NEGATIVE ELECTRODE FOR SECONDARY BATTERY, NEGATIVE ELECTRODE SLURRY AND METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING NEGATIVE ELECTRODE
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 2/10/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
In response to communication filed on 4/22/2026:
No claims have been amended; claims 14-20 have been newly added.
Previous rejections under 35 USC 103 have been upheld under Hu.
Previous rejections under 35 USC 103 have been withdrawn under Ulmann.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant discloses: “However, the mixing of each of Ho and Ulmann is not identical or even substantially identical to the hard mixing process disclosed in the specification because the experimental data in the specification shows that hard mixing by itself does not necessarily lead to the exfoliation of natural graphite. Specification at pp. 28-35. Therefore, and as discussed below, a prima facie case of obviousness has not been established, and exfoliation does not necessarily occur for Ho's and Ulmann's natural graphite.
The exfoliation of natural graphite may be caused by the solid content of the slurry and the slurry temperature during hard mixing. Specification at pp. 16-18. In Examples 1 to 3, the slurries containing the granulated product, the silicon-based material, and the conductive material had a solid content of at least 60 wt%, and the temperature of the slurries during the hard mixing was at least 65C. Specification at pp. 28-29. For Comparative Examples 1 and 2, the slurries contained the same components as Example 1 and 3, respectively, but had a solid content of 55 wt%, and the temperatures of the slurries were at most 58°C. Specification at p. 30. Natural graphite is not exfoliated. Specification at p. 34. This shows that the slurry solid content and temperature during the hard mixing affects exfoliation of natural graphite.”
The Examiner respectfully traverses. The specification merely discloses that a temperature range of 65°C or higher “accelerates the hard mixing”. Temperature does not appear to have an effect on capacity retention as demonstrated in Comparative Examples 1 and 2. In Comparative Examples 1 and 2, the materials used are the same as Examples 1-3 but the solid content and temperatures are lower. There are no comparative examples showing one variable (solid content or temperature) changing. For example, a comparative example shown comprising the same materials as Examples 1-3 wherein the solid content is 60-65 wt.% but hard mixed at a temperature less than 65°C would show criticality. This is not shown however.
The Applicant discloses: “Ho's anode slurries have a solid content of 31.3 wt% (Ho at [0141], [0154], [0158], and [0162]) and nowhere in Ho discloses the slurry temperature during Ho's mixing. Ulmann's slurry has a solid content of about 14 wt% (Ulmann at [02333] and [0235]), and the slurry temperature is not disclosed in Ulmann. Thus, these mean that Ho's and Ulmann's processes are not identical or substantially identical to the process disclosed in the specification. MPEP 2112.01(I). Accordingly, exfoliation of natural graphite, as alleged by the Office, does not inherently occur in the process disclosed in each of Ho and Ulmann.
Further, in Ho, although an attrition-type mixer is used, the solid content of the anode slurry in Ho's examples is described as being 31.3 wt%. In contrast, in some embodiments of the present application, natural graphite may be hard-mixed within a predetermined solid content range such that a portion of the natural graphite may be partially exfoliated and converted into graphene.”
The Examiner respectfully traverses. Hu et al. disclose the solid content can be 30-65 wt.% (See claim 20). The reference of Ulmann, however, has been withdrawn being that the Examiner has found Applicant’s argument persuasive.
The Applicant discloses: “In addition, neither Ho nor Ulmann discloses or suggests that natural graphite, when hard-mixed in an attrition-type mixer at a predetermined solid content, is exfoliated. Indeed, the graphite used in Ho's Examples appears to be artificial graphite.”
The Examiner respectfully traverses. Paragraph 0025 discloses a conductive agent for use in an anode can be a mix of KS6 or KS15 (artificial/synthetic graphite) and expanded graphite (natural graphite). Further, MPEP 2141.02 VI discloses a prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole. W.L. Gore & Assoc., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
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 1-5, 7, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu et al. (US 2019/0260011 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Hu et al. teach a negative electrode for a secondary battery (Abstract discloses a method of preparing anode slurries for lithium-ion batteries.), comprising:
a conductive material (Paragraph 0012 discloses the anode slurry comprises a first conductive agent.), and
a negative electrode active material including at least a graphite-based material (Paragraphs 0015; 0025 disclose the anode slurry comprises mixing in a second conductive agent which is a graphite material.) and a silicon-based material (Paragraph 0012 discloses, in addition to the graphite material, the anode slurry comprises mixing in a silicon-based material.),
the graphite-based material comprising a granulated product comprising artificial graphite and natural graphite (Paragraph 0025 discloses the second conductive agent can be a mix of KS6 or KS15 (artificial/synthetic graphite) and expanded graphite (natural graphite).). However, Hu et al. do not teach at least a part of the natural graphite in the granulated product includes an exfoliated portion, wherein the exfoliated portion is in contact with the silicon-based material or another granulated product comprising the artificial graphite and the natural graphite, or the exfoliated portion includes a composite with the silicon-based material.
As indicated in the as-filed specification, the partial exfoliation of graphite is obtained during the hard mixing of the graphite agglomerate with the other slurry components. It is also further specified that the slurry is mixed using a known device like a planetary centrifugal mixer applying a kneading process and the collision between graphite and silicon generates the exfoliation (see “(2) Step of Carrying Out Hard Mixing of Negative Electrode Slurry in the as-filed specification).
In the case of Hu, the components of the slurry are also subjected to hard mixing as defined in the present specification. The slurry components are mixed via a planetary mixer (Paragraph 0045) and/or they are homogenized by a homogenizer such as an ultrasonicator, a stirring mixer, planetary mixer, a blender, a mill, a rotor-stator homogenizer, or a high-pressure homogenizer (Paragraph 0095).
MPEP 2112.01 Composition, Product, and Apparatus Claims
I. PRODUCT AND APPARATUS CLAIMS — WHEN THE STRUCTURE RECITED IN THE REFERENCE IS SUBSTANTIALLY IDENTICAL TO THAT OF THE CLAIMS, CLAIMED PROPERTIES OR FUNCTIONS ARE PRESUMED TO BE INHERENT
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Therefore, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product. In re Best, 562 F.2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433. See also Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to understand that due to the use of hard mixing of anode slurry components in Hu, that exfoliation of natural graphite will occur in the process of the anode slurry synthesis.
Regarding claims 2 and 16, Hu et al. teach the negative electrode for a secondary battery according to claim 1, wherein the silicon-based material comprises either or both of silicon oxide and silicon-based alloy (Paragraph 0081 discloses SiOx or Si/M).
Regarding claims 3 and 17, Hu et al. teach the negative electrode for a secondary battery according to claim 2, wherein the silicon-based alloy comprises at least one selected from titanium (Ti), vanadium (V), chromium (Cr), manganese (Mn), iron (Fe), cobalt (Co), nickel (Ni)1 and copper (Cu) (Paragraph 0081 discloses the use of Si/M wherein M can comprise a transition metal.).
Regarding claim 4, Hu et al. teach the negative electrode for a secondary battery according to claim 1, wherein the conductive material includes carbon black (Paragraph 0022 discloses the first conductive agent consists of carbon black.).
Regarding claim 5, Hu et al. teach the negative electrode for a secondary battery according to claim 1, wherein a weight ratio of the graphite-based material to the silicon-based material is 98:2-50:50 (Paragraph 0121 discloses the silicon-based material of the present invention has a content from about 1% to about 20% by weight, based on the total weight of the solid content in the anode slurry.).
Regarding claim 7, Hu et al. teach a secondary battery (Abstract; paragraph 0148), comprising: the negative electrode as defined in claim 1 (See rejection of claim 1 above), a positive electrode (Paragraph 0148 discloses a cathode film.), a separator imposed between the negative electrode and the positive electrode (Paragraph 0148 discloses the cathode and anode electrode plates were kept apart by separators.), and an electrolyte (Paragraph 0148 discloses the electrolyte comprises LiPF6 solution.).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu et al. (US 2019/0260011 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yoon et al. (US 2020/0235395 A1)
Regarding claim 6, Hu et al. teach the negative electrode for a secondary battery according to claim 1. However, they do not teach wherein the granulated product comprises the artificial graphite and the natural graphite at a weight ratio of 60:40-90:10.
Yoon et al. teach a composition for a negative electrode used in a lithium secondary battery (Paragraphs 0087; 0091). Further, the negative electrode slurry comprises artificial graphite: natural graphite: silicon-based negative electrode active material (SiO) being mixed in a weight ratio of 84.5:10.5:5 (Paragraph 0087). With a weight ratio of artificial graphite to natural graphite being 84.5:10.5, this is within the claimed range.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Hu with the carbon material of Yoon in order to intercalate and deintercalated lithium ions, lithium metal, or tin.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14, 15, 18, and 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the subject matter of claims 14, 15, 18, and 19 are not disclosed in the prior art of record.
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 DANIEL S GATEWOOD whose telephone number is (571)270-7958. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:30.
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, Ula Tavares-Crockett can be reached at 571-272-1481. 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.
Daniel S. Gatewood, Ph.D.
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1729
/DANIEL S GATEWOOD, Ph. D/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729 May 11th, 2026
Prosecution Insights