DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claims 1-3, 5-8, 10-13, 15, 17-19 and 21-25 are pending, wherein claims 1-3, 5-8, 10-13, 15, 17-19 are amended, and claims 21-25 are newly added. Claims 1-3, 5-8, 10-13, 15, 17-19 and 21-25 are being examined on the merits in this office action.
Response to Amendments
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Any rejections and/or objections made in the previous Office Action and not repeated below, are hereby withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments or/and arguments.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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 2-3, 12, 17-18 and 21-25 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.
The term “substantially” in claims 2, 12 and 18 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The claim has been rendered indefinite due to the use of the relative term “substantially”.
Claims 21-25 recite the limitation "The electronic apparatus according to claim 1". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, the limitation is interpreted as referring to “The electronic apparatus according to claim 17”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-3, 6-8, 10-13, 15, 17-19 and 21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tani et al. (US 20220173389 A1, hereafter Tani) in view of Duan et al. (EP 3886218 A, hereafter Duan).
Regarding claims 1 and 8, Tani teaches a negative electrode plate (See, e.g., Fig. 2), comprising a current collector (“11”), a first active substance layer (“12a”), and a second active substance layer (“12b”) located between the current collector and the first active substance layer,
wherein the first active substance layer comprises first silicon-based material particles (e.g., SiOx, where 0≤x≤2, [0014]), the second active substance layer comprises second silicon-based material particles (e.g., a silicate phase and/or a carbon phase in which silicon particles are dispersed, [0029]), and A>B, wherein A% represents a mass percentage of lithium in the first silicon-based material particles and B% represents a mass percentage of lithium in the second silicon-based material particles (See, e.g, “B1” in Table 1, the amount of lithium in the first silicon-based material particles is greater than zero while that in the second silicon-based material particles is zero).
Tani teaches the first silicon-based material particles comprise lithium metasilicate represented by Li2Si2O5 ([0092]). Note that while “lithium metasilicate” is a limitation, the formula Li2SiO3 is not considered a limitation since it is included in a parenthesis. However, Tani does teach Li2SiO3 when z=1 in the formula Li2zSiO2+z (See [0056]).
Tani is silent as to “porosity” of the first and second active substance layers as claimed. In the same field of endeavor, however, Duan discloses a negative electrode plate having two layers of silicon-based active material particles, wherein a first layer (corresponding to the claimed second active substance layer) is provided between a current collector and a second layer (corresponding to the claimed first active substance layer), and the second layer has a relative higher porosity and a larger Dv50 of the silicon-based material particles, compared with the first layer (at least: [0019], [0022]). This arrangement would facilitate an electrolytic solution to infiltrate the active material layer of the negative electrode and also facilitate lithium ions in the electrolytic solution to move in the negative electrode plate. The smaller Dv50 of the silicon-based material particles in the first layer means a larger specific surface area, which would increase an area of contact with the lithium ions in the electrolytic solution and compensate for a disadvantage of liquid phase diffusion of the first silicon-based material particles in the first active material layer (at least: [0019], [0022]). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the teachings of Duan, including porosity and Dv50 of the first and second layers of the silicon-based material particles, into Tani such that the first active substance layer of Tani has a higher porosity than the second active substance layer (i.e., K1% > K2%, K1 > K2) in order to achieve benefits stated above. Tani in view of Duan further teaches the Dv50 of the first silicon-based material particles (disclosed in Duan as the second silicon-based material particles) may be, for example, 15 µm and the second silicon-based material particles (disclosed in Duan as the first silicon-based material particles) may be, for example, 6 µm (See, at least, “Embodiment 1” in Table 1). These values of Dv50 satisfy those as claimed.
Tani in view of Duan further discloses that Dv50 of the first/second silicon-based material particles has significant effects on, at least, “the probability of lithium plating occurring, the peel-off of the negative active material layer occurring and the probability of tearing of the current collector occurring” (e.g., [0056], [0027]). Thus, the said Dv50s are result-effective variables (See MPEP § 2144.05 (II) (A-B). Thus, it would have been obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention would have modified/optimized the Dv50 of Tani’s first/second silicon-based material particles as suggested by Duan and obtained various values of Dv50 in order to achieve the desired effects as disclosed by Duan. Furthermore, since it is general knowledge that porosity increases with particle size decreasing, the claimed K1, K2 and the relationship between K1 and K2 can be accordingly obtained by optimizing the Dv50 of the first/second silicon-based material particles through routine experimentation. It is also noted that in the absence of unexpected results or evidence that the claimed porosity values and the porosity relationship are critical/significant, they are not patentably distinguishable since they can be readily achieved through routine experimentations by optimizing the result-effective variable Dv50 of the first/second silicon-based material particles (See MPEP § 2144.05 (II) (A-B). Upon review of the instant invention, there does not appear to be any criticality to the values of K1, K2 and the relationship between them.
Regarding claim 2, Tani in view of Duan teaches the negative electrode plate according to claim 1, and when “LSX” of B1 in Table 1 is Li2SiO3 (See the rejection of claim 1 above), the A as claimed is about 18 (in Li2SiO3: (7*2)/(7*2+28+16*3) [Symbol font/0xBB] 18%), reading on “substantially 15” as instantly claimed.
Regarding claim 3, Tani in view of Duan teaches the negative electrode plate according to claim 2, and further teaches the amount of “LSX” (L denotes lithium) in both the first and second active substance layers can be adjusted from 0% to 100% (See Table 1 for example). One of ordinary skill in the art would have readily arrived at the claimed A/B through routine experimentations by adjusting relative amounts of “LSX” in both active substance layers. Note that in the absence of unexpected results or evidence that the claimed A/B is critical/significant, it is not patentably distinguishable since it can be readily achieved through routine experimentations by adjusting relative amounts of “LSX” in both active substance layers. See MPEP § 2144.05 (II) (A). Upon review of the instant invention, there does not appear to be any criticality to the A/B as claimed.
Regarding claim 6, Tani in view of Duan teaches the negative electrode plate according to claim 1, wherein the second silicon-based material particles comprise nano-silicon crystallites (See, at least, [0036]-[0037], Tani).
Regarding claim 7, Tani in view of Duan teaches the negative electrode plate according to claim 6, and the instantly claimed limitation represents property or characteristic of the nano-silicon crystallites. Since Tani in view of Duan teaches the same nano-silicon crystallites, as addressed above, the claimed property or characteristic is necessarily present. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). The burden is shifted to applicant to show that the prior art product does not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product.
Regarding claim 10, Tani teaches the negative electrode plate according to claim 1, wherein the first active substance layer and the second active substance layer each independently comprise soft carbon ([0063], [0061], [0006]).
Regarding claims 11 and 15, Tani teaches an electrochemical apparatus (e.g., “Batteries”, [0098]), comprising a negative electrode plate (See, e.g., Fig. 2) that comprises:
a current collector (“11”), a first active substance layer (“12a”), and a second active substance layer (“12b”) located between the current collector and the first active substance layer,
wherein the first active substance layer comprises first silicon-based material particles (e.g., SiOx, where 0≤x≤2, [0014]), the second active substance layer comprises second silicon-based material particles (e.g., a silicate phase and/or a carbon phase in which silicon particles are dispersed, [0029]), and A>B, wherein A% represents a mass percentage of lithium in the first silicon-based material particles and B% represents a mass percentage of lithium in the second silicon-based material particles (See, e.g, “B1” in Table 1, the amount of lithium in the first silicon-based material particles is greater than zero while that in the second silicon-based material particles is zero).
Tani teaches the first silicon-based material particles comprise lithium metasilicate represented by Li2Si2O5 ([0092]). Note that while “lithium metasilicate” is a limitation, the formula Li2SiO3 is not considered a limitation since it is included in a parenthesis. However, Tani does teach Li2SiO3 when z=1 in the formula Li2zSiO2+z (See [0056]).
Tani is silent as to “porosity” of the first and second active substance layers as claimed. In the same field of endeavor, however, Duan discloses a negative electrode plate having two layers of silicon-based active material particles, wherein a first layer (corresponding to the claimed second active substance layer) is provided between a current collector and a second layer (corresponding to the claimed first active substance layer), and the second layer has a relative higher porosity and a larger Dv50 of the silicon-based material particles, compared with the first layer (at least: [0019], [0022]). This arrangement would facilitate an electrolytic solution to infiltrate the active material layer of the negative electrode and also facilitate lithium ions in the electrolytic solution to move in the negative electrode plate. The smaller Dv50 of the silicon-based material particles in the first layer means a larger specific surface area, which would increase an area of contact with the lithium ions in the electrolytic solution and compensate for a disadvantage of liquid phase diffusion of the first silicon-based material particles in the first active material layer (at least: [0019], [0022]). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the teachings of Duan, including porosity and Dv50 of the first and second layers of the silicon-based material particles, into Tani such that the first active substance layer of Tani has a higher porosity than the second active substance layer (i.e., K1% > K2%, K1 > K2) in order to achieve benefits stated above. Tani in view of Duan further teaches the Dv50 of the first silicon-based material particles (disclosed in Duan as the second silicon-based material particles) may be, for example, 15 µm and the second silicon-based material particles (disclosed in Duan as the first silicon-based material particles) may be, for example, 6 µm (See, at least, “Embodiment 1” in Table 1). These values of Dv50 satisfy those as claimed.
Tani in view of Duan further discloses that Dv50 of the first/second silicon-based material particles has significant effects on, at least, “the probability of lithium plating occurring, the peel-off of the negative active material layer occurring and the probability of tearing of the current collector occurring” (e.g., [0056], [0027]). Thus, the said Dv50s are result-effective variables (See MPEP § 2144.05 (II) (A-B). Thus, it would have been obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention would have modified/optimized the Dv50 of Tani’s first/second silicon-based material particles as suggested by Duan and obtained various values of Dv50 in order to achieve the desired effects as disclosed by Duan. Furthermore, since it is general knowledge that porosity increases with particle size decreasing, the claimed K1, K2 and the relationship between K1 and K2 can be accordingly obtained by optimizing the Dv50 of the first/second silicon-based material particles through routine experimentation. It is also noted that in the absence of unexpected results or evidence that the claimed porosity values and the porosity relationship are critical/significant, they are not patentably distinguishable since they can be readily achieved through routine experimentations by optimizing the result-effective variable Dv50 of the first/second silicon-based material particles (See MPEP § 2144.05 (II) (A-B). Upon review of the instant invention, there does not appear to be any criticality to the values of K1, K2 and the relationship between them.
Regarding claim 12, Tani in view of Duan teaches the electrochemical apparatus according to claim 11, and when “LSX” of B1 in Table 1 is Li2SiO3 (See the rejection of claim 1 above), the A as claimed is about 18 (in Li2SiO3: (7*2)/(7*2+28+16*3) [Symbol font/0xBB] 18%), reading on “substantially 15” as instantly claimed.
Regarding claim 13, Tani in view of Duan teaches the electrochemical apparatus according to claim 11, and further teaches the amount of “LSX” (L denotes lithium) in both the first and second active substance layers can be adjusted from 0% to 100% (See Table 1 for example). One of ordinary skill in the art would have readily arrived at the claimed A/B through routine experimentations by adjusting relative amounts of “LSX” in both active substance layers. Note that in the absence of unexpected results or evidence that the claimed A/B is critical/significant, it is not patentably distinguishable since it can be readily achieved through routine experimentations by adjusting relative amounts of “LSX” in both active substance layers. See MPEP § 2144.05 (II) (A). Upon review of the instant invention, there does not appear to be any criticality to the A/B as claimed.
Regarding claims 17 and 21-22, Tani teaches an electronic apparatus comprising an electrochemical apparatus (e.g., “Batteries”, [0098]) that comprises a negative electrode plate (See, e.g., Fig. 2) comprising:
a current collector (“11”), a first active substance layer (“12a”), and a second active substance layer (“12b”) located between the current collector and the first active substance layer,
wherein the first active substance layer comprises first silicon-based material particles (e.g., SiOx, where 0≤x≤2, [0014]), the second active substance layer comprises second silicon-based material particles (e.g., a silicate phase and/or a carbon phase in which silicon particles are dispersed, [0029]), and A>B, wherein A% represents a mass percentage of lithium in the first silicon-based material particles and B% represents a mass percentage of lithium in the second silicon-based material particles (See, e.g, “B1” in Table 1, the amount of lithium in the first silicon-based material particles is greater than zero while that in the second silicon-based material particles is zero).
Tani teaches the first silicon-based material particles comprise lithium metasilicate represented by Li2Si2O5 ([0092]). Note that while “lithium metasilicate” is a limitation, the formula Li2SiO3 is not considered a limitation since it is included in a parenthesis. However, Tani does teach Li2SiO3 when z=1 in the formula Li2zSiO2+z (See [0056]).
Tani is silent as to “porosity” of the first and second active substance layers as claimed. In the same field of endeavor, however, Duan discloses a negative electrode plate having two layers of silicon-based active material particles, wherein a first layer (corresponding to the claimed second active substance layer) is provided between a current collector and a second layer (corresponding to the claimed first active substance layer), and the second layer has a relative higher porosity and a larger Dv50 of the silicon-based material particles, compared with the first layer (at least: [0019], [0022]). This arrangement would facilitate an electrolytic solution to infiltrate the active material layer of the negative electrode and also facilitate lithium ions in the electrolytic solution to move in the negative electrode plate. The smaller Dv50 of the silicon-based material particles in the first layer means a larger specific surface area, which would increase an area of contact with the lithium ions in the electrolytic solution and compensate for a disadvantage of liquid phase diffusion of the first silicon-based material particles in the first active material layer (at least: [0019], [0022]). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the teachings of Duan, including porosity and Dv50 of the first and second layers of the silicon-based material particles, into Tani such that the first active substance layer of Tani has a higher porosity than the second active substance layer (i.e., K1% > K2%, K1 > K2) in order to achieve benefits stated above. Tani in view of Duan further teaches the Dv50 of the first silicon-based material particles (disclosed in Duan as the second silicon-based material particles) may be, for example, 15 µm and the second silicon-based material particles (disclosed in Duan as the first silicon-based material particles) may be, for example, 6 µm (See, at least, “Embodiment 1” in Table 1). These values of Dv50 satisfy those as claimed.
Tani in view of Duan further discloses that Dv50 of the first/second silicon-based material particles has significant effects on, at least, “the probability of lithium plating occurring, the peel-off of the negative active material layer occurring and the probability of tearing of the current collector occurring” (e.g., [0056], [0027]). Thus, the said Dv50s are result-effective variables (See MPEP § 2144.05 (II) (A-B). Thus, it would have been obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention would have modified/optimized the Dv50 of Tani’s first/second silicon-based material particles as suggested by Duan and obtained various values of Dv50 in order to achieve the desired effects as disclosed by Duan. Furthermore, since it is general knowledge that porosity increases with particle size decreasing, the claimed K1, K2 and the relationship between K1 and K2 can be accordingly obtained by optimizing the Dv50 of the first/second silicon-based material particles through routine experimentation. It is also noted that in the absence of unexpected results or evidence that the claimed porosity values and the porosity relationship are critical/significant, they are not patentably distinguishable since they can be readily achieved through routine experimentations by optimizing the result-effective variable Dv50 of the first/second silicon-based material particles (See MPEP § 2144.05 (II) (A-B). Upon review of the instant invention, there does not appear to be any criticality to the values of K1, K2 and the relationship between them.
Regarding claim 18, Tani in view of Duan teaches the electronic apparatus according to claim 17, and when “LSX” of B1 in Table 1 is Li2SiO3 (See the rejection of claim 1 above), the A as claimed is about 18 (in Li2SiO3: (7*2)/(7*2+28+16*3) [Symbol font/0xBB] 18%), reading on “substantially 15” as instantly claimed.
Regarding claim 19, Tani in view of Duan teaches the electronic apparatus according to claim 17, and further teaches the amount of “LSX” (L denotes lithium) in both the first and second active substance layers can be adjusted from 0% to 100% (See Table 1 for example). One of ordinary skill in the art would have readily arrived at the claimed A/B through routine experimentations by adjusting relative amounts of “LSX” in both active substance layers. Note that in the absence of unexpected results or evidence that the claimed A/B is critical/significant, it is not patentably distinguishable since it can be readily achieved through routine experimentations by adjusting relative amounts of “LSX” in both active substance layers. See MPEP § 2144.05 (II) (A). Upon review of the instant invention, there does not appear to be any criticality to the A/B as claimed.
Regarding claims 23-25, Tani in view of Duan teaches the electronic apparatus according to claim 17, and the limitations recited in claims 23-25 represent characteristics or properties of the electronic apparatus. Since Tani in view of Duan teaches substantially the same electronic apparatus as claimed, as addressed above, the claimed characteristics or properties as claimed are necessarily present. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). The burden is shifted to applicant to show that the prior art product does not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tani in view of Duan, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (US 20200388833 A1, hereafter Lee).
Regarding claim 5, Tani in view of Duan teaches the negative electrode plate according to claim 1, but is silent on MxSiOy being on a surface of the first silicon-based material particles, as instantly claimed.
Lee discloses that a shell of Mg2SiO4 or/and MgSiO3 having high hardness and deposited on the surface of SiOx can suppress a generation of cracks of the negative electrode active material during the volume expansion (See, at least, claims 1 and 7, [0014]). 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 modified Tani in view of Duan, as taught by Lee, such that a shell of Mg2SiO4 or/and MgSiO3 is deposited on a surface of the first silicon-based material particles of Tani in view of Duan in order to achieve advantages stated above. As a result, Mg2SiO4 or/and MgSiO3 reads on the formula as claimed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed Jan. 14, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's arguments are based on the claims as amended. The amended claims have been addressed in the new rejections above. In addition:
1) In response to Applicant’s arguments with respect to the alleged official notice unsupported by documentary evidence, this is not persuasive because the rejections are based on the support of reconstruction of prior arts Tani and Duan combined with generally knowledge. So long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Also, the key to supporting any rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 is the clear articulation of the reason(s) why the claimed invention would have been obvious. The Federal Circuit explained that the Supreme Court’s requirement for an explicit analysis does not require record evidence of an explicit teaching of a motivation to combine in the prior art. See MPEP § 2143.
In the instant case, the prior arts Tani and Duan (e.g., “result-effective variable”), together with generally knowledge within the level of ordinary skill, are applied in the rejections with an explicit analysis, and therefore the rejections are proper.
2) Applicant’s other arguments are based on amended limitations. Please see the rejections above for how the amended limitations are addressed.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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
Prosecution Insights