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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 April 16, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed April 16, 2026 has been entered but does not place the application
in condition for allowance. Claims 1-2, 4, 6-13, and 15 are pending in the application. The Examiner respectfully acknowledges new claim 15. New rejections follow.
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 1-2, 4, 6-13, 15 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.
Claim 1 recites “a content of the silicon-based material in the second coating is greater than 10 wt% to 21 wt%.” It is unclear if the claimed content of the silicon-based material in the second coating is a value above the recited range or it is within the recited range of 10 wt% to 21 wt%; therefore, the claim is indefinite. Appropriate correction is required. To advance prosecution, the limitation will be interpreted as the content of the silicon-based material in the second coating is within the recited range of 10 wt% to 21 wt%, based on Table 3 of the instant specification.
Claims 2, 4, 6-13, 15 depend on claim 1 and are also indefinite.
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.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6-7, 10, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang et al (CN 113066962 A) in view of Hirose et al (US 20110159368 A1).
Evidentiary support is provided by Jiao et al, “High-capacity SiOx (0≤x≤2) as promising anode materials for next-generation lithium-ion batteries” J Alloys and Compounds, 842 (2020) 155774.
Regarding claim 1, Jiang teaches (Fig. 1, annotated version included below) a negative electrode plate, comprising a first coating (T3), a second coating (T2) and a current collector (A0), the current collector being on one side of the second coating, the first coating being on the other side of the second coating, the first coating and the second coating each comprising a silicon-based material (corresponding to the black circles in Fig. 1; Abstract; p3 para 2 of machine translation),
PNG
media_image1.png
238
681
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein a content of the silicon-based material in the first coating is 23 wt% to 55 wt%,
(Jiang discloses T3 as having a mass ratio of the silicon-based material and graphite of (5
~
35): (65
~
95), which corresponds to a content of the silicon-based material of 5/100 to 35/100 or 5 wt% to 35 wt% (p2 para 8), which is an overlapping range. In the case where the 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))
and a content of the silicon-based material in the second coating is greater than 10 wt% to 21 wt%.
(Jiang discloses T2 as having a mass ratio of the silicon-based material and graphite of (10
~
50): (25
~
90), which corresponds to a content of the silicon-based material of 10/100 to 50/75 or 10 wt% to 67 wt% (p2 para 7), which is an overlapping range. In the case where the 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))
Jiang does not teach a molar ratio of element O to element Si of the silicon-based material in the first coating or in the second coating.
In the same field of endeavor, Hirose teaches “The anode includes an anode active material layer including a plurality of anode active material particles. The anode active material particles each include a core section and a coating section applied to a part or a whole of a surface of the core section, and the core section includes a silicon-based material (SiOx: 0≤x<0.5) and the coating section includes an amorphous or low-crystalline silicon-based material (SiOy: 0.5≤y≤1.8).” Hirose discloses their invention for a lithium-ion secondary battery has improved cycle characteristics and initial charge-discharge characteristics, and that their invention is applicable for electric vehicles and energy storage systems. Given that Jiang also teaches the importance of cycle service life (p1 Description: para 4) and also the use of their electrode sheet for a lithium ion battery in applications of automobiles and intelligent power grid (p1 Description: para 1), a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have modified Jiang’s negative electrode plate to utilize the anode active material particles taught by Hirose as silicon-based materials because they are suitable options which provide the advantages of improved cycle characteristics and initial charge-discharge characteristics. Consequently, each of T2 (corresponding to the second coating) and T3 (corresponding to the first coating) of the combination of prior art would utilize Hirose’s active material particles as its silicon-based material.
The combination of prior art teaches that within T3, i.e.. the first coating, the coating section of the anode active material particles includes SiOy wherein 0.5≤y≤1.8, corresponding to a molar ratio of element O to element Si of 0.5 to 1.8, which overlaps with the claimed range of 0.5 to 1.5. The combination also teaches that within T2, i.e. the second coating, the core section of the anode active material particles includes a SiOx material wherein 0≤x<0.5, corresponding to a molar ratio of element O to element Si of 0 to less than 0.5, which overlaps with the claimed range of greater than 0 and less than 0.1. In the case where the 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)
Jiang teaches the coatings are a mixture of silicon-based material and graphite (p2 para 4).
Regarding the anode active material particles corresponding to the silicon-based material, Hirose teaches that the selection of x of SiOx within the core affects its energy density and battery capacity [0046], and the selection of y of SiOy within the surface coating affects its protective function [0047]. A skilled artisan would have recognized x and y as result-effective variables and would have adjusted them within modified Jiang to optimize energy density and battery capacity as taught by Hirose for the anode active material particles corresponding to the silicon-based material. Hirose also discloses that the size of the core section affects the material’s ease of lithium ion insertion and extraction and the thickness of the coating section also affects the core’s ease of lithium ion insertion and extraction and the protective function and electrical resistance [0070-0071]. Thus, a skilled artisan would have also recognized the size of the core and surface coating of the anode active material particles as result-effective variables and would have adjusted them within modified Jiang to optimize lithium ion insertion/extraction in the core and the protective function of the coating section as taught by Hirose for the anode active material particles corresponding to the silicon-based material.
The mass ratio of the resulting silicon-based material to graphite and the composition of the silicon-based material can be used to calculate the weighted gram capacity for each coating, that is, A1 of the claimed first coating active material (corresponding to T3), and A2 of the claimed second coating active material (corresponding to T2), and the resulting A1 and A2 values would result in the claimed range of A2/ A1.
For example, if the silicon-based material present in each of the coatings were almost all Si, with a theoretical capacity of 4200 mAh/g, and given graphite has a theoretical capacity of 372 mAh/g (Evidentiary reference Jiao et al, p2 left col para 1), then A1 calculated for the first coating would approach a range of 1252-1711 mAh/g based on the corresponding active material ratios of the silicon-based material and graphite, and the second coating would have a calculated range A2 approaching 755 to 1176 mAh/g based on the corresponding active material ratios of the silicon-based material and graphite, thus resulting in a ratio of A1/ A2 of 1.1-2.3, which overlaps with the claimed range. Similarly, if the silicon-based material were almost all SiO1.8 (2189 mAh/g, linearly interpolated from Si and SiO2; evidentiary reference Jiao teaches SiO2 has a theoretical capacity of 1965 mAh/g (p3 left col para 3)), then A1 for the first coating would approach a range of 790 to 1008 mAh/g, and the second coating would have a range A2 approaching 554 to 753 mAh/g, resulting in a ratio of A1/A2 of 1.0-1.8, which also overlaps with the claimed range. The anode active material particles of the silicon-based material will have a composition between all Si and all SiO1.8, thus A1: A2 would provide overlapping ranges with the claimed range of greater than 1.1 and less than or equal to 1.2. In the case where the 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)
Regarding claim 2, the combination above teaches the negative electrode plate of claim 1, and as pointed out previously in addressing the limitations of claim 1, modified Jiang provides T2, i.e. the second coating, comprising anode active material particles taught by Hirose which correspond to a silicon-based material, wherein the core section of the anode active material particles includes a SiOx material of 0≤x<0.5, which thus teaches a molar ratio of element O to element Si of the silicon-based material in the second coating is 0 to less than 0.5, which overlaps with the claimed range of 0.05 to less than 0.1. In the case where the 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)
Regarding claim 4, the combination of prior art teaches the negative electrode plate of claim 1.
As previously pointed out in addressing the limitations of claim 1, the anode active material particles of the silicon-based material will have a composition between all Si and all SiO1.8, and correspondingly the range of A1 of the first coating active material is bounded by the range 790 to 1711 mAh/g, and A2 of the second coating active material is bounded by the range 554 mAh/g to 1176 mAh/g, which both overlap with the claimed ranges. In the case where the 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)
Regarding claim 6, the combination of prior art teaches the negative electrode plate of claim 1.
Jiang further teaches a bonding agent, i.e., a binder, in each of the coating layers T2 (Jiang also calls it their second coating layer, corresponding to the claimed second coating) and T3 (Jiang also calls it their third coating layer, corresponding to the claimed first coating) (p3 para 2); thus, Jiang teaches wherein the limitation of the first coating comprises a bonding agent (i.e., first binder), and the second coating comprises a bonding agent (i.e., a second binder).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of prior art teaches the negative electrode plate of claim 6.
Jiang further teaches the bonding agent can be styrene-butadiene rubber, polyacrylic acid, polyacrylonitrile, and sodium alginate (p3 para 2), which are claimed species.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of prior art teaches the negative electrode plate of claim 1. Jiang further teaches the negative electrode plate is used in a lithium ion battery (p1: Description: para 1), which is a secondary battery.
Regarding claim 15, the combination of prior art teaches the negative electrode plate of claim 1. As previously pointed out in addressing the limitations of claim 1, Jiang discloses T2, corresponding to the second coating, as having a mass ratio of the silicon-based material and graphite of (10
~
50): (25
~
90), which corresponds to a content of the silicon-based material in the second coating of 10/100 to 50/75 or 10 wt % to 67 wt% (p2 para 7), which is an overlapping range with 14 wt% to 21 wt%. In the case where the 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))
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang et al (CN 113066962 A) in view of Hirose et al (US 20110159368 A1) as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Zeng (WO 2020177624 A1) and Kwon et al (KR 20170075963 A).
Regarding claim 8, the combination above teaches the negative electrode plate of claim 6 and use of a first binder and a second binder, but it does not teach that the binders are both polyacrylate-based binders, and that a content of the polyacrylate-based binder in the first coating is less than that in the second coating.
In the same field of endeavor, Zeng is relied upon to teach use of sodium polyacrylate as a binder for negative electrode coatings (translation: [0043], [0048]), which is a polyacrylate-based binder, and thereby indicating that sodium polyacrylate is a known material to be used in as a binder in an electrode. The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07). Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted the sodium polyacrylate binder taught by Zeng and the results would have been predictable. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.). Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time the invention was filed to have substituted the known binder of sodium polyacrylate taught by Zeng into the negative electrode plate of modified Jiang given that it is a simple substitution of one known element for another and that it is known to be suitable as a binder in negative electrode coatings.
In the same field of endeavor, Kwon is relied on to teach that the polymer binder content of the coating relative closer to the current collector (second coating) is greater than the binder content of the electrode mixture located farther from the current collector (first coating) ([translation: 0016]); therefore, Kwon teaches the limitation that the content of the polymer binder in the first coating is less than that of the second coating. Kwon also teaches that making the content of the polymer binder in the first coating less than that in the second coating reduces the phenomenon of the binder being lifted off during the electrode drying process and improves the adhesive strength between the current collector and the electrode mixture layer without using an excessive amount of binder, thereby improving the overall performance of the battery ([0019], [0071]: lines 6-12). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have further modified the negative electrode plate of modified Jiang with the binder contents taught by Kwon to improve the adhesion of the active material to the current collector interface while achieving improvements in overall battery performance and safety.
Regarding claim 9, the combination above teaches the negative electrode plate of claim 8.
Kwon further teaches that the binder content of the coating in direct contact with the current collector (second coating) may be 1 wt % - 10 wt% in the second coating, and that the binder content of the outer layer (first coating) may be 0.1 wt% - 5% in the first coating (translation: [0025]), ranges which both overlap with the claimed ranges. In the case where the 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).
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang et al (CN 113066962 A) in view of Hirose et al (US 20110159368 A1) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Zeng (WO 2020177624 A1).
Regarding claim 11, the combination above teaches the negative electrode plate of claim 10, but it does not mention a battery module.
In the same field of endeavor, Zeng is relied upon to teach a battery module 4 assembled from secondary batteries 5 (Fig. 2, translation: [0063-0064]) and further teaches that a battery module can be used to satisfy device requirements for high energy density and high energy density electrochemical devices such as electric vehicles ([0070]), which also correspond to applications proposed by Jiang (p1: Description para 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan at the time the invention was filed to have incorporated the secondary batteries of modified Jiang into a battery module as taught by Zeng in order to satisfy the high power and high energy density requirements of devices such as electric vehicles.
Regarding claim 12, the combination above teaches the battery module of claim 11.
Zeng further teaches a battery pack 1 comprising multiple battery modules 4 in a battery box to accommodate the battery modules (Fig. 4), therefore it is a known configuration. Zeng further teaches that battery packs can be used to satisfy device requirements for high energy density and high energy density electrochemical devices such as electric vehicles ([0070]), which also correspond to applications proposed by Jiang (p1: Description para 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan at the time the invention was filed to have incorporated the secondary batteries of modified Jiang into a battery pack as taught by Zeng because it is a known configuration and in order to satisfy the high power and high energy density requirements of devices such as electric vehicles. The skilled artisan would have also recognized that providing the combination of elements in combination, in this case, the assembly of multiple battery modules into a battery box to form a battery pack, would merely provide the predictable result of similar function as performed separately with expectation of success; see KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) (see MPEP §2143, A).
Regarding claim 13, the combination above teaches the battery pack of claim 12. Primary reference Jiang teaches suitable applications for the lithium ion battery such as automobiles (p1 Description para 2), which a skilled artisan would recognize as a power consuming device. Zeng teaches that the battery pack can be used to meet device requirements for high energy density in devices such as electric vehicles [0070]. Therefore, a skilled artisan would have found it obvious to have incorporated modified Jiang’s battery pack within a power consuming device.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the prior art rejections 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GIGI LIN whose telephone number is (571)272-2017. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:30 - 6.
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, Jeffrey T Barton can be reached at (571) 272-1307. 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.
/G.L.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1726
/BACH T DINH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726 10/02/2026
Prosecution Insights