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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 June 25, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendment received June 25, 2026:
Claims 1-17 are pending.
b. The previous prior art rejection is withdrawn in light of the amendment. However a new prior art rejection has been made below in view of newly cited references Tan et al. (CN 111987286A), Piao et al. (US 2022/0407068) and Chen et al. (CN 109301160A).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (WO 2020/155993A) in view of Tan et al. (CN 111987286A). The English machine translation of Huang et al. was provided in a prior Office action. The English machine translation of Table 1 of Huang et al. and the English machine translation of Tan et al. are attached and cited below.
Regarding Claim 1, Huang et al. teaches a negative electrode sheet (i.e. plate) comprising a negative current collector (i.e. negative electrode current collector) having a first active material layer disposed on the negative current collector and a second active material layer disposed on the first active material layer (i.e. active material layers disposed on at least one surface of the negative electrode current collector, the active material layers comprising a first active material layer comprising a first active material, and a second active material layer disposed on a surface of the first active material layer and comprising a second active material, the first active material layer is arranged between the negative electrode current collector and the second active material layer) wherein the first active material and second active material are graphite (Para. [0043]) wherein the second active material is spherical graphite (see Example 10 in Table) (i.e. the second active material is artificial graphite) wherein the first active material layer has a coating weight of 90 g/m2 (i.e. CW1 is mass per unit area of the first active material layer disposed on the negative current collector within a range of 80-200 g/m2) the second active material layer has a coating weight of 40 g/m2 (i.e. CW2) (see Example 10 in Table 1).
Huang does not teach layer spacing corresponding to d002 peaks of the first and second active material as claimed.
However, Tan et al. teaches a negative electrode sheet (i.e. plate) comprising graphite with different interlayer spacing in the region near the negative electrode tab, coating region A, (i.e. a first active material layer) and the region away from the negative electrode tab (i.e. second active material layer), wherein the first negative electrode active material contains graphite 1 and the second negative electrode active material contains graphite 2 (Para. [0073]) wherein interlayer spacing is obtained of the graphite (002) diffraction peak (Para. [0024]) wherein graphite 1 has a layer spacing of 0.335900 nm (i.e. d1 as claimed) and graphite 2 has a layer spacing of 0.335790 nm (i.e. d2 as claimed) (Para. [0074-0076] and see Table 1 in original version) and thus provides an α value of 0.999673 (so close to 1 such that a prima facie case of obviousness exists; a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP §2144.05(I)).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the interlayer spacing of the layers as taught by Huang et al. to incorporate the teaching of the interlayer spacings as taught by Tan et al., as such an interlayer spacing improves lithium plating thereby improving cycle stability (Para. [0059]). Thus, the natural result of the combination of Huang et al. as modified by Tang would provide coating weights and interlayer spacings satisfying the claimed ratios as 0.999673 x40 (i.e. αxCW2)= about 40 which is less than 90 (i.e. the active material layer satisfies αxCW2≤CW1).
Regarding Claim 2, Huang et al. as modified by Tan et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention of claim 1 as explained above.
Huang et al. further teaches wherein the first active material layer has a coating weight of 90 g/m2 (i.e. CW1 is mass per unit area of the first active material layer disposed on the negative current collector within a range of 80-200 g/m2) the second active material layer has a coating weight of 40 g/m2 (i.e. CW2) (see Example 10 in Table 1); and thus satisfying 0.2≤ CW2/(CW2 +CW1)≤0.45 as 40/(40+90) = 0.3. Regarding the property of CW1/CW2 being inversely proportional to
d
1
x
D
a
50
d
2
x
D
b
50
, as Huang et al. as modified by Tan et al. teaches a substantially identical structure and composition as instant claim 2, (and also substantially identical volume median particle sizes recited in claims 3, 5 and 7), the negative electrode plate would either (a) be expected to satisfy the claimed property, or (b) differences in the claimed property set forth in the instant claim, having an inversely proportional relationship would be slight differences in ranges that would be obvious. With respect to (a): The reasons regarding expectedness are that the composition and structure is substantially identical to that of the instant claim, therefore it is expected that the negative electrode plate of modified Huang et al. would satisfy these conditions. 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. "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." See MPEP 2112.01. With respect to (b): If it is shown that such characteristics are not present, then any differences (regarding the inversely proportional relationship) would be small and obvious. 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).” See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Regarding Claim 3, Huang et al. as modified by Tan et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention of claim 2 as explained above.
Huang et al. further teaches the particle size of the spherical active material particle is 5 µm (Table 1, Example 10) (i.e. Db50 is 5 µm).
Huang et al. does not teach the Da50 of the first active material.
However, Tan et al. teaches a particle size D50 of the first graphite is 5 µm < D50 < 12 µm (Para. [0025]) (i.e. Da50 of the first active material).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the first active material of Huang et al. to incorporate the teaching of the particle size as taught by Tan et al., as such a material provides improved cycle stability (Para. [0059]). Thus, the natural result of the combination would provide a range of Db50/Da50 of about 0.4 to less than 1, overlapping with the claimed Db50/Da50 range of 0.2≤ Db50/Da50 ≤0.8. 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).” See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Regarding Claim 4, Huang et al. as modified by Tan et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention of claim 1 as explained above.
Huang et al. further teaches wherein the first active material layer has a coating weight of 90 g/m2 (i.e. CW1 is mass per unit area of the first active material layer disposed on the negative current collector within a range of 80-200 g/m2) the second active material layer has a coating weight of 40 g/m2 (i.e. CW2) (see Example 10 in Table 1) and the natural result of the combination with Tan et al. provides an α value of 0.999673 as explained above. See the rejection to claim 1 for full details of the combination, incorporated herein but not reiterated herein for brevity’s sake; this reasoning is applicable to the specific example of Tan et al. cited herein. Thus, the natural result of the combination would satisfy CW2≥(3/17)αxCW1 as 40≥(3/17)*0.999673*90 or 40≥16.
Regarding Claim 5, Huang et al. as modified by Tan et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention of claim 4 as explained above.
Huang et al. further teaches the particle size of the spherical active material particle is 5 µm (Table 1, Example 10) (i.e. Db50 is 5 µm).
Huang et al. does not teach the Da50 of the first active material.
However, Tan et al. teaches a particle size D50 of the first graphite is 5 µm < D50 < 12 µm (Para. [0025]) (i.e. Da50 of the first active material).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the first active material of Huang et al. to incorporate the teaching of the particle size as taught by Tan et al., as such a material provides improved cycle stability (Para. [0059]). Thus, the natural result of the combination would provide a range of Db50/Da50 of about 0.4 to less than 1, overlapping with the claimed Db50/Da50 range of 0.2≤ Db50/Da50 ≤0.8. 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).” See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Regarding Claim 6, Huang et al. as modified by Tan et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention of claim 4 as explained above.
Huang does not teach layer spacing corresponding to d002 peaks of the first and second active material as claimed.
However, Tan et al. teaches a negative electrode sheet (i.e. plate) comprising graphite with different interlayer spacing in the region near the negative electrode tab, coating region A, (i.e. a first active material layer) and the region away from the negative electrode tab (i.e. second active material layer), wherein the first negative electrode active material contains graphite 1 and the second negative electrode active material contains graphite 2 (Para. [0073]) wherein interlayer spacing is obtained of the graphite (002) diffraction peak (Para. [0024]) wherein graphite 1 has a layer spacing of 0.335900 nm (i.e. within the range of d1 as claimed) and graphite 2 has a layer spacing of 0.335790 nm (i.e. within the range of d2 as claimed) (Para. [0074-0076] and see Table 1 in original version). See the rejection to claim 1 for full details of the combination, incorporated herein but not reiterated herein for brevity’s sake; this reasoning is applicable to the specific example of Tan et al. cited herein.
Regarding Claim 7, Huang et al. as modified by Tan et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention of claim 4 as explained above.
Huang et al. further teaches the particle size of the spherical active material particle is 5 µm (Table 1, Example 10) (i.e. Db50 is 5 µm)., within the claimed Db50 range).
Huang et al. does not teach the Da50 of the first active material.
However, Tan et al. teaches a particle size D50 of the first graphite is 5 µm < D50 < 12 µm (Para. [0025]) (i.e. Da50 of the first active material overlapping with the claimed range of 8-20 µm).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the first active material of Huang et al. to incorporate the teaching of the particle size as taught by Tan et al., as such a material provides improved cycle stability (Para. [0059]). 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).” See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Regarding Claim 8, Huang et al. as modified by Tan et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention of claim 4 as explained above.
Huang et al. further teaches the second active material layer has a coating weight of 40 g/m2 (i.e. CW2 within the claimed range of 10-110 g/m2) (see Example 10 in Table 1).
Regarding Claim 9, Huang et al. as modified by Tan et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention of claim 1 as explained above.
Huang et al. further teaches the first active material is flake graphite (see Example 10 in Table 1) (i.e. the first active material is natural graphite).
Regarding Claim 10, Huang et al. as modified by Tan et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention of claim 1 as explained above.
Huang et al. further teaches the first active material and the second active material can comprise soft carbon or hard carbon (Para. [0042]) (i.e. wherein soft carbon or hard carbon is contained in the first active material layer and/or the second active material layer).
Regarding Claim 11, Huang et al. as modified by Tan et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention of claim 1 as explained above.
Huang et al. further teaches a lithium-ion secondary battery comprising the negative electrode of the invention (Para. [0044] (i.e. a secondary battery comprising the negative electrode plate according to claim 1).
Regarding Claim 12, Huang et al. as modified by Tan et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention of claim 11 as explained above.
Huang et al. further teaches the lithium-ion battery may be a soft pack (Para. [0050]) (i.e. a battery pack comprising the secondary battery according to claim 11).
Regarding Claim 13, Huang et al. as modified by Tan et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention of claim 11 as explained above.
Huang et al. further teaches the lithium-ion secondary battery as a power source for an apparatus such as electric vehicles (Para. [0058]) (i.e. an electric apparatus comprising the secondary battery according to claim 11).
Regarding Claim 14, Huang et al. as modified by Tan et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention of claim 11 as explained above.
Huang et al. further teaches the lithium-ion battery may be a soft pack (Para. [0050]) (i.e. a battery module comprising the secondary battery according to claim 11).
Regarding Claim 15, Huang et al. as modified by Tan et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention of claim 1 as explained above.
Huang et al. further teaches the first active material is flake graphite (see Example 10 in Table 1) (i.e. the first active material is natural graphite), the second active material layer has a coating weight of 40 g/m2 (i.e. CW2 within the claimed range of 10-110 g/m2) (see Example 10 in Table 1).
Huang does not teach layer spacing corresponding to d002 peaks of the first and second active material as claimed.
However, Tan et al. teaches a negative electrode sheet (i.e. plate) comprising graphite with different interlayer spacing in the region near the negative electrode tab, coating region A, (i.e. a first active material layer) and the region away from the negative electrode tab (i.e. second active material layer), wherein the first negative electrode active material contains graphite 1 and the second negative electrode active material contains graphite 2 (Para. [0073]) wherein interlayer spacing is obtained of the graphite (002) diffraction peak (Para. [0024]) wherein graphite 1 has a layer spacing of 0.335900 nm (i.e. within the range of d1 as claimed) and graphite 2 has a layer spacing of 0.335790 nm (i.e. within the range of d2 as claimed) (Para. [0074-0076] and see Table 1 in original version). See the rejection to claim 1 for full details of the combination, incorporated herein but not reiterated herein for brevity’s sake; this reasoning is applicable to the specific example of Tan et al. cited herein.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (WO 2020/155993A) in view of Tan et al. (CN 111987286A) and Piao et al. (US 2022/0407068).
Regarding Claim 16, Huang et al. teaches a negative electrode sheet (i.e. plate) comprising a negative current collector (i.e. negative electrode current collector) having a first active material layer disposed on the negative current collector and a second active material layer disposed on the first active material layer (i.e. active material layers disposed on at least one surface of the negative electrode current collector, the active material layers comprising a first active material layer comprising a first active material, and a second active material layer disposed on a surface of the first active material layer and comprising a second active material, the first active material layer is disposed on at least one surface of the negative electrode current collector and comprising a first active material and the second active material layer disposed on surface of the first active material layer that faces away from the negative electrode current collector and comprising a second active material) wherein the first active material and second active material are graphite (Para. [0043]) wherein the second active material is spherical graphite (see Example 10 in Table) (i.e. the second active material is artificial graphite) wherein the first active material layer has a coating weight of 90 g/m2 (i.e. CW1 is mass per unit area of the first active material layer disposed on the negative current collector within a range of 80-200 g/m2) the second active material layer has a coating weight of 40 g/m2 (i.e. CW2) (see Example 10 in Table 1), the particle size of the spherical active material particle is 5 µm (Table 1, Example 10) (i.e. Db50 is 5 µm within the range of 4-8 µm).
Huang does not teach layer spacing corresponding to d002 peaks of the first and second active material as claimed.
However, Tan et al. teaches a negative electrode sheet (i.e. plate) comprising graphite with different interlayer spacing in the region near the negative electrode tab, coating region A, (i.e. a first active material layer) and the region away from the negative electrode tab (i.e. second active material layer), wherein the first negative electrode active material contains graphite 1 and the second negative electrode active material contains graphite 2 (Para. [0073]) wherein interlayer spacing is obtained of the graphite (002) diffraction peak (Para. [0024]) wherein graphite 1 has a layer spacing of 0.335900 nm (i.e. d1 as claimed) and graphite 2 has a layer spacing of 0.335790 nm (i.e. d2 as claimed) (Para. [0074-0076] and see Table 1 in original version) and thus provides an α value of 0.999673 (so close to 1 such that a prima facie case of obviousness exists; a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP §2144.05(I)).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the interlayer spacing of the layers as taught by Huang et al. to incorporate the teaching of the interlayer spacings a of the first graphite as taught by Tan et al., as such an interlayer spacing improves lithium plating thereby improving cycle stability (Para. [0059]). Thus, the natural result of the combination of Huang et al. as modified by Tang would provide coating weights and interlayer spacings satisfying the claimed ratios as 0.999673 x40 (i.e. αxCW2)= about 40 which is less than 90 (i.e. the active material layer satisfies αxCW2≤CW1).
Huang et al. as modified by Tan et al. does not teach a volume median particle size Da50 of the first active material is within a range of 18-22.
However, Piao teaches a negative electrode comprising a first active material layer and a second active material layer, wherein the first negative electrode active material layer may be natural graphite having an average particle diameter D50 of 18 µm or more and 20 µm or less (Para. [0031]) (i.e. a Da50 within the claimed range of 18-22 µm).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified average particle diameter of the first active material of Huang et al. to incorporate the teaching of the average particle diameter of 18-20 as taught by Piao et al., as side reactions with electrolyte are reduced, without reducing adhesive force (Para. [0031]). Thus, the natural result of the combination would provide a range of Db50/Da50 of 5/18 to 5/20 or 0.25-0.28 within the claimed Db50/Da50 range of 0.18≤ Db50/Da50 ≤0.44.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (WO 2020/155993A) in view of Chen et al. (CN 109301160A). The English machine translation of Huang et al. was provided in a prior Office action. The English machine translation of Table 1 of Huang et al. and the English machine translation of Chen et al. are attached and cited below.
Regarding Claim 17, Huang et al. teaches a negative electrode sheet (i.e. plate) comprising a negative current collector (i.e. negative electrode current collector) having a first active material layer disposed on the negative current collector and a second active material layer disposed on the first active material layer (i.e. active material layers disposed on at least one surface of the negative electrode current collector, the active material layers comprising a first active material layer comprising a first active material, and a second active material layer disposed on a surface of the first active material layer and comprising a second active material, wherein the first active material and second active material are graphite (Para. [0043]) wherein the second active material is spherical graphite (see Example 10 in Table) (i.e. the second active material is artificial graphite) wherein the first active material layer has a coating weight of 90 g/m2 (i.e. CW1 is mass per unit area of the first active material layer disposed on the negative current collector within a range of 80-200 g/m2) the second active material layer has a coating weight of 40 g/m2 (i.e. CW2) (see Example 10 in Table 1).
Huang does not teach layer spacing corresponding to d002 peaks of the first and second active material as claimed.
However, Chen et al. teaches a multilayer electrode comprising a layer A and layer B wherein layer B is located on the outermost side of the electrode and layer B is located between layer B and the current collector (Para. [0014]) wherein layer A includes natural graphite or artificial graphite (Para. [0034]) and layer B includes graphite (Para. [0044]) the active material of layer A had a d002 interlayer spacing of active material in layer A of 0.335 nm (i.e. reading on d1 as claimed is 0.335 nm) (Para. [0035]) and the d002 interlayer spacing of the active material in layer B is greater than 0.335 nm such as 0.35 nm or 0.38 nm (Para. [0039]) (i.e. d2 as claimed at the very least may be 0.3691 nm to 0.3700 nm, overlapping with the claimed range of α as α=d2/d1; 0.3691/0.335=1.1018=α, 0.3700/0.335=1.1045=α, satisfying 1.1018≤ α ≤1.1045).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the active materials of Huang et al. to incorporate the teaching of the interlayer spacing as taught by Chen et al., as such a structure helps to improve the rate performance of the electrode (Para. [0064])
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed June 25, 2026 have been fully considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the combination references being used in the current rejection in light of the amendment.
Applicant’s arguments are drawn to a previous prior art combination and thus, are not persuasive in light of the newly cited prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARMINDO CARVALHO JR. whose telephone number is (571)272-5292. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30a.m.-5p.m..
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 Ruddock 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.
/ARMINDO CARVALHO JR./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights