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
The Amendment filed October 13th 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-3, 5-6, & 9-10 remain pending in the application. Claim 7 was cancelled by the applicant, thus the previous rejections of Claim 7 have been withdrawn. Applicant’s amendments to Claim 1 have overcome the previous objections and 112 rejections. Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections of the claims have been fully considered, however are not persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been maintained.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3, 5-6, 9, & 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma et al. US 2022/0093906 A1, and further in view of Chung et al. US 2016/0060125 A1 and Lee et al. US 2018/0287145 A1.
Regarding Claim 1, Ma discloses a negative electrode for a secondary battery (Fig. 3) comprising:
a negative electrode current collector (Figure 3 Item 10 [0007 & 0100]),
a first active material layer (Figure 3 Item 103) comprising a slurry of a first negative electrode active material that is coated on the negative electrode current collector [0101, 0137]
the first active material containing natural graphite [0044]
a second active material layer (Figure 3 Item 102) comprising a slurry of a second negative electrode active material coated on the first active material layer [0101, 0137]
the second active material containing artificial graphite [0044].
PNG
media_image1.png
293
823
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Ma is silent as to the pore size and pore volume of the natural graphite of the first active material layer.
Chung discloses a negative electrode material [0008] for a lithium battery [0010] wherein the negative electrode material is a carbon material [0008], and preferably the carbon material is natural graphite [0023]. Chung discloses that the negative electrode material comprises mesopores having a diameter of 2-50 nm and a pore volume of 0.001-0.05 cc/g [0018], which overlaps with the claimed range.
Chung discloses that when the pore volume is within the above recommended range, there is a reduced amount of gas released within the battery when it is kept charged [0018].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to use the mesopore volume for natural graphite disclosed by Chung to modify the negative electrode active material disclosed by Ma et al. such that the natural graphite has a mesopore volume of 0.001-0.05 cc/g for the advantages of reducing the gas generation within the battery when it is kept charged.
In further regards to the limitation of Claim 1, “having an mesopore volume of 0.6*10-3 cm3/g or more and 2.5*10-3cm3/g or less”, the Examiner directs Applicant to MPEP 2144.05 I. As stated in the MPEP, a prima facie case of obviousness exists when the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have chosen mesopore volume values of Chung because of the battery operational advantages of the range disclosed by Chung and a selection of the overlapping portion or ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness.
With regards to the ratio of the first negative electrode active material contained in the first active material layer to the second negative electrode active material contained in the second active material layer, Ma is silent to the specific ratio of the first material to the second material.
Lee discloses a negative electrode with a first layer of active material layered on a current collector [0017], the first active material comprising natural graphite [0021], and a second layer of active material layered on the first layer [0017], the second active material comprising artificial graphite [0021]. Lee further discloses that the second active material (artificial graphite) is contained in the second active material layer in an amount of 30-90% respective to the total amount of both the first active material and the second active material in both the first and second active material layers, respectively [0029]. Thus, Lee discloses that the ratio of the first negative electrode active material in the first active material layer to the second negative electrode active material in the second active material layer is in the range of 70:30 (when the second active material content is 30%) to 10:90 (when the second active material content is 90%), which overlaps with the claimed range of 10:90 to 40:60. In regards to the ratio of the first active material to the second active material, the Examiner directs Applicant to MPEP 2144.05 I. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected the overlapping ranged disclosed by Lee because selection of the overlapping portion or ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Lee discloses that when the content of the second negative electrode active material is above 90%, the content of the first negative electrode active material is decreased and the capacity of the negative electrode is thus decreased [0029]. Lee further discloses that when the content of the second negative electrode active material is too low, the charging performance is not improved due to the small amount of second negative electrode active material [0029].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to select a ratio of first negative electrode active material to second negative electrode active material as suggested by Lee for use in the first active material layer and second active material layer of Ma that falls within the range as suggested by Lee to prevent a capacity decrease of the negative electrode and has improved charging performance.
With regards to the adhesion force between the first active material layer and the negative electrode current collector, the present disclosure states that the negative current collector is not limited but could be comprised of copper as well as other similar materials [Page 9, Line 5], and states that the first active material layer is natural graphite [Claim 1]. The present discloses states that the first active material has an average particle size of 17-25 µm [Page 3 Line 5]. More specifically, in Example 2 of the present disclosure, which uses most of the same components of Example 1 of the present disclosure, the negative current collector is a copper foil, the first negative electrode active material is natural graphite having a particle size of 18 µm, the binder is SBR, the thickener is CMC, and the conductive material is carbon black [Page 12 Line 20-Page 13 Line 15]. The present disclosure states that adhesion force is driven by specific particle sizes in the specification [Page 5, Line 25], which is further shown in Table 1 of the disclosure wherein Example 2, having a particle size of 18 µm as mentioned previously, has an adhesive force of 23 gf/cm [Page 15 Line 20].
Similarly, Ma discloses that the negative current collector is copper foil [0098], and that the first negative electrode active material in the first active material layer is natural graphite [0007]. Additionally, Ma discloses that the particle size of the first negative active material, which is natural graphite, is 15 μm to 19 μm, and more specifically to be 16 μm to 18 μm [0053]. In the Example 11 of Ma, the average particle size of the natural graphite first active material is specifically 17.9 µm (Table 2). In Example 11 (which has the same composition as Example 1 of Ma [0166] with regards to the additives), Ma further discloses that the first active material layer comprises SBR as the binder, carbon black as the conductive agent, and CMC as the thickener [0156], similar to the present disclosure.
Therefore, Ma teaches a negative current collector and first active material layer with the same structure and same components as recited in Example 2 of the present disclosure, and therefore it will, inherently, display the recited properties, namely allowing for an adhesive force of 23 gf/cm as shown in Table 1 for Example 2, and therefore meets the limitations set forth in the claim, of “an adhesive force between the first active material layer and the negative electrode current collector is 21 gf/cm or more and 40 gf/cm or less”. See MPEP 2112.01 I.
Regarding Claim 2 Ma further discloses that the first negative electrode active material is natural graphite [0044], the particle size of the first negative electrode active material is 15 μm to 19 μm, and more specifically to be 16 μm to 18 μm [0053].
Regarding Claim 3, Ma discloses the first negative electrode active material contains natural graphite [0044], and further discloses that the natural graphite makes up 80-100% by mass of the first negative electrode active material [0068], thus Ma discloses that the first negative electrode active material consists of natural graphite.
Regarding Claim 5, Ma discloses the second negative electrode active material containing artificial graphite [0044] and further discloses the particle size of the second negative active material to be 14 μm to 18 μm, and more specifically to be 15 μm to 17 μm [0054].
Regarding Claim 6, Ma discloses the second negative electrode active material containing artificial graphite [0007] and further discloses that the artificial graphite makes up 90-100% by mass of the second negative electrode active material [0069], thus Ma discloses that the second negative electrode active material consists of artificial graphite.
Regarding Claim 9, Ma discloses a secondary battery comprising the negative electrode of Claim 1 [Abstract, Figures 1 & 4]. In the specification, Ma further discloses the materials of the battery, in addition to the previously described negative electrode, to include :
A positive electrode, comprising a current collector and an electrode film active material [0104] and
An electrolyte positioned between the negative electrode and the positive electrode, comprising either a solid or a liquid electrolyte [0115] and
A separator positioned between the negative electrode and the positive electrode to isolate them from each other and to facilitate ion migration [0121].
Regarding Claim 10, the present disclosure claims a thickness swelling ratio of the battery when charging to be 24% or less. The specification of the present disclosure states that the battery is comprised of a negative electrode, a positive electrode, an electrolyte, and a separator [Page 9, Lines 13-16].
As previously mentioned, the present disclosure claims the negative electrode comprised of a current collector containing copper [Page 9, Line 5], and a first and second negative electrode active material layers containing natural and artificial graphite, respectively, [Claim 1]. The present disclosure states that the positive electrode is comprised of materials including lithium such as lithium cobalt oxide [Page 9, Line 25]. The present disclosure states that the electrolyte is comprised of an organic solvent, such as ethyl methyl carbonate (MEC), and a lithium salt, such as LiPF6 [Page 11, Lines 7-27]. The present disclosure also states that the separator is comprised of materials including a porous layer, a ceramic layer, or a polymer layer, all of which would facilitate ion migration, and more specifically including a non-woven fabric or glass fiber porous layer [Page 10, Lines 18-26].
Ma discloses a secondary battery comprised of a negative electrode [0042], a positive electrode [0103], an electrolyte [0114], and a separator [0120]. As stated previously, the negative electrode disclosed by Ma is comprised of a current collector made from copper or copper foil [0098], and first and second negative electrode active material layers containing natural and artificial graphite, respectively, [0043]. Ma further discloses a positive electrode comprised of lithium materials including lithium cobalt oxide [0107]. Ma discloses an electrolyte for ion conduction between the two electrodes, wherein the electrolyte is comprised on materials including a lithium salt, such as LiPF6 [0117], and an organic solvent, such as ethyl methyl carbonate (EMC) [0118]. Ma discloses a separator, disposed between the two electrodes, wherein the separator is comprised of materials including porous polymers or composite films such as glass fiber, non-woven fabric [0121].
Therefore, Ma teaches a secondary battery comprised of a negative electrode, a positive electrode, an electrolyte, and a separator with the same structure and materials as recited in the present disclosure, and therefore it will, inherently, display the recited properties, namely allowing for “a thickness swelling ratio of the battery when charging to be 24% or less”. See MPEP 2112.01 I.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that the cited references fail to establish a prima facie case of obviousness as the claimed range is narrower than that disclosed range of the cited prior art (Chung) and the narrower range leads to unexpected and superior results. This is not found to be persuasive because it is not sufficient to overcome the prima facie case of obviousness. Examiner notes that Chung discloses a range of mesopore volume that overlaps the claimed range, as stated in the rejection above, and respectfully points out that all values in the range are obvious including the overlapping values, therefore a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Additionally, the claimed invention is not commensurate in scope with the examples of the instant specification and therefore the examples cannot be relied upon to show that the claimed invention presents the unexpected and superior results of the examples. At a minimum, the claimed invention is not commensurate in scope because the range is not shown to be critical based on the examples, and the particle sizes of the experimental examples vary compared to the comparative examples and therefore could be contributing to the unexpected and superior results. To show the criticality of a range, Examiner points out that it must be shown that values above and below the claimed range do not produce unexpected and superior results whereas values within the claimed range do produce unexpected and superior results. In the instant specification, Applicant shows Comparative Examples 1-5, all of which have mesopore volumes above the claimed range, and none of the comparative examples have mesopore volumes below the claimed range. Further, Applicant shows Experimental Examples 1-3 which only have two mesopore volume values that are in the middle of the claimed range and do not represent the span of the claimed range. Examiner also points out that the Experimental Examples compared to the Comparative Examples have varying particle sizes, and therefore other varying features other than the mesopore volume could be contributing to the unexpected and superior results of the Experimental Examples. Accordingly, the argument that the claimed invention of Claim 1 would lead to unexpected and superior results is not persuasive.
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 ANNA E GOULD whose telephone number is (571)270-1088. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, Jeffrey T. Barton can be reached at (571) 272-1307. 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.E.G./Examiner, Art Unit 1726
/JEFFREY T BARTON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1726 31 December 2025