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
The amendment filed on December 15th 2025 is acknowledged. Claims 1-5 remain pending in the application. Claims 6-8 were added by the Applicant. Applicant’s arguments to the previous 102 and 103 rejections of the claims in view of Takahata were fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore the 102 and 103 rejections of the claims in view of Takahata were withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment. The arguments to the 103 rejections of the claims in view of Mitani were fully considered and are persuasive, thus the rejections are withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of Jo et al. US 2020/0091506 A1. New rejections follow.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jo et al. US 2020/0091506 A1.
Regarding Claim 1, Jo discloses a negative electrode (multilayer anode) comprising a current collector and a plurality of anode layers [Abstract], wherein the plurality of anode layers comprises a first layer on the current collector, a second layer on the first layer, and a third layer on the second layer [0032]. Thus, Jo discloses, as illustrated in Jo Annotated Figure 1, a negative electrode current collector, a negative electrode active material layer disposed on the negative electrode current collector, and a coating layer disposed on the negative electrode active material layer:
PNG
media_image1.png
272
744
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Jo Annotated Figure 1
Jo further discloses that the coating layer (“third layer”) includes natural graphite [0035], further disclosed in Example 1 [0047] and Example 2 [0051], and that the negative electrode active material layer (“second layer”) includes artificial graphite [0035], further disclosed in Example 1 [0048] and Example 2 [0052].
As described in Examples 1 & 2, Jo discloses that the thickness of the coating layer (“third layer”) is 32µm [0049] and 25µm [0053], respectively, and the thickness of the negative electrode active material layer (“second layer”) is 86µm [0049] and 99µm [0053], respectively. Thus, Jo discloses that the thickness ratio of the coating layer to the negative electrode active material layer is 0.372 (Example 1) and 0.253 (Example 2).
The claimed thickness ratio ranges from 20:80 to 28:72, or 0.25 to 0.39.
Thus, Jo discloses thickness ratios of the coating layer to the negative electrode active material layer within the claimed range. In regards to the thickness ratio, the Examiner directs Applicant to MPEP 2131.03 I. In the case where the prior art “discloses a point within the claimed range, the prior art anticipates the claim”. UCB, Inc. v. Actavis Labs. UT, Inc., 65 F.4th 679, 687, 2023 USPQ2d 448 (Fed. Cir. 2023). Accordingly, the thickness ratio disclosed in Jo anticipates the claimed range set forth in Claim 1. See MPEP 2131.03 I.
Additionally, Jo discloses that in both examples, the coating layer (“third layer”) includes a rubber-based binder (SBR) [0047, 0051] and a water-soluble cellulose derivative (CMC) [0047, 0051]. Similarly, Jo discloses that in both examples, that the negative electrode active material layer (“second layer”) includes a rubber-based binder (SBR) [0048, 0052] and a water-soluble cellulose derivative (CMC) [0048, 0052].
Regarding Claim 2, Jo discloses that the rubber-based binder is styrene-butadiene rubber (SBR) [0047-0048, 0051-0052].
Regarding Claim 3, Jo discloses that the water-soluble cellulose derivative is carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC) [0047-0048, 0051-0052].
Regarding Claim 4, Jo discloses, as mentioned above with regards to Claim 1, that the ratio of the thickness of the coating layer (“third layer”) to the negative electrode active material layer (“second layer”) is 0.253 (Example 2). The claimed range of thickness ratio in Claim 4 is 20:80 to 25:75, or 0.25-0.333. Thus Jo discloses a thickness ratio which falls within the claimed range in Claim 4.
Regarding Claim 5, Jo discloses a secondary battery comprising a positive electrode (cathode), the negative electrode of Claim 1, and an electrolyte [0028].
Regarding Claim 6, Jo discloses that the negative electrode active material layer (“second layer”) further comprises a conductive agent [0042-0043].
Regarding Claim 7, Jo discloses that the conductive agent is carbon black [0043].
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.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jo et al. US 2020/0091506 A1 further in view of Piao et al. US 2022/0407068 A1.
Regarding Claim 8, Jo is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 6, however is silent as to the content of the conductive agent in the negative electrode active material layer.
Piao discloses a negative electrode for a secondary battery wherein the negative electrode comprises a current collector, a first active material layer on the current collector, and a second active material layer on the first active material layer [Abstract], similar to Jo. Piao discloses that the first active material layer, which Examiner notes is similar to that negative electrode active material layer (“second layer”) of Jo, comprises a conductive material [0042] such as carbon black [0043] (also see example 1), similar to that of Jo. Further, Piao discloses that the conductive material is included in an amount of 1-30% by weight [0043], which overlaps with the claimed range.
Piao discloses that this configuration imparts conductivity to the electrode without causing chemical changes in the battery [0042].
In the absence of a direct teaching in Jo of the amount of conductive agent added to the negative electrode active material layer, one of ordinary skill in the art would look to related art such as Piao for a suggestion of the amount of conductive agent to include with reasonable expectation of success. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to use the suggested amount of conductive agent as disclosed by Piao in the negative electrode active material layer of Jo with reasonable expectation of success as supported by Piao.
Thus, modified Jo discloses that the conductive agent is included in an amount of 1-30wt%, which overlaps with the claimed range.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims 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 ANNA E GOULD whose telephone number is (571)270-1088. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, Jeffrey T. Barton can be reached at (571) 272-1307. 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.
/A.E.G./Examiner, Art Unit 1726
/DANIEL P MALLEY JR./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726