NEGATIVE ELECTRODE FOR POWER STORAGE DEVICE, METHOD FOR FORMING THE SAME, AND POWER STORAGE DEVICE
DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 4/28/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
In response to communication filed 4/28/2026:
Claims 2, 7, and 12 have been amended; no new matter has been entered.
Previous rejection has been withdrawn due to amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/28/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant discloses: “Applicant amends independent claim 2 to recite, inter alia: "... the negative electrode active material layer comprises a negative electrode active material comprising graphite and a silicon oxide film scattered across a surface of the graphite..." Independent claims 7 and 12 are similarly amended. Support for the amendments to independent claims 2, 7, and 12 can be found, for example, at least in FIGs. 1B and 13B and in paragraph [0231] of the originally filed specification.
Applicant contends that none of the cited references, taken singly or combined, discloses, suggests, or renders obvious independent claims 2, 7, and 12, particularly in the features highlighted above. The Examiner in the Office Action specifically relies on FIG. 4 and paragraph [0300] of Odani for allegedly teaching the features related to the claimed negative electrode active material layer.
Applicant submits that Odani does not teach or suggest the feature related to "a silicon oxide film scattered across a surface" now required in the claimed invention because Odani disclose either a liquid phase deposition that coats the particle over substantially its entirety, including the root (see, for example, FIG. 3, [0300]), or a vapor phase method that coats only the top in a narrow range (see, for example, FIG. 4, [0301]).”
The Examiner respectfully traverses. The specification does not disclose a silicon oxide film scattered across a surface of the graphite. There is also no explanation for how a film can technically be “scattered” being that a film implies a coat or layer. The Applicant cites paragraph 0231 of the specification as showing support. However, this paragraph merely cites that “… it was found that silicon oxide is not formed on the entire surface of the particle, but formed on part of the surface of the particle.” This does not explain “scattering”. Figs. 1B and 13B disclose films of various sizes covering the graphene. While this could technically support an argument for “scattering”, the specification does not specifically disclose how this is conducted. Paragraph 0039 discloses the metal oxide film is formed by a sol-gel method which is one of several methods relied on by Odani to form their oxide film (see Paragraph 0160).
MPEP 2111 states: ‘During patent examination, the pending claims must be "given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification."’ MPEP 2111.01 states that the words of a claim must be given their “plain meaning” unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. The plain meaning of a term means the ordinary and customary meaning given to the term by those of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time. The ordinary and customary meaning of a term may be evidenced by a variety of sources, including the words of the claims themselves, the specification, drawings, and prior art. However, the best source for determining the meaning of a claim term is the specification - the greatest clarity is obtained when the specification serves as a glossary for the claim terms. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1315, 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2005)
Therefore, the Examiner is interpreting “scattering” as it is disclosed in paragraph 0231 of the specification in that silicon oxide is not formed on the entire surface of the particle, but formed on part of the surface of the particle. This is disclosed in paragraph 0301 of Odani.
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.
Claims 2-16 are 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.
Claims 2, 7, and 12 disclose a silicon oxide film “scattered across a surface” of the graphite.
The specification does not disclose a silicon oxide film scattered across a surface of the graphite. There is also no explanation for how a film can technically be “scattered” being that a film implies a coat or layer. The Applicant cites paragraph 0231 of the specification as showing support. However, this paragraph merely cites that “… it was found that silicon oxide is not formed on the entire surface of the particle, but formed on part of the surface of the particle.” This does not explain “scattering”. Figs. 1B and 13B disclose films of various sizes covering the graphene. While this could technically support an argument for “scattering”, the specification does not specifically disclose how this is conducted.
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claims 2-4, 6-9, 11-14, 16 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatenable over Sheem et al. (US 2012/0034522 A1) and further in view of Odani et al. (US 2010/0190054 A1).
Regarding claims 2, 6, 7, 11, 12, and 16, Sheem et al. teach a lithium-ion battery (Abstract; Fig. 2) comprising:
a positive electrode (Fig. 2, element 2; paragraphs 0043-0044);
a negative electrode (Fig. 2, element 4; paragraphs 0045-0046); and
an electrolyte between the positive electrode and the negative electrode (Paragraphs 0079-0080; 0093),
wherein the negative electrode comprises a negative electrode current collector and a negative electrode active material layer (Paragraph 0064), and
wherein the negative electrode active material layer comprises a plurality of negative electrode active material particles (Fig. 1, element 12 discloses an active material core. Paragraphs 0045-0046 disclose this comprises a material capable of reversibly intercalating and deintercalating Li ions such as graphite. This material inherently makes up particles.) and at least one graphene layer covering part of the plurality of negative electrode active material particles (Fig. 1, element 14 discloses a thin film graphite layer which can comprise a graphene sheet, element 14a, covering the active material core, element 12.).
However, Sheem et al. do not teach wherein the negative electrode active material comprises graphite and a silicon oxide film scattered across a surface of the graphite.
Odani et al. teach a battery having a negative electrode (Abstract). Further, the negative electrode comprises a negative electrode active material layer (Fig. 4, element 2) comprising negative electrode active material particles (Fig. 4, element 201) having an oxide-containing film (Fig. 4, element 203) covering only the top of the negative electrode active material particles and not the root (Paragraph 301) which is identical to how “scattering” can be described in the as-filed specification in paragraph 0231. The oxide-containing film can comprise silicon oxide (Paragraph 0293) and the negative electrode active material particles can comprise graphite (Paragraph 0129).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the graphite surface of Sheem to further include a silicon oxide film as disclosed by Odani in order to provide a protective film against the electrolyte solution to further enhance cycle characteristics (Paragraph 0292).
Regarding claims 3, 8, and 13, Sheem and Odani et al. teach the lithium-ion battery according to claims 2, 7, and 12. Further, Sheem teaches wherein an average diameter of the plurality of negative electrode active materials is more than or equal to 6 μm and less than or equal to 30 μm (Paragraph 0042 discloses the average particle diameter of the active material including the core and layer is 1-50 µm.).
Regarding claims 4, 9, and 14, Sheem and Odani et al. teach the lithium-ion battery according to claims 2, 7, and 12. Further, Sheem teaches wherein the graphene layer is in contact with the plurality of negative electrode active materials (Fig. 1).
Claims 5, 10, and 15 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sheem et al. (US 2012/0034522 A1) and Odani (US 2010/0190054 A1) as applied to claims 2, 7, and 12 above, and further in view of Zhang et al. (US 2010/0310908 A1).
Regarding claims 5, 10, and 15, Sheem and Odani et al. teach the lithium-ion battery of claims 2, 7, and 12. However, they do not teach wherein the lithium-ion battery is flexible.
Zhang et al. teach that battery cells may be suitably made into a cylindrically wound cell of a flexible pouch (Paragraph 0069).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the flexible pouch to house the battery of Sheem because Zhang et al. teach that flexible pouches cylindrically wound cells are equivalent substitutes for battery housing.
Conclusion
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 July 21st, 2026
Prosecution Insights