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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 December 5, 2025 has been entered.
Summary
Applicant’s arguments and claim amendments submitted December 5, 2025 have been entered into the file. Currently, claims 2-3 are cancelled, claim 1 is amended, and claims 8-19 are withdrawn from consideration, resulting in claims 1, 4-7, and 20 pending for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 4-7, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 recites the limitation "the current collector" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, the limitation “the current collector” is interpretated as “the anode current collector”, pending further clarification from applicant.
Claims 4-7 and 20 are indefinite as they depend from an indefinite base and fail to cure the deficiencies of said claim.
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:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 4-5, 7, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 2019/0355972 A1) in view of Kawakami (US 5,888,670 A) and Temmyo (US 2012/0164530 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Lee teaches an anode (13, negative electrode Fig. 1) for a secondary battery (Fig. 1, title), the anode comprising an anode current collector (copper foil [47]), an anode mixture layer (negative active material slurry [47]) including an anode active material (artificial graphite [46]) formed on at least one surface of the anode current collector (negative active material slurry is coated on the copper foil [47]).
Lee teaches an anode mixture slurry (negative active material slurry [46]) comprising 97.5 wt% artificial graphite, 1.5 wt% styrene-butadiene rubber, and 1 wt% of carboxymethyl cellulose in an aqueous solvent having a viscosity of 2300 cp ([46]). Lee further teaches the anode mixture slurry coated on a copper foil and then exposed to a magnetic field strength of 4000 Gauss for 9 seconds ([47]).
Lee further teaches that the degree of orientation of the anode active material can be tuned by adjusting the intensity of the magnetic field, magnetic field exposure time, and the viscosity of the anode mixture layer ([46]).
Lee further teaches the magnetic field caused by the magnet being in a direction that is perpendicular to the current collector, however as the coating process is performed the angle of the magnetic field experienced by the anode active material varies depending on the coating speed, which results in the angle of the anode active material with respect to the current collector (anode active material orientation) being different depending on coating speed (Lee [48], Fig. 3).
Lee does not expressly teach the anode active material having a plane oriented in a direction perpendicular to the current collector. However, Kawakami teaches an anode comprising carbon-based material having a structure in which pores are oriented perpendicular to the current collector (Kawakami claim 8) in order to decrease battery impedance and improve charge-discharge efficiency (Kawakami Col. 4 lines 33-67, Fig. 1).
Since Lee teaches that the magnetic field angle influences the angle at which the negative anode active material is erected with respect to the surface of the current collector and Kawakami teaches that it is desirable to have the pores of an anode directed perpendicular to the current collector, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to tune the magnetic field application process to obtain an anode active material having a (002) plane oriented in a direction perpendicular to the current collector in order to decrease battery impedance and improve charge-discharge efficiency.
Lee is silent to the aspect ratio of the anode active material.
Temmyo teaches an anode (negative electrode) for a secondary battery (Temmyo title) that includes a graphite, as used in Lee, wherein the aspect ratio of the graphite is 1 to 20 in order to provide sufficient control over the orientation of the graphite in the anode mixture layer (Temmyo [29]). Temmyo further teaches an anode fabricated by coating an anode current collector with an anode mixture slurry comprising the graphite and applying a magnetic field to orient the (002) planes of the graphite particles in a direction perpendicular to the anode current collector, as taught by Lee in view of Kawakami (Temmyo [13-17]).
Since Lee and Temmyo both teach anodes comprising oriented graphite, Lee is silent to the aspect ratio of the graphite, and Temmyo teaches that an aspect ratio in the range of 1 to 20 is suitable, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use graphite having an aspect ratio within the range taught by Temmyo in the modified anode mixture layer of Lee to obtain an anode mixture layer that allows for sufficient control of the graphite orientation.
The aspect ratio range of Temmyo overlaps the claimed range in the instant claim 1. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by Temmyo, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness.
Lee is silent regarding the colorimetric value and Z-tensor value of an internal pore of the anode mixture layer.
It is reasonable to presume that a colorimetric value being 42.5 or greater and a Z-tensor value being 0.25 or greater are inherent to the modified anode mixture layer of Lee in view of Kawakami and Temmyo. Support for said presumption is found in that Lee teaches the use of an anode mixture layer comprising the same components at significantly similar weight percents, the coating of the anode mixture layer on a current collector, and the subsequent application of a magnetic field at 4000 Gauss (Lee [46-47]; instant specification [155-169], Example 4 uses 4000 Gauss) and Lee in view of Kawakami and Temmyo teaches the orientation of the 002 plane and the aspect ratio, as described above. Therefore, the modified anode mixture of Lee is expected to have the same properties of the claimed invention.
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. See MPEP 2112.01.
Regarding claim 4, Lee in view of Kawakami and Temmyo teaches all features of claim 1, as described above. Lee is silent regarding the electrode density of the anode mixture layer.
Temmyo teaches an anode for a secondary battery comprising oriented graphite particles, as taught by Lee and described above, wherein the anode mixture layer (negative electrode mixture layer) has an electrode density of 1.1 to 1.8 g/cm3 (Temmyo [12]).
Since Lee and Temmyo both teach anodes comprising oriented graphite, Lee is silent to the electrode density, and Temmyo teaches that an electrode density of 1.1 to 1.8 g/cm3 is suitable, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the anode mixture layer of modified Lee to have an electrode density within the range taught by Temmyo in order to obtain an anode mixture layer with an electrode density suitable for use in secondary batteries.
The electrode density range of Temmyo overlaps the claimed range in the instant claim 4. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by Temmyo, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness.
Regarding claim 5, Lee in view of Kawakami and Temmyo teaches all features of claim 1, as described above, and further teaches the anode active material including a carbon-based anode active material (graphite [46]).
Regarding claim 7, Lee in view of Kawakami and Temmyo teaches all features of claims 1 and 5, as described above, and Lee further teaches that the anode active material may further include a Si-based anode active material, a Sn-based anode active material, or lithium vanadium oxide ([60-61]). Since Lee teaches that it is suitable to further include a Si-based, Sn-based anode active material or lithium vanadium oxide to the anode active material, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add one of these compounds to the anode active material of Lee in order to obtain an anode with performance suitable for a desired battery application.
Regarding claim 20, Lee in view of Kawakami and Temmyo teaches all features of claim 1, as described above, and further teaches a lithium secondary battery (Fig. 1) comprising an anode for a lithium secondary battery (13, Fig. 1), a cathode (11, Fig. 1), and a separator interposed between the anode for a lithium secondary battery and the cathode (12, Fig. 1), wherein the anode for a lithium secondary battery is the anode described in claim 1 ([14]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Kawakami and Temmyo, as evidenced by Klug (US 20020160197 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Lee in view of Kawakami and Temmyo teaches all features of claims 1 and 5, as described above. Lee further teaches the carbon-based anode active material having an anisotropic structure (Lee artificial graphite [46]). Klug teaches that “graphites by definition possess anisotropic structures and thus exhibit or possess many properties that are highly directional” (Klug [5]).
Claims 1, 4-5, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hagiwara (US 2014/0072848 A1) in view of Temmyo.
Regarding claims 1 and 20, Hagiwara teaches an anode for a secondary battery, the anode comprising: an anode current collector (copper foil, Hagiwara Example 1) and an anode mixture layer including an anode active material formed on at least one surface of the anode current collector (negative electrode mixture layer, Hagiwara Example 1), wherein the anode active material has a (002) plane oriented in a direction perpendicular to the current collector (Hagiwara [9]).
Hagiwara further teaches a lithium secondary battery (Hagiwara [95]) comprising the anode for a lithium secondary battery (negative electrode sheet, Hagiwara Example 1), a cathode (positive electrode sheet, Hagiwara Example 1), and a separator (separator sheet, Hagiwara Example 1) interposed between the anode for a lithium secondary battery and the cathode (Hagiwara Example 1).
Hagiwara is silent to the aspect ratio of the anode active material.
Temmyo teaches an anode (negative electrode) for a secondary battery (Temmyo title) that includes a graphite, as used in Hagiwara, wherein the aspect ratio of the graphite is 1 to 20 in order to provide sufficient control over the orientation of the graphite in the anode mixture layer (Temmyo [29]). Temmyo further teaches an anode fabricated by coating an anode current collector with an anode mixture slurry comprising the graphite and applying a magnetic field to orient the (002) planes of the graphite particles in a direction perpendicular to the anode current collector, as taught by Hagiwara (Temmyo [13-17]).
Since Hagiwara and Temmyo both teach anodes comprising oriented graphite, Hagiwara is silent to the aspect ratio of the graphite, and Temmyo teaches that an aspect ratio in the range of 1 to 20 is suitable, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use graphite having an aspect ratio within the range taught by Temmyo in the anode mixture layer of Hagiwara to obtain an anode mixture layer that allows for sufficient control of the graphite orientation.
The aspect ratio range of Temmyo overlaps the claimed range in the instant claim 1. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by Temmyo, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness.
Hagiwara is silent to a colorimetric value of the anode mixture layer and a Z-tensor value of an internal pore of the anode mixture layer.
It is reasonable to presume that a colorimetric value being 42.5 or greater and a Z-tensor value being 0.25 or greater are inherent to the modified anode mixture layer of Hagiwara. Support for said presumption is found in that Hagiwara and the instant specification both disclose an anode mixture layer comprising graphite, styrene-butadiene rubber, and carboxymethyl cellulose, wherein these components are included at significantly similar amounts by weight (Hagiwara Example 1; instant specification [158]), coating the anode mixture layer on an anode current collector (Hagiwara Example 1; instant specification [159]), and applying a magnetic field, wherein the magnetic field application includes continuously varying the magnetic field (Hagiwara [74], Example 1; instant specification Example 4, Fig.6(a)-6(c)). It is further noted that Hagiwara and Example 4 of the instant specification use significantly similar magnetic field strengths (Hagiwara 0.495 T; instant specification Example 4, 4,000 G = 0.4 T). Additionally, Hagiwara teaches the orientation of the (002) in a direction perpendicular to the current collector, as described above, and Hagiwara in view of Temmyo teaches the aspect ratio of the anode active material being 20 or greater, as described above. Therefore, the modified anode mixture of Hagiwara is expected to have the same properties of the claimed invention.
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. See MPEP 2112.01.
Regarding claim 4, Hagiwara in view of Temmyo teaches all features of claim 1, as described above. Hagiwara is silent to the electrode density of the anode mixture layer (g/cm3).
Temmyo teaches an anode for a secondary battery comprising oriented graphite particles, as taught by Hagiwara and described above, wherein the anode mixture layer (negative electrode mixture layer) has an electrode density of 1.1 to 1.8 g/cm3 (Temmyo [12]).
Since Lee and Temmyo both teach anodes comprising oriented graphite, Hagiwara is silent to the electrode density, and Temmyo teaches that an electrode density of 1.1 to 1.8 g/cm3 is suitable, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the anode mixture layer of Hagiwara to have an electrode density within the range taught by Temmyo in order to obtain an anode mixture layer with an electrode density suitable for use in secondary batteries.
The electrode density range of Temmyo overlaps the claimed range in the instant claim 4. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by Temmyo, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness.
Regarding claim 5, Hagiwara in view of Temmyo teaches all features of claim 1, as described above. Hagiwara further teaches the anode active material including a carbon-based anode active material (natural graphite, Hagiwara Example 1).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hagiwara in view of Temmyo, as evidenced by Klug (US 20020160197 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Hagiwara in view of Temmyo teaches all features of claims 1 and 5, as described above. Hagiwara further teaches the carbon-based anode active material having an anisotropic structure (graphite, Hagiwara Example 1). Klug teaches that “graphites by definition possess anisotropic structures and thus exhibit or possess many properties that are highly directional” (Klug [5]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hagiwara in view of Temmyo, as applied to claims 1 and 5 above, and in further view of Sandia (Silicon and graphite: a materials match made in battery heaven. Sandia National Laboratories. March 6, 2003).
Regarding claim 7, Hagiwara in view of Temmyo teaches all features of claims 1 and 5, as described above. Hagiwara and Temmyo do not teach the anode active material further including a material recited in claim 7.
Sandia teaches that using composite anode materials comprising silicon and graphite anodes leads to improved energy storage capacities relative to anodes comprising only graphite (Sandia paragraph 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add silicon to the anode active material of Hagiwara in order to improve energy storage capacity.
Response to Arguments
Response – Claim Rejections 35 USC § 103
Applicant’s arguments filed December 5, 2025 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
On pages 6-8 of the response, Applicant appears to allege that the references of record (Lee, Kawakami, and Klug) do not teach the aspect ratio of the active material being 20 or more, as claimed in amended claim 1.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the aspect ratio in claim 1 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.
On page 7 of the response, Applicant appears to allege that Lee does not teach “any process of continuously varying the magnetic flux density to control particle orientation” or “any structural or process-based linkage for simultaneously controlling the orientation of both the active material and the pores”.
These arguments are not persuasive. While Lee does not teach continuously varying the perpendicular magnetic field, Applicant has not provided evidence that the process of Lee does not result in Z-tensor and colorimetric values within the claimed ranges and has not provided examples in the instant disclosure wherein the magnetic field is not continuously varied to provide a means for comparison. It is noted that the instant disclosure provides an example wherein no magnetic field is application (Comparative Example 1, instant specification [170-171]); however, an example where the magnetic field is not continuously varied is not provided.
Lee further teaches that the degree of orientation of the anode active material can be tuned by adjusting the intensity of the magnetic field, magnetic field exposure time, and the viscosity of the anode mixture layer ([46]). Lee further teaches the magnetic field caused by the magnet being in a direction that is perpendicular to the current collector, however as the coating process is performed the angle of the magnetic field experienced by the anode active material varies depending on the coating speed, which results in the angle of the anode active material with respect to the current collector (anode active material orientation) being different depending on coating speed (Lee [48], Fig. 3).
The ordinary artisan would recognize that orienting the active material particles (graphite particles) would result in the orientation of the pores between them. As described above, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to tune the magnetic field application process, as taught by Lee, to achieve vertically oriented pores that are perpendicular to the current collector, as taught by Kawakami, in order to decrease battery impedance and improve charge-discharge efficiency.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lim (US 2018/0151867 A1, previously provided in the Non-Final Office Action dated June 12, 2025): appears to disclose an anode comprising graphite oriented through the use of a magnetic field (abstract, Fig. 3).
Zhang (Zhang, L. et al. Magnetic Field Regulating the Graphite Electrode for Excellent Lithium-Ion Batteries Performance. ACS Sustainable Chemistry & Engineering. 7, 6152-6160 (2019), previously provided in the Non-Final Office Action dated June 12, 2025)): appears to disclose orienting graphite particles in electrodes to improve battery performance (title, abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JULIA S CASERTO whose telephone number is (571)272-5114. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 am - 5 pm ET.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached at 571-270-7692. 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.C./Examiner, Art Unit 1789
/MARLA D MCCONNELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1789