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 amendment filed on 02/19/2025 has been entered. Claim 1 has been amended, Claim 2 has been canceled, Claims 13-20 are newly added and Claims 1 and 3-20 are pending.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 5 be found allowable, claim 13 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 20200313186 A1), hereinafter “Wang” as evidenced by Shimizu et al. (US 20100330267 A1), hereinafter “Shimizu”. Wang et al. and Shimizu are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely negative electrode materials.
In regard to Claim 1, Wang et al. discloses a negative electrode for a secondary battery comprising: a negative electrode current collector, and a negative electrode active material layer on at least one surface of the negative electrode current collector (Wang, Paragraph [0006]). Wang et al. also discloses a partitioned negative electrode active material layer including a specific example of a first negative electrode active material layer including a first negative electrode active material including uncoated graphite (Wang, Paragraph [0010], Embodiment 10), and a specific example of a second negative electrode active material layer including a second negative electrode active material including carbon-coated graphite (Wang, Paragraph [0011], Embodiment 11).
Further, Wang et al. discloses the second negative electrode active material layer being disposed on at least one side (emphasis added), of the first negative electrode active material layer and on the same plane (Wang, Figure 1-2, [0006]). The portioned active material in Wang is provided to divide the anode into a plurality of regions and perform differential coating, to achieve the desired goal of alleviating the extent of lithium deposition of the electrochemical device during charge and discharge by adjusting the kinetic performance of different regions, thereby enhancing the safety of the electrochemical device (Wang, [0059]), which would reasonably include a configuration wherein the second negative active material is disposed on both sides of the first active material.
Wang et al. also discloses an embodiment wherein the first inclined portion (first anode edge region) on one end side comprises the second negative electrode active material layer and a flat portion (anode body region) on the same plane comprises the first negative electrode active material layer. (Annotated Figure 1), Wang et al. also discloses the anode comprises a second anode edge region separate from the first anode edge region (first inclined portion) which could presumably correspond to a second inclined portion on the other end side (Wang, [0079]), wherein the second negative electrode active material layer that comprises the first inclined portion would reasonably be the same material of the second inclined portion as this would provide a symmetrical design which would be obvious to try for the skilled artisan.
The pattern and shape of the electrode active material with an inclined edge region on both sides of the anode body region is well known to the skilled artisan as evidenced by Shimizu et al. which discloses that when applying an active material, based on the flowability of the material that is applied, the cross section in the width direction after applying the material often shows a shape in which the thickness becomes thinner as approaching both edges (Shimizu, [0016]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide an inclined edge region on both sides of the electrode body region of Wang as evidenced by Shimizu and to provide the same partitioned electrode active material configuration to the edge region vs the body region as disclosed in Wang et al. as doing so would give the skilled artisan the reasonable expectation of success and as doing so would amount to nothing more than a variation of it for use in the same field based on design incentives or other market forces, as the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
PNG
media_image1.png
386
446
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 1
In regard to Claim 3, Wang et al. as evidenced by Shimizu et al. discloses the negative electrode for secondary battery according to claim 1. Wang et al. also discloses wherein the uncoated graphite and the carbon-coated graphite includes artificial graphite or natural graphite (Paragraph [0068], Embodiments 1-15).
In regard to Claim 4, Wang et al. as evidenced by Shimizu et al. discloses the negative electrode for secondary battery according to claim 1. Wang et al. also discloses wherein the carbon-coated graphite includes hard carbon which is by definition a low-crystalline carbon, amorphous carbon (Wang, Embodiment 10-11).
In regard to Claim 6, Wang et al. as evidenced by Shimizu et al. discloses the negative electrode for secondary battery according to claim 1. Wang et al. also discloses specific examples where the conductive additive is provided in a different content ratio between first and second active materials (Wang, Embodiments 13-14).
In regard to Claim 7, Wang et al. as evidenced by Shimizu et al. discloses the negative electrode for secondary battery according to claim 6. Wang et al. also discloses specific examples where the first negative electrode active material layer includes the uncoated graphite and styrene-butadiene rubber (SBR) as the binder in a weight ratio of 97: 1, which falls within the claimed range (Wang, Embodiment 1, 13). Further, Wang et al. discloses the second negative electrode active material layer includes the carbon-coated graphite and styrene-butadiene rubber (SBR) as the binder at a weight ratio of 97:1, which falls within the claimed range (Wang, Paragraph [0149], Embodiment 11).
Additionally, with respect to the limitations of claim 7, it is noted that some limitations are directed to non-selected options of parent claim 6. For example, claim 6 explicitly recites that the negative electrode active material requires only one material selected from the group consisting of a binder and a conductive material. Accordingly, the limitations of claim 7 regarding a binder material and/or a conductive material are reasonably considered to be optional limitations and in which case, only one needs to be referenced, as in the specific examples disclosed in Wang et al.
In regard to Claim 8, Wang et al. as evidenced by Shimizu et al. discloses the negative electrode for secondary battery according to claim 6. Wang et al. also discloses specific examples where a volume ratio of the first negative electrode active material layer and the second negative electrode active material layer can be calculated using disclosed information such as the thickness, coated width, edge width and materials and is equivalent to 1.4996, 1.4986, and 1.4980 (Wang, Table 2, Embodiments 10, 12-13 respectively), which all fall within the claimed range of 0.667-1.5. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide a first and second negative electrode active material in the volume ratios of Wang et al. as doing so would amount to nothing more than a variation of the amount of active material in each region of the electrode for use in the same field based on design incentives or other market forces, as the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
In regard to Claim 9, Wang et al. as evidenced by Shimizu et al. discloses an electrode assembly for a secondary battery comprising the negative electrode for secondary battery according to claim 1. Wang et al. also discloses a positive electrode including a positive electrode current collector and a positive electrode active material layer on at least one surface of the positive electrode current collector (Wang, Paragraph [0020]) and a separator interposed between the positive electrode and the negative electrode [Wang, Paragraph [0117]).
In regard to Claim 10, Wang et al. as evidenced by Shimizu et al. discloses the electrode assembly for a secondary battery according to claim 9. Wang et al. also discloses wherein: the positive electrode active material layer includes: a first positive electrode active material layer, and a second positive electrode active material layer on one side or both sides of the first positive electrode active material layer on the same plane (Wang, Paragraph [0020], Figure 1-2), and specific examples having a composition different from that of the first positive electrode active material layer (Wang, Embodiments 1-5, 7).
In regard to Claim 11, Wang et al. as evidenced by Shimizu et al. discloses the electrode assembly for a secondary battery according to claim 10. Wang et al. also discloses specific examples wherein: the first positive electrode active material layer and the second positive electrode active material layer include at least one selected from the group consisting of a positive electrode active material, a binder, and a conductive material and the positive electrode active material, the binder, and/or the conductive material, when present, in the first and second positive electrode active material layers are different, or content ratios of components in the first and second positive electrode active material layers are different (Wang, Embodiments 1-5, 7).
In regard to Claim 12, Wang et al. as evidenced by Shimizu et al. discloses the electrode assembly for a secondary battery according to claim 9. Wang et al. also discloses a secondary battery comprising a battery case including the electrode assembly according to claim 9, and an electrolyte (Wang, Paragraphs [0105, 0122).
Claims 5 and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 20200313186 A1), hereinafter “Wang” as evidenced by Shimizu et al. (US 20100330267 A1), hereinafter “Shimizu” as applied to claim 1 above, in view of de Savio Silva et al. (US 20210057734 A1), hereinafter “Silva”. Wang et al. and de Savio Silva et al. are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely negative electrode materials.
In regard to Claims 5 and 13, Wang et al. as evidenced by Shimizu et al. discloses the negative electrode for secondary battery according to claim 1. While Wang discloses carbon coated graphite as the second negative electrode active material, it is silent as to the amount of the carbon coating on the graphite. De Savio Silva et al. teaches coating a graphite active material with carbon in a beneficial amount of 0.5 to 10% by weight based on a total weight of the carbon-coated graphite (Silva, Paragraphs [0044, 0047]), which overlaps the claimed range. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide a carbon coated graphite having selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the Silva, 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.
In regard to Claim 14, Wang et al. as evidenced by Shimizu et al. and in view of Savio Silva et al. discloses the negative electrode for secondary battery according to claim 13. Wang et al. also discloses wherein the carbon-coated graphite includes hard carbon which is by definition a low-crystalline carbon, amorphous carbon (Wang, Embodiment 10-11).
In regard to Claim 15, Wang et al. as evidenced by Shimizu et al. and in view of Savio Silva et al. discloses the negative electrode for secondary battery according to claim 14. Wang et al. also discloses specific examples where a volume ratio of the first negative electrode active material layer and the second negative electrode active material layer can be calculated using disclosed information such as the thickness, coated width, edge width and materials and is equivalent to 1.4996, 1.4986, and 1.4980 (Wang, Table 2, Embodiments 10, 12-13 respectively), which all fall within the claimed range of 0.667-1.5. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide a first and second negative electrode active material in the volume ratios of Wang et al. as doing so would amount to nothing more than a variation of the amount of active material in each region of the electrode for use in the same field based on design incentives or other market forces, as the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
In regard to Claim 16, Wang et al. as evidenced by Shimizu et al. and in view of Savio Silva et al. discloses the negative electrode for secondary battery according to claim 15. Wang et al. also discloses specific examples where the conductive additive is provided in a different content ratio between first and second active materials (Wang, Embodiments 13-14).
In regard to Claims 17-18, Wang et al. as evidenced by Shimizu et al. and in view of Savio Silva et al. discloses the negative electrode for secondary battery according to claim 16. Wang et al. also discloses specific examples where the first negative electrode active material layer includes the uncoated graphite and styrene-butadiene rubber (SBR) as the binder in a weight ratio of 97: 1, which falls within the claimed range (Wang, Embodiment 1, 13). Further, Wang et al. discloses the second negative electrode active material layer includes the carbon-coated graphite and styrene-butadiene rubber (SBR) as the binder at a weight ratio of 97:1, which falls within the claimed range (Wang, Paragraph [0149], Embodiment 11).
Additionally, with respect to the limitations of claims 17 and 18, it is noted that some limitations are directed to non-selected options of parent claim 16. For example, claim 16 explicitly recites that the negative electrode active material requires only one material selected from the group consisting of a binder and a conductive material. Accordingly, the limitations of claims 17 and 18 regarding a binder material and/or a conductive material are reasonably considered to be optional limitations and in which case, only one needs to be referenced, as in the specific examples disclosed in Wang et al.
In regard to Claims 19-20, Wang et al. as evidenced by Shimizu et al. and in view of Savio Silva et al. discloses the negative electrode for secondary battery according to claim 18. Wang et al. also discloses wherein the uncoated graphite and the carbon-coated graphite may include graphite selected from a preferred list to include artificial graphite (Paragraph [0068], Embodiments 1-15).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/19/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants’ argument regarding the inclined region on both sides of the body region of Wang was addressed in the rejection above and as the evidentiary reference (Shimizu et al.) shows it is well known in the art that the nature of the material and die casters form a tapered edge region on either side of the central region of active material and there would be no reason to have to modify Wang as this would already be a well understood and predictable result commonly known to the skilled artisan. Further, applicants’ argument that wang discloses the edge region as an undesirable feature is acknowledged in [0058]) however, Wang also discloses the active material of the anode thin region per unit area can intercalate lithium ions relatively quickly as a benefit and that the invention of Wang using partitioned active materials is designed to overcome any disadvantages (Wang, [0059]) and in fact, would provide further reason to modify the inclined edge regions with the second active material.
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 KENNETH MAX OTERO whose telephone number is (571)272-2559. The examiner can normally be reached M-F Generally 7:30-430.
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.
/K.M.O./Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/NICOLE M. BUIE-HATCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1725