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 .
NEGATIVE ELECTRODE PLATE OF LITHIUM-ION BATTERY, LITHIUM-ION BATTERY, AND ELECTRONIC DEVICE
Examiner: Adam Arciero S.N. 18/262,722 Art Unit: 1727 September 28, 2026
DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s response filed on May 08, 2026 has been received. Claims 17-36 are currently pending. Claims 17-18, 24, 26-28, 33 and 35-36 have been amended.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The claim rejections under 35 USC 112(b) on claims 17-36 for being indefinite are maintained.
The term “nanometal” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “nanometal” 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. It is unclear if Applicant is intending to limit any particular dimension for the claimed metals. For purposes of compact prosecution, any of the claimed metal oxides will read on the claim.
The claim rejections under 35 USC 112(b) on claims 18, 26 and 35 are withdrawn because Applicant has amended the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The claim rejections under 35 USC 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Li on claims 17-36 are withdrawn because Applicant’s arguments are persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The claim rejections under 35 USC 103(a) as being unpatentable over Li on claims 17-36 are maintained.
Claim(s) 17-36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (US 2019/0140328 A1; as found in IDS dated 02/18/2025).
As to Claims 17, 19, 22, 27, 29 and 36, Li discloses an electronic device, comprising a lithium-ion battery which comprises: an enclosure (vacuum-packing); a negative electrode plate, a separator film and a positive electrode plate (arranged sequentially), and an electrolyte disposed in a packing (Abstract and paragraphs [0003, 0068-0069]). Li further discloses wherein the negative electrode plate comprises: a current collector; and an additional layer disposed on a surface thereof, wherein the additional layer comprises a silicon or carbon material active material and a safety coating (protective substance) comprising a carbon-coated lithium titanate and metal oxide (discloses a particle size of 100 nm, Table 3-1), and a conductive additive (Abstract and paragraphs [0017, 0028-0029, 0032, 0036, 0045, 0049]). At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select a metal oxide and a carbon-coated lithium titanate because Li teaches that the high temperature safety performance of the battery is improved (Abstract).
As to Claims 18 and 28, Li teaches wherein the protective substance comprises a binder in an amount of 35-75 wt%; the inorganic filler (metal oxide and carbon-coated lithium titanate) in an amount of 10-60 wt%; and the conductive agent in an amount of 5-25 wt% (paragraphs [0011, 0021-0022]). These ranges overlap with the claimed ranges, and the courts have held that 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), see MPEP 2144.05, I. At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the amounts of the claimed materials to read on the claimed amounts because Li teaches that the high temperature safety performance of the battery is improved (Abstract).
As to Claims 20 and 30, Li teaches wherein the thickness of the safety coating layer is a result-effective variable in providing a battery with improved safety performance without increasing the internal resistance too much (paragraph [0044]). Li does not specifically disclose the thickness of the active material layer. However, there are a known finite number of options in choosing a thickness relationship between the two layers (a thickness greater than, less than, or equal to) and one of ordinary skill in the art would good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense, see KSR, MPEP 2143, I, E. At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the thickness relationship between the two claimed layers to read on the claims because Li teaches that a battery with improved safety performance without increasing the internal resistance too much to hurt the normal operation thereof is provided (paragraph [0044]).
As to Claims 21 and 31, Li teaches wherein the thickness of the safety coating is not more than 40 microns, which overlaps with the claimed range (paragraph [0044]). The courts have held that 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), see MPEP 2144.05, I. At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the amounts of the claimed materials to read on the claimed amounts because Li teaches that the high temperature safety performance of the battery is improved (Abstract).
As to Claims 23 and 32, Li teaches wherein the particle diameter of the metal oxide can be 100 nm and wherein the particle size of the conductive additive is 5-500nm (paragraph [0030 and Table 3-1]). At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the particle size of the metal oxide and the conductive additive to read on the claims because Li teaches that the high temperature safety performance of the battery is improved (Abstract).
As to Claims 24 and 33, the active material layer and the protective layer of Li form “an integral/integrated mixed layer” as they are functionally integrated with each other and comprise a different mixture of materials.
In the alternative, the courts have held that the use of a one-piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in [the prior art] would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice, see MPEP 2144.04, V, B. At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the particle size of the metal oxide and the conductive additive to read on the claims because Li teaches that the high temperature safety performance of the battery is improved (Abstract).
As to Claims 25-26 and 34-35, Li teaches wherein the protective substance layer’s size and amounts of materials are result-effective variables in providing the right amount of safety to the battery without increasing the internal resistance too much and sacrificing capacity of the battery (paragraphs [0037 and 0044]). The courts have held that a particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation, see MPEP 2144.05, II, B. At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the particle size of the metal oxide and the conductive additive to read on the claims because Li teaches that the high temperature safety performance of the battery is improved without sacrificing capacity of the battery (Abstract and paragraph [0037]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed May 08, 2026, with respect to claims 24-26 and 33-35 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of the claims have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed May 08, 2026 with respect to the independent claims have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s principle arguments are:
a) Li does not disclose an uncoated compound from the first group with a coating-modified compound from the second group (claims 17, 27 and 36).
b) Li does not motivate the claimed combination (claims 17, 27 and 36).
c) The claimed combination operated by a different safety mechanism than Li (claims 17, 27 and 36).
d) Li does not disclose the integrated mixed layer recited in the depending claims (claims 24-26 and 33-35).
In response to Applicant’s arguments, please consider the following comments:
a) Li does teach the claimed combination of the inorganic filler with a carbon-coated lithium titanate and a metal oxide, as discussed in the rejection above. The claims do not exclude a coated compound of the metal oxide with a coated lithium titanate.
b) Li does provide proper teaching and motivation for arriving at the claimed invention as discussed above in the rejections.
c) In response to applicant's argument that the claimed inventions operates by a different safety mechanism than Li, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 24-26 and 33-35 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the closest prior arts of record, Li, does not specifically disclose the claimed additional layer is an integrated mixed layer (claims 24 and 33).
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 ADAM ARCIERO whose telephone number is (571)270-5116. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5 ET.
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.
/ADAM A ARCIERO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1727
