see 110, fig. 1 and [0013]) and the first active material layer (see 125, fig. 1); the first active material layer (see “second ad-layer”, 125, fig. 1 and [0015]) comprises a first active material (see "the second ad-layer 125 includes materials which are ionically conductive to Li ions" in [0015]) and a target compound (see “Li3N” in [0015]), the target compound (see “Li3N” in [0015]) comprising AxBy (see “Li3N” in [0015]), wherein 0 < x < 4, 0 < y < 8 (see “Li3N” in [0015], where x = 3, and y = 1); A comprises a metal element (see “Li3N” in [0015], where A = Li which, is a metal) comprising at least one selected from the group consisting of Li, Na, Mg, Ca, Zn, and Cs (see “Li3N” in [0015], where A = Li); and B comprises a non-metallic element (see “Li3N” in [0015], where B = N, which is a non-metal) comprising at least one selected from the group consisting of N, S, and Si (see “Li3N” in [0015]), wherein the first active material is graphene oxide ([0014] discloses graphene oxide while [0015] discloses a mixed first ad-layer); the second active material layer comprises a second active material [0015]; but does not disclose wherein the first active material is one selected from the group consisting of artificial graphite, natural graphite, coke, silicon-oxygen compound, and silicon-containing metal.
Lee discloses a protective layer for an anode which describes graphene oxide or particles of metal silicate [0088].
Since the prior art of Lee recognizes the equivalency of graphene oxide and particles of metal silicate in the field of anode protective layers, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to replace the graphene oxide of Subbaraman with the particles of metal silicate of Lee as it is merely the selection of functionally equivalent inorganic materials protection materials recognized in the art and one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.
Modified Subbaraman does not expressly teach an average particle size of the first active material is greater than an average particle size of the second active material.
KR’837 is directed to electrode structure having multiple layers like Subbaraman. KR’837 discloses “size of the first [note: furthest from current collector] negative electrode active material particles is larger than the size of the second [note: closest to the current collector] negative electrode active material particles” (page 6, line 3 of the translation). Regarding the naming and ordering of layers in KR’837 see Fig. 2 (provided below) as well as the final paragraph of page 5 of the translation bridging to page 6. KR’837 provides example with a top layer of “graphite with a particle size of 25 µm” [0041] and a bottom layer of “graphite with a particle size of 10 μm” [0043], fully reading on the limitation.
PNG
media_image1.png
504
1858
media_image1.png
Greyscale
KR’837 teaches the “advantage of being able to improve the slow electrode reaction speed of the second coating layer” (page 6 line 8 of the translation) and as such “the output characteristics can be improved” (page 6 final paragraph of the translation).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the particle sizes of KR’837 for the layers of modified Subbaraman to improve output characteristics by improving the reaction speed of the second coating layer.
Therefore, modified Subbaraman discloses an average particle size of the first active material is greater than an average particle size of the second active material (as taught by KR’837).
Regarding claims 2 and 11, modified Subbaraman discloses all the limitations as set forth above and Subbaraman further teaches wherein AxBy is at least one selected from the group consisting of Li3N, Li2S, Na3N, Na2S, Ca3N2, CaS, Mg3N2, and MgS (see “Li3N” in [0015]).
Regarding claims 4 and 13, modified Subbaraman discloses all the limitations as set forth above and Subbaraman further teaches wherein the first active material layer (see “second ad-layer”, 125, fig. 1 and [0015]) has a thickness of h1 (see “thickness of the second ad-layer 125” in [0015]), and the second active material layer (see “first ad-layer”, 120, fig. 1 and [0015]) has a thickness of h2 (see “thickness of the first ad-layer 120” in [0014]). Subbaraman does not specifically teach wherein 10% < h1/(h1+h2) < 90%. However, the thicknesses for h1 and h2 can both be less than 1 micrometer (µm) and greater than 3 nanometers (nm) (see [0014]-[0015]). It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the thickness of h1 to 0.9 µm, and h2 to 0.9 µm because Subbaraman teaches that these values can be used for the thickness of each layer, and it would yield the same result of conducting lithium ions and preventing dendrite formation in the battery (see [0014]-[0015]). Further, it has been held that combining two embodiments disclosed adjacent to each other in a prior art patent does not require a leap of inventiveness and involves only routine skill in the art. The examiner would like to note with the modification above that 10% < 0.9 µm /(0.9 µm + 0.9 µm) < 90%.
Regarding claims 5 and 14, modified Subbaraman does not specifically teach wherein 10% < h1/(h1+h2) < 50%. However, the thicknesses for h1 and h2 can both be less than 1 micrometer (µm) and greater than 3 nanometers (see [0014]-[0015]). It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the thickness of h1 to 0.9 µm, and h2 to 0.9 µm because Subbaraman teaches that these values can be used for the thickness of each layer, and it would yield the same result of conducting lithium ions and preventing dendrite formation in the battery (see [0014]-[0015]). Further, it has been held that combining two embodiments disclosed adjacent to each other in a prior art patent does not require a leap of inventiveness and involves only routine skill in the art. The examiner would like to note with the modification above that 10% < 0.9 µm /(0.9 µm + 0.9 µm) < 50%.
Regarding claims 6 and 15, modified Subbaraman discloses all the limitations as set forth above and Subbaraman further teaches wherein, the first active material (see "the second ad-layer 125 includes materials which are ionically conductive to Li ions" in [0015]) has a capacity per gram of c1 (Li3N has a capacity of 1761 mAh/g, according to “Sun et al.,”); the second active material (see “the first ad-layer 120 includes materials that are ionically conductive” in [0014]) has a capacity per gram of c2 (see “Mesocarbon microbeads data”, where the capacity is 327 mAh/g). As discussed in the rejection of claim 1, KR’837 teaches “size of the first negative electrode active material particles is larger than the size of the second”; therefore, given that c1 is larger than c2 for modified Subbaraman it holds that c1 x d1 > c2 x d2 (1761 mAh/g > 327 mAh/g; wherein the difference only gets larger as d1 increases relative to d2).
Regarding claims 8 and 17, modified Subbaraman discloses all the limitations as set forth above and Subbaraman further teaches wherein the second active material layer (see “first ad-layer”, 120, fig. 1 and [0015]) comprises a second active material (see “the first ad-layer 120 includes materials that are ionically conductive” in [0014]), and a capacity per gram of the first active material (see "the second ad-layer 125 includes materials which are ionically conductive to Li ions" in [0015]) is greater than or equal to a capacity per gram of the second active material (the capacity of the first active material, Li3N is 1761 mAh/g, according to “Sun et al.,”, and the capacity of the second active material is 327 mAh/g according to “Mesocarbon microbeads data”).
Claims 3 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Subbaraman in view of Lee in view of KR’837 and in further view of Li (US 20180301745 A1).
Regarding claims 3 and 12, modified Subbaraman discloses all the limitations as set forth above and Subbaraman does not teach wherein the target compound has a mass percentage of 0.1% to 20%, based on a total mass of the first active material layer and the second active material layer. However, Li teaches wherein the target compound (see “lithium metal and electrochemical active anode material,” fig. 1, and Li [0031]) has a mass percentage of 0.1% to 20%, based on a total mass of the first active material layer and the second active material layer (see “a range of ratios between the “weight of electrochemically active anode material” to the “weight of lithium” of 19:1 to 8:1” in Li [0027]. This weight ratio corresponds to a mass % between 5.3 % and 12.5 % for the target compound).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to adjust the mass ratio of the target compound taught by Subbaraman to a range of 0.1% to 20% (see “a range of ratios between the weight of electrochemically active anode material to the weight of lithium of 19:1 to 8:1” in Li [0027]. This weight ratio corresponds to a mass % between 5.3 % and 12.5 % for the target compound) in order to ensure that all of the lithium is consumed during battery operation, and prevent the formation of lithium dendrites to improve battery safety, and lower production cost (see Li [0091]).Further, Subbaraman teaches that various changes may be made to the device without departing from the disclosed subject matter (see Subbaraman [0026]).
Claims 7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Subbaraman in view of Lee in view of KR’837 and in further view of Ise (US 20190296327 A1).
Regarding claims 7 and 16, modified Subbaraman discloses all the limitations as set forth above and modified Subbaraman does not teach wherein the first active material has an average particle size of 6µm < d1 < 20 µm.
However, Ise teaches wherein active material has an average particle size of 6µm < d1 < 20 µm (see “the average secondary particle size of the active material preferably ranges from 1 μm to 50 μm” in Ise [0063]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the size of the first active material of modified Subbaraman to be within the range of 6µm < d1 < 20 µm as taught by Ise to improve battery productivity at the time of manufacture, and battery performance (see Ise [0063]). Further, Subbaraman teaches that various changes may be made to the device without departing from the disclosed subject matter (see Subbaraman [0026]).
Response to Arguments
Regarding art-based rejections, applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any interpretation applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
He (US 20190386342 A1) directed to improving anode stability by implementing two anode-protecting layers wherein graphite may be present in two protective layers [0031] and the top protective layer (relative to the current collector being bottom) may include Li2S or Na2S.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRAVIS L MARTIN whose telephone number is (703)756-5449. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8am-5pm ET.
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, Allison Bourke can be reached at (303)297-4684. 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.
/T.L.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1721
/ALLISON BOURKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1721
Prosecution Insights