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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed December 19, 2025 has been entered but does not place the application in condition for allowance. Claims 1-2, 4, 6-13 remain pending in the application. New rejections follow.
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, 4, 6-7, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuno et al (US 2016/0285081 Al) in view of Jiang (CN 113066962 A) and Ishikawa et al (US 20200328409 A1), with supporting evidence by Lee et al “Electrochemical properties of nonstoichiometric silicon suboxide anode materials with controlled oxygen concentration,” Composites Part B 174 (2019) 107024.
Regarding Claim 1, Matsuno teaches (Figure 1) a negative electrode plate ([0017]), comprising a first coating (13), a second coating (14) and a current collector (11), wherein the current collector (11) is on one side of the second coating (14) and the first coating (13) is on the other side of the second coating (14) ([0022]). Matsuno also teaches that the first coating utilizes SiOx (x = 1.3) as a silicon-based material and the second coating utilizes silicon as a silicon-based material ([0021]-[0023]; p11 Table 1: Example 10), wherein the molar ratio of element O to element Si (O:Si) in the first coating is within the claimed range of 0.5 to 1.5 for the first coating, and wherein the second coating utilizes Si as the silicon-based material, which would result in a O:Si molar ratio of about zero, which is less than or equal to 0.3 and is also within the claimed range for the second coating.
Matsuno does not teach the weighted gram capacities of the two coating materials.
Jiang teaches the claimed first coating (T2) corresponding to weighted gram capacity A1 can have a (10~50): (25~90) mass ratio of silicon-based material to graphite (translation p2 para 3: lines 7-11, para 6-8). Therefore, the silicon-based material in the first coating T2 can have 10 wt% - 50 wt% silicon-based material, which overlaps with the claimed range of 23 wt % - 55 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).
Jiang also teaches the claimed second coating (T1) corresponding to weighted gram capacity A2 can have (1~10): (90~99) mass ratio of silicon-based material to graphite, which would correspond to the silicon-based material in the second coating T1 having 1 wt% - 10 wt% silicon-based material.
Jiang further teaches that the taught coating compositions enable the overall electrode to achieve a high energy density and cycle life while minimizing the likelihood that the active material falls off the current collector as the result of silicon-caused expansion and contraction during charging and discharging (p1 paragraphs 5-6; p2 paragraph 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time the invention was filed to have modified the negative electrode plate taught by Matsuno with the coating compositions taught by Jiang to take advantage of the high energy density and excellent cycle life.
The upper bound of 10 wt% of the prior art’s range for the content of the silicon-based material in the second coating is close to the claimed lower bound of greater than 10%. One skilled in the art would expect a coating with 10% silicon-based material and another with slightly over 10% of the same silicon-based material to have similar properties. As stated in MPEP 2144.05, I., 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)
Furthermore, analogous art Ishikawa exemplifies that within the art, a higher proportion of silicon-based material can be used and that that routine experimentation can be used to adjust the composition to mitigate degradation of the charge-discharge cycle characteristics associated with volume changes in the Si-containing compound ([0039]), addressing a problem recognized by primary reference Matsuno, who discloses “Although Si element can achieves the about 10 times larger negative electrode capacity than a carbon material, volumetric expansion and contraction is large during charge and discharge, and it is difficult to achieve long life” (Matsuno: [0004]). Specifically, Ishikawa teaches in Fig. 2 a negative electrode 20 with a first layer 32 (i.e., the claimed second coating of the application) containing a carbon material and a Si-containing material ([0026]), wherein the Si-containing compound layer 32 is not particularly limited provided that it contains Si ([0036]), the carbon material can be graphite ([0031]), and a mass ratio between the carbon material and the Si-containing compound is 95:5 to 70:30 ([0039]), which would correspond to 5 wt% to 30 wt % silicon-based material, a proportion which overlaps with the claimed range of 10 wt% to 21 wt%. Ishikawa teaches that selecting a mass ratio from this range can mitigate, via the carbon material, volume changes in the Si-containing compound to inhibit degradation of the charge-discharge cycle characteristics of a nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have recognized Ishikawa’s teachings suggest a broader range of a silicon-based material can be used in the second coating of modified Matsuno, and would have also recognized that the proportion of the silicon-based material in the second coating is a result-effective variable, and they would have used routine experimentation to adjust the proportion of a silicon-based material used in the second coating of modified Matsuno to arrive at the claimed range to optimize the maintenance of the charge-discharge cycle characteristics of the battery.
As pointed out previously in addressing the limitations of claim 1, Matsuno teaches the silicon-based material in the first coating is SiO1.3 and the silicon-based material in the second coating is Si.
If the composition of the claimed first coating T2 is 27%/73% (mass basis) of SiO1.3 to graphite, A1 is calculated to be 982 mAh/g (Evidentiary reference Lee provides capacity of SiO1.3 as 2632 mAh/g on p6 Fig. 6b, and capacity of graphite as 372 mAh/g on p1 left col para 1; calculation is (27%)*(2632 mAh/g) + (73%)*(372 mAh/g)). Similarly, if the composition of the claimed second coating T1 is 15%/85% (mass basis) of Si to graphite, A2 is calculated to be 853.2 mAh/g, based on (15%)*(3580 mAh/g) + (85%)*(372 mAh/g) (Evidentiary reference Lee provides capacity of Si as 3580 mAh/g on p1 left col para 2, and capacity of graphite as 372 mAh/g on p1 left col para 1). Consequently, A1:A2 can be 982/853.2 or about 1.15, which overlaps with the claimed 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).
Regarding claim 4, the combination above teaches the negative electrode plate of claim 1, and as pointed out in addressing claim 1 above, the combination provides an A1 of 982 mAh/g and an A2 of 853.2 mAh/g, and both weighted gram capacities fall within the claimed 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).
Regarding claim 6, the combination above teaches the negative electrode plate of claim 1, and Matsuno discloses the use of a polyimide (PI) as a first binder in the first coating and also as a second binder in the second coating ([0128] – [0130]).
Regarding claim 7, the combination above teaches the negative electrode plate of claim 6, and Matsuno further teaches that styrene-butadiene rubber is a suitable option as a binder material ([0040]) and also discloses a manufacturing of the negative electrode wherein two separate slurries are made separately for each coating layer, with the level of the first binder different from the level of the second binder ([0128] – [0130]); therefore, the first binder and the second binder each independently comprise of a binder material. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have selected the first binder and the second binder to each independently comprise of styrene butadiene rubber and to have substituted it for the polyamide (PI) ([0128] – [0130]) given that Matsuno teaches it as an option.
Regarding claim 10, the combination above teaches the negative electrode plate of claim 1, and Matsuno further teaches that a secondary battery comprises the negative electrode plate ([0188]; Table 2: Example 10).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuno et al (US 2016/0285081 Al) in view of Jiang (CN 113066962 A) and Ishikawa et al (US 20200328409 A1) with supporting evidence by Lee et al “Electrochemical properties of nonstoichiometric silicon suboxide anode materials with controlled oxygen concentration,” Composites Part B 174 (2019) 107024, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Iwamoto et al (US 2009/0117472 A1).
Regarding claim 2, the combination above teaches the negative electrode plate of claim 1. The combination does not teach the element O to element Si (O:Si) molar ratio of the silicon-based material in the second coating as 0.05 to 0.2.
Iwamoto is relied upon to teach (Figure 1) a multi-layer negative electrode that has a second coating (12) between the current collector (11) and the first coating (13) wherein the second coating (12) has a O:Si molar ratio x of the silicon-based material of 0.1≤x≤1.2 ([0063]), which overlaps with the claimed range. Iwamoto further discloses that silicon oxide is a known active material to be used in a negative electrode for its high capacity and stable cycle characteristics and for solving the issue of large volumetric expansions and contractions associated with silicon as a negative electrode material and which affects its current collecting performance ([0004], [0005] lines 1-4). Iwamoto additionally teaches that selection of a O:Si molar ratio greater than 0.1 reduces the volumetric expansion and contraction during charging and discharging, which desirably suppresses the peeling of the second coating (12) from the current collector (11) and mitigates impacts to the current collecting performance ([0066] lines 15- 23). 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). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the negative electrode plate of modified Matsuno to use the silicon-based material taught by Iwamoto for the second coating with the expectation that selection of the known material would improve the robustness of the second coating on the current collector and maintain the negative electrode’s performance over charging-discharging cycles.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuno et al (US 2016/0285081 Al) in view of Jiang (CN 113066962 A) and Ishikawa et al (US 20200328409 A1) with supporting evidence by Lee et al “Electrochemical properties of nonstoichiometric silicon suboxide anode materials with controlled oxygen concentration,” Composites Part B 174 (2019) 107024, as applied to claim 1 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 ([0128] – [0130]), 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.
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 Matsuno 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.
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 Matsuno 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.
The combination does not teach a content of the polyacrylate-based binder in the first coating is 3 wt% to 6 wt%, and a content of the polyacrylate-based binder in the second coating is 4 wt% to 7 wt%.
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% of 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 Matsuno et al (US 2016/0285081 Al) in view of Jiang (CN 113066962 A) and Ishikawa et al (US 20200328409 A1) with supporting evidence by Lee et al “Electrochemical properties of nonstoichiometric silicon suboxide anode materials with controlled oxygen concentration,” Composites Part B 174 (2019) 107024, as applied to claim 1 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.
Zeng is relied upon to teach a battery module assembled from secondary batteries (Fig. 2, translation: [0063]) and further teaches that a battery module can be used to satisfy device requirements for high power and high energy density electrochemical devices such as electric vehicles ([0070]), which also correspond to applications proposed by Matsuno (Matsuno: [0003]). Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time the invention was filed to have incorporated the secondary batteries of modified Matsuno 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 negative electrode plate of claim 1. The combination does not explicitly teach the use of a battery module.
Matsuno discloses (Figures 6-7) that a plurality of secondary batteries (41) can be included in a battery pack (40) ([0112]).
Zeng is relied upon to teach a battery module assembled from secondary batteries (Fig. 2, translation: [0063]). Zeng further teaches that the battery modules can be assembled in a battery pack in order to satisfy device requirements for high power and high energy density electrochemical devices such as electric vehicles (Figures 4-5; [0066], [0070]), which also correspond to applications proposed by Matsuno (Matsuno: [0003]). It would have been obvious at the time the invention was filed to have incorporated the battery modules of modified Matsuno into a battery pack as taught by Zeng in order to satisfy the high power and high energy density requirements of devices such as electric vehicles.
Regarding Claim 13, the combination above teaches the battery pack of claim 12. Matsuno further teaches that the battery pack can be used for a power consuming device such as a two-wheeled or four-wheeled hybrid electric vehicle or electric vehicle given its excellent high temperature characteristics and excellent cycle characteristics when a large current is extracted ([0124]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed Dec 19, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Based on the combined prior art’s taught compositions for the claimed first coating and the claimed second coating, as previously discussed in addressing the limitation of claim 1 in the office action of September 23, 2025 (p6: ¶ 3, and p7: ¶ 2), the composition of the claimed first coating can be 27%/73% (mass basis) of SiO1.3 to graphite and the composition of the claimed second coating is 15%/85% (mass basis) of Si to graphite. If the composition of the claimed first coating T2 is 27%/73% (mass basis) of SiO1.3 to graphite, A1 is calculated to be 982 mAh/g (Evidentiary reference Lee provides capacity of SiO1.3 as 2632 mAh/g on p6 Fig. 6b, and capacity of graphite as 372 mAh/g on p1 left col para 1; calculation is (27%)*(2632 mAh/g) + (73%)*(372 mAh/g)). Similarly, if the composition of the claimed second coating T1 is 15%/85% (mass basis) of Si to graphite, A2 is calculated to be 853.2 mAh/g, based on (15%)*(3580 mAh/g) + (85%)*(372 mAh/g) (Evidentiary reference Lee provides capacity of Si as 3580 mAh/g on p1 left col para 2, and capacity of graphite as 372 mAh/g on p1 left col para 1). Consequently, A1:A2 can be 982/853.2 or about 1.15, which overlaps with the claimed 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).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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 02/26/2026