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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 Dec 30, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-12 remain pending in the application.
The application filed 12/30/2025 has been entered but does not place the application in condition for allowance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 3 recites “wherein the adhesive layer has an area of about 5 area% to about 50 area% based on the total area of the negative active material layer”. The limitation is broader than the limitation reciting “the adhesive layer has an area of about 5 area% to about 25 area% or less based on the total area of the negative active material layer” in parent claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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, 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong et al (KR 20150046552 A) in view of Sung et al (KR 20150048082 A) and Kim et al (US 2020/0280060 A1).
Hong teaches a (Fig. 1) a first electrode for a secondary (rechargeable) lithium battery (translation: [0024]) comprising a current collector (20), an active material layer (21) on the current collector ([0024]). Hong also teaches a binder adhesive layer (30) in contact with, or directly on, the electrode active material layer (21) (Fig. 1; [0024]) and discloses that the electrode structure taught for the first electrode can be the anode (negative electrode) or the cathode (positive electrode) ([0018]), therefore active material layer 21 can correspond to the negative active material layer, and thereby Hong teaches an adhesive layer 30 directly on the negative electrode active material layer as claimed. Hong also teaches that the adhesive layer can be positioned in a dot pattern ([0027]).
Hong does not teach the area coverage or thickness of the adhesive layer, nor do they specify silicon as an electrode active material.
Sung teaches a non-woven patterned adhesive binder layer for a secondary battery adhered to a separator and electrode ([0001], [0014], [0021], [0025] lines 7-9) that is about 1% - 50% of the surface area of the substrate on which the binder layer is formed ([0037]). Sung further discloses that the taught area coverage enables sufficient bonding between the separator and other electrical elements, particularly electrodes ([0037] lines 15-18). Sung’s teaching is pertinent to Hong’s negative electrode, because the binder adhesive layer taught by Hong also functions to increase the bonding strength between an electrode layer and a porous electrode substrate acting as a separator for the purpose of enhancing the stability of the lithium secondary battery ([0020], [0032], [0025] lines 1-3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Hong’s electrode to utilize the area coverage of adhesive layer taught by Sung for the benefit of enabling sufficient bonding between the electrode and a porous substrate. Within the combined art, the adhesive layer of modified Hong would be formed on a porous electrode substrate in which the negative electrode active material (11) and the insulating layer (12) are integrally connected (Fig. 1 of Hong); therefore, the adhesive area has an area of 1% - 50% of the total area of the negative active material layer, 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)
Sung also teaches the adhesive binder layer possesses a binder thickness of about 0.1 to 5 µm ([0038]) and reveals the taught thickness maintains the porosity of the porous substrate in an optimal state along with excellent bonding strength between the electrode and the porous separator ([0038]). As previously pointed out in addressing an earlier limitation of claim 1, Sung’s teaching is pertinent to Hong’s negative electrode, because the binder adhesive layer taught by Hong also functions to increase the bonding strength between an electrode layer and a porous electrode substrate ([0020]). It would have also been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the modified negative electrode of Hong to utilize the thickness of the adhesive layer taught by Sung for the benefit of maintaining the porosity of the porous insulating layer substrate in an optimal state along with excellent bonding strength between the electrode and the porous electrode substrate. The combined art teaches the limitation of the adhesive layer thickness as claimed.
Although Hong teaches the use of graphite as an electrode active material ([0033]), they are silent regarding the teaching of a silicon-based negative active material and that it is a Si-carbon composite.
In the same field of endeavor, Kim teaches a negative active material layer comprising a silicon-based negative active material composite that includes a core of carbon and silicon nanoparticles that is a Si-carbon composite (Abstract). Kim further teaches that a rechargeable lithium battery having improved initial efficiency and cycle-life characteristics is obtained by including the negative electrode using the negative active material ([0009]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify modified Hong’s negative electrode with the negative active material layer of Kim to take advantage of a rechargeable lithium battery having improved initial efficiency and cycle-life characteristics, given that Hong discloses their negative electrode can be used within a lithium secondary battery (Hong: [0001]). Consequently, the combination reads on the limitations of “the negative active material layer comprises a silicon-based negative active material” and “the silicon-based negative active material is a Si-carbon composite.”
Regarding Claim 2, the combination above teaches the negative electrode of claim 1, and as previously disclosed in addressing claim 1, Sung teaches the adhesive layer has a thickness between 0.1 to 5 µm ([0038]), which overlaps with the claimed range of thickness.
Regarding Claim 3, the combination above teaches the negative electrode of claim 1, and as previously pointed out in addressing claim 1, Sung teaches a non-woven patterned adhesive binder layer for a secondary battery ([0001], [0014], [0021], [0025] lines 7-9) that is about 1% - 50% of the surface area of the substrate on which the binder layer is formed ([0037]). Within the combined art, the adhesive layer of modified Hong would be formed on a porous electrode substrate in which the negative electrode active material (11) and the insulating layer (12) are integrally connected (Fig. 1 of Hong); therefore, the adhesive area has an area of 1% - 50% of the total area of the negative active material layer, 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 of claim 1, and Hong further teaches the binder adhesive layer can comprise of a mixture of acryl-based binder polyacrylonitrile and fluorine-based binder polyvinylidene fluoride-co-hexafluoropropylene ([0010]).
Regarding Claim 6, the combination above teaches the negative electrode of claim 4, and as pointed out previously in addressing claim 4, Hong teaches the binder adhesive layer can comprise of acryl-based binder polyacrylonitrile ([0010]).
Regarding Claim 7, the combination above teaches the negative electrode of claim 4, and as pointed out previously in addressing claim 4, Hong teaches the binder adhesive layer can comprise of polyvinylidene fluoride-co-hexafluoropropylene ([0010]).
Regarding Claim 9, the combination above teaches the negative electrode of claim 1, and Kim of the combination further teaches the negative electrode may include the negative active material composite and may further include a material that reversibly intercalates/deintercalates lithium ions ([0081]), such as a carbon-based negative active material ([0083]). Kim also teaches benefits to including carbon-based negative active materials with silicon-based negative active materials, such as reducing or buffer expansion of silicon nanoparticles and thus suppressing or reducing battery expansion (swelling) and/or improving initial efficiency and cycle-life characteristics of a battery ([0056], [0058]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the modified negative electrode of Kim to further include a carbon-based negative active material given that Kim teaches its inclusion is known and can result in advantages such as suppressed or reduced battery expansion (swelling) and/or improved initial efficiency and cycle-life characteristics of batteries.
Regarding Claim 10, the combination above teaches the negative electrode of claim 1 and Hong further teaches a secondary (rechargeable) battery comprising a first electrode, a second/counter electrode, and an electrolyte ([0052] - [0053]).
Regarding claim 11, the combination above teaches the negative electrode of claim 1, and Kim of the combination further teaches the Si-carbon composite comprises silicon and a crystalline carbon and/or an amorphous carbon (Abstract). Specifically, Kim teaches the composite comprises a core of silicon nanoparticles, crystalline carbon, and amorphous carbon.
Regarding claim 12, the combination above teaches the negative electrode of claim 1, and Kim of the combination further teaches the Si-carbon composite comprises a core comprising crystalline carbon 13 and silicon particles 11 and a coating layer 5 including amorphous carbon positioned on the surface of the core (Abstract, [0047], Fig. 1A).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong et al (KR 20150046552 A) in view of Sung et al (KR 20150048082 A) and Kim et al (US 2020/0280060 A1), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Ohata et al (JP 4659367 B2).
Regarding Claim 8, the combination above teaches the negative electrode of claim 1 but does not teach its bending strength.
In the same field of endeavor, with regards to an electrode’s mechanical strength, Ohata teaches that for lithium ion secondary batteries ([0003]), electrodes with high bending strength are less susceptible to electrode breakage during the preparation of the electrode assembly and will not deteriorate as easily under repeated charging and discharging of the electrode mixture layer, thereby positively affecting the cycle life of the secondary battery ([0013]). Therefore, bending strength is a result-effective variable. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have iterated and adjusted the bending strength of a negative electrode to optimize its mechanical integrity and the cycle life of the secondary battery.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong et al (KR 20150046552 A) in view of Sung et al (KR 20150048082 A) and Kim et al (US 2020/0280060 A1) as applied to claim 4, and further in view of Rho et al (KR 20150141403 A).
Regarding Claim 5, the combination above teaches the negative electrode of claim 4, but does not teach polymer compositions of the adhesive layer.
Rho teaches (Fig. 3) a porous nanofiber web (13) that can serve as an adhesive layer easily bonded to negative electrode (50) when inserted between the negative electrode (50) and the positive electrode (60) together with porous nonwoven fabric (11) ([0057]), and further teaches that the adhesive layer can be formed of a combination of a swellable polymer such as fluorine-based binder polyvinylidene fluoride-co-hexafluoropropylene (PVDF-HFP) and a heat-resistant/non-swellable polymer such as acryl-based binder polyacrylonitrile (PAN) in the weight ratio of 5:5 to 3:7 (translation: [0023], [0055] lines 1-4, [0056] lines 1-5, [0023], [0053]). Rho also teaches that their adhesive layer strengthens adhesion to the electrode by preventing detachment or peeling of the separator during the assembly process, thereby improving the safety of the secondary battery and preventing performance degradation ([0039]). The teaching is pertinent to the modified electrode of Hong, because Hong also teaches that the adhesive layer increases bonding strength between an electrode layer and an insulating layer (acting as separator), thereby further enhancing the stability of the lithium secondary battery ([0020]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the modified negative electrode of Hong to use the polymer composition taught by Rho for the adhesive layer to strengthen adhesion between the adjacent layers and improve the safety and performance stability of the battery.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/30/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant cites unexpected and desirable results of superior cycle-life characteristics and an appropriate negative maximum load associated with an adhesive layer having an area of about 5 area% to about 25 area% (p5 of Remarks).
The Examiner respectfully disagrees that the results cited are considered unexpected results. Applicant’s specification attributes the beneficial effects to the improved stiffness of the negative electrode conferred by the adhesive layer that thereby effectively suppresses or reduces extraction and expansion of negative active material during charging and discharging ([0035]). Given that both Sung and Hong of the prior art teach the adhesive layer facilitates sufficient bonding between the electrode and the porous separator, it would be expected to confer improved stiffness and correspondingly, similar beneficial effects.
Furthermore, to establish unexpected results as a result of unexpectedly improved results or a property not taught by the prior art, the showing of unexpected results must by reviewed to see if the results which occur over the entire claimed range have both statistical and practical significance; see MPEP 716.02(b), I. To establish unexpected results over a claimed range, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range (underlined portion added for emphasis); see MPEP 716.02(d), II. In the instant case, Applicant's disclosure only provides one datapoint (50 area%) between 25 area% and 50 area% to support an argument that the narrowed claimed range (5 area% to about 25 area%) provides an unexpected benefit over a broader range of the prior art (1 area% to 50 area%). One datapoint is not sufficient for demonstrating statistical significance needed to establish the criticality of the narrowed range. More than one datapoint within the range of 25 area% to about 50 area% showing unexpectedly improved results would provide a more compelling argument that the narrowed claimed range is optimal over the broader range.
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 03/05/2026