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 .
Summary
The Applicant’s arguments and claim amendments received November 20, 2025 have been entered into the file. Currently, claims 1-5 are cancelled; claim 6 is amended; and claims 11-14 are new; resulting in claims 6-14 pending for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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 6-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Kang, et al. (US 2021/0336244 A1).
Regarding claims 6 and 11-14, Kang teaches a battery prepared by stacking a positive electrode plate, separator, and negative electrode plate in that order, winding to obtain a battery core, placing the battery core in an outer package, and adding an electrolyte (¶ [0099], Ln. 1-4). The negative electrode plate includes a negative electrode current collector and a first and second negative film layer. The first negative film layer is disposed on at least one surface of the negative current collector and includes a first negative active material and the second negative film layer is disposed on the first negative film layer and includes a second negative active material (¶ [0006], Ln. 1-11). Kang teaches that the second negative active material includes artificial graphite (¶ [0007], Ln. 2-3) and that the degree of graphitization of the second active material is 90-95%, and is more preferably 92-94%, identical to the claimed range of claim 11 (¶ [0053], Ln. 1-2). Further, Kang teaches that the average particle diameter Dv50 of the second active material is 11-19 µm, and is more preferably 13-17 µm, within the claimed range of 1-20 µm in claim 13 (¶ [0048], Ln. 1-3). Kang teaches that the negative active material in the second film layer provides more inlets for lithium intercalation to ensure that active ions can be quickly intercalated into negative active substance, which improves the fast charging performance of the battery (¶ [0032], Ln. 23-28, Ln. 35-36).
It is acknowledged Kang does not expressly teach a lithium-ion diffusion coefficient of the artificial graphite in the second active material at 25 °C and a state of charge of 10%, and therefore, does not expressly teach that the lithium-ion diffusion coefficient is 2.3 x 10-14 – 8.7 x 10-12 cm2/s, or more specifically, 7.6 x 10-13 – 6 x 10-12 cm2/s when tested using the galvanostatic intermittent titration technique described in claim 6. However, the reference teaches the claimed material, including an artificial graphite with a degree of graphitization of 92-94% and an average particle diameter Dv50 of 13-17 µm. Therefore, the claimed property, i.e., a lithium-ion diffusion coefficient at 25 °C and a state of charge of 10% of 7.6 x 10-13 – 6 x 10-12 cm2/s when tested using the galvanostatic intermittent titration technique, would be implicitly achieved by a negative active material with the same degree of graphitization and particle size. The instant specification has not provided adequate teachings that the claimed property is only obtainable with the claimed material.
As evidence that the claimed property is inherent to the second negative active material taught by Kang, the reference teaches a second negative active material with substantially the same properties taught in the instant specification. Page 2 of the instant specification teaches that the diffusion of lithium ions is a limiting factor for the electrochemical reactions of the battery. Additionally, page 5 of the instant specification teaches that the graphitization degree of the fast-charging graphite is preferably 92-94%, which is conducive to rapid intercalation and de-intercalation of lithium ions, that the particle size D50 of the fast-charging graphite is 1-20 µm, and that the fast-charging graphite is selected from the group consisting of an artificial graphite, a natural graphite, a modified graphite, and a combination thereof.
With respect to the diffusion of lithium ions, Kang teaches that the structure of the negative active material in the second negative film layer provides more inlets for lithium intercalation, and that the inlets and the positions for lithium intercalation at the upper and lower layers are distributed more properly, ensuring high energy density design with low charge exchange impedance and high solid diffusion rate of active ions. Kang teaches that this effectively improves the fast charging performance of the battery (¶ [0032], Ln. 23-36).
With respect to the graphitization degree, Kang teaches that the degree of graphitization of the second active material is 90-95%, and is more preferably 92-94%, identical to the claimed range (¶ [0053], Ln. 1-2).
With respect to the particle size, Kang teaches that the average particle diameter Dv50 of the second active material is 11-19 µm, and is more preferably 13-17 µm, within the claimed range of 1-20 µm (¶ [0048], Ln. 1-3).
Thus, Kang teaches all of the essential features to achieving the claimed lithium-ion diffusion coefficient of 2.3 x 10-14 – 8.7 x 10-12 cm2/s, or more specifically, 7.6 x 10-13 – 6 x 10-12 cm2/s when tested using the galvanostatic intermittent titration technique.
In the alternative, if the reference is not considered to anticipate the claimed property, then the property would be considered obvious because the reference discloses all of the limitations of the claimed except a property or function of the claimed article. In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980). MPEP §§ 2112 - 2112.02.
Regarding claim 7, Kang teaches all of the limitations of claim 6 above and further teaches that the negative film layer further includes a conductive agent such as graphite, superconducting carbon, acetylene black, carbon black, Ketjen black, carbon dots, carbon nanotubes, graphene, and carbon nanofibers (¶ [0041], Ln. 1-4). Specifically, Example 1 includes carbon black (hard carbon) in addition to the artificial graphite (¶ [0094], Ln. 1-4).
Regarding claim 8, Kang teaches all of the limitations of claim 6 above and further teaches that the positive electrode plate includes a positive current collector and a positive active material layer including positive active material provided on a surface of the positive current collector (¶ [0069], Ln. 1-5). Kang teaches that the positive active material may be transition metal composite oxide, a compound obtained by adding other transition metal or non-transition metal to a lithium transition metal oxide, or a mixture of two or more of the foregoing substances (¶ [0069], Ln. 5-14). Specifically, the positive electrode plate of Example 1 includes LiNi0.5Co0.2Mn0.3O2 as the active material (¶ [0092], Ln. 1-3).
Regarding claim 9, Kang teaches all of the limitations of claim 6 above and further teaches that the negative current collector may be a conventional metal foil or a composite current collector, providing the specific example of a copper foil (¶ [0066], Ln. 1-7).
Regarding claim 10, Kang teaches all of the limitations of claim 8 above and further teaches that a metal foil such as an aluminum foil or a porous metal plate may be used as the positive current collector (¶ [0074], Ln. 13-15), specifically teaching the use of aluminum foil in Example 1 (¶ [0092], Ln. 6).
Response to Arguments
Response-Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. 112
The previous rejections of claims 1-10 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention are overcome by Applicant’s cancellation of claims 1-5 and amendment to claim 6 in the response filed November 20, 2025.
Response- Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. 102/103
Applicant's arguments filed November 20, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant argues that Kang, et al. (US 2021/0336244 A1) does not teach a single layer anode active material, that two graphite materials with identical graphitization degree and Dv50 particle size will not necessarily have all other parameters be identical, that it cannot be inferred that Kang could achieve the claimed diffusion coefficient with a similar graphite material, that Kang does not reveal a link between graphitization, particle size, and lithium-ion diffusion coefficient, and that Kang does not perform lithium-ion diffusion coefficient measurements under the claimed conditions.
With respect to the argument, see pages 6-7 of the remarks, that Kang does not teach a single layer anode active material and one would not be motivated to use a single layer as the anode active material, this argument is not persuasive. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the feature upon which applicant relies (i.e., a single layer of anode material) is not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
With respect to the argument, see pages 7-8 of the remarks, that two graphite materials with identical graphitization degree and Dv50 particle size will not necessarily have all other parameters be identical, this argument is not persuasive. Although Kang teaches an overlap in ranges for graphitization degree and Dv50 particle size of the first and second anode active materials, Kang does not teach any examples including first and second anode active materials with the same graphitization degree and Dv50 particle size, and does not teach that matching the parameters is desired. Kang teaches that that the first and second anode active materials have different parameters, and that the first and second anode active materials play different roles.
With respect to the argument, see pages 8-10 of the remarks, that it cannot be inferred that Kang could achieve the claimed diffusion coefficient with a similar graphite material, this argument is not persuasive. The remarks filed November 20, 2025 indicate that the lithium-ion diffusion coefficient is not a static attribute and it is influenced by degree of graphitization, particle size, porosity, and surface chemistry. Page 5 of the instant specification teaches that a graphitization degree within the claimed range is critical to achieving the rapid intercalation and de-intercalation of lithium ions, specifically teaching a preferred graphitization degree of 92-94%. Page 5 also includes a preferred Dv50 particle size of 1-20 µm. Additional information regarding porosity and surface chemistry is not provided in the instant specification or the remarks filed. As Kang teaches that the structure of the negative active material in the second negative film layer provides more inlets for lithium intercalation; that the inlets and the positions for lithium intercalation at the upper and lower layers are distributed more properly, ensuring high solid diffusion rate of active ions (¶ [0032], Ln. 23-36); that the degree of graphitization of the second active material is preferably 92-94% (¶ [0053], Ln. 1-2); and that the average particle diameter Dv50 of the second active material is 11-19 µm (¶ [0048], Ln. 1-3), Kang teaches a graphite material with the same properties as the properties disclosed by the instant specification as essential to achieving the claimed lithium-ion diffusion coefficient. The Applicant has not made it clear how the graphite material taught by Kang would not achieve the claimed lithium-ion diffusion coefficient. It is noted that Comparative Examples 6-7 of the instant specification include graphitization degrees within the claimed range and lithium-ion diffusion coefficients outside of the claimed range, however, it is not clear how the lithium-ion diffusion coefficient is controlled. For example, the specification indicates that the lithium-ion diffusion coefficient is the only parameter changed between Example 1 and Comparative Example 6, however, based on the Applicant’s remarks that the value is influenced by various factors, it is not clear how the lithium-ion diffusion coefficient of the Comparative Examples was adjusted. Thus, applying the argument that additional factors beyond graphitization and particle size influence the lithium-ion diffusion coefficient, it is not clear if the adjustment of the coefficient is enabled given the information disclosed in the instant specification.
With respect to the argument, see page 9 of the remarks, that Kang does not reveal a link between graphitization, particle size, and lithium-ion diffusion coefficient and that Kang does not perform lithium-ion diffusion coefficient measurements under the claimed conditions, this argument is not persuasive. While it is acknowledged that Kang does not expressly teach a lithium-ion diffusion coefficient of the artificial graphite in the second active material at 25 °C and a state of charge of 10% when tested using the galvanostatic intermittent titration technique, the claimed lithium-ion diffusion coefficient would be inherent to the second graphite material taught by Kang. Thus, when tested under the claimed conditions, the graphite material would achieve the claimed lithium-ion diffusion coefficient.
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 SARAH J JACOBSON whose telephone number is (703)756-1647. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at (571) 272-1291.
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.
/SARAH J JACOBSON/Examiner, Art Unit 1785
/MARK RUTHKOSKY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1785
Prosecution Insights