DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 Sept. 25, 2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 14-15 and 17-19 have been cancelled by the Applicant. Claims 1-13, 16 and 20-21 are pending, wherein claims 1 and 4-5 have been amended and claims 20-21 have been newly added. Claims 1-13, 16 and 20-21 are being examined on the merits in this office action.
Remarks
Applicant’s amendments and arguments have been entered. A reply to the Applicant’s remarks/arguments is presented after addressing the claims.
Any rejections and/or objections made in the previous Office Action and not repeated below, are hereby withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments or/and arguments.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. References cited in the current Office action can be found in a prior Office action. Reference not previously cited can be found per the attached PTO-892 for this Office action.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on Oct. 1, 2025 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, 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.
Claim 20 recites measuring the crystallite size of silicon, but it is unclear as to what measuring technique is used for those parameters as claimed, rendering the scope of the claim indefinite. Equation 1 is an equation based on which the crystallite size is calculated, not a technique used to measure the crystallite size. Upon review of the instant specification, the said technique may be referring to X-ray diffraction analysis. However, note that 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).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-3, 8-10, 12, 16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 20210234191 A1, hereafter Lee) in view of Kim et al. (US 20140050983 A1, hereafter Kim) and Hoshi et al. (WO 2019220576 A1, whose English machine translation is being employed for citation purposes, hereafter Hoshi).
Regarding claims 1 and 12, Lee teaches an anode for a lithium secondary battery (Abstract), comprising:
an anode current collector (“82”, Fig. 2);
a first anode active material layer formed on at least one surface of the anode current collector (“84”+”86”, Fig. 2), the first anode active material layer comprising a silicon-based active material and a graphite-based active material ([0048]-[0051]); and
a second anode active material layer formed on the first anode active material layer (“88”, Fig. 2) comprising carbon-based material and silicon-based material ([0077]).
Lee does not explicitly disclose that the second anode active material layer comprises a porous structure, although one of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated that pores are present due to formation of secondary particles resulted from agglomeration of primary particles in the second anode active material layer. However, in this regard, Kim discloses that an amorphous carbon-based material (See “10” of Fig. 1, in which “15” is an amorphous carbon coating) is provided with pores, and the pores function as buffering, during charge and discharge, for volume expansion of silicon-based particles in a form of a coating (“13”), wherein said silicon-based particles are located inside the pores or on a surface of the carbon-based particles, and the resultant porous structure provides excellent electrical conductivity (Figs. 1-2, [0043]-[0044]). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have included, in any of anode active material layers of Lee (for example, in “88”), a porous structure comprising an amorphous carbon-based particles having pores inside which a silicon-containing coating is formed at or having a silicon-containing coating on a surface of the carbon-based particles, as taught by Kim, in order to achieve excellent electrical conductivity (Figs. 1-2, [0043]-[0044], Kim).
Lee in view of Kim teaches the silicon-containing coating comprises SiOx and the SiOx, which may be amorphous ([0047]) or may be disproportionate SiOx including silicon crystal ([0047], Kim), but is silent as to a crystallite size of the silicon crystal being 7 nm or less as claimed.
In the same field of endeavor, however, Hoshi discloses that a crystallite size of 8 nm or less measured by XRD of silicon included in an anode material comprising carbon and silicon composite particles would enable silicon crystallites to be likely to be localized in the silicon oxide particles and to tend to be dispersed through the particles, which makes it easier for lithium ions to diffuse within the silicon oxide particles and makes it easier to obtain a good charging capacity (at least: abstract, [0016], Kim). Moreover, when the size of the silicon crystallite is 2 nm or more, the reaction between the lithium ions and the silicon oxide is well controlled, and a good charge/discharge efficiency is likely to be obtained ([0016], Kim).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have incorporated the teachings of Hoshi into Lee in view of Kim such that the silicon included in the silicon-containing coating has a crystallite size of 2 nm or more and 8 nm or less, as taught by Hoshi, so as to achieve benefits stated above. The claimed range of 7 nm or less overlaps that of 2 to 8 nm. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP § 2144.05 (I). In addition, the claimed measuring method does not patentably distinguish the invention, since one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the crystallite size should not significantly depend on the measuring method or process.
Regarding claim 2, Lee as modified teaches the anode for a lithium secondary battery according to claim 1, wherein the first anode active material layer comprises a first lower anode active material layer (“84”, Fig. 2, Lee) in contact with the anode current collector (See Fig. 2) and a first upper anode active material layer (“86”, Fig. 2) formed on the first lower anode active material layer (See Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 3, Lee as modified teaches the anode for a lithium secondary battery according to claim 2, wherein a content of the silicon-based active material included in the first lower anode active material layer is in a range from about 4% to about 22% based on a total weight of the first lower anode active material layer (calculations based on “2 to 5%” in [0059] and “90 to 98 wt%” in [0069]), and
a content of the silicon-based active material included in the first upper anode active material layer is in a range from about 2% to about 14% based on a total weight of the first upper anode active material layer (calculations based on “0.5 to 5 wt.%” in [0060] and “90 to 98 wt.%” in [0069]).
The above calculated ranges read on the instantly claimed ranges, respectively.
Regarding claims 8-9, Lee as modified teaches the anode for a lithium secondary battery according to claim 1, and further teaches the third anode active material layer (“88”) may have the same material as the first (“84”) and second (“86”) anode active material layer ([0077], Lee). Thus, the third anode active material layer of Lee (corresponding to the claimed second anode active material layer) has also a weight ratio of 5:5 of artificial graphite to natural graphite ([0053], Lee), which reads on the claimed ranges in claims 8 and 9.
Regarding claim 10, Lee as modified teaches the anode for a lithium secondary battery according to claim 1, and further, since Lee teaches that the third anode active material layer (corresponding to the claimed second anode active material layer) may contain ([0077]) silicon-based active material and carbon-based active material in addition to the porous structure. In the absence of unexpected results or evidence that the claimed content of the porous structure is critical, one of ordinary skill in the art would readily arrive at the amount as instantly claimed through routine experimentation since the selection of a proportion of a component involves merely ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art.
Regarding claim 16, Lee as modified teaches a lithium secondary battery (Abstract), comprising:
the anode of claim 1 (e.g., “80”, Fig. 2) and a cathode (“70”, Fig. 2) facing the anode.
Regarding claim 20, Lee as modified teaches the anode for a lithium secondary battery according to claim 1. The instantly claimed limitation does not patentably distinguish the invention because Lee as modified teaches the crystallite size, as addressed in the rejection of claim 1. Even though the crystallite size is limited by and defined by a measuring process, determination of patentability is based on the crystallite size itself. The patentability of the crystallite size does not depend on its method of measuring.
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Kim and Hoshi, as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Lee-II et al. (US 20220328833 A1, hereafter Lee-II).
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Lee as modified teaches the anode for a lithium secondary battery according to claim 2, wherein the graphite-based active material comprises artificial graphite and natural graphite (“mixture of natural graphite and artificial graphite”, [0052]), and
an amount of natural graphite included in the first upper anode active material layer is less than an amount of artificial graphite included in the first upper anode active material layer (See ranges of weight ratio in [0053]).
Lee in view of Kim teaches an amount of natural graphite included in the first lower anode active material layer may be equal to an amount of artificial graphite included in the first lower anode active material layer (e.g., weight ratio = 5:5, see [0053]), but is silent as to the amount of natural graphite included in the first lower anode active material layer being greater than that of artificial graphite included in the first lower anode active material layer.
In the same field of endeavor, Lee-II discloses a similar anode structure in which natural graphite and artificial graphite included in a first negative electrode mixture layer that coats on a current collector may have a weight ratio of 8:2 (Example 14) in order to achieve a desired degree of adhesion with the current collector ([0018]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have incorporated the teachings of Lee-II into Lee in view of Kim and Hoshi such that a weight ratio of natural graphite to artificial graphite in the first lower anode active material layer being 8:2 is employed as an alternative to the equal amount of Lee, in order to achieve a desired degree of adhesion of the first lower anode active material layer with the current collector ([0018], Lee-II).
Regarding claim 6, Lee as modified teaches the anode for a lithium secondary battery according to claim 5, wherein a weight ratio of natural graphite included in the first upper anode active material layer relative to artificial graphite included in the first upper anode active material is in a range of 1:99 to 5:5 ([0053], Lee), which reads on the range as instantly claimed.
Claims 7 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Kim and Hoshi, as applied to claim 2 or claim 1 above, and further in view of Han et al. (US 20210391570 A1, hereafter Han).
Regarding claim 7, Lee as modified teaches the anode for a lithium secondary battery according to claim 2, but is silent as to the thickness ratio as instantly claimed.
Han discloses a similar anode (i.e., negative electrode), wherein a thickness ratio between a first negative electrode active material layer and a second negative electrode material layer is in the range of 3:7 to 7:3 ([0050]). That is, a thickness of the first negative electrode active material layer is in the range of 30% to 70% of a total thickness of the first and second negative electrode active material layers. One of ordinary skill in the art would have incorporated the teachings of Han into Lee as modified such that a thickness of the first lower anode active material layer is in the range of 30% to 70% of a total thickness of the first anode active material layer, since the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way is prima facie obvious. See MPEP § 2143.
Regarding claim 11, Lee as modified teaches the anode for a lithium secondary battery according to claim 1, but is silent as to the thickness ratio as instantly claimed.
Han discloses a similar anode (i.e., negative electrode), wherein a thickness of a third negative electrode active material layer of a negative electrode is in range of 0.5% to 15% based on a total thickness of a first, a second, and a third negative electrode active material layers. One of ordinary skill in the art would have incorporated the teachings of Han into Lee as modified such that a thickness of the second anode active material layer (corresponding to the third negative electrode active material of Han) is in a range of 0.5% to 15% of total thickness of the first anode active material layer (corresponding to the total of the first and second negative electrode active material layers) and the second anode active material of Lee as modified, since the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way is prima facie obvious. See MPEP § 2143. As a result, the range of 0.5% to 15% reads on the range as instantly claimed.
Claims 13 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view Kim and Hoshi, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mizuhata et al. (JP 2011071063 A, whose English machine translation is being employed for citation purposes, hereafter Mizuhata).
Regarding claims 13 and 21, Lee in view of Kim and Hoshi is silent as to a size of the pores being 20 nm or less, as claimed. However, in the same field of endeavor, Mizuhata discloses a carbon-containing composite material having pores, wherein a pore size of 2 nm to 10 nm will ensure a proper diffusion of lithium ions and a proper reaction area (See [0024], top of p14) so as to achieve excellent electrochemical properties when the material is used in lithium ion batteries ([0017], lines 370-373). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the porous structure of Lee in view of Kim and Hoshi to have a pore size of 2 nm to 10 nm, as taught by Mizuhata, in order to ultimately achieve excellent electrochemical properties of a lithium ion battery ([0017], lines 370-373, Mizuhata).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed Sept. 25, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the modified Lee does not teach “amorphous carbon-based particles”. In response, this is not found persuasive. The particles “10” of Kim teaches “amorphous carbon-based particles” because particles “10” contain amorphous carbon (“15”).
Applicant again argues that the Han reference is not a prior art. This argument is not persuasive. As responded previously, the effective filing date of the instant invention is Dec. 23, 2022, rather than Dec. 30, 2021. The Han reference, whose publication date is Dec. 16, 2021 and whose effective filing date is Jun. 15, 2021, is a qualified prior art under either 102(a)(1) or 102(a)(2). The Applicant has incorrectly considered a foreign Application not in English as an effective filing date of the instant application.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZHONGQING WEI whose telephone number is (571)272-4809. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:30 - 6:00.
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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at (571)272-1330. 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.
/ZHONGQING WEI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1727