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 .
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendment received October 3, 2025:
Claims 8-15 have been added as per Applicant’s request. Claims 1-15 are pending.
The core of the previous prior art rejection is maintained. However, WO 2019/035669/US 2020/0176753 (Lee et al.) is no longer relied upon. New references are relied upon to render the newly cited claim limitations obvious. All changes to the rejection are necessitated by the amendment. Thus, the action is final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 8-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 8 requires that the intermediate layer exists but precludes the alloying material. However, the disclosure as originally filed does not specifically recognize preclusion of the alloying material. Rather the “intermediate layer may include the graphite particles A, the graphite particles B and the alloying material, or may include other negative electrode active materials or the like which are known in the art” (para 0052). Thus, specifically having 0 mass% of the alloying material is not supported by the disclosure as originally filed. Claim 15 further exacerbates this issue by requiring at least one of graphite particles A or graphite particles B; however, the disclosure appears to indicate that the materials (graphite particles A, graphite particles B, and alloying materials) are used together in the intermediate layer (para 0052). The newly cited claim does not appear to be supported by the disclosure.
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 and 3-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2022/0216475 (Tsuda et al.) in view of WO 2019/108039/US 2020/0243848 (Kim et al.) (note: both references cited under Lee et al. are applicable but with different dates; the US version serves as the English translation of the WO document).
As to claim 1, Tsuda et al. teach a negative electrode for a lithium ion secondary battery, the negative electrode comprising:
a negative electrode electricity collector [40] (fig. 2); and a negative electrode mixture layer formed over the negative electrode electricity collector, wherein
the negative electrode mixture layer includes a negative electrode active material including graphite particles A having a particle internal porosity of 10% or lower (3% exemplified; para 0065-0066), graphite particles B having a particle internal porosity of greater than 10% (15% exemplified; para 0065-0066), and an alloying material which alloys with lithium (SiO) (para 0047, 0065),
the negative electrode mixture layer consists only of a first layer formed over the negative electrode electricity collector (half region [42a]), and a second layer formed over the first layer (half region [42b]) (fig. 2; para 0065-0067),
the graphite particles A and the alloying material are contained in larger amounts in the second layer than in the first layer (para 0044-0045, 0065-0066),
the graphite particles B are contained in a larger amount in the first layer than in the second layer (fig. 2; para 0044-0045, 0065-0067), and
a content of the alloying material is 15 mass% or lower with respect to a total amount of the negative electrode active material in the negative electrode mixture layer (5 mass% exemplified) (para 0047, 0065).
Tsuda et al. teaches the same amount of alloying material (SiO) in the layers (50 mass% in the first layer and 50 mass% in the second layer) (para 0065).
Thus, Tsuda et al. do not teach a content of the alloying material in the first layer is 0 mass% with respect to a total amount of the alloying material in the negative electrode mixture layer, and a content of the alloying material in the second layer is 100 mass% with respect to the total amount of the alloying material in the negative electrode mixture layer.
Kim et al., in the same field of endeavor, teach an electrode with a current collector [10] and a negative electrode mixture layer that consists only of a first electrode mixture layer [30] and a second electrode mixture layer [40], wherein the first electrode mixture layer [30] is between the current collector [10] and second electrode mixture layer [40] (fig. 2; para 0040-0042, 0099-0100). The first electrode mixture layer includes carbonaceous active material, and the second electrode mixture layer includes silicon-based (alloying materials claimed) active material (figs. 2-3; para 0040-0042, 099-0101). The motivation having a silicon-based active material (alloying material) only in a second electrode mixture layer (100%) (thus yielding 0% alloying material in the first electrode mixture layer) is to create a structure that prevents electrically isolated silicon-based active materials due to separation/detachment due to cracking of the silicon-based active material, thus improving cycle characteristics (para 0037, 0041-0042). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made (as applicable to pre-AIA applications) or effectively filed (as applicable to AIA applications) to have a content of the alloying material in the first layer be 0 mass% with respect to a total amount of the alloying material in the negative electrode mixture layer, and a content of the alloying material in the second layer is 100 mass% with respect to the total amount of the alloying material in the negative electrode mixture layer to create a structure that prevents electrically isolated silicon-based active materials due to separation/detachment due to cracking of the silicon-based active material, thus improving cycle characteristics.
As to claim 3, Tsuda et al. teach the negative electrode mixture layer contains polyacrylic acid or a salt thereof (para 0065).
Tsuda et al. do not teach the polyacrylic acid or the salt thereof is contained in a larger amount in the second layer than in the first layer, as Tsuda et al. teach the same amount in the layers (para 0065). However, this amount is close to the claimed amount (as the same in each is close to having one with a larger amount, as the larger amount may be minutely larger), such that obviousness is met. It has been held that when the difference between a claimed invention and the prior art is the range or value of a particular variable, then a prima facie rejection is properly established when the difference in the range or value is minor. Titanium Metals Corp. of Am. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Generally, differences in ranges will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such ranges is critical. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969). Claims that differ from the prior art only by slightly different (non-overlapping) ranges are prima facie obvious without a showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art. (In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935,1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990)). Also see MPEP §2144.05(I).
As to claim 4, Tsuda et al. teach the negative electrode mixture layer contains styrene-butadiene rubber, and the styrene-butadiene rubber is contained in a larger amount in the first layer than in the second layer (para 0065-0067).
As to claim 5, Tsuda et al. teach wherein 90 mass% or greater and 100 mass% or lower of the styrene-butadiene rubber contained in the negative electrode mixture layer is contained in a half region on a side near the negative electrode electricity collector (100% taught, but 93% realized due to diffusion via the process) (para 0067).
As to claim 6, Tsuda et al. teach the negative electrode mixture layer contains carboxymethyl cellulose or a salt thereof (para 0065).
Tsuda et al. do not teach the carboxymethyl cellulose or the salt thereof is contained in a larger amount in the second layer than in the first layer, as Tsuda et al. teach the same amount in the layers (para 0065). However, this amount is close to the claimed amount (as the same in each is close to having one with a larger amount, as the larger amount may be minutely larger), such that obviousness is met. It has been held that when the difference between a claimed invention and the prior art is the range or value of a particular variable, then a prima facie rejection is properly established when the difference in the range or value is minor. Titanium Metals Corp. of Am. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Generally, differences in ranges will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such ranges is critical. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969). Claims that differ from the prior art only by slightly different (non-overlapping) ranges are prima facie obvious without a showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art. (In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935,1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990)). Also see MPEP §2144.05(I).
As to claim 7, Tsuda et al. teach a lithium ion secondary battery comprising: the negative electrode for the lithium ion secondary battery according to claim 1 (the teachings of claim 1 incorporated herein but not reiterated herein for brevity’s sake) (fig. 1; para 0076; also indicated by the active material of the positive electrode – para 0052).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuda et al. in view of Kim et al., as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2016/0351892 (Sugimori et al.)
As to claim 2, Tsuda et al. do not teach the negative electrode mixture layer contains fibrous carbon, and the fibrous carbon is contained in a larger amount in the second layer than in the first layer.
However Sugimori et al. teach of a multi-layered electrode including conductive agent, such as fibrous carbon, where a larger amount of the conductive agent is placed on the surface side (second layer, as claimed) (para 0018, 0035; fig. 1). The motivation for including a conductive agent, such as fibrous carbon, wherein the conductive agent is contained in a larger amount in the second layer (surface layer) than in the first layer (layer by the current collector) is to increase electrical conductivity and rentivity of the electrolyte solution, which results in a formation of a good SEI coating, which results in lower side reactions (para 0018-0021). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made (as applicable to pre-AIA applications) or effectively filed (as applicable to AIA applications) to include a conductive agent, such as fibrous carbon, wherein the conductive agent is contained in a larger amount in the second layer (surface layer) than in the first layer (layer by the current collector) in order to increase electrical conductivity and rentivity of the electrolyte solution, which results in a formation of a good SEI coating, which results in lower side.
Claim(s) 8 and 10-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuda et al. in view of Kim et al. and US 2020/0259180 (Shin et al.).
As to claim 8, Tsuda et al. teach a negative electrode for a lithium ion secondary battery, the negative electrode comprising:
a negative electrode electricity collector [40] (fig. 2); and a negative electrode mixture layer formed over the negative electrode electricity collector, wherein
the negative electrode mixture layer includes a negative electrode active material including graphite particles A having a particle internal porosity of 10% or lower (3% exemplified; para 0065-0066), graphite particles B having a particle internal porosity of greater than 10% (15% exemplified; para 0065-0066), and an alloying material which alloys with lithium (SiO) (para 0047, 0065),
the negative electrode mixture layer includes a first layer formed over the negative electrode electricity collector (half region [42a]), and a second layer formed over the first layer (half region [42b]) (fig. 2; para 0065-0067),
the graphite particles A and the alloying material are contained in larger amounts in the second layer than in the first layer (para 0044-0045, 0065-0066),
the graphite particles B are contained in a larger amount in the first layer than in the second layer (fig. 2; para 0044-0045, 0065-0067), and
a content of the alloying material is 15 mass% or lower with respect to a total amount of the negative electrode active material in the negative electrode mixture layer (5 mass% exemplified) (para 0047, 0065).
Tsuda et al. teaches the same amount of alloying material (SiO) in the layers (50 mass% in the first layer and 50 mass% in the second layer) (para 0065).
Thus, Tsuda et al. do not teach (a) a content of the alloying material in the first layer is 0 mass% with respect to a total amount of the alloying material in the negative electrode mixture layer, and a content of the alloying material in the second layer is 100 mass% with respect to the total amount of the alloying material in the negative electrode mixture layer, or (b) the presence of an intermediate layer between the first layer and the second layer, wherein a content of the alloying material in the intermediate layer is 0% .
With respect to (a): Kim et al., in the same field of endeavor, teach an electrode with a current collector [10] and a negative electrode mixture layer that consists only of a first electrode mixture layer [30] and a second electrode mixture layer [40], wherein the first electrode mixture layer [30] is between the current collector [10] and second electrode mixture layer [40] (fig. 2; para 0040-0042, 0099-0100). The first electrode mixture layer includes carbonaceous active material, and the second electrode mixture layer includes silicon-based (alloying materials claimed) active material (figs. 2-3; para 0040-0042, 099-0101). The motivation having a silicon-based active material (alloying material) only in a second electrode mixture layer (100%) (thus yielding 0% alloying material in the first electrode mixture layer) is to create a structure that prevents electrically isolated silicon-based active materials due to separation/detachment due to cracking of the silicon-based active material, thus improving cycle characteristics (para 0037, 0041-0042). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made (as applicable to pre-AIA applications) or effectively filed (as applicable to AIA applications) to have a content of the alloying material in the first layer be 0 mass% with respect to a total amount of the alloying material in the negative electrode mixture layer, and a content of the alloying material in the second layer is 100 mass% with respect to the total amount of the alloying material in the negative electrode mixture layer to create a structure that prevents electrically isolated silicon-based active materials due to separation/detachment due to cracking of the silicon-based active material, thus improving cycle characteristics.
With respect to (b): Shin et al. teach of using a dry film layer between a carbon-containing active material layer and a SiO containing layer (alloying material) (fig. 2F). The motivation for providing a dry film (intermediate layer) between a carbon-containing layer (first layer) and SiO containing layer (second layer) is to create a properly adhered product (para 0065). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made (as applicable to pre-AIA applications) or effectively filed (as applicable to AIA applications) to provide a dry film (intermediate layer) between a carbon-containing layer (first layer) and SiO containing layer (second layer) is to create a properly adhered product. (Note: The combination is only drawn towards adding one layer between the two layers in Tsuda et al., meeting the claimed 3-layered structure. No other layers of Shin et al. are imported in the combiantion.)
As to claim 10, Tsuda et al. teach the negative electrode mixture layer contains polyacrylic acid or a salt thereof (para 0065).
Tsuda et al. do not teach the polyacrylic acid or the salt thereof is contained in a larger amount in the second layer than in the first layer, as Tsuda et al. teach the same amount in the layers (para 0065). However, this amount is close to the claimed amount (as the same in each is close to having one with a larger amount, as the larger amount may be minutely larger), such that obviousness is met. It has been held that when the difference between a claimed invention and the prior art is the range or value of a particular variable, then a prima facie rejection is properly established when the difference in the range or value is minor. Titanium Metals Corp. of Am. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Generally, differences in ranges will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such ranges is critical. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969). Claims that differ from the prior art only by slightly different (non-overlapping) ranges are prima facie obvious without a showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art. (In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935,1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990)). Also see MPEP §2144.05(I).
As to claim 11, Tsuda et al. teach the negative electrode mixture layer contains styrene-butadiene rubber, and the styrene-butadiene rubber is contained in a larger amount in the first layer than in the second layer (para 0065-0067).
As to claim 12, Tsuda et al. teach wherein 90 mass% or greater and 100 mass% or lower of the styrene-butadiene rubber contained in the negative electrode mixture layer is contained in a half region on a side near the negative electrode electricity collector (100% taught, but 93% realized due to diffusion via the process) (para 0067).
As to claim 13, Tsuda et al. teach the negative electrode mixture layer contains carboxymethyl cellulose or a salt thereof (para 0065).
Tsuda et al. do not teach the carboxymethyl cellulose or the salt thereof is contained in a larger amount in the second layer than in the first layer, as Tsuda et al. teach the same amount in the layers (para 0065). However, this amount is close to the claimed amount (as the same in each is close to having one with a larger amount, as the larger amount may be minutely larger), such that obviousness is met. It has been held that when the difference between a claimed invention and the prior art is the range or value of a particular variable, then a prima facie rejection is properly established when the difference in the range or value is minor. Titanium Metals Corp. of Am. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Generally, differences in ranges will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such ranges is critical. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969). Claims that differ from the prior art only by slightly different (non-overlapping) ranges are prima facie obvious without a showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art. (In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935,1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990)). Also see MPEP §2144.05(I).
As to claim 14, Tsuda et al. teach a lithium ion secondary battery comprising: the negative electrode for the lithium ion secondary battery according to claim 1 (the teachings of claim 1 incorporated herein but not reiterated herein for brevity’s sake) (fig. 1; para 0076; also indicated by the active material of the positive electrode – para 0052).
As to claim 15, the combination renders the limitation (the intermediate layer includes at least one selected from the group consisting of graphite particles A and the graphite particles B) obvious, as Shin et al. relied upon to render obvious the claimed invention teaches that the dry film (intermediate layer) includes active material and a binder (para 0006, 0047) including graphite (para 0051, 0056). Accordingly, using the graphite particles A or the graphite particles B (as taught in Tsuda et al.) at the very least be obvious, as the substitution of one active material in the intermediate layer for another (i.e. substituting graphite particles A or graphite particles B of Tsuda et al.) would yield the predictable result of providing an operable intermediate layer having active material, as the substituted compounds and their functions were known in the art (as active materials). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made (as applicable to pre-AIA applications) or effectively filed (as applicable to AIA applications) to substitute substituting graphite particles A or graphite particles B as the active material in the intermediate layer, as the substitution would yield the predictable result of providing an operable intermediate layer having active material, as the substituted compounds and their functions were known in the art (as active materials). “When considering obviousness of a combination of known elements, the operative question is thus "whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions." Id . at ___, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.” See MPEP §2141(I).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuda et al. in view of Kim et al. and Shin et al., as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Sugimori et al.
As to claim 9, Tsuda et al. do not teach the negative electrode mixture layer contains fibrous carbon, and the fibrous carbon is contained in a larger amount in the second layer than in the first layer.
However Sugimori et al. teach of a multi-layered electrode including conductive agent, such as fibrous carbon, where a larger amount of the conductive agent is placed on the surface side (second layer, as claimed) (para 0018, 0035; fig. 1). The motivation for including a conductive agent, such as fibrous carbon, wherein the conductive agent is contained in a larger amount in the second layer (surface layer) than in the first layer (layer by the current collector) is to increase electrical conductivity and rentivity of the electrolyte solution, which results in a formation of a good SEI coating, which results in lower side reactions (para 0018-0021). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made (as applicable to pre-AIA applications) or effectively filed (as applicable to AIA applications) to include a conductive agent, such as fibrous carbon, wherein the conductive agent is contained in a larger amount in the second layer (surface layer) than in the first layer (layer by the current collector) in order to increase electrical conductivity and rentivity of the electrolyte solution, which results in a formation of a good SEI coating, which results in lower side.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed October 3, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1 and claims dependent on claim 1:
Applicant argues that Lee’s 3-layered structure would not render the claimed invention obvious.
Examiner submits that in light of the amendment Lee et al. is no longer relied upon. Kim et al. is relied upon for the bilayer feature, wherein silicon-based active material is only present in one of the layers (figs. 2-3). Thus the argument is not persuasive, and the rejection of record is maintained.
With respect to the arguments regarding the 103 rejections, Applicant argues that the prior art used to render obvious the rejected claims (Sugimori) do not cure the deficiencies of the rejection applied to the independent claim (Tsuda, now in view of Kim). Applicant does not argue how the combination is not proper. Therefore, the Examiner maintains the obviousness rejections and upholds the rejection to the independent claim, as above.
With respect to claim 8 and its dependents:
Applicant argues the claims are not obvious in view of Tsuda et al. in view of Lee et al., similar to claim 1 (as the combination would yield alloying material in the intermediate layer, since Lee et al.’s 3-layered structure has the alloying material in the central layer).
Examiner submits that in light of the amendments, Lee et al. is no longer relied upon. Rather, Tsuda et al. is combined with Kim et al. and Shin et al. (intermediate layer). Thus, the argument is not persuasive, and the rejection of record is maintained.
Applicant argues that the dependent claims are distinct from the prior art of record for the same reason as the independent claim.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The rejection with respect to the independent claim has been maintained, and thus the rejections to the dependent claims are maintained as well.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 EUGENIA WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-4942. The examiner can normally be reached a flex schedule, generally Monday-Thursday 5:30 -7:30(AM) and 9:00-4:30 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, Duane Smith can be reached at 571-272-1166. 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.
/EUGENIA WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights