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 .
Response to Amendment
The Request for Continued Examination filed on February 2, 2026 in response to the Final Office Action mailed on November 3, 2025 have been received. Claim 1 was amended, claim 8 was cancelled and claim 15 was added. Claims 1-7 and 9-15 are pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
Claim 1 rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abdelsalam et al. (US 20150044571 A1).
Applicant argues that as agreed during the interview held on January 14, 2026, the prior art of record fails to teach the claimed aspect ratio range of 8,000-15,000 (see page 6).
Applicant’s arguments, see page 6, filed on February 2, 2026, with respect to claim 1 rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 1 has been withdrawn.
Because of the direct or indirect dependency of claims 2-7 and 9-14 on claim 1, the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections applied to these claims have been withdrawn.
Upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made over Ogata et al. (US 20170077497 A1) in view of Kim et al. (WO 2019108039 A2, see machine translation for citation) and evidenced by Hou et al. (CN 104201343 A, see machine translation for citation).
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 non-obviousness.
Claims 1-4, 6, 7 and 9-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogata et al. (US 20170077497 A1) in view of Kim et al. (WO 2019108039 A2, see machine translation for citation) and evidenced by Hou et al. (CN 104201343 A, see machine translation for citation).
Regarding claim 1, Ogata teaches an electrode active material (30) which includes an electrode active material comprising a secondary particle, which comprises a plurality of primary particles of a silicon composite (31), a carbonaceous nano scaffold (34), and an additional chemically cross-linked water-insoluble polymer (33) [0087 and Fig. 2D]. It is taught that chemically cross-linked water-insoluble polymer (33) that can be the same or different as the chemically cross-linked water-insoluble polymer (previously taught for exemplary embodiment shown on Fig. 2A), which may include least one selected from polyvinyl alcohol, poly(acrylic acid), poly(acrylic acid) substituted with an alkali cation or an ammonium ion, polyimide, carboxymethyl cellulose, and a combination thereof (binders) [0069 and 0087].
The electrode active material (30) may may further include graphite (35) (first conductive material), and the graphite may be in the form of a flake or in the form of a sphere. Spherical graphite (35) (first conductive material) may have an average particle diameter (D50) in a range of 3-30 µm [0092]. An amount of the flake or spherical graphite (35) (first conductive material) in the electrode active material (30) may be, based on 100 parts by weight of the electrode active material (30), about 5-20 parts by weight (5-20%) [0098].
The carbonaceous nano scaffold (34) may comprise a carbon nanotube (second conductive material), which may comprise at least one selected from a single-walled carbon nanotube, a double-walled carbon nanotube, and a multi-walled carbon nanotube [0089-0090]. The taught carbon nanotubes may have an average tube diameter about 1-80 nm and a length about 1-50 µm [0090]. From the previous description if single-walled carbon nanotube has an average diameter of 1 nm and a length of 10 µm, an aspect ratio (l/d) of 10,000 would be obtained. An amount of the carbonaceous nano scaffold (34) (second conductive material) in the electrode active material (30) may be, based on 100 parts by weight of the electrode active material (30), about 0.1-20 parts by weight (0.1-20%) [0095].
A negative electrode may be prepared employing the referred electrode active material and laminating it on a negative current collector [0107, 0120 and 0121].
Ogata does not teach the feature “a specific surface area of the second conductive material is larger than a specific surface area of the first conductive material”.
Kim teaches a negative electrode comprising a current collector, a first negative active material-layer including a carbon-based active material (first conductive material) and a second negative active material-layer including a silicon-based active material and carbon-nanotubes (second conductive material) is provided on the first negative active material-layer [10-12]. The carbon-nanotube may be one or more selected from the group consisting of a single walled carbon nanotube, a multi-walled carbon nanotube, and a carbon nano fiber, but is not limited thereto [44]. It is taught that the carbon-nanotube may specifically have a specific surface area of 100-3,000 m2/g [52]. The negative electrode further comprises a binder on the preparation of the corresponding slurries [71 and 72]. It is taught that when the specific surface area of the carbon-nanotube satisfies the above range, the cycle characteristics of the lithium secondary battery may be improved by efficiently crosslinking between the silicon-based material and between the silicon-based material and the current collector when the silicon-based material contracts [52].
Hou evidence that spherical graphite having a median diameter (D50) between 5-35 µm [0021]. From Example 1 the obtained spherical graphite had a D50 of 17.16 µm (within the range taught by Ogata) and a specific surface area of 5.78 m2/g [0045]. From these evidence and the teachings of Ogata, the carbonaceous nano scaffold (34) (second conductive material) as described above would have a larger than a specific surface area of the spherical graphite (35) (first conductive material).
If the carbonaceous nano scaffold (34) taught by Ogata is selected as single walled carbon nanotubes (first conductive material), it is modified to have the specific surface area taught by Kim and it is compared to the spherical graphite (first conductive material) specific surface area evidenced by Hou above, the feature “a specific surface area of the second conductive material is larger than a specific surface area of the first conductive material” is met.
Ogata is analogous art to the current invention because it is concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely a negative electrode, comprising: a negative electrode current collector; and a negative electrode active material layer disposed on the negative electrode current collector, wherein the negative electrode active material layer comprises a silicon-based active material, a binder, a first conductive material, and a second conductive material, the first conductive material is contained in the negative electrode active material layer in an amount of 9.68 % by weight to 9.83 % by weight, the second conductive material is contained in the negative electrode active material layer in an amount of 0.17 % by weight to 0.32 % by weight, and wherein an aspect ratio of the second conductive material is 8,000 to 15,000.
Kim is analogous art to the current invention because it is concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely a negative electrode, comprising: a negative electrode current collector; and a negative electrode active material layer disposed on the negative electrode current collector, wherein the negative electrode active material layer comprises a silicon-based active material, a binder, a first conductive material, and a second conductive material.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the amount of the flake or spherical graphite (35) (first conductive material) and the amount of the carbonaceous nano scaffold (34) (second conductive material) ranges disclosed by Ogata because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obvious. 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). See MPEP § 2144.05.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the carbonaceous nano scaffold (34) (single-walled carbon nanotube/second conductive material) of Ogata to have the specific surface area taught by Kim, and based on the spherical graphite (first conductive material) specific surface area evidenced by Hou, met the limitation “a specific surface area of the second conductive material is larger than a specific surface area of the first conductive material”, because Kim teaches that when the specific surface area of the carbon-nanotube satisfies the above range, the cycle characteristics of the lithium secondary battery may be improved by efficiently crosslinking between the silicon-based material and between the silicon-based material and the current collector when the silicon-based material contracts.
Regarding claim 2, Ogata, Kim and Hou teach all the elements of the current invention in claim 1. From claim 1 discussion, the specific surface area for spherical graphite with a D50 of 17.16 µm (within the D50 range taught by Ogata) was evidenced as 5.78 m2/g.
Regarding claim 3, Ogata, Kim and Hou teach all the elements of the current invention in claim 1. From claim 1 discussion, this feature is met.
Regarding claim 4, Ogata, Kim and Hou teach all the elements of the current invention in claim 1. Ogata teaches the employment of spherical graphite (35) (first conductive material) with an average particle diameter (D50) in a range of 3-30 µm [0092].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the average particle diameter (D50) range disclosed by Ogata because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obvious. 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). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 6, Ogata, Kim and Hou teach all the elements of the current invention in claim 1. From claim 1 discussion, the carbonaceous nano scaffold (34) taught by Ogata is selected as single walled carbon nanotubes (first conductive material), it is modified to have the specific surface area taught by Kim (100-3,000 m2/g).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the specific surface area range disclosed by Kim because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obvious. 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). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 7, Ogata, Kim and Hou teach all the elements of the current invention in claim 1. From claim 1 discussion, the feature “wherein the second conductive material comprises at least one of single-walled carbon nanotubes or multi-walled carbon nanotubes” is met.
Regarding claim 9, Ogata, Kim and Hou teach all the elements of the current invention in claim 1. Ogata further teaches that an amount of the plurality of primary particles of the silicon composite (31) in the electrode active material (30) may be, based on 100 parts by weight of the electrode active material (30) in a range between 10-90 parts by weight (10-90 % by weight) [0094].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the amount of the plurality of primary particles of the silicon composite (31) range disclosed by Ogata because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obvious. 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). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 10, Ogata, Kim and Hou teach all the elements of the current invention in claim 1. Ogata further teaches that the primary particles of the silicon-containing material have an average particle size in a range of about 0.1 nm-1 µm [claim 10]. Since the silicon composite (31) is identified as a primary particle [0093], this range applies to it.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the average particle size of the silicon-containing material range disclosed by Ogata because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obvious. 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). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 11, Ogata, Kim and Hou teach all the elements of the current invention in claim 1. Ogata further teaches that the primary particles of the silicon-containing material have an average particle size in a range of about 0.1 nm-1 µm [claim 10]. Since the silicon composite (31) is identified as a primary particle [0093], this range applies to it. From claim 1 discussion, the spherical graphite (35) (first conductive material) having an average particle diameter (D50) in a range of 3-30 µm [0092]. If the silicon composite (31) average particle size is selected as 1 µm and the spherical graphite (35) (first conductive material) D50 is selected as 3 µm, the ratio between these two materials is 1:3, which meets the claimed feature.
Regarding claim 12, Ogata, Kim and Hou teach all the elements of the current invention in claim 1. From claim 1 discussion, Ogata establishes that its chemically cross-linked water-insoluble polymer (33) (binder) included on its electrode active material (30), may include least one selected from polyvinyl alcohol, poly(acrylic acid), poly(acrylic acid) substituted with an alkali cation or an ammonium ion, polyimide, carboxymethyl cellulose, and a combination thereof [0069 and 0087].
Regarding claim 13, Ogata, Kim and Hou teach all the elements of the current invention in claim 1. Ogata further teaches that an amount of the chemically cross-linked water-insoluble polymer (33) (binder) in the electrode active material (30) may be, based on 100 parts by weight of the electrode active material (30), in a range of about 1 to 50 parts by weight (1-50 % by weight) [0097].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the amount of the chemically cross-linked water-insoluble polymer (33) (binder) range disclosed by Ogata because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obvious. 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). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 14, Ogata, Kim and Hou teach all the elements of the current invention in claim 1. Ogata further teaches a secondary battery may include an electrode formed by the electrode active material described above, which may be a negative active material [0106 and 0107]. The secondary battery may include a positive electrode facing the negative electrode and an electrolyte and a separator disposed between the negative electrode and the positive electrode [0108 and 0128].
Regarding claim 15, Ogata, Kim and Hou teach all the elements of the current invention in claim 1. From claim 1 discussion, it is possible to select the second conductive material to be single-wall carbon nanotubes.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogata et al. (US 20170077497 A1) in view of Kim et al. (WO 2019108039 A2, see machine translation for citation) and evidenced by Hou et al. (CN 104201343 A, see machine translation for citation) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Abdelsalam et al. (US 20150044571 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Ogata, Kim and Hou teach all the elements of the current invention in claim 1, except “wherein an aspect ratio of the first conductive material is 1.1 to 30.0”.
Abdelsalam teaches a battery comprising a current collector (10) for an anode (negative electrode) and a composite anode (negative electrode) layer (14), containing active silicon particles, overlaying the current collector (10) [0058 and Fig. 1]. A composition according to an embodiment of the invention comprises silicon-comprising particles, a binder and one or more additives, which are preferably conductive materials (first and second conductive materials) [0062]. Additives (first and second conductive materials) may be selected from: elongate carbon nanostructures; carbon black particles, including acetylene black and ketjen black particles; and a material containing graphite or graphene particles [0064]. The graphite particles, which can be employed as the first conductive material, optionally may be graphite flakes (as taught by Ogata) with an aspect ratio between its length and width of at least 5 [0123 and 0129].
Abdelsalam is analogous art to the current invention because it is concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely a negative electrode, comprising: a negative electrode current collector; and a negative electrode active material layer disposed on the negative electrode current collector, wherein the negative electrode active material layer comprises a silicon-based active material, a binder, a first conductive material, and a second conductive material.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the graphite particles (first conductive material) aspect ratio range disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obvious. 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). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GILBERTO RAMOS RIVERA whose telephone number is (571)272-2740. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30-5:00 pm.
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, Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at (571) 270-3879. 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.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/JAMES M ERWIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725 03/27/2026
Prosecution Insights