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 10/09/2025 have been fully considered. Claim(s) 1, 4-6, 9-14 is/are amended; claim(s) 6, 9-14 remain withdrawn; and claims 2, 7-8 are canceled. Examiner affirms that the original disclosure provides adequate support for the amendment.
Upon considering said amendment and arguments, the previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103 set forth in the Office action mailed 07/09/2025 has/have been withdrawn. New grounds of rejection are provided 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.
Claims 1, 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cha (US20200335795A1 cited in Office action filed 07/09/2025) in view of Liu CN107919459A (cited in IDS filed 04/15/2024, see attached machine translation)
Regarding claims 1, 3, Cha discloses a negative electrode (20) comprising:
a negative electrode current collector (1); and
a negative electrode active material layer (5, 3) comprising a first negative electrode active material layer (3) on at least one surface of the negative electrode current collector (1) and a second negative electrode active material layer (5) on the first negative electrode active material layer ([0026-0027], FIG. 1).
While Cha discloses a suitability of impregnating the negative electrode (20) with an electrolyte comprising ethylene carbonate ([0091], [0077], [0123]), necessitating material compatibility of the first negative electrode active material layer with ethylene carbonate, Cha does not specifically indicate the amount of ethylene carbonate in the first negative electrode active material layer as being in a range of 2 wt% to 10 wt%.
Liu is directed to a negative electrode wherein ethylene carbonate (EC) or propylene carbonate (PC) additives are provided in the negative electrode slurry at 2-8 parts relative to the weight of the electrode components excluding the solvent to inhibit cracking and peeling of the negative electrode during drying (Liu [0012-0014], [0005]). Cha envisions similar considerations of maintaining contact between the first negative electrode active material layer and the current collector (Cha [0032]); a skilled artisan would recognize cracking and peeling of the layer as detrimental to contact.
While Liu does not explicitly specify which region of the negative electrode (i.e., which negative electrode active material layer) to provide the EC or PC, the skilled artisan would recognize only 3 possible options to modify Cha’s negative electrode (EC/PC in the first layer, in the second layer, or in both), where two of these three options result in at least a first negative electrode active material layer comprising EC/PC.
Thus, in seeking to inhibit cracking and peeling of Cha’s first negative electrode coating, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to provide EC or PC in Cha’s negative electrode as taught by Liu, and to select at least the first negative electrode active material layer for modification with EC/PC from the finite list of solutions recognizable by a skilled artisan; such a modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success, as Cha desires to ensure contact between the first negative electrode active material layer and the current collector.
It would likewise be obvious to select EC from the finite list of suitable additives taught by Liu (Liu [0014]), as Cha recognizes a suitability of EC being present in the negative electrode in the form of an infiltrated electrolyte component (Cha [0077]) and Liu teaches that EC in the slurry may remain as a residue in the electrode without impairing battery performance (Liu [0014]).
While modified Cha does not indicate a weight percentage of EC in the first negative electrode active material layer in an amount of 2-10 wt% (claim 1) or 3-6 wt% (claim 2), Liu teaches optimizing the amount of EC in a range of 2-8 wt% relative to the other negative electrode layer components excluding the solvent ([0012]) where increasing the presence of EC (see Examples 1-2 and Comparative Example 1, [0049], [0045], [0064]) has a corresponding reduction on the cracking, peeling, and curling observed when drying the negative electrode ([0077-0080], FIGs. 1a-1c, 2a-2c).
Thus, in seeking to reduce cracking, peeling, and curling effects in modified Cha’s negative electrode by a suitable amount, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to optimize the amount of EC in the first negative electrode active material layer within a range of 2-8 wt% as taught by Liu, which is within the claimed range of 2-10% (claim 1) and encompasses 3-6 wt% (claim 3) such that a skilled artisan would have selected within the encompassed range through routine optimization under Liu’s teaching with a reasonable expectation of success (MPEP 2144.05 II).
Regarding claims 4, 5, modified Cha discloses the negative electrode of claim 1. Cha further discloses an experimental example wherein a loading amount of the first negative electrode active material is 7.5 mg/cm2, and a loading amount of the second negative electrode active material is 7.5 mg/cm2 (Cha [0105]); correspondingly, a loading amount of the first negative electrode active material is 187.5 mg/25cm2, within the claimed range of 50-400 mg/cm2 (claim 4), and a loading amount of the negative electrode active material layer is (187.5+187.5) mg/25cm2 = 357 mg/cm2, within the claimed range of 50-600 mg/25 cm2 (claim 5)
Response to Argument
Examiner confirms that the drawings filed 08/22/2022 are acceptable.
Amendments to the specification filed 10/09/2025 resolve the objection filed with the previous Office action. Examiner affirms that no new matter is introduced with the amendment; the objection is withdrawn.
Amendments to claims 4 and 5 resolve the objection to these claims filed with the previous Office action; the objection is withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to rejection of amended claim 1 as anticipated by Yu (CN110581254A, cited in Office action filed 07/09/2025) have been considered but are moot because the arguments are drawn to the claim amendment which has necessitated new grounds of rejection discussed above.
The declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 and Remarks filed 10/09/2025 is sufficient to overcome the rejection of claims 1 and 2-5 based upon 35 U.S.C. 103 under Moroishi (US20150004486 cited in Office action filed 07/09/2025). Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Cha (US20200335795A1 cited in Office action filed 07/09/2025) in view of Liu CN107919459A (cited in IDS filed 04/15/2024); see above.
Applicant asserts that the claimed range of ethylene carbonate content (2 to 10 wt%) produces unexpected results (remarks pp. 12-13), citing improvements to electrolyte impregnation in the lower layer (i.e., the first negative electrode active material layer) of a negative electrode (Remarks pp. 12).
While this argument has been fully considered, it has not been found persuasive as the unexpected results exhibited by Examples 1-3 (Instant specification pp. 33 Table 1, [0071-0088]) are not commensurate in scope with amended claim 1. The provided experimental data (examples 1-3 over 2-6 wt% EC, comparative examples 1-2 over 0-1 wt%; see Remarks pp. 12) does not fully demonstrate criticality of the claimed range of 2-10 wt% through demonstrating that the advantages are maintained through 6-10 wt% EC and decrease above 10 wt% EC, or decrease above 6 wt% EC with respect to the range of claim 3 (MPEP 716.02 (d) II).
Furthermore, the amended claims fail to limit the negative electrode to a specific type of negative electrode active material, whereas the experimental examples appear to use artificial graphite particles exclusively as the negative electrode active material ([0073-0074]). As written, the scope of the claims would include the structure of a sheet of lithium metal as an active material coated with an EC film as a first negative electrode active material layer; the cited effects of improved electrolyte impregnation (Remarks pp. 12 ¶2) would not apply to this electrode which has no porosity (being a sheet of lithium metal) and does not allow for any electrolyte impregnation into the layer. It is also unclear whether different types of negative electrode active material (e.g., natural graphite, silicon) having different properties would provide the same unexpected results to electrolyte impregnation, capacity retention rate, and electrode resistance resulting from a range of 2-10 wt% EC (MPEP 716.02 d).
Similarly, the types and weights of binder and conductive material in the experimental examples’ negative electrodes ([0073-0074]) are not positively recited in claim 1, and it is unclear whether the same unexpected results would occur at the same range with different types or amounts of binders and conductive materials (MPEP 716.02 d).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EVERETT T CHOI whose telephone number is (703)756-1331. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 11:00-8:00.
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 G Leong can be reached on (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.
/E.C./Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 2/10/2026