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 .
Status of Claims
Applicant’s amendment and arguments, filed 02/26/26, have been fully considered. Claim(s) 1 and 2 is/are amended; and claim(s) 3–5 stand(s) as originally or previously presented; no new matter is entered. Examiner affirms that the original disclosure provides adequate support for the amendment.
Upon considering said amendment and arguments, the previous 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection set forth in the Office Action mailed 11/28/25 has/have been withdrawn. Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new grounds of rejection below.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 recites “an interparticle porosity … of the graphite particles” and “a packing density … of the … negative electrode mixture layer”. The instant specification specially defines 1) “interparticle porosity” as “a two-dimensional value determined from a ratio of an area of voids between the graphite particles to a cross-sectional area of the negative electrode mixture layer” (¶ 0023) and 2) “packing density” as the “mass per unit volume of the negative electrode mixture layer” (¶ 0028), and, thus, such interpretation will be employed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text forming the basis for the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 may be found in a prior Office Action.
Claim(s) 1–5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujitomo et al. (WO 2021117550 A1; citation to English equivalent US 20230025305 A1) (Fujitomo).
Fujitomo’s EFD of 12/13/19 intervenes between the instant foreign-priority and 371 filing dates of 11/27/19 and 11/19/20, respectively. Applicant cannot rely upon the certified copy of the foreign priority application to overcome this rejection because a translation of said application has not been made of record in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55. When an English language translation of a non-English language foreign application is required, the translation must be that of the certified copy (of the foreign application as filed) submitted together with a statement that the translation of the certified copy is accurate. See MPEP §§ 215 and 216.
Regarding claims 1–3, Fujitomo discloses a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery (Title), comprising a negative electrode including a negative electrode current collector (11 of fig. 4), a first negative electrode mixture layer provided on a surface of the negative electrode current collector (12b of fig. 4), and a second negative electrode mixture layer provided on a surface of the first negative electrode mixture layer (12a of fig. 4), wherein the first negative electrode mixture layer and the second negative electrode mixture layer contain graphite particles (e.g., ¶ 0041; see also Ex. 1, ¶ 0115–0125 and Table 1).
Fujitomo further discloses a ratio of P1/P2 of an interparticle porosity of the graphite particles in the second negative electrode mixture layer to an interparticle porosity of the graphite particles in the first negative electrode mixture layer—and, thus, corresponding to S2/S1 given P1 is for the upper layer (¶ 0013), and such is measured as a cross-sectional area of voids within electrode (¶ 0039)—of, e.g., 1.2 (Table 1, Ex. 1).
More broadly, though, Fujimoto discloses that P1/P2 is preferably 1.1–2.0, more preferably 1.1–1.5, because at 1.1 or more, high rate characteristics are improved, while at 2.0 or less, the active layer is strengthened, and capacity is secured (¶ 0042). While failing to embody 1.39–2.0 (claim 1) or 1.47–1.7 (claim 2), considering that Fujimoto is analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely double-layered anodes with graphite, to balance the aforementioned effects, it would have been obvious to arrive at the recited range by routinely optimizing S2/S1, including within the overlap (MPEP 2144.05 (II)).
Fujimoto further discloses a ratio D2/D1 of a packing density of the second negative electrode mixture layer to a packing density of the first negative electrode mixture layer of 1 (see each 1.5 g/cc in ¶ 0125), satisfying 0.94 to 1.1 (claim 1) and each 1.3–2.0 g/cc (claim 3), and a ratio of thicknesses of the first negative electrode mixture layer and the second negative electrode mixture layer is 1:1 or 5:5 (¶ 0125), satisfying 4:6 to 6:4, and an internal porosity of the graphite particles in the second negative electrode mixture layer is lower than an internal porosity of the graphite particles in the first negative electrode layer (see graphite A (in upper/instant second layer, per ¶ 0120–0124) with lower inner porosity than graphite B in lower/instant first layer, ¶ 0119–0124).
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Fujimoto discloses the non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery according to claim 1, wherein each of the first and second negative electrode mixture layers contains a Si-based material (¶ 0121, 0123), wherein a content of the Si-based material is preferably 3–7 mass% relative to a mass of a negative electrode active material contained in the first negative electrode mixture layer and the second negative electrode mixture layer (¶ 0093; see also apparent cumulative Si content of ~ 5% across each layer, ¶ 0121 and 0123), falling within 1–10 mass%.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of claim(s) 1 over Kim 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. Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s unexpected-results argument as follows:
Applicant argues that the claimed electrode and battery exhibit unexpectedly superior capacity and suppressed degradation of quick-charge cycling. Examiner respectfully disagrees and maintains that, per MPEP 716.02(d), when demonstrating criticality across a range, Applicant should test both across and outside the range—and, thus, above and below the range. In Comp. Ex. 1—which appears to be the only proper comp. ex. versus the prior art (see MPEP 716.02(c)) because Comp. Ex. 2 appears to be a single-layered electrode (see ¶ 0057 and Table 1)—the porosity is only tested below its respective range, making it unclear that the claimed range is truly critical across the range and that such achieves truly unexpected capacity and capacity retention.
Moreover, even when considering Applicant’s Exs. 2 and 3, with D2/D1 outside 0.94–1.1, as comparative examples, the same issue as above applies because the densities are only tested below 0.94 but not above 1.1. Further, Ex. 2 displayed the highest capacity, and Ex. 3 displayed the highest retention rate, making it unclear that D2/D1 is truly critical.
Assuming, arguendo, that the results were unexpectedly superior, Examiner respectfully notes that such results are incommensurate with claim 1 at least as follows:
Claim 1 allows any form of non-aqueous electrolyte, but the results stem from a liquid solution that permeates the pores (e.g., ¶ 0023 of spec.).
Claim 1 allows an S2/S1 of 1.39–2.0, whereas Table 1 only supports 1.39–1.49.
Claim 1 allows a D2/D1 of 0.94–1.1, whereas Table 1 only supports 0.94–1.01.
Claim 1 allows any D1 and D2 as long as the recited ratio is fulfilled, whereas Table 1 only supports a D1 of 1.48–162 and D2 of 1.42–1.51; it is unclear that the results would occur for any D1 and/or D2.
Claim 1 allows any kind of graphite particles in either mixture layer, whereas Table 1 only supports graphite particles A, B, and/or C of specific sizes (see spec.’s ¶ 0046–0049 and 0053); it is unclear that the results would occur for any graphite particles of any size.
Claim 1 allows only graphite as the active particles in each mixture layer, whereas the examples include 95% graphite and 5% SiO in each layer (e.g., spec.’s ¶ 0048); as the specification notes that the silicon material improves the battery’s capacity compared to graphite (¶ 0031), it is unclear that the capacity and cycle-retention results are replicable without the Si material in each layer.
Claim 1 allows any type of electrolyte, whereas S2/S1 is catered for electrolyte-solution permeability (¶ 0023); it is unclear if such results would occur using a solid electrolyte.
The results involve battery capacity (Table 1), but the skilled artisan would recognize that other factors beyond claim 1 may affect capacity, including at least the following:
Graphite particle size: as capacity is the amount of charge stored or delivered, it is unclear if substantially similar results would occur for, e.g., 1 nm sized graphite particles as 10 μm ones (see similar discussion in ¶ 0020).
Positive active material: as the skilled artisan would recognize that different positive active materials possess different capacities (as seen in ¶ 0035), it is unclear if substantially similar results would occur for, e.g., an NCM oxide as with a sufur-based material.
As MPEP 716.02(d) requires unexpected results to be commensurate with the claimed scope, this argument is further unpersuasive.
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 JOHN S MEDLEY whose telephone number is (703)756-4600. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00–5:00 EST M–Th and 8:00–12:00 EST F.
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 on 571-270-192. 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.
/J.S.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 5/22/2026
Prosecution Insights