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
In response to the amendments received in the Remarks, filed December 11th, 2025:
Claims 1-12 are pending in the current application and claims 1, 3, 4 and 12 have been amended.
Claim 1 has been amended to include “and wherein the first active material layer does not comprise silicon.”
Claim 3 has been amended to specify “1:(1 to 49):(1 to 49)”, wherein 1 relates to the first active material layer, and the first recitation 1 to 49 relates to the second active material layer, and the second recitation 1 to 49 relates to the third active material.
Claim 4 has been amended to specify “1:(1 to 1.5):(1 to 1.5)”, wherein 1 relates to the first active material layer, and the first recitation 1 to 1.5 relates to the second active material layer, and the second recitation 1 to 1.5 relates to the third active material.
Claim 12 has been amended to replace “of” with “comprising” and “applying” with “supplying” and to exclude “the first active material as”, “the second active material as” and “the third active material as” and to include “wherein the first active material layer does not comprise silicon.”
Status of Pending Objections and Rejections from the Office Action of September 12th, 2025:
The previous claim rejections under 35 U.S.C 112 regarding claims 3 and 4 have been overcome in view of the amendments received in the Remarks on December 11th, 2025.
The previous claim rejections under 35 U.S.C 102(a)(1) and/or 102(a)(2) have been overcome in view of the amendments received in the Remarks on December 11th, 2025.
The previous claim rejections under 35 U.S.C 103 have been overcome in view of the amendments received in the Remarks on December 11th, 2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed December 11th, 2025, with respect to the rejections of claims 1 and 12 under Han et al, US 20210391570 A1, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of Kim et al, US 20200176753 A1 (as cited in the IDS) and Han et al (already on the record).
Kim et al teaches a negative electrode (Kim, 100; figure 1) including a negative electrode current collector (Kim, 110; figure 1) with a first negative electrode mixture layer (Kim, 120; figure 1) present on the top surface of the negative electrode current collector, a second negative electrode mixture layer (Kim, 130; figure 1) and a third negative electrode mixture layer (Kim, 140; figure 1) [Kim, 0027], wherein the first negative electrode mixture layer, formed directly onto the face of the negative electrode current collector, includes a first carbonaceous negative electrode active material, the second negative electrode mixture layer includes a silicon-based negative electrode active material, and the third negative electrode mixture layer includes a second carbonaceous negative electrode active material [Kim, 0028].
Applicant argues Han fails to provide the claimed feature of “the first active material layer does not comprise silicon”, wherein Han’s first negative electrode active material layer, which is disposed onto the current collector, comprises a silicon-based active material. That it would not be obvious to modify Han to render said feature of the claim obvious.
In response to applicant’s argument, the argument is persuasive, however, moot in view of the new grounds of rejection presented below, Han is no longer relied upon to teach the first active material layer of the negative electrode.
In response to applicant’s argument regarding the obviousness of Han, that argument is moot, because there is no such claim within the prior office action nor the present claiming it would be obvious to modify Han wherein the first active material would not have a silicon-based active material.
Applicant argues that embodiment of claim 1 provides unexpected results, wherein examples 1 and 2 each include a negative electrode active material layer including a silicon-based active material that show an enhanced capacity retention over the battery cells of comparative example 2, wherein the silicon-based active material is included in the first active material layer.
In response to applicants’ arguments, the results shown in figure 3 of the instant specification do not meet the threshold for expected results, for one because the samples size of data is limited to two experimental point and 2 comparative, a tread of superior properties cannot be established with such a limited amount of data.
Applicant argues that combination of Han and Lee would fail to suggest or teach a first active material layer that is silicon-free, and that Lee says nothing about moving silicon out of the first layer, and that the teachings of Lee should be applied to the type/quality of graphite used, not to the silicon placement central to the present claims.
In response to applicant’s argument regarding the combination Han and Lee, that argument is moot, because there is no such claim within the prior office action nor the present claiming it would be obvious to combine Han and Lee to suggest the first active material would not have a silicon-based active material. Further, Lee was relied upon to teach a negative electrode active material including natural graphite in a plurality of primary particles assembled into secondary particles [Lee, 0010]. Lee was not relied upon to teach nor suggestion the moving of silicon out of the first layer, rather was relied upon to teach to the quality and type of graphite used.
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 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.
Claims 1-4, 7-9, and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al, US 20200176753 A1 (as cited in the IDS) and Han et al, US 20210391570 A1 (already on the record).
Regarding Claim 1, Kim teaches a negative electrode (Kim, 100; figure 1) for a lithium secondary battery including a negative electrode current collector (Kim, 110; figure 1) with a first negative electrode mixture layer (Kim, 120; figure 1) present on the top surface of the negative electrode current collector, a second negative electrode mixture layer (Kim, 130; figure 1) and a third negative electrode mixture layer (Kim, 140; figure 1) [Kim, 0010 & 0027], wherein the first negative electrode mixture layer, formed directly onto the face of the negative electrode current collector, includes a first carbonaceous negative electrode active material, the second negative electrode mixture layer includes a silicon-based negative electrode active material, between the first and third negative electrode mixture layers as shown in figure 1 of Kim, and the third negative electrode mixture layer includes a second carbonaceous negative electrode active material [Kim, 0028], wherein the first and second carbonaceous material may include natural and artificial graphite, and according to the instant specification, crystalline carbon materials includes natural graphite and/or artificial graphite [instant specification, 0005]. However, Kim is silent to teach on the second active material layer comprising a second crystalline carbon and a third crystalline carbon.
Han teaches a negative electrode with a current collector and a first, second and third negative electrode active material layer [Han, 0007], wherein the second negative electrode active material layer includes a graphite based active material containing artificial and natural graphite, corresponding to the second and third crystalline carbons of the claim, and a silicon-based active material [Han, 0033].
Han and Kim are considered analogous arts in the area of batteries and power storage devices.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the second negative electrode layer of Kim to include the artificial and natural graphite material in the second negative electrode active material layer as taught by Han because such modification would improve the fast chagrining characteristics and lifespan retention rate of the second negative electrode active material layer [Han, 0034].
Regarding Claim 2, modified Kim teaches the negative electrode of claim 1, but is silent to teach about the amount of silicon in the negative active material being about 0.6 wt% to about 9 wt% based on a total 100 wt% of the negative active material layer.
Han teaches the amount of silicon in the second silicon-based active material may be included in an about of 0.1 to 35% by weight based on the total weight of the negative electrode active material in the second negative electrode active material layer [Han, 0038].
Han and Kim are considered analogous arts in the area of batteries and power storage devices.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the second negative electrode layer of Kim to include the amount of silicon taught by Han because such modification may prevent a rapid increase in the ratio of the increase in the volume expansion rate relative to the increase in the energy density of the cell, thus maintain, at a very high level, a fast charging lifespan [Han, 0038].
Regarding Claim 3, modified Kim teaches the negative electrode of claim 1, wherein the thickness of the first negative electrode mixture layer is between 10 μm to 145 μm, the second negative electrode mixture layer has a thickness between 10 μm to 30 μm, and the third negative electrode mixture layer has a thickness between 10 μm to 145 μm [Kim, 0074], therefore, the thickness ratio between the first and second electrode mixture layer is 1:1 (10:10) and 29:6 (145:30), the thickness ratio between the first and the third electrode mixture layer is 1:1, and the thickness ratio between the second and third negative electrode mixture layer is 1:1 (10:10) and 6:29 (30:145), which falls within the thickness ratio required by the claim.
Moreover, according to MPEP 2144.05, 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, 541F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir.1990).
Regarding Claim 4, modified Kim teaches the negative electrode of claim 1, wherein the thickness of the first negative electrode mixture layer is between 10 μm to 145 μm, the second negative electrode mixture layer has a thickness between 10 μm to 30 μm, and the third negative electrode mixture layer has a thickness between 10 μm to 145 μm [Kim, 0074], therefore, the thickness ratio between the first and second electrode mixture layer is 1:1 (10:10) and 29:6 (145:30), the thickness ratio between the first and the third electrode mixture layer is 1:1, and the thickness ratio between the second and third negative electrode mixture layer is 1:1 (10:10) and 6:29 (30:145), which falls within the thickness ratio required by the claim.
Moreover, according to MPEP 2144.05, 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, 541F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir.1990).
Regarding Claim 7, modified Kim teaches the negative electrode of claim 1, but is silent to teach on a mixing ratio of the second crystalline carbon and the third crystalline carbon is about 1:1 to about 1:9 by weight ratio.
Han teaches the mixing ratio of natural graphite of the second negative electrode active material layer, corresponding to the second crystalline carbon of the claim, and the artificial graphite of the second negative electrode active material layer, corresponding to the third crystalline carbon of the claim, is 2.5:97.5 to 45:55 in a weight ratio [Han, 0009] (1:39 to 1:1.2 when simplified), which falls within the claimed ratio of about 1:1 to 1:9.
Han and Kim are considered analogous arts in the area of batteries and power storage devices.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the second negative electrode layer of Kim to include the mixing ratio of the second crystalline carbon and the third crystalline carbon as taught by Han because such modification would result in an improved high-rate charge/discharge characteristics and secure excellent charging output characteristics and lifespan characteristics [Han, 0027].
Moreover, according to MPEP 2144.05, 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, 541F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir.1990).
Regarding Claim 8, modified Kim teaches on the negative electrode of claim 1, wherein the second negative electrode active material layer includes a graphite based active material containing natural graphite, corresponding to the second crystalline carbon of the claim, and artificial graphite, corresponding to the third crystalline carbons of the claim, [Han, 0033].
Regarding Claim 9, modified Kim teaches the negative electrode of claim 1, wherein the third electrode mixture layer includes a second carbonaceous carbon active material [Kim, 0025], corresponding to the fourth crystalline carbon of the claim, wherein the second carbonaceous negative electrode active material may include artificial graphite [Kim, 0015].
Regarding Claim 11, modified Kim teaching a lithium secondary battery comprising a positive electrode, a negative electrode, wherein the negative electrode is the electrode of claim 1, and a separator [Kim, 0019], and the secondary battery further includes an electrolyte [Kim, 0089].
Regarding Claim 12, modified Kim teaches a method for obtaining the negative electrode by applying the first negative electrode mixture onto the negative electrode current collector, followed by drying and pressing, subsequent layers, such as the second and third electrode layers may be applied in a similar fashion [Kim, 0072], wherein the first negative electrode mixture layer, includes a first carbonaceous negative electrode active material, the second negative electrode mixture layer includes a silicon-based negative electrode active material, between the first and third negative electrode mixture layers as shown in figure 1 of Kim, and the third negative electrode mixture layer includes a second carbonaceous negative electrode active material [Kim, 0028], wherein the first and second carbonaceous material may include natural and artificial graphite, and according to the instant specification, crystalline carbon materials includes natural graphite and/or artificial graphite [instant specification, 0005].
Claims 5-6, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al, US 20200176753 A1 (as cited in the IDS) and Han et al, US 20210391570 A1 (already on the record), as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Lee et al, US 20200083536 A1 (already on the record).
Regarding Claim 5, modified Kim teaches the negative electrode of claim 1, wherein the first negative electrode mixture layer includes a first carbonaceous negative electrode active material [Kim, 0010], corresponding to the first crystalline carbon, and the first carbonaceous negative electrode active material may include graphite [Kim, 0015], further the second negative electrode active material layer, comprises natural graphite, corresponding to the second crystalline carbon of the claim [Han, 0007]. However, modified Kim is silent to teach on the natural graphite comprising a plurality of secondary particles, wherein the plurality of secondary particle is an agglomerate of primary particles, with amorphous carbon on the surface, and an amorphous carbon coating on the secondary particles.
Lee teaches a negative electrode active material for a rechargeable lithium battery [Lee, 0006], comprising natural graphite including a plurality of primary particles assembled into a secondary particle, with an amorphous carbon on the surface of the plurality of primary particles and an amorphous carbon coating surrounding the secondary particles [Lee, 0010].
Lee and modified Kim are considered analogous arts in the area of negative electrode active materials for lithium secondar batteries.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application to replace the natural graphite material of modified Kim with the natural graphite material taught by Lee, because such modification would result in a battery with an improved charge and discharge rate capability [Lee, 0044], also, it is well known to use natural graphite comprised of a plurality of primary particles agglomerated into a plurality of secondary particles, with amorphous carbon on both the primary and secondary particles for a negative electrode active material. Further, a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results supports prima facie obviousness determination (MPEP 2143, I, B).
Regarding Claim 6, modified Kim teaches the negative electrode of claim 5, but is silent to teach on the average diameter of the plurality of primary particles, the average diameter of the plurality of secondary particles, and the peak intensity ratio when measured by XRD.
Lee teaches the primary particles have an average particle diameter of about 5 to 15 μm [Lee, 0060], and the secondary particles have an average particle diameter of about 8 to 24 μm [Lee, 0039], and a peak intensity ratio I(002)/I(110) of less than or equal to 120 [Lee, 0049].
Lee and modified Kim are considered analogous arts in the area of negative electrode active materials for lithium secondar batteries.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Kim to include the average diameter of the plurality of primary particles as taught by Lee, because such modification would result in a negative electrode active material that may effectively suppress or reduce material expansion and enhance the materials tap density [Lee, 0060].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Kim to include the average diameter of the plurality of secondary particles as taught by Lee, because such modification would result in a negative electrode active material that is balanced between an electrolyte impregnation that is not excessively small and an electrode that is not too thick to be applied to the battery [Lee, 0039].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Kim to include the peak intensity ratio I(002)/I(110) of less than or equal to 120 as taught by Lee, because such modification would result in a material that can better facilitated the intercalation/deintercalation of lithium ions into the graphite particles so as to improve the charge and discharge rate capability of the battery [Lee, 0050].
Regarding Claim 10, modified Kim teaches the negative electrode of claim 1, wherein the first negative electrode mixture layer includes a first carbonaceous negative electrode active material [Kim, 0010], corresponding to the first crystalline carbon, and the first carbonaceous negative electrode active material may include graphite [Kim, 0015], further the second negative electrode active material layer, comprises natural graphite, corresponding to the second crystalline carbon of the claim [Han, 0007], and an artificial graphite, corresponding to a third crystalline carbon of the claim [Han, 0007]. The third electrode mixture layer includes a second carbonaceous carbon active material [Kim, 0025], corresponding to the fourth crystalline carbon of the claim, wherein the second carbonaceous negative electrode active material may include artificial graphite [Kim, 0015]. However, modified Kim is silent to teach on the natural graphite comprising a plurality of secondary particles, wherein the plurality of secondary particle is an agglomerate of primary particles, with amorphous carbon on the surface, and an amorphous carbon coating on the secondary particles.
Lee teaches a negative electrode active material for a rechargeable lithium battery [Lee, 0006], comprising natural graphite including a plurality of primary particles assembled into a secondary particle, with an amorphous carbon on the surface of the plurality of primary particles and an amorphous carbon coating surrounding the secondary particles [Lee, 0010].
Lee and modified Kim are considered analogous arts in the area of negative electrode active materials for lithium secondar batteries.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application to replace the natural graphite material of modified Kim with the natural graphite material taught by Lee, because such modification would result in a battery with an improved charge and discharge rate capability [Lee, 0044], also, it is well known to use natural graphite comprised of a plurality of primary particles agglomerated into a plurality of secondary particles, with amorphous carbon on both the primary and secondary particles for a negative electrode active material. Further, a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results supports prima facie obviousness determination (MPEP 2143, I, B).
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 LILIAN ALICE ODOM whose telephone number is (703)756-1959. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9AM - 5PM EST.
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, NIKI BAKHTIAR can be reached at (571) 272-3433. 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.
/LILIAN ALICE ODOM/Examiner, Art Unit 1722
/NIKI BAKHTIARI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1722