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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/06/26 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Applicant’s amendment and arguments, filed 02/06/26, have been fully considered. Claim(s) 1 and 4 is/are amended; claim(s) 2, 3, 6–9, and 11–18 stand(s) as originally or previously presented; and claim(s) 5 and 10 is/are canceled; no new matter has been added. Examiner affirms that the original disclosure provides adequate support for the amendment.
Upon considering said amendment and arguments, the previous 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and 112(d) rejections set forth in the Office Action dated 11/07/25 have been withdrawn. However, the previous 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection; nonstatutory double-patenting rejection over U.S. 12,308,429; and provisional, nonstatutory double-patenting rejections over co-pending 18/049208 and 17/938812 have been maintained and altered as necessitated by Applicant’s amendment, as set forth below. Additionally, new grounds of provisional, nonstatutory double-patenting rejection over co-pending 19/464042 are further incorporated below.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 recites “single particles” and “quasi-single particles”. Such single particles will be interpreted as (unaggregated) primary particles with no observable grain boundary when observed via SEM at a 5000–20000x magnification, as specially defined in the instant specification’s ¶ 0038, and such quasi-single particles will be interpreted as a secondary particle in which 10 or fewer primary particles are aggregated—i.e., 2–10 aggregated primary particles—as specially defined in the instant spec.’s ¶ 0039.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text forming the basis for the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 may be found in a prior Office Action.
Claim(s) 1–4, 6, 7, 11–15, 17, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong et al. (WO 2019139220 A1; citations to English equivalent US 20200343520 A1) (Jeong) in view of Han et al. (US 20220293935 A1) (Han) and Chen (CN 113097612 A).
Regarding claims 1, 2, 4, and 11, Jeong discloses a lithium secondary battery (e.g., Title, ¶ 0003 and 0041) comprising: an electrode assembly comprising a positive electrode plate, a negative electrode plate, and a separator interposed between the positive electrode plate and the negative electrode plate (e.g., FIG. 1, ¶ 0035), wherein the positive electrode plate, the negative electrode plate, and the separator are wound in one direction (FIG. 1, ¶ 0035); a battery can in which the electrode assembly is accommodated (case 140, FIG. 1); and a sealing body which seals an open end of the battery can (cap-up 150/cap-down 180, FIG. 1), wherein the positive electrode plate comprises a positive electrode active material layer (cathode active layer, ¶ 0035 and 0036) comprising a positive electrode active material (¶ 0036).
Jeong further discloses a positive active material of, e.g., a transition metal oxide (¶ 0036) but, in being unconcerned with the specific morphology and identity of such, fails to explicitly disclose 1) that the positive electrode active material comprises 95 wt% to 100 wt% of single particles, quasi-single particles, or a combination thereof on a basis of a total weight of the positive electrode active material present in the positive electrode active material layer and the positive electrode active material has an average particle diameter D50 of 5 μm or less, as well as 2) that the active material comprises a lithium nickel-containing oxide represented by instant Chemical Formula 1 and, specifically, that the oxide comprises ≥ 90 mol% of Ni based on the total number of moles of transition metal (claim 4).
Regarding 1), Han, in teaching an analogous lithium battery (Title), teaches a lithium transition metal oxide positive active material composed solely of single particles, which may include either only primary particles or 2–10 aggregated primary particles (e.g., ¶ 0080–0083, 0095, and examples (¶ 0155, 0185; see also SEM of FIGS. 7(d)–7(f)) and note that only (unaggregated) primary particles appear present, in contrast to comparative examples not separating the single particles from secondary particles)—where the 2–10 aggregated primary particles would correspond to the instant quasi-single particles—and exhibit an average diameter, i.e., D50, of 1–3 μm (e.g., ¶ 0017, 0185). Han teaches that such primary particles, with a single crystal structure, are pressure-resistant and allow high-density active material to form during rolling, increasing energy density while reducing particle cracking and gas generation (¶ 0091).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Han’s lithium transition metal oxide, composed of 100 wt% single particles (further reading on claim 2, i.e., the positive electrode active material consists essentially of the single particles, the quasi-single particles, or the combination thereof) with a D50 of 1–3 μm, as Jeong’s positive active material with the reasonable expectation of increasing energy density while reducing particle cracking and gas generation, as taught by Han.
This D50 overlaps the instant 3–5 μm such that the skilled artisan could have routinely selected within the overlap with a reasonable expectation of forming a successful active material with proper size (MPEP 2144.05 (I)). Moreover, Han discloses that if the diameter is too small, specific surface area may excessively increase to reduce capacity and output, whereas if the diameter is too large, Li+ diffusion paths may excessively increase (¶ 0098). To balance these effects, then, it would have been obvious to arrive at the recited range by routinely optimizing the D50 (MPEP 2144.05 (II)).
Regarding 2), Han further teaches that the lithium transition metal oxide is represented by the general formula LiaNixM1–xO2+y, where 0.9 ≤ a ≤ 1.2, x is preferably ≥ 0.8, -0.1 ≤ y ≤ 0.1, and M is Na, Mg, Ca, Y, Ti, Zr, Hf, V, Nb, Ta, Cr, Mo, W, Mn, Co, Fe, Cu, Ag, Zn, B, Al, Ga, C, Si, Sn, Ba, and/or Sr (¶ 0085–0087; see also Ni0.88Co0.09Mn0.03(OH)2 oxide precursors in examples, e.g., ¶ 0145 and 0146). The a value overlaps the instant 0.8 ≤ a ≤ 1.2; the x value overlaps the instant 0.83 ≤ b < 1; the 1–x appears to overlap the instant c/d (by being able to be greater than 0); and the y value overlaps/encompasses the instant O content. Importantly, Han teaches that high Ni content provides higher capacity and power (¶ 0088), but, as Ni content increases, long-term storage stability and life-span stability diminish (¶ 0089). For this reason, Han teaches that including Co improves life-span stability and capacity retention, while including Mn maintains electrical conductivity (¶ 0089).
To balance proper capacity, life-span stability, capacity retention, and electrical conductivity—all while ensuring sufficient Li content for proper Li+ (de)intercalation—it would have been obvious, when incorporating Han’s lithium nickel-containing oxide as Jeong’s active material, to arrive at the recited formula (as well as a Ni content ≥ 90 mol% based on the total number of moles of transition metal) by routinely optimizing each element’s molar content, including within each respective overlap (MPEP 2144.05 (II)).
As discussed above, Jeong discloses a cylindrical battery (FIG. 1) and discloses that the case’s diameter is sufficient to accommodate the electrode assembly (¶ 0053) but fails to explicitly articulate both this value as well as the case’s height and, thus, that the cylindrical lithium secondary battery has a ratio of form factor of 0.4 or more.
Chen, in teaching an analogous cylindrical battery (Title), teaches that the battery may be, e.g., a 4680 cell (¶ 0037), i.e., a cell with a diameter of 46 mm and height of 80 mm—and, thus, form factor of 46/80 = 0.575.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the claimed invention's effective filing date, that Jeong's cylindrical battery must necessarily be incorporated with some diameter and height, and, as demonstrated by Chen, the skilled artisan would find it obvious to incorporate the cell as, e.g., a 4680 cylindrical cell (further reading on claim 11)—with form factor of 0.575—with the reasonable expectation of forming a successful battery.
Regarding claim 3, modified Jeong discloses the lithium secondary battery of claim 1, wherein the positive electrode active material layer comprises the positive electrode active material which has a unimodal particle size distribution that exhibits a single peak in a volume accumulated particle size distribution graph (pulverized oxide’s particle distribution, Han’s fig. 2).
Regarding claim 6, modified Jeong discloses the lithium secondary battery of claim 1, wherein the positive electrode active material has a primary particle diameter of 1–3 μm (1–3 μm single, i.e., primary, particles in Han, e.g., ¶ 0185), which falls within 0.5–5 μm.
Regarding claim 7, modified Jeong discloses the lithium secondary battery of claim 1, wherein the negative electrode plate comprises a silicon-containing negative electrode active material (see Si-based second electrode (i.e., anode) material, Jeong, ¶ 0035 and 0038).
Regarding claims 12 and 13, modified Jeong discloses the lithium secondary battery of claim 1, wherein each of the positive electrode plate and the negative electrode plate comprises an uncoated portion in which an active material layer is not formed (uncoated regions of first and second electrode plates, respectively, Jeong, e.g., ¶ 0016), and wherein the lithium secondary battery is a battery in which at least a portion of the uncoated portion of the positive electrode plate or the negative electrode plate defines an electrode tab (note first tabs 111a and second tabs 112a extending from uncoated regions of positive and negative plates, respectively, Jeong, fig. 4 and ¶ 0037, 0039; as the tabs are integrally formed by pressing various uncoated regions of each electrode rather than by attaching separate tabs (Jeong, e.g., ¶ 0037), such are reasonably interpreted to be part of each uncoated region such that each uncoated region would define the tabs), wherein (per Jeong’s annotated fig. 1 below)
the positive electrode plate-uncoated portion and the negative electrode plate-uncoated portion are formed at an end of one side of the positive electrode plate and an end of one side of the negative electrode plate, respectively, along a direction in which the electrode assembly is wound (each end of electrode assembly), wherein a current collecting plate is coupled to each of the positive electrode plate-uncoated portion and the negative electrode plate-uncoated portion (PECC (first current collection tab 121) and NECC (second current collection tab 122), respectively), and each current collecting plate is respectively connected to an electrode terminal (PECC electrically connected to cap assembly (¶ 0036), i.e., positive terminal, and NECC electrically connected to case (¶ 0043), i.e., negative terminal).
PNG
media_image1.png
719
640
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 14 and 15, modified Jeong discloses the lithium secondary battery of claim 13, wherein each of the positive electrode plate-uncoated portion and the negative electrode plate-uncoated portion is processed in a form of a plurality of segments that are independently bendable (see tabs’ (as part of uncoated portions) bending and overlapping, e.g., Jeong’s fig. 1), and at least a portion of the plurality of segments are bent toward a winding center of the electrode assembly (at least right side of positive tabs 111a and left side of negative tabs 112a in Jeong’s annotated fig. 1 appear to bend toward the winding center), wherein at least a portion of the plurality of bent segments are overlapped on an upper end and a lower end of the electrode assembly (Id.), and each current collecting plate is respectively coupled to the plurality of overlapped segments (Id.).
Regarding claims 17 and 18, modified Jeong discloses the lithium secondary battery of claim 1 but fails to explicitly articulate incorporating such into a battery pack that is incorporated into an automobile.
Han further teaches including a secondary battery in a battery pack to power automobiles (¶ 0003).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the claimed invention's effective filing date, that Jeong's battery should necessarily power some device, and, as demonstrated by Han, the skilled artisan would find it obvious to incorporate Jeong’s battery into a battery pack incorporated into an automobile with a reasonable expectation of yielding a successfully powered vehicle.
Claim(s) 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong et al. (WO 2019139220 A1; citations to English equivalent US 20200343520 A1) in view of Han et al. (US 20220293935 A1) and Chen (CN 113097612 A), as applied to claim 1, further in view of Iwama et al. (US 20170047613 A1).
Regarding claims 8 and 9, modified Jeong discloses the lithium secondary battery of claim 1.
Jeong further discloses that the negative electrode plate comprises a silicon-containing negative electrode active material (¶ 0038) but fails to explicitly disclose that the plate also comprises a carbon-containing material at the recited ratio.
Iwama, in teaching an analogous secondary battery (Title), teaches that the anode includes a carbon material and silicon oxide at a ratio of 0.01–20:80–99.9% (Abstract). Iwama teaches that the carbon material improves conductivity while experiencing extremely small changes in crystal structure during discharge, enabling high energy density to be stably achieved (¶ 0075), while the silicon oxide provides high discharge capacity, high energy density, and resistance to deterioration (¶ 0076), and the combination makes it possible to suppress expansion and contraction during (dis)charge while achieving high theoretical capacity (¶ 0077).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use a carbon material and silicon oxide at a ratio of 0.01–20:80–99.9% as Jeong’s negative active material, as taught by Iwama, with the reasonable expectation that such would make it possible to suppress expansion and contraction during (dis)charge while achieving high theoretical capacity, as taught by Iwama. Moreover, to balance each material’s effects, it would have been obvious to routinely optimize the carbon:silicon ratio, including within the overlap (MPEP 2144.05 (II)).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong et al. (WO 2019139220 A1; citations to English equivalent US 20200343520 A1) in view of Han et al. (US 20220293935 A1) and Chen (CN 113097612 A), as applied to claim 13, further in view of Huh et al. (EP 2802029 A1).
Regarding claim 16, modified Jeong discloses the lithium secondary battery of claim 13.
Modified Jeong further discloses the positive electrode plate (per claims 1 and 13) but fails to explicitly disclose an insulating layer further provided to cover a portion of the positive electrode active material layer and a portion of the uncoated portion along a direction parallel to the winding direction.
Huh, in teaching an analogous battery cathode (Title), teaches an insulating layer covering a portion of both the cathode active layer and uncoated portion (ref. 40, e.g., figs. 4–7). Huh teaches that this configuration reduces the possibility of shorting between the electrodes due to cell deformation or separator shrinkage in a high-temperature atmosphere, as well as improves safety and reliable battery performance, while shortening the battery’s preparation process and reducing preparation costs (¶ 0013, 0018).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate Huh’s insulating layer covering a portion of both Jeong’s positive active layer and positive uncoated portion—which, as seen in plan view of Huh’s fig. 3A, would cover the active layer and uncoated portion along a direction parallel to the winding direction—with the reasonable expectation of reducing the likelihood of shorting, improving safety and reliable battery performance while shortening the battery’s preparation process and reducing preparation costs, as taught by Huh.
Double Patenting
The text forming the basis for the nonstatutory double-patenting rejection may be found in a prior Office Action.
Claims 1–4, 6–9, and 11–18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, and 4–18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,308,429. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as follows:
Ref. claims 1, 2, 5, and 6 together encompass instant claim 1. Specifically, ref. claim 2’s D50 ≤ 5 μm overlaps the instant 3–5 μm such that the skilled artisan could have routinely selected within the overlap with a reasonable expectation of forming a successful active material with suitable size (MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Further, ref. claim 6’s 95–100 wt% single or quasi-single particles overlaps instant claim 2’s limitation of “consisting essentially of”—i.e., 100 wt% would read on “consisting essentially of”. It would have been obvious to routinely select 100 wt% from the ref.’s range with the reasonable expectation of forming a successful positive active material (MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Moreover, ref. claim 4 reads on instant claim 3. Ref. claim 5 encompasses instant claim 4. Ref. claim 7 reads on instant claim 6. Ref. claims 8 and 9 read on instant claims 7 and 8, respectively. Ref. claim 10 reads on instant claim 9. Ref. claims 11–18 read on instant claims 11–18, respectively.
Claims 1–4, 6–9, and 11–18 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1,2, and 4–18 of copending Application No. 19/464042 (reference application, unpublished). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as follows:
Ref. claims 1, 2, 5, and 6 together encompass instant claim 1. Specifically, ref. claim 2’s D50 ≤ 5 μm overlaps the instant 3–5 μm such that the skilled artisan could have routinely selected within the overlap with a reasonable expectation of forming a successful active material with suitable size (MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Further, ref. claim 5’s 95–100 wt% single or quasi-single particles overlaps instant claim 2’s limitation of “consisting essentially of”—i.e., 100 wt% would read on “consisting essentially of”. It would have been obvious to routinely select 100 wt% from the ref.’s range with the reasonable expectation of forming a successful positive active material (MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Moreover, ref. claim 4 reads on instant claim 3. Ref. claim 7 encompasses instant claim 6. Ref. claim 9 reads on instant claims 7 and 8. Ref. claim 10 reads on instant claim 9. Ref. claims 11–18 respectively read on instant claims 1–18.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1–4, 6–9, and 11–18 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 7, 8, 12, 14–18, 20, and 22–27 of copending Application No. 18/049208 (reference application, published as US 20240105957 A1). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as follows:
Ref. claims 1, 7, 8, and 14 together encompass instant claim 1. Specifically, ref. claim 8’s D50 ≤ 5 μm overlaps the instant 3–5 μm such that the skilled artisan could have routinely selected within the overlap with a reasonable expectation of forming a successful active material with suitable size (MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Further, ref. claim 7’s 95–100 wt% single or quasi-single particles overlaps instant claim 2’s limitation of “consisting essentially of”—i.e., 100 wt% would read on “consisting essentially of”. It would have been obvious to routinely select 100 wt% from the ref.’s range with the reasonable expectation of forming a successful positive active material (MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Moreover, ref. claim 12 reads on instant claim 3. Ref. claim 14 encompasses instant claim 4. Ref. claim 15 reads on instant claim 6. Ref. claim 17 reads on instant claims 7 and 8. Ref. claims 18, 20, and 22–27 read on instant claims 9 and 11–18, respectively.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1–4, 6–9, and 11–18 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 7, 10, 11, 13, 14, and 16–26 of copending Application No. 17/938812 (reference application, published as US 20230121815 A1). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as follows:
Ref. claims 1, 7, 11, 13, and 18 together encompass instant claim 1. Specifically, ref. claim 7’s D50 ≤ 5 μm overlaps the instant 3–5 μm such that the skilled artisan could have routinely selected within the overlap with a reasonable expectation of forming a successful active material with suitable size (MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Further, ref. claim 11’s 95–100 wt% single or quasi-single particles overlaps instant claim 2’s limitation of “consisting essentially of”—i.e., 100 wt% would read on “consisting essentially of”. It would have been obvious to routinely select 100 wt% from the ref.’s range with the reasonable expectation of forming a successful positive active material (MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Moreover, ref. claim 10 reads on instant claim 3. Ref. claim 13 encompasses instant claim 4. Ref. claim 14 reads on instant claim 6. Ref. claim 16 reads on instant claims 7 and 8. Ref. claims 17 and 19–26 read on instant claims 9 and 11–18, respectively.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been fully considered but are unpersuasive.
Applicant argues that Han’s particle distribution shows a D50 ~ 2 μm (fig. 2) even though Han discloses an average diameter/D50 1–3 μm (¶ 0017). Examiner respectfully notes that 1) the ~ 2 μm is a preferable embodiment but does not teach away from Han’s broader 1–3 μm (MPEP 2123); 2) there appears to be no criticality to a D50 of 3–5 μm in the instant disclosure, so the skilled artisan would have reasonably expected substantially similar performance at a D50 of 2 μm or 3 μm (MPEP 2144.05 (I)); and 3) as Applicant notes, Han allows the broader 1–3 μm, which overlaps the instant 3–5 μm. Such also applies to Applicant’s auxiliary argument that Han warns against making the particles too large, and this argument actually seems to bolster Han’s broader 1–3 μm because the skilled artisan would have known to account for/balance excessive specific surface area for capacity and output versus Li+ diffusion when determining the optimal average size (see Han’s ¶ 0098 and MPEP 2144.05 (II)).
Applicant again argues that Han is limited to coin cells and never suggests scaling up the battery to form factor ≥ 0.4. Examiner respectfully reiterates 1) that Han nowhere limits the composition to coin cells—and teaches application in cylindrical batteries (¶ 0139)—but merely tests the composition in a coin cell, as is common in the art. Examiner further submits 2) that because Jeong generally discloses a lithium metal oxide but is unconcerned with the specific oxide (and its morphology), as asserted above, the skilled artisan would have employed Han’s material for the outlined benefits and routinely scale up the composition as desired for larger cells, as one skilled in the art is also one of ordinary creativity (MPEP 2141 and 2143; see also MPEP 2145 (IV) for inability to rebut obviousness by attacking references individually when rejection is based on references’ combination).
More specifically, Applicant argues the following against the rejection combination:
PNG
media_image2.png
309
627
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding a), Han allows higher-order compositions (per formula discussed in claim 1), and nothing in Chen or Jeong requires higher-order compositions, making this argument appear conclusory. Regarding b), see above response regarding Han’s 1–3 μm. Regarding c), again, Chen was used to teach the form factor given Jeong’s battery must include some size, and the skilled artisan would have routinely scaled up Han’s composition as desired. Regarding d), Han enumerates reduced gas generation at high temperatures as a benefit of the single-particle active material (see rejection of claim 1), which, in being based on the composition versus the battery’s size, should apply to other, cylindrical batteries such as Jeong/Chen’s, making this effect appear expected. Arguendo, though, even if not recognized, as modified Jeong discloses a substantially similar battery, form factor, and positive electrode composition, the skilled artisan would have reasonably expected modified Jeong’s battery to also suppress gas generation (MPEP 2112.01 (I) and (II)). Applicant’s recognizing another advantage that would flow naturally from following the prior art’s suggestion cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious (MPEP 2145 (II)).
Applicant then argues that Jeong and Chen do not disclose the claimed cathode composition, particle morphology, or D50. However, Han was used to teach these features (see, again, MPEP 2145 (IV), where obviousness is based on the prior art’s suggestions as a whole).
Applicant argues overall that the claimed battery achieves unexpectedly superior temperature maintenance. Examiner first echoes that such effects seem expected given Han’s single-particle material reduces gas generation at high temperature, which, per spec.’s ¶ 0005, otherwise makes the battery’s temperature rise. Examiner further observes no evidence that applying Han’s composition to Jeong’s battery would necessarily fail to achieve these effects.
Rather, Han appears to teach ~ 100 wt% single/quasi-single particles, falling within the instant 95–100%, and although Applicant’s inventive ex. employs 97.8% single particles, the comparative ex. uses a bimodal distribution containing secondary particles rather than single/quasi-single particles < 95 wt%. As criticality demonstrations must compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the range (MPEP 716.02(d)) as well as compare against the closest prior art, it is unclear that the prior art cannot achieve such results and that the instant 95–100 wt% is critical. Additionally, as claim 1 allows < 100% single/quasi-single particles relative to the entire active material (and, thus, allows secondary particles), as well as any type of particle distribution (and, thus, bimodal), it seems that inferior comp. ex. 1 could be within the scope of claim 1.
Finally, even if the results were unexpectedly superior, the results appear incommensurate with claim 1 at least as follows:
Claim 1 allows any particle-size distribution of the active material, while spec.’s ¶ 0023 notes that the unimodal distribution (in Ex. 1) minimizes resistance; it is unclear if the same results would occur with, e.g., a bimodal distribution.
Claim 1 allows any negative active material, whereas Ex. 1 uses 95:5 graphite:SiO; as spec.’s ¶ 0096 indicates that SiO enhances capacity (and it is well known that graphite helps control SiO’s inevitable volume expansion from (dis)charge), it is unclear if the same results would occur without SiO and/or graphite.
Thus, based on MPEP 716.02(d), this argument is unpersuasive.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN S MEDLEY whose telephone number is (703)756-4600. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00–5:00 EST M–Th and 8:00–12:00 EST F.
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 571-270-192. 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.
/J.S.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 10/13/2026
