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 .
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/21/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendment received 11/21/2025:
Claims 1-5, 9-21, 23, and 24 are currently pending in the application. Claims 1 and 21 are amended, Claims 6-8 and 22 are canceled, and Claims 23-24 are newly added.
The previous objection to Claim 8 has been withdrawn since Claim 8 has been canceled.
The previous 35 USC 112(b) rejection to Claim 22 has been withdrawn since Claim 22 has been canceled.
The cores of the previous prior art-based rejections have been overcome in light of the amendment. All changes made to the rejection are necessitated by the amendment.
Claim Interpretation
All “wherein” clauses are given patentable weight unless otherwise noted. Please see MPEP 2111.04 regarding optional claim language.
In Claims 1 and 21, “a morphology of the first negative electrode active material is different from a morphology of the second negative electrode active material” is interpreted as the particles’ shapes being spherical or aspherical/irregularly shaped as disclosed in paragraphs [0034] and [0090]-[0091] of the published instant application.
In Claim 5, “a BET (Brunauer, Emmett and Teller) specific surface area” is interpreted as a product-by-process claim, and therefore only the structure implied by the steps will be given patentable weight, i.e., the specific surface area itself and not the method of measuring it. Please see MPEP 2113 regarding product-by-process claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to the claims are based on the claims as amended. The amended claims have been addressed in the new rejection below.
Arguments directed at Amended Claims 1 and 21
Applicant argues that Lee teaches away from lowering the first-layer porosity below its taught regime. Applicant further argues Lee ties adhesion and performance to binder/porosity choices in the first mixture layer and that reducing porosity below 16% would counter Lee's stated objective of balancing adhesion and swelling, discouraging the modification the rejection presumes.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Lee suggests a porosity of 28% for the first layer, but disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971).
Lee also discloses that the proper ratio of the porosity between the first layer and third layer improves adhesion to the current collector and lithium ion input/output characteristics of the third layer (see paragraph [0056]). Lee does not suggest that lowering the porosity of the first layer itself would result in countering the balancing of the adhesion and performance. Arguments presented by applicant cannot take the place of factually supported objective evidence. See, e.g., In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965); In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705, 222 USPQ 191, 196 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-5 and 9-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. US-20200176753-A1 (hereinafter “Lee”) in view of Tashita et al. WO-2019239947-A1 (US-20210218025-A1 used as translation and cited in PTO-892) (hereinafter “Tashita”).
Regarding Claim 1, Lee discloses a negative electrode 100 for a rechargeable lithium battery (lithium secondary battery) in Fig. 1 (see paragraphs [0010] and [0026]) comprising:
a current collector 110 in Fig. 1 (see paragraphs [0010] and [0026]);
and a negative electrode active material layer on the current collector 110 in Fig. 1 (see paragraphs [0010] and [0026]), wherein the negative electrode active material layer comprises:
a first region (first negative electrode mixture layer 120) in contact with (present on at least one surface of) the current collector 110 and comprising a first negative electrode active material in Fig. 1 (see paragraphs [0010] and [0026]); and
a second region (region containing a silicon-based second negative electrode mixture layer 130 and second carbonaceous active material layer 140, which a skilled artisan is capable of designating) on the first region (present on a top surface of first negative electrode mixture layer 120) and comprising a second negative electrode active material (second carbonaceous electrode active material) in Fig. 1 (see paragraphs [0010] and [0025]-[0027] and annotated Fig.1 below),
PNG
media_image1.png
221
455
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1. Annotated Fig. 1 of Lee
wherein each of the first negative electrode active material and second negative electrode active material has an average particle diameter (D50) of about 9 µm to about 22 µm (see paragraph [0047]). Lee specifically discloses the particles of the first negative electrode active material may have an average particle diameter of 10-18 µm and the particles of the second negative electrode active material may have an average particle diameter of 15-22 µm (see paragraph [0047]). These diameter ranges both lie within and therefore anticipate the claimed range of each of the first negative electrode active material and second negative electrode active material has an average particle diameter (D50) of about 9 µm to about 22 µm.
Lee further discloses a morphology of the first negative electrode active material is different from a morphology of the second negative electrode active material (first carbonaceous negative electrode active material includes spherical particles and second carbonaceous negative electrode active material includes flakes) (see claim interpretation above) (see paragraphs [0010], [0025], and [0042]-[0045]).
Lee additionally discloses a porosity of the second region is higher than a porosity of the first region (see paragraph [0056]).
Lee also discloses the first region may have a porosity of 28% while the second region, containing a silicon-based material with a porosity of 40% and a graphite material of 30% (see paragraphs [0056] and [0098]-[0100]), would have an average porosity of about 30%-40%. So, the ratio of the porosity of the second region to the porosity of the first region would range from about 107%-143%, which substantially overlaps and therefore renders obvious the claimed range of a ratio of the porosity of the second region to the porosity of the first region being from about 110% to about 190%.
Lee is silent on the first region having a porosity greater than or equal to about 5% and less than about 16%.
However, in the same field of endeavor of negative electrode active materials (see abstract), Tashita discloses a negative electrode active material layer where the porosity due to voids between graphite particles is preferably 14% to 16% in Fig. 2A (see paragraphs [0020], [0029]-[0030], and [0058]). This layer is coated on the current collector and as such would correspond to the first layer of Lee. Further, the porosity range disclosed by Tashita falls within and therefore anticipates the claimed range of a porosity greater than or equal to about 5% and less than about 16%.
Tashita additionally discloses a porosity in this range allows a certain amount of a non-aqueous electrolyte to be retained and sufficiently ensure contact of the graphite, thereby suppressing deterioration in charging/discharging cyclic characteristics (see paragraph [0020]).
So, a skilled artisan would be motivated to make the porosity of the first layer of Lee about 14%-16%. Lee teaches making the porosity of first layer 0.85-0.95 times of the porosity of the third negative electrode mixture layer in order to provide the first negative electrode mixture layer facing the current collector with high density, thereby improving the adhesion to the current collector, and improving the lithium ion input/output characteristics of the third negative electrode mixture layer facing the positive electrode layer (see paragraph [0056]), so a skilled artisan would be able to adjust to the porosities of the layers appropriately.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the negative electrode of Tashita wherein the first region has a porosity greater than or equal to about 5% and less than about 16%, as disclosed by Tashita, in order to suppress deterioration in charging/discharging cyclic characteristics.
Regarding Claim 2, modified Lee discloses the negative electrode of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above). Lee further discloses the first negative electrode active material has a particle form that is substantially spherical and the second negative electrode active material has a particle form that is substantially irregularly shaped (flake shaped particles having a sphericity of 0.70-0.89/significantly out of a spherical shape) (see paragraphs [0010], [0025], and [0042]-[0045]).
Regarding Claim 3, modified Lee discloses the negative electrode of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above). Lee further discloses each of the first negative electrode active material and the second negative electrode active material is a carbon-based active material (first and second carbonaceous electrode active materials) (see paragraphs [0010] and [0025]).
Regarding Claim 4, modified Lee discloses the negative electrode of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above). Lee further discloses the tap density of the first negative electrode active material is from about 1.2 g/cc to about 1.5 g/cc, and a tap density of the second negative electrode active material is from about 0.8 g/cc to about 1.4 g/cc (see paragraphs [0050] and [0098]-[0100]).
Lee specifically discloses the tap density of the first negative electrode active material is 1.1 g/cc (see paragraph [0098]). This value is substantially close and therefore renders obvious the claimed range of the tap density of the first negative electrode active material being from about 1.2 g/cc to about 1.5 g/cc.
Additionally, Lee discloses the proper tap density improves the adhesion of an electrode (see paragraph [0051]). As such, the tap density of the first negative electrode active material is a result effective variable, and the discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II).
Furthermore, Lee discloses the tap density of the second negative electrode active material is 0.89 g/cc (see paragraph [0100]). This value falls within and therefore anticipates the claimed range of the tap density of the second negative electrode active material being from about 0.8 g/cc to about 1.4 g/cc.
Regarding Claim 5, modified Lee discloses the negative electrode of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above). Lee further discloses the BET (Brunauer, Emmett and Teller) specific surface area of the first negative electrode active material is from about 1.4 m2/g to about 2.0 m2/g, and the specific surface area of the second negative electrode active material is from about 1.0 m2/g to about 1.8 m2/g (see paragraphs [0052] and [0098]-[0100]).
Lee specifically discloses the specific surface area of the first negative electrode active material may be 1.5-4.5 m2/g (see paragraphs [0052]-[0053]). This range substantially overlaps and therefore renders obvious the claimed range of the specific surface area of the first negative electrode active material being from about 1.4 m2/g to about 2.0 m2/g.
Additionally, Lee discloses the proper specific surface area of the first negative electrode active material improves the adhesion of an electrode (see paragraph [0053]). As such, the specific surface area of the first negative electrode active material is a result effective variable, and the discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Furthermore, Lee discloses the specific surface area of the second negative electrode active material is 1.1 m2/g (see paragraph [0100]). This value falls within and therefore anticipates the claimed range of the specific surface area of the second negative electrode active material being from about 1.0 m2/g to about 1.8 m2/g.
Regarding Claim 9, modified Lee discloses the negative electrode of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above). Lee further discloses each of the first region and the second region has from about 30 µm to about 100 µm in thickness (see paragraphs [0074] and [0098]-[0100]). Lee specifically discloses the first carbonaceous negative electrode active material (corresponding to the first region) has a thickness of 40 µm (see paragraph [0098]). This value for the first region falls within and therefore anticipates the claimed range of about 30 µm to about 100 µm in thickness.
Lee additionally discloses the silicon-based negative electrode active material has a thickness of 20 µm and the second carbonaceous negative electrode active material has a thickness of 40 µm (see paragraphs [0099]-[0100]). Combined, these active materials correspond to the second region and have a thickness of 60 µm. This value for the second region falls within and therefore anticipates the claimed range of about 30 µm to about 100 µm in thickness.
Regarding Claim 10, modified Lee discloses the negative electrode of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above). Lee further discloses the first region and the second region further include a binder, and a weight ratio of the binder in the first region to the binder in the second region is from about 60:40 to about 95:5 (see paragraphs [0032]-[0033] and [0040]). Lee specifically discloses an increased amount of binder directly increases the binding force between the negative electrode mixture layer and the current collector and that the first region (containing the first carbonaceous active material with spherical particles) has a larger amount of binder to improve the adhesion between the active material particles and binder particles and the adhesion between the active material particles and the current collector (see paragraphs [0032]-[0033] and [0040]). As such, binder amount is seen as a result effective variable. The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II).
A skilled artisan would be motivated to put a larger amount of binder in the first region to improve the adhesion between the active material particles and binder particles and the adhesion between the active material particles and the current collector, which would lead to a weight ratio of the binder in the first region to the binder in the second region being from about 60:40 to about 95:5 when optimized.
Regarding Claim 11, modified Lee discloses the negative electrode of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above). Lee further discloses a rechargeable lithium battery, comprising the aforementioned negative electrode for a rechargeable lithium battery according to claim 1, a positive electrode, and an electrolyte (see paragraphs [0082] and [0089]).
Regarding Claim 12, modified Lee discloses the rechargeable lithium battery of claim 11 (see rejection of claim 11 above). Lee further discloses rechargeable lithium batteries are used as an energy source in portable information devices (mobile instruments) (see paragraph [0003]).
Regarding Claim 13, modified Lee discloses the rechargeable lithium battery of claim 11 (see rejection of claim 11 above). Lee further discloses rechargeable lithium batteries are used as energy sources (see paragraph [0003]).
Lee is not sufficiently specific on an electric vehicle comprising the rechargeable lithium battery of claim 11.
However, Lee ‘781 discloses a rechargeable lithium battery (lithium secondary battery) may be used in an electric vehicle (see paragraph [0003]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use the rechargeable lithium battery disclosed by Lee in an electric vehicle as taught by Lee ‘781 as an appropriate use of a rechargeable lithium battery.
Regarding Claim 14, modified Lee discloses the negative electrode of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above). Lee further discloses the morphology of the first negative electrode active material is substantially spherical (first carbonaceous negative electrode active material includes spherical particles) (see paragraphs [0010], [0025], and [0042]-[0045]).
Regarding Claim 15, modified Lee discloses the negative electrode of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above). Lee further discloses the morphology of the second negative electrode active material is substantially irregularly shaped (second carbonaceous negative electrode material comprises flake shaped particles having a sphericity of 0.70-0.89/significantly out of a spherical shape) (see paragraphs [0010]-[0013], [0025], and [0042]-[0045]).
Regarding Claim 16, modified Lee discloses the negative electrode of claim 15 (see rejection of claim 15 above). Lee further discloses the morphology of the second negative electrode active material has a particle form (second carbonaceous negative electrode material comprises flake shaped particles having a sphericity of 0.70-0.89/significantly out of a spherical shape) (see paragraphs [0010], [0025], and [0042]-[0045]).
Regarding Claim 17, modified Lee discloses the negative electrode of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above). Lee further discloses each of the first negative electrode active material and the second negative electrode active material are independently crystalline carbon, amorphous carbon, or a combination thereof (first carbonaceous negative electrode active material includes particles that may be natural graphite or amorphous carbon and second carbonaceous negative electrode active material includes flake shaped particles that may be artificial graphite or amorphous carbon) (see paragraphs [0010]-[0015], [0025], [0036] and [0042]-[0045]).
Regarding Claim 18, modified Lee discloses the negative electrode of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above). Lee further discloses each of the first negative electrode active material and the second negative electrode active material are independently crystalline carbon comprising sheet-shaped, flake-shaped, or sphere-shaped graphite (first carbonaceous negative electrode active material includes spherical particles that may be natural graphite and second carbonaceous negative electrode active material comprises flake shaped particles having a sphericity of 0.70-0.89 that may be artificial graphite) (see paragraphs [0010]-[0015], [0025], and [0042]-[0045]). A skilled artisan would recognize graphite is a crystalline carbon.
Regarding Claim 19, modified Lee discloses the negative electrode of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above). Lee further discloses each of the first negative electrode active material and the second negative electrode active material are independently amorphous carbon comprising soft carbon, hard carbon, mesophase pitch carbon, calcined coke, or a combination thereof (first carbonaceous negative electrode active material includes particles that may be amorphous carbon and second carbonaceous negative electrode active material includes flake shaped particles that may be amorphous carbon) (see paragraphs [0010]-[0015], [0025], [0036] and [0042]-[0045]).
Regarding Claim 20, modified Lee discloses the negative electrode of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above). Lee further discloses wherein the silicon-based active material may have a diameter of 0.01-20 μm (see paragraphs [0065] and [0099]).
Lee is not specific on the shape of the silicon-based active material but a skilled artisan would find it obvious for the shape to be either spherical or irregular, as these are appropriate shapes for particles as disclosed by Lee (see paragraphs [0010]-[0015], [0025], [0036] and [0042]-[0045]).
Claim is 21 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Tashita and Yun et al. KR-20170007140-A (hereinafter “Yun”).
Regarding Claim 21, Lee discloses a negative electrode 100 for a rechargeable lithium battery (lithium secondary battery) in Fig. 1 (see paragraphs [0010] and [0026]) comprising:
a current collector 110 in Fig. 1 (see paragraphs [0010] and [0026]); and
a negative electrode active material layer on the current collector 110 in Fig. 1 (see paragraphs [0010] and [0026]),
wherein the negative electrode active material layer comprises:
a first region (first negative electrode mixture layer 120) in contact with (present on at least one surface of) the current collector 110 and comprising a first negative electrode active material in Fig. 1 (see paragraphs [0010] and [0026]); and
a second region (region containing a silicon-based second negative electrode mixture layer 130 and second carbonaceous active material layer 140, which a skilled artisan is capable of designating) on the first region (present on a top surface of first negative electrode mixture layer 120) and comprising a second negative electrode active material (second carbonaceous electrode active material) in Fig. 1 (see paragraphs [0010] and [0025]-[0027] and annotated Fig.1 below), and
PNG
media_image1.png
221
455
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 2. Annotated Fig. 1 of Lee
wherein each of the first negative electrode active material and second negative electrode active material has an average particle diameter (D50) of about 9 µm to about 22 µm (see paragraph [0047]). Lee specifically discloses the particles of the first negative electrode active material may have an average particle diameter of 10-18 µm and the particles of the second negative electrode active material may have an average particle diameter of 15-22 µm (see paragraph [0047]). These diameter ranges both lie within and therefore anticipate the claimed range of each of the first negative electrode active material and second negative electrode active material has an average particle diameter (D50) of about 9 µm to about 22 µm.
Lee further discloses a morphology of the first negative electrode active material is different from a morphology of the second negative electrode active material (first carbonaceous negative electrode active material includes spherical particles and second carbonaceous negative electrode active material includes flakes) (see claim interpretation above) (see paragraphs [0010], [0025], and [0042]-[0045]),
a porosity of the second region is higher than a porosity of the first region (see paragraph [0056]), and
a ratio of the porosity of the second region to the porosity of the first region is from about 110% to about 190% (see paragraph [0056]). Lee specifically discloses the first region may have a porosity of 28% while the second region, containing a silicon-based material with a porosity of 40% and a graphite material of 30% (see paragraphs [0098]-[0100]), would have an average porosity of about 30%-40%. So, the ratio of the porosity of the second region to the porosity of the first region would range from about 107%-143%, which substantially overlaps and therefore renders obvious the claimed range of a ratio of the porosity of the second region to the porosity of the first region being from about 110% to about 190%.
Lee is silent on the first region having a porosity greater than or equal to about 5% and less than about 16%.
However, in the same field of endeavor of negative electrode active materials (see abstract), Tashita discloses a negative electrode active material layer where the porosity due to voids between graphite particles is preferably 14% to 16% in Fig. 2A (see paragraphs [0020], [0029]-[0030], and [0058]). This layer is coated on the current collector and as such would correspond to the first layer of Lee. Further, the porosity range disclosed by Tashita falls within and therefore anticipates the claimed range of a porosity greater than or equal to about 5% and less than about 16%.
Tashita additionally discloses a porosity in this range allows a certain amount of a non-aqueous electrolyte to be retained sufficiently and ensure contact of the graphite, thereby suppressing deterioration in charging/discharging cyclic characteristics (see paragraph [0020]).
So, a skilled artisan would be motivated to make the porosity of the first layer of Lee about 14%-16%. Lee teaches making the porosity of first layer 0.85-0.95 times of the porosity of the third negative electrode mixture layer in order to provide the first negative electrode mixture layer facing the current collector with high density, thereby improving the adhesion to the current collector, and improving the lithium ion input/output characteristics of the third negative electrode mixture layer facing the positive electrode layer (see paragraph [0056]), so a skilled artisan would be able to adjust to the porosities of the layers appropriately.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the negative electrode of Tashita wherein the first region has a porosity greater than or equal to about 5% and less than about 16%, as disclosed by Tashita, in order to suppress deterioration in charging/discharging cyclic characteristics.
Lee and Tashita are silent on the second negative electrode active material having a non-uniform morphology.
However, in the same field of endeavor of negative electrode active materials (see paragraph [0001]), Yun discloses a negative electrode comprising spherical natural graphite, spherical artificial graphite, flake-shaped artificial graphite, and polygonal artificial graphite of various sizes (see paragraphs [0020], [0024], and [0030]-[0031]). A skilled artisan would recognize these various graphite shapes and sizes in the negative electrode would result in a negative electrode active material having a non-uniform morphology.
Yun additionally discloses including various types of graphite allows for the proper orientation to improve the diffusion of lithium ions and thereby achieve excellent charge/discharge performance and cycle characteristics (see paragraphs [0030]-[0031] and [0074]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the negative electrode of Lee wherein the second negative electrode active material has a non-uniform morphology, as disclosed by Yun, in order to improve the diffusion of lithium ions and achieve excellent charge/discharge performance and cycle characteristics.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee and Tashita, as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee et al. US-20190027781-A1 (hereinafter “Lee ‘781”).
Regarding Claim 23, modified Lee discloses the negative electrode of Claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above).
Lee is silent on the silicon-based active material being included in an amount of about 1 wt% to about 15 wt% based on the total weight of the at least one of the first region or the second region.
However, in the same field of endeavor of negative (anode) active materials (see abstract), Lee ‘781 discloses an example with a negative active material with 11 wt% silicon and 76 wt% of graphite (which a skilled artisan would recognize is a carbon-based active material) based on the total weight of the negative active material (see paragraphs [0050] and [0113]). This negative active material of Lee ‘781 would be comparable to the first or second region as it contains a carbon-based active material and silicon-based active material. The value of 11 wt% silicon falls within and therefore anticipates the claimed range of the silicon-based active material being included in an amount of about 1 wt% to about 15 wt% based on the total weight of the at least one of the first region or the second region.
Lee ‘781 further discloses the negative active material with this wt% of silicon has good discharge capacity and excellent life characteristics (see paragraphs [0050] and [0156]). As such, the wt% of silicon is a result effective variable, and the discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the negative electrode disclosed by Lee wherein the silicon-based active material is included in an amount of about 1 wt% to about 15 wt% based on the total weight of the at least one of the first region or the second region, as disclosed by Lee ‘781, in order to achieve a negative active material with a good discharge capacity and excellent life characteristics.
Regarding Claim 24, modified Lee discloses the negative electrode of claim 23 (see rejection of claim 23 above). Lee further discloses an average particle diameter (D50) of the silicon-based active material is from about 5 µm to about 15 µm (see paragraph [0065]). Lee specifically discloses the average particle diameter of the silicon-based negative electrode active material is 6 μm (see paragraphs [0065] and [0099]). This value falls within and therefore anticipates the claimed range of an average particle diameter (D50) of the silicon-based active material being from about 5 µm to about 15 µm.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SYDNEY L KLINE whose telephone number is (703)756-1729. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-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, Ula Ruddock can be reached at 571-272-1481. 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.
/S.L.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1729
/ULA C RUDDOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729