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 .
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 10-2020-0073801 A, of which a complete copy of the Korean document with a machine translation was provided with the Information Disclosure Statement dated February 13, 2023.
Regarding independent claims 1 and 12, KR ‘801 discloses an anode (negative electrode) for a secondary battery as part of a secondary battery having a cathode comprising a lithium metal oxide and the anode facing the cathode (abstract; pages 4-8 of translation; and Embodiment 1 bridging pages 10 and 11 of translation), in which the anode of the secondary battery includes the following components:
an anode current collector and an anode active material layer on the anode current collector, wherein the anode active material layer comprises first anode active material particles and second anode active material particles (under the heading “Means to solve the problem” on page 4 of the translation);
wherein each of the first anode (negative electrode) active material particles (defined as a second negative active material under the heading “Means to solve the problem” on page 4 of the translation) has a single particle structure that includes a core particle and a coating layer formed on a surface of the core particle; and
the second anode (negative electrode) active material particles (defined as a first anode active material particle under the heading “Means to solve the problem” on page 4 of the translation) have an average particle diameter greater than that of the first anode active material particles,
wherein a ratio of a weight of the first anode active material particles to a total weight of the first anode active material particles and the second anode active material particles is more than 50 wt% and less than 100 wt%, since the thickness ratio would be in the range of 1:0.88 to 1:0.96, corresponding to a range of from about 51 wt% to 53 wt% (see the 1st paragraph on page 8 of translation), in which one of ordinary skill in the art would have conducted routine experimentation within the claimed range for the purpose of improving charge performance of the battery (KR ‘801; under the heading “Effects of the Invention” on page 4 of the translation).
With regard to the ranges of a ratio of a weight of the first anode active material particles to a total weight of the first anode active material particles and the second anode active material particles, these ranges would be anticipated and/or obvious since these ranges would be readily contemplated by one of ordinary skill in the art. In this instance, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the obviousness of the ranges in view of KR ‘801, as set forth in MPEP 2144.05. “In the case where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists.”. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Moreover, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to choose the instantly claimed ranges through process optimization, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (1980).
Regarding claims 2, 3, 13, and 14, KR ‘801 discloses that the core particle comprises a graphite-based active material, an amorphous carbon-based material, or a mixture thereof, including artificial graphite (see the paragraph under the heading “Means to solve the problem” on page 4 of the translation; and the 1st full paragraph on page 5 of translation).
Regarding claims 4 and 15, KR ‘801 discloses that the coating layer comprises an amorphous carbon-based material (see the last full paragraph on page 5 of translation).
Regarding claims 5 and 16, KR ‘801 discloses that the coating layer of an amorphous carbon-based material is formed from pitch (see the 1st full paragraph on page 6 of translation).
Regarding claims 6 and 17, KR ‘801 discloses that the first anode active material particles have a hardness higher than that of the second anode active material particles (see the 6th full paragraph from the bottom on page 5 of translation).
Regarding claims 7 and 18, KR ‘801 discloses that a ratio of an average particle diameter of the first anode active material particles to the average particle diameter of the second anode active material particles is in a range from 0.3 to 0.6, as this claimed ratio range is met by the ratio when comparing the range of 6.2 µm to 11.8 µm to the range of 14 µm to 25 µm (see the 5th and 6th paragraphs on page 7 of translation).
Regarding claims 8-10, 19, and 20, KR ‘801 discloses that both the first and second anode active material particles comprise a graphite-based active material, an amorphous carbon-based material, or a mixture thereof, inclusive of artificial graphite and natural graphite, wherein the natural graphite can be in the form of a sphere that would define an average sphericity (Dn50) at or just below 1.00, which is 0.91 or more (see the paragraph under the heading “Means to solve the problem” on page 4 of the translation; the 1st full paragraph on page 5 of translation; and the bottom half on page 5 of translation).
Regarding claim 11, although KR ‘801 discloses/suggests the independent claim 1 limitation that the ratio of a weight of the first anode active material particles to a total weight of the first anode active material particles and the second anode active material particles is more than 50 wt% and less than 100 wt%, since the thickness ratio would be in the range of 1:0.88 to 1:0.96, corresponding to a range of from about 51 wt% to 53 wt% (see the 1st paragraph on page 8 of translation), KR ‘801 does not disclose that the ratio of the weight of the first anode active material particles to the total weight of the first anode active material particles and the second anode active material particles is in a range of 60 wt% to 90 wt%. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that adjustment of weight and thickness ratios of the first and second anode active material particles would be subject to optimization of the amount of each type of material particles by routine experimentation, since KR ‘801 discloses a weight (thickness) range that is close to the lower limit of 60 wt%. Note that the courts have held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985). In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In re Scherl, 156 F.2d 72, 74-75 (CCPA 1946). See MPEP 2144.05(I)(¶2). In this instance, increasing the wt% value from about 53 wt% up to at least 60 wt% would have been obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art, when taken in view of the overall teachings of KR ‘801, in order to obtain a predictable result with respect to a somewhat higher weight and thickness ratio. Moreover, one of ordinary skill in the art would have conducted routine experimentation within or just outside the claimed range for the purpose of improving charge performance of the battery (KR ‘801; under the heading “Effects of the Invention” on page 4 of the translation).
Response to Arguments
The examiner acknowledges the applicants’ amendment received by the USPTO on December 23, 2025. Also, an Information Disclosure Statement dated December 17, 2025 has been considered and initialed, and a copy is provided with this Office Action. Although the applicants’ amendment with arguments overcome the prior 35 USC 102(a)(1) rejection in view of KR ‘801, a revised 35 USC 103 rejection in view of KR ‘801 is provided (see above section 4). Claims 1-20 remain under consideration in the application.
Applicants' arguments filed December 23, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to the applicants’ remarks/arguments on pages 7-10 of the amendment, it is first noted that the newly underlined portions in the above 35 USC 103 rejection are provided in response to the applicants’ amendments/arguments addressing independent claims 1 and 12.
Regarding the applicants’ argument bridging pages 7 and 8 of the REMARKS section, the applicants state that the limitation “each of the first anode active material particles has a single particle structure that includes a core particle and a coating layer formed on a surface of the core particle” differs from the teachings of KR ‘801 that refer to its second particles as “secondary particles” that are formed by an assembly of multiple first particles, and are allegedly “structurally different from the claimed first anode active material particles” having a “single particle structure”. The examiner respectfully disagrees. In referring to KR ‘801 under the heading “Means to solve the problem” on page 4 of the translation (and as previously addressed in the Response to Arguments section in the final rejection mailed October 23, 2025, the mapping of KR ‘801 by the interpretation of the examiner remains the same – as a second negative active material layer to be the claimed first anode active material particles, and a first anode active material particle to be the claimed second anode active material particles. In addition to the examiner respectfully disagreeing with the applicants’ argument that KR ‘801 fails to disclose that the interpreted “reversed” positions of the layers and particles per the interpretation of the above limitation “each of the first anode active material particles has a single particle structure that includes a core particle and a coating layer formed on a surface of the core particle”, it is also noted that a “coating layer” would cover a “core particle” or (another layer or plurality of) “core particles” to obtain its status as a “coating layer”, which is disclosed by KR ‘801 under its broadest reasonable interpretation of the “reversed” positions. Moreover, the first and second anode active material particles have not been distinctly claimed in a sequential “layering” order, such that the first and second anode active material particles would be considered either or both of “within” or “adjacent” a boundary of the claimed layer and still be within the broadly interpreted scope of the claim.
Regarding the applicants’ arguments throughout pages 8-10 of the REMARKS section, the applicants argue that KR ‘801 does not simultaneously disclose the limitations “second anode active material particles having an average particle diameter greater than that of the first anode active material particles” and “a ratio of a weight of the first anode active material particles to a total weight of the first anode active material particles and the second anode active material particles is more than 50 wt% and less than 100 wt%”. Although the examiner agrees with applicants’ argument that KR ‘801 does not anticipate these limitations of independent claims 1 and 12, the examiner respectfully disagrees with applicants’ assertion of non-obviousness under the newly provided 35 USC 103 rejection, in particular in referring to the newly underlined portions thereof. In addressing the applicants’ argument in the 3rd full paragraph on page 9 of the REMARKS section), it is noted for purposes of meeting the relative “average particle diameter” limitation, the examiner has taken the position that the “first” and “second” anode active material layers are mapped to be reversed (that is, “first” is “second” and “second” is “first”, which addressed the “opposite of what is claimed” argument set forth in the applicants’ prior amendment dated July 25, 2025), thus meeting the claimed limitations, including that the second anode active material particles have an average particle diameter greater than that of the first anode active material particles, and that a thickness ratio range of 1:0.88 to 1:0.96, corresponding to a range of from about 51 wt% to 53 wt% (see the 1st paragraph on page 8 of translation). Therefore, the above limitations are rendered obvious since they fall within the teachings of KR ‘801 in terms of being within the “more than 50 wt% and less than 100 wt%” limitation.
Regarding the 35 USC 103 rejection of claim 11, as applicants discuss briefly on page 10 of the REMARKS section, and since claim 11 depends from independent claim 1 that is rejected under 35 USC 103 and includes a range of 60 wt% to 90 wt%, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that adjustment of weight and thickness ratios of the first and second anode active material particles would be subject to optimization of the amount of each type of material particles by routine experimentation, since KR ‘801 discloses a weight (thickness) range that is close to the lower limit of 60 wt%. Note that the courts have held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985). In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In re Scherl, 156 F.2d 72, 74-75 (CCPA 1946). See MPEP 2144.05(I)(¶2). In this instance, increasing the wt% value from about 53 wt% up to at least 60 wt% would have been obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art, when taken in view of the overall teachings of KR ‘801, in order to obtain a predictable result with respect to a somewhat higher weight and thickness ratio. Moreover, one of ordinary skill in the art would have conducted routine experimentation within or just outside the claimed range for the purpose of improving charge performance of the battery (KR ‘801; under the heading “Effects of the Invention” on page 4 of the translation).
In view of the 35 USC 103 rejection and for these additional reasons, claims 1-20 remain rejected.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN P KERNS whose telephone number is (571)272-1178. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-430pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Keith Walker can be reached at (571)272-3458. 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.
/KEVIN P KERNS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735 February 18, 2026