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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed 02/10/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-6 and 8-12 are currently pending. Claims 1, 3-4, 9, and 11 are amended. Claim 7 is cancelled. Support for the amended claims is found in paragraphs 0014, 0041, 0050, and 0052 of the instant specification. Applicant’s amendment has overcome each and every objection and rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 5-6, and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Okazaki et al. (US 20210384496 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Okazaki discloses an anode comprising: an anode active material comprising a core part and a coating layer (paragraphs 0038-0040, figure 1), and a binder (paragraphs 0033-0035), wherein the core part comprises an anode material (paragraph 0038), wherein the coating layer is configured to coat at least a part of a surface of each of the core part (paragraphs 0039, 0042, figure 1); and wherein the coating layer comprises a polymer comprising one or more selected from the group consisting of polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) and polychlorotrifluoroethylene (PCTFE) (paragraph 0040); wherein the anode comprises, based on 100 wt% of the anode: an amount of about 50 wt% to 99.8 wt% of the core part, 0.1 wt% to 1.5 wt% of the coating layer; and 0.1 wt% to 49.9 wt% of the binder (paragraphs 0081, 0085, binder is SBR+CMC which is 2.5 wt%, since the coating layer is 1mass% with respect to the core particle,
0.01
p
a
r
t
s
P
V
D
F
c
o
a
t
i
n
g
*
92.625
p
a
r
t
s
o
f
t
o
t
a
l
a
n
o
d
e
≈
0.92625
wt% of the anode is coating layer,
1
-
0.01
p
a
r
t
s
P
V
D
F
c
o
a
t
i
n
g
*
92.625
p
a
r
t
s
o
f
t
o
t
a
l
a
n
o
d
e
≈
91.69875
wt% of anode is core particle, within the claimed ranges).
Regarding claim 2, Okazaki discloses the limitations of claim 1. Okazaki further discloses that the anode material comprises one or more selected from the group consisting of silicon (Si) (paragraph 0038).
Regarding claim 5, Okazaki discloses the limitations of claim 1. Okazaki further discloses that the coating layer satisfies Binder Content × 0.1 ≤ Coating Layer Content ≤ Binder Content × 65.5 (paragraphs 0081, 0085). The active material is included in the anode in an amount of 92.625 parts by mass according to the disclosed weight ratio (paragraph 0081), and the active material includes the coating layer (paragraph 0085) in an amount of 1 mass%. Therefore,
0.01
p
a
r
t
s
P
V
D
F
c
o
a
t
i
n
g
*
92.625
p
a
r
t
s
o
f
t
o
t
a
l
a
n
o
d
e
≈
0.92625
p
a
r
t
s
of the total anode is the coating layer content. Since the binder is 2.5 parts by mass of the anode (paragraph 0081, CMC+SBR), 2.5 × 0.1 = 0.25 ≤ 0.92625, and 2.5 × 65.5 = 163.75 ≥ 0.92625, satisfying the claimed relation.
Regarding claim 6, Okazaki discloses the limitations of claim 1. Okazaki further discloses that the binder comprises one or more selected from the group consisting of polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF), styrene-butadiene rubber (SBR), polyacrylic acid, and polyacrylonitrile (PAN) (paragraph 0035).
Regarding claim 8, Okazaki discloses the limitations of claim 1. Okazaki further discloses that he anode further comprises a conductive material (paragraphs 0081, graphite).
Regarding claim 9, Okazaki discloses the limitations of claim 8. Okazaki further discloses an amount of 0.1wt% to 5wt% of the conductive material based on 100 wt% of the anode (paragraph 0081, 4.875 wt% graphite).
Regarding claim 10, Okazaki discloses the limitations of claim 1. Okazaki further discloses a secondary battery comprising: a cathode; an anode; and an electrolyte disposed between the cathode and the anode (paragraph 0025).
Claims 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Okazaki et al. (US 20210384496 A1) as evidenced by Puértolas et al. (Puértolas, J. A., García-García, J. F., Pascual, F. J., González-Domínguez, J. M., Martínez, M. T., & Ansón-Casaos, A. (2017). Dielectric behavior and electrical conductivity of PVDF filled with functionalized single-walled carbon nanotubes. Composites Science and Technology, 152, 263–274).
Regarding claim 3, Okazaki discloses the limitations of claim 1. Okazaki further discloses that the polymer is PVDF (paragraph 0040, 0085). Puértolas discloses properties including electrical conductivity of single-walled carbon nanotube/PVDF composites as well as of neat PVDF (Puértolas section 3.4.1). Puértolas further discloses that the PVDF resin has an electrical conductivity of 10-11 to 10-8 S/m depending on the temperature (Puértolas section 3.4.1, within the claimed range of less than 10-6 S/cm). Okazaki teaches that the polymer is PVDF, which possesses the claimed conductivity as evidenced by Puértolas.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okazaki et al. (US 20210384496 A1) in view of Hong et al. (US 20160164078 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Okazaki discloses the limitations of claim 1. Okazaki is silent regarding wherein the polymer has a dielectric constant of equal to or greater than about 5.
Hong discloses an electrode active material including a core formed from one selected from the group consisting of lithium-containing transition metal oxide, a carbon material, a lithium metal, and a metal compound, or mixtures thereof, and a shell formed on a surface of the core and including lithium metal oxide particles and polymer (Hong paragraph 0009). Hong further discloses the polymer included in the shell preferably has a dielectric constant of greater than or equal to 5 for the purpose of improving performance and conductivity (Hong paragraph 0059). Hong and Okazaki are analogous because they both disclose polymer coated active materials.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the active material disclosed by Okazaki to include the polymer dielectric constant disclosed by Hong. Doing so would improve conductivity and performance.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okazaki et al. (US 20210384496 A1) in view of Liang et al. (US 20220123314 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Okazaki discloses the limitations of claim 10. Okazaki is silent regarding wherein initial Coulombic efficiency of the secondary battery is equal to or greater than about 83%.
Liang discloses a battery comprising a negative electrode material comprising a core material and a polymer-modified coating layer on at least part of a surface of the core material (Liang paragraphs 0004-0005). Liang further discloses that the initial Coulombic efficiency of the battery is equal to 83% (Liang table 2, example 3). The reference teaches that the polymer modified coating and negative active material can reduce damage to the surface structure of the negative electrode active material during charging and discharging of the battery, reduce loss of active ions, and reduce capacity loss of the battery. Therefore, the present application can well improve the Coulombic efficiency and cycle performance of the battery (Liang paragraphs 0045-0047). Liang and Hong are analogous because they both disclose surface modified negative electrode active materials.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the battery disclosed by Hong to have the Coulombic efficiency disclosed by Liang. Doing so would improve capacity and cycle characteristics of the battery.
Claims 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okazaki et al. (US 20210384496 A1) in view of Hotta et al. (US 20200168913 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Okazaki discloses the limitations of claim 10. Okazaki is silent regarding a vehicle comprising the secondary battery.
Hotta discloses a negative electrode for a secondary battery comprising a negative electrode active material and an additive resin covering at least a portion of the active material particles (Hotta paragraphs 0025, 0071). Hotta further discloses a vehicle including the battery which includes the negative electrode (Hotta paragraph 0172). The reference teaches that vehicles are an application where excellent cycle performance is demanded when a large current is extracted, which the battery is used for (Hotta paragraph 0170). Hotta and Hong are analogous because they both disclose negative electrodes with surface modified active material particles.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the battery disclosed by Hong to be a part of an electric vehicle as disclosed by Hotta. Doing so would contribute to providing capable batteries for an application requiring excellent cycle performance. Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, F.). The claim would have been obvious because design incentives or other market forces provided a reason to make an adaptation of a known device, and implementing the adaptation in a predictable manner results in the claimed invention. In this case, the design incentives to provide capable batteries to improve electric vehicles requiring excellent cycle performance and a large extraction of current leads one skilled in the art to the use of the battery disclosed by Hong to be used within an electric vehicle as disclosed by Hotta.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-12 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 BENJAMIN T LUSTGRAAF whose telephone number is (571)272-0165. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 am - 6:00 pm.
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.
/B.T.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1727
/Maria Laios/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1727
Prosecution Insights