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 February 5, 2026
DETAILED ACTION
The Application filed on July 24, 2023 has been received. Claims 17-36 are currently pending and have been fully considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 17-23 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 “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 as to what metals or sizes thereof read on the claim. For purposes of compact prosecution, and metal oxide will read on the claim.
As to Claim 18, it is unclear how the nanometal oxide can be present in an amount of 0% mass when claim 17 required that the nanometal oxide is present.
Claims 26 and 35 recite the limitation "the integrated mixed layer" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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 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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 17-36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102((a)(1)) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious 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]).
In the alternative, Li discloses wherein the inorganic filler of the protective layer can comprise a carbon-coated lithium titanate and a metal oxide (paragraph [0036]). 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]).
Conclusion
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