3DETAILED 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 .
The Applicant’s amendment filed on 5/8/2026 was received. Claim 1 was amended. Claim 6 was cancelled. Claims 11-16 were withdrawn.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S.C. code not included in this action can be found in the prior Office action issued on 2/19/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
The claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Lee et al. (US 20210020898 A1) on claims 1, 5 are withdrawn because Applicant amended claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Lee et al. (US 11201329 B2) on claims 1-10, 17, 18 are withdrawn because Applicant amended claim 1.
Claims 1-5, 7-10, 17, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 11201329 B2), hereinafter Lee et al. 329, in view of Takahata et al. (US 9312559 B2).
Regarding to claim 1: Lee et al. 329 disclose a negative electrode and a rechargeable lithium battery (abstract). The negative electrode contains a negative active material layer (col. 4, lines 36-42, fig. 1) (equivalent to a negative electrode material sheet). The negative active material layer includes a carbon negative active material (col. 3, lines 17-24) (equivalent to a particulate carbon material), wherein the negative active material layer may include a binder (col. 7, lines 1-2) (The negative active material layer can be free of a binder as the binder is optional) (Examples of the binder in col 7, lines 14-28 are resin binders). The electrode density of the negative electrode may be about 1.0 g/cc to about 1.4 g/cc (col. 1, lines 59-60).
Lee et al. 329 do not specifically disclose a ratio I(110)/I(004) of a diffraction intensity of a (110) plane relative to a diffraction intensity of a (004) plane in X-ray diffraction of a principal plane thereof of 5 or more. However, Takahata et al. disclose a negative electrode sheet (20) having a negative electrode collector formed to a sheet shape and a negative electrode active material layer formed on that collector (abstract). The negative electrode active material has flake graphite (col. 8, lines 25-39). The graphite contained in the negative electrode active material layer is preferably present in a state where a peak intensity ratio of the (110) plane and the (004) plane of the graphite powder, by X-ray diffraction, is 2.0 or greater (col. 8, lines 48-57, fig. 3). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the ratio I(110)/I(004) of 2.0 or greater of Takahata et al. as the ratio I(110)/I(004) of the negative active material layer of Lee et al. 329 because Takahata et al. teach that the oriented graphite allows enhancing the electron conductivity of the negative electrode sheet (20) (col. 4, lines 1-29).
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, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Regarding to claim 2: Lee et al. 329 disclose the negative active material layer may have a thickness of about 40 μm to about 650 μm (col. 1, lines 65-67). 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, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding to claim 3: Lee et al. 329 disclose the negative active material layer includes flake-shaped graphite (col. 5, lines 58-67, col. 6, lines 1-5) (equivalent to scaly graphite).
Regarding to claim 4: Lee et al. 329 disclose the negative active material layer includes graphite. The graphite can be sheet-shaped, flake-shaped, spherically-shaped, fiber-shaped, or flake-shaped graphite (col. 5, lines 58-67, col. 6, lines 1-5). The spherically-shaped and flake-shaped graphite can have aspect ratio of 1-10 and 10-25, respectively, as evidenced by Sakai (JP 2020184472 A) (par. 40 in Sakai). 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, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA
1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding to claim 5: Lee et al. 329 disclose a negative electrode and a rechargeable lithium battery as described above. Lee et al. 329 do not specifically disclose the ratio I(110)/I(004) is 20 or more. However, Takahata et al. disclose a negative electrode sheet (20) having a negative electrode collector formed to a sheet shape and a negative electrode active material layer formed on that collector (abstract). The negative electrode active material has flake graphite (col. 8, lines 25-39). The graphite contained in the negative electrode active material layer is preferably present in a state where a peak intensity ratio of the (110) plane and the (004) plane of the graphite powder, by X-ray diffraction, is 2.0 or greater (col. 8, lines 48-57, fig. 3). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the ratio I(110)/I(004) of 2.0 or greater of Takahata et al. as the ratio I(110)/I(004) of the negative active material layer of Lee et al. 329 because Takahata et al. teach that the oriented graphite allows enhancing the electron conductivity of the negative electrode sheet (20) (col. 4, lines 1-29).
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, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Regarding to claim 7: Lee et al. 329 disclose the negative active material included in the negative active material composition may stand, e.g., may be oriented at the predetermined angle on the surface of the current collector (fig. 1, col. 4, lines 61-67, col. 5, lines 1-2). Lee et al. 329 do not specifically disclose the particulate carbon material is oriented at an orientation angle θ1 of 60° or more and 90° or less with respect to the principal plane of the negative electrode material sheet. However, Takahata et al. disclose a negative electrode sheet (20) having a negative electrode collector formed to a sheet shape and a negative electrode active material layer formed on that collector (abstract). The negative electrode active material has flake graphite (col. 8, lines 25-39). The layer faces of graphite are strongly oriented substantially perpendicularly to the negative electrode collector (equivalent to that the particulate carbon material is oriented at an orientation angle θ1 of 90° with respect to the principal plane of the negative electrode material sheet (col. 4, lines 1-29). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the orientation angle of 90° between the layer faces of graphite and the negative electrode collector of Takahata et al. as the orientation angle between the carbon negative active material with respect to the principal plane of the negative active material layer of Lee et al. 329 because Takahata et al. teach that the oriented graphite allows enhancing the electron conductivity of the negative electrode sheet (20) (col. 4, lines 1-29). 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, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Regarding to claim 8: Lee et al. 329 disclose the negative active material further comprising Si negative active material (col. 6, lines 6-32), wherein the negative active material composition may stand, e.g., may be oriented at the predetermined angle on the surface of the current collector (fig. 1, col. 4, lines 61-67, col. 5, lines 1-2). The angle between the axis along the longest length of the negative active material and the principal plan of the negative electrode material layer is about 45° in fig. 1 (equivalent to θ1 and θ2 being equal to about 45°). 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, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP 2144.05.
In addition, Lee et al. 329 recognize as the heat dissipation rate is a variable that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the orientation angle of the negative active material with respect to the current collector (col. 4, lines 7-21), with the heat dissipation rate improving as the orientation angle of the negative active material is more vertical (90°) with respect to the current collector, the precise orientation angle would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed orientation angle cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the orientation angle in the negative active material of Lee et al. 329 to obtain the desired heat dissipation rate (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Regarding to claim 9: Lee et al. 329 disclose the carbon negative active material and the Si negative active material can be mixed in a weight ratio of about 50:50 to about 99:1 (col. 6, lines 6-15) (equivalent to the silicon active material having a volume of 0.97% - 49% in a total volume of the particulate carbon material and the silicon active material) (The volume percentage is calculated based on the weight ratio and the density. A density of graphite density is 2.26 g/cm3 as evidence by Christensen et al. (US 20080206631 A1) (par. 43 in Christensen) and a density of silicon is 2.33 g/cm3 as evidence by Navarrette et al. (US 2017017949 A1) (par. 28 in Navarrette)). 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, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding to claim 10: Lee et al. 329 disclose the negative active material layer may optionally include a conductive material. When the conductive material is included, about 1 wt % to about 5 wt % of the conductive material may be used based on a total amount of the negative active material layer (col. 7, lines 1-9). The conductive material can be a carbon fiber (col. 7, lines 38-47). 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, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding to claim 17: Lee et al. 329 disclose a negative electrode and a rechargeable lithium battery (abstract). The negative electrode contains a negative active material film (col. 4, lines 36-42, fig. 1).
Regarding to claim 18: Lee et al. 329 disclose a negative electrode and a rechargeable lithium battery (abstract). The rechargeable lithium battery comprising the negative electrode which contains the negative active material film (col. 1, lines 39-45). The electrolyte in the battery may include a non-aqueous organic solvent (col. 9, lines 25-26).
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s arguments filed on 05/08/2026 have been fully considered. Applicant primarily argues:
Lee fails to disclose, teach, or suggest a negative electrode material sheet having a density of 1.3 g/cm3 or less and Lee utilizes a different manufacturing process (bulk pressing) than the lamination/slicing process described in the present specification. Therefore, diffraction intensity ratio is not inherent property in Lee.
The claimed diffraction intensity ratio of 5 or more is a massive departure from the teachings of Lee 329 (a maximum ratio of 0.8). There is no reasonable expectation of success with this massive increase in the diffraction intensity ratio.
In response:
Applicant’s arguments are persuasive. Lee reference is withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments are moot. Newly cited reference, Takahata, teaches the ratio I(110)/I(004) of 2.0 or greater as described in paragraph 4 above.
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 PIN JAN WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-7057. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached on 571-272-1295. 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.
/PIN JAN WANG/Examiner, Art Unit 1717
/Dah-Wei D. Yuan/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights