DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment/Arguments
Claims 1-15 are currently pending. No claims have been amended.
Applicant's arguments filed 12/31/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant further argues that “the Office Action errs in incorporating and applying, for purposes of interpreting claims 3-11, a limitation that is set forth in claim 2 (“predetermined threshold is 2%.”) Applicant notes, in this regard, that claims 3-11 depend from claim 1 rather than from claim 2, and as such any limitation set forth in claim 2 need not and should not be incorporated into and applied to claims 3-11 as set forth in the Office Action”.
In response, the Office first point out that claims 3-11 depending from claim 1 does not change the overall interpretation of claim 1. Since claim 1 is broader in scope than claim 2, the limitation “the lateral expansion is less than the predetermined threshold” would read on any amount of lateral expansion. Therefore, even if the limitation of claim 2 is not incorporated into claim 1, claims 3-11 can still be grouped together for the same interpretation of claim 1 as stated above.
The Applicant further argues that “a person having ordinary skill in the art would readily understand and appreciate that density and porosity are characteristics of the anode, and that, as described in ¶29, such characteristics can be varied-that is, set or adjusted-to achieve particular expansion performance, with that varying achieved by selection of silicon particles having particle size distribution in a certain range”.
In response, the Office takes the position that ¶29 does not explicitly teach setting or adjusting a characteristic such as porosity and density. What ¶29 actually states is that the selection of larger silicon particles (e.g. 5 um to 25 um) results in less dense and more porous anodes. So, the only characteristic that is varied is the particle size distribution of silicon particles, not the density or porosity of the anode.
The Applicant further argues that “in rejecting claim 1 based on Park, the Office Action fails to account for various aspects of these features and/or limitations. In this regard, Applicant submits that to allege a proper anticipation based rejection of claim 1, the Examiner must show that Park (or any other reference the Examiner cites or relies on) teaches use of one of plurality of different particle size distributions, with each of these particle size distributions corresponding to different expansion performance, and with the particular particle size distribution used in the anode being selected to set or adjust a particular characteristic in the anode (e.g., density, porosity, surface roughness, etc.) in a manner that ensures that the lateral expansion of the anode during operation of the battery is less than the predetermined threshold”.
In response, to further clarify the claim interpretation and the scope of the claims, the plurality of different particle size distributions correspond to different batteries that each has a single particle size distribution. These different batteries are part of the experiments that were used to determine which particle size distribution would result in a reduction in lateral expansion of the anode. This is consistent with the data shown in Fig. 8 which illustrates expansion of cells with each cell corresponding to a different particle size distribution. Therefore, the present invention is a single cell (battery) with a single particle size distribution and the claim interpretation of claim 1 which requires a single particle size distribution is maintained. In addition, a lateral expansion of the anode during operation of the battery to be less than a predetermined threshold that is 2% is an inherent characteristic of an anode having a particle size distribution of silicon particles that is 5 um to 25 um. The data presented in Fig. 8 of the present application provides evidence to show that a particle size distribution between 6 um and 10 um necessarily results in a X-Expansion or Y-Expansion (lateral expansion) that is less than 2%. Further, the specification of the present application does not expressly teach a particle size distribution that is set or adjusted because each battery comprises a single particle size distribution. The claims of the present application are drawn to a single battery, not a plurality of batteries, each comprising a different particle size distribution. Lastly, the Applicant has not provided any evidence to show that the Park anode would not inherently result in a lateral expansion of the anode of less than 2%.
The Applicant further argues that “Park discloses particle size distributions that may overlap with the particle size distributions disclosed in the present Application, the Office Action fails to show or explain where or how Park specifically discuss lateral expansion of anodes, and that such lateral expansion can be configured or otherwise controlled by setting or adjusting specific characteristics of the anode, and doing so based on adaptively selecting one specific particle size distribution from a plurality of different particle size distributions, each corresponding to different expansion profile”.
In response, as previously stated, there is a direct correlation between particle size distribution and lateral expansion of anodes. As stated in para. [0048] of the specification, “As can be seen by the increasing expansion, the anodes formed with longer milling time have significantly high expansion than those with shorter milling times, demonstrating that smaller particles result in increased expansion of the cell”. Also, Fig. 8 shows that larger silicon particle size distribution do reduce anode expansion. Since Park discloses the same larger particle size distribution as the present invention, the Park anode would necessarily result in the same lateral expansion of the anode that is less than 2%.
Therefore, upon further consideration, claims 1-15 stand rejected under the following 112, 102, and 103 rejections.
Claim Interpretation
With respect to claims 1-11, these claims are given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification. With respect to claim 1, the limitation “wherein at least one of the one or more characteristics of the anode is set or adjusted, to ensure that the lateral expansion is less than the predetermined threshold, based on selection of a particle size distribution of silicon particles in the in the active material layer, and wherein the particle size distribution is a particular one from a plurality of different particle size distributions, each corresponding to a different expansion performance” is construed as only requiring a single particle size distribution. This is consistent with the specification (para. [0048]) which illustrates in Figure 7, “anode expansion for various active material milling times in fabricating the anode … there is shown the expansion of various cells formed with different ball mixing times of the active material … As can be seen by the increasing expansion, the anodes formed with longer milling time have significantly high expansion than those with shorter milling times, demonstrating that smaller particles result in increased expansion of the cell”. Of the various cells (batteries), each cell only includes a single particle size distribution with smaller particles corresponding to increased expansion of the cell and larger particles corresponding to decreased expansion of the cell. With respect to claims 3-11, these claims are construed as only requiring one of the first particle size distribution and the second particle size distribution. Since the second particle size distribution in a range of 5 um to 25 um results in a lateral expansion of the anode that is less than a predetermined threshold (2%) as recited in claim 1 (Fig. 8), the Office takes the position that claims 3-11 do not require a first particle size distribution, or any relationship between the first particle size distribution and the second particle size distribution.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The limitation “wherein at least one of the one or more characteristics of the anode is set or adjusted, to ensure that the lateral expansion is less than the predetermined threshold, based on selection of a particle size distribution of silicon particles in the in the active material layer” is not supported by the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Park et al (US 2014/0166939).
Regarding claims 1-11, Park et al discloses a battery comprising:
a cathode, an electrolyte, and an anode, the anode comprising:
an aluminum foil (current collector); and
a mixture (active material layer) on the aluminum foil without an adhesive layer between the mixture and the aluminum foil,
wherein the mixture comprises a predetermined particle size distribution of silicon particles, wherein at least 90% of the particles is between 5 µm and 20 µm (one or more characteristics of the anode / second particle size distribution) ([0005],[0062],[0069], [0102] and Fig. 27A).
Examiner’s note: the Office takes the position that “a lateral expansion of the anode during operation of the battery is configured to be less than a predetermined threshold, wherein the predetermined threshold is 2%” and “the expansion of the anode is further configured based on a roughness of the active material layer” are inherent characteristics of the Park anode because Park discloses the same particle size distributions (5 um to 20 um) as the present invention. As stated in para. [0049] of the specification of the present application, “FIG. 8 shows that larger silicon particle size distributions do reduce anode expansion”. So, the data showing a lateral expansion of less than 2% in Fig. 8 corresponds to larger silicon particle size distributions. In addition, para. [0038] of the specification states “larger particle sizes, with a particle size distribution range from 5 um to 25 um, as compared to a silicon particle size distribution in a 1 um to 10 um range, result in less dense and rough active layers”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al (US 2014/0166939) in view of Nakanishi et al (US 2009/0239151). The Park reference is applied to claim 1 for reasons stated above.
However, Park et al does not expressly teach an expansion of the anode that is configured to increase anisotropic expansion based on characteristics of the current collector (claim 12); wherein the expansion of the anode is configured to increase anisotropic expansion based on use of a different material for the current collector for a same thickness of the current collector (claim 13); wherein the expansion of the anode is configured to increase anisotropic expansion by use of nickel for the current collector for the same thickness (claim 14).
Nakanishi et al discloses a current collector that is a nickel foil ([0103]).
Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made because the disclosure of Nakanishi indicates that nickel is a suitable material for use as a current collector. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use has generally been held to be prima facie obvious (MPEP §2144.07). As such, it would be obvious to use nickel. In addition, the limitation “the expansion of the anode is configured to increase anisotropic expansion” is an inherent characteristic of the Park/Nakanishi anode because Park et al as modified by Nakanishi et al teaches the same material of the current collector as the present invention.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al (US 2014/0166939) in view of Kondo et al (US 2017/0012282). The Park reference is applied to claim 1 for reasons stated above.
However, Park et al does not expressly teach an expansion of the anode that is configured to increase anisotropic expansion if the active material is roll press laminated to the current collector as compared to flat press laminated active material (claim 15).
Kondo et al discloses an anode active material layer that is roll press (laminated) to the current collector (Abstract and [0277]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the Park anode to include an active material that is roll press laminated to the current collector in order to firmly adhere the active material layer to the current collector ([0277]). In addition, the limitation “the expansion of the anode is configured to increase anisotropic expansion” is an inherent characteristic of the Park/Kondo anode because Park et al as modified by Kondo et al teaches the same process of roll press laminating the active material to the current collector as the present invention.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 TONY S CHUO whose telephone number is (571)272-0717. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00am - 5:30pm.
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, Jonathan Leong can be reached on 571-270-1292. 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.
/T.S.C/Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 3/23/2026