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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on 07/27/2026. These drawings are acceptable.
Response to Arguments
The applicants’ amendments to claims 1, 3, and 5 overcome the rejections on the grounds of indefiniteness. Accordingly, the rejections of those claims on those grounds are withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 07/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Here, the feature of high rate charging followed by low rate charging is addressed and made obvious by the combination of Kim, Guo, Oh, and Schram rather than any single reference teaching the full scope of the recited claims.
Additionally, the applicant asserts that examples 1 and 2 establish unexpected results of the claimed multi-stage charging in terms of activation time and/or capacity retention rate, citing tables 1 and 2, and further asserting that the applied references do not disclose or contemplate these unexpected results.
This argument of unexpected results has been fully considered, but is not persuasive. In regards to table 2, which is cited as containing the activation time and capacity retention rate data, there are comparative examples which demonstrate superior activation time and capacity retention rate compared to the exemplary embodiments. Comparative examples 2 and 3 have a faster activation time compared to examples 1 and 2, where comparative example 2 has a higher second step charge rate than its first step charge rate, and comparative example 3 only has a single charge rate. Additionally, comparative examples 4 and 5 have a superior capacity retention rate compared to examples 1 and 2, where comparative example 4 has a single charge rate, and comparative example 5 has a first charge rate less than 0.5C. Accordingly, where the comparative examples show superior properties, the cited examples fail to demonstrate unexpected results in terms of activation time and capacity retention rate.
Additionally, burden is placed on the applicant to establish that the results are unexpected and significant, as per MPEP 716.02(b)(I) (“The evidence relied upon should establish "that the differences in results are in fact unexpected and unobvious and of both statistical and practical significance." Ex parte Gelles, 22 USPQ2d 1318, 1319 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992) (Mere conclusions in appellants’ brief that the claimed polymer had an unexpectedly increased impact strength "are not entitled to the weight of conclusions accompanying the evidence, either in the specification or in a declaration.")”). As the applicant’s arguments are conclusory in nature without specific discussion and comparison between examples and the statistical significance thereof, the applicant has not established unexpected results.
Additionally, the unexpected results are not commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. Examples 1 and 2 are required to be commensurate in scope with the claimed invention if they are presented as evidence of unexpected results. As discussed in specification pages 47-50, the batteries constructed have specific chemical compositions for their active materials, specific current collector materials, conductive materials, binders, and solvents, with a selected weight ratio presented to manufacture the electrodes. These features are not claimed, where the claims recite a “lithium secondary battery comprising an electrode assembly, said electrode assembly comprising a silicon-based negative electrode, a positive electrode, and a separator”. For the evidence of unexpected results to be commensurate in scope with the claims, these features must either be claimed, or evidence presented that they have no influence on the data being asserted as unexpected results, as per MPEP section 716.02(d).
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.
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) 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (WO 2021015488 A1, with US equivalent 20220255150 A1 used for citation purposes) in view of Guo (CN 113363422 A with EPO translation used for citation purposes), Oh et al (Effect of current rate on the formation of the solid electrolyte interface layer at the graphite anode in lithium-ion batteries) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Schramm (US 20190027736 A1).
Regarding Claims 1, and 2, Kim is an analogous art to the instant application, being directed towards the art of secondary battery manufacturing methods (Abstract, “The present invention relates to a method of manufacturing a secondary battery”). Kim discloses a method of manufacturing a lithium secondary battery (Paragraph 0020, “The present invention relates to a method of manufacturing a secondary battery, and particularly, to a method of manufacturing a lithium secondary battery.”) comprising providing a lithium secondary battery comprising an electrode assembly comprising a negative electrode a positive electrode and a separator (Paragraph 0021, “Specifically, the method of manufacturing a secondary battery of the present invention comprises the steps of forming a secondary battery structure comprising an electrode assembly comprising a negative electrode, a positive electrode, and a separator”) where the negative electrode is a silicon-based negative electrode (Paragraph 0021, “wherein the negative electrode comprises a silicon-based active material.”).
Additionally, Kim’s method comprises activating the lithium secondary battery, where activating comprises charging and discharging the lithium secondary battery (Paragraph 0083, “The method of manufacturing a secondary battery of the present invention comprises activating a secondary battery structure by charging and discharging for at least one cycle).
Here, in regards to the limitation which requires that first charging is performed up to an SOC of 25% and a second charging after the first charging, Kim fails to disclose this structure. Therefore we look to Guo which is an analogous art to the instant application, being directed towards the art of lithium ion batteries and preparation methods (Abstract, “The invention relates to the technical field of lithium ion batteries, and discloses a preparation method of a lithium ion battery”). Here, Guo discloses a method of preparation of a lithium secondary battery which comprises a multi-stage charging, comprising first charging up to 25% (Paragraph 0021, “Further, the specific process of the first charging by increasing the pressure step by step is as follows: charging at a pressure of 0.07～0.14Mpa to 25-35% SOC”) and a second charging after the SOC 25% charging (Paragraph 0021, “and then charging at a pressure of 0.25～0.35Mpa to 65～75 % SOC”). Here, Guo discloses that their charging steps, when performed at different pressures optimizes SEI formation in the early stage of charging (Paragraph 0020, “In the 0-30% SOC stage, the main changes that occur in the lithium-ion battery are the formation of the SEI film on the negative electrode surface and the generation of gas. At this stage, the use of a smaller pressure is beneficial to exhaust gas, and it is between the pole pieces and the pole pieces”) through promoting gas exhaust, and at later charging stages, the high pressure suppresses volume expansion of the negative electrode active material (Paragraph 0020, “in the 30-70% SOC and 70-100% SOC stages, the main change in the lithium ion battery is the negative electrode lithiation reaction. In this stage, a larger The pressure is beneficial to suppress the volume expansion of the negative electrode material.”). Based on this, it would be obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art to implement the multi-stage charging which comprises a first charging up to SOC 25% and a second charging after the first charging.
Additionally, in regards to the limitation which requires that the first charging comprises performing charging at a constant current of 0.5C or higher, Kim discloses the use of a constant current for their charging conditions (Paragraph 0120, “constant current”), however, Kim in view of Guo fail to disclose or make obvious the C-rate being of the first charging 0.5C or higher. Therefore we look to Oh, which is a publication directed towards the effects of current levels on SEI formation in negative electrodes of lithium ion batteries (Abstract, “In this study, SEI layers were formed at various current rates using a full cell, and their chemical and electrochemical properties were investigated.”).
Here, Oh discusses the benefits of high current conditions, specifically discussing a charge rate of 1.0 C (Page 3, “the anode used at 0.1, 0.5, and 1.0 C”), where a high current condition is disclosed as producing a larger inorganic solid electrolyte interface teaching that the high current inorganic SEI layer comprises high conductivity components such as Li2CO3 and Li2O (Page 6, “Li2CO3 and Li2O have high ionic conductivities similar to those of graphite. The amount and composition of the SEI component affect to the electrochemical properties of the anode due to their respective electrochemical properties.”). Accordingly, based on this disclosure of Oh, the C-rating of the first charge step can be identified as a result effective variable, having the recognized result of promoting high conductivity SEI formation. Accordingly, where Oh presents a finite number of possible C-ratings (0.1, 0.5, and 1.0), routine experimentation within this set of values which represents a workable range means that it would be obvious to try each value, thereby resulting in an initial charging step which has a C-rate value of 1.0C.
Accordingly, this makes obvious a method wherein the first charging comprises performing charging at a constant current of Oh’s 1.0C , which satisfies the 0.5C requirement of claim 1, and the 0.9C requirement of claim 2.
Additionally, in regards to the limitation which requires that the charging comprises multi-stage charging from a first charging at a first charge rate to a second charging at a second charge rate that is lower than the first charge rate, as discussed above Kim in view of Guo and Oh makes obvious a first charge rate of 1.0 C used in a first charging of up to SOC 25%, followed by a second charging. However, in regards to the limitation which requires that the second charging is at a second charge rate that is lower than the first charge rate, modified Kim fails to make obvious said limitation.
Therefore we look to Schramm, which is an analogous art to the instant application, being directed towards the art of manufacturing silicon-based negative electrodes and the formation of batteries using said electrodes (Abstract, “The present invention relates to a method for manufacturing a silicon-based negative electrode, a method for manufacturing a lithium-ion battery from a preformed silicon-based negative electrode, and a lithium-ion battery thus obtained.”).
Specifically, Schramm discloses that their selection of C-rate values is to counteract the effects of silicon electrolyte expansion during charging and discharging (Paragraph 0010, “Therefore, a fundamental challenge to the commercial application of silicon-containing negative electrodes is the enormous change in volume, i.e., the breathing, of the material during the lithiation and delithiation processes”; Paragraph 0010, “In addition, it results in constant fracturing and growth of the SEI. This in turn results in continuous Li ion consumption and increasing internal resistance in the cell, and thus a lower coulombic efficiency (CE) and inadequate cycle stability.”; Paragraph 0015, “The technical object of the present invention is to provide electrodes and batteries that do not have the above-mentioned disadvantages, and that in particular allow a reduction in the initial irreversible capacity loss and a reduction in the time required for the SEI formation.”). Looking again to Guo, Guo discloses that the majority of volume fluctuation occurs in the second and third charging steps of their process (Paragraph 0020, “in the 30-70% SOC and 70-100% SOC stages, the main change in the lithium ion battery is the negative electrode lithiation reaction. In this stage, a larger The pressure is beneficial to suppress the volume expansion of the negative electrode material.”). Accordingly, based on this, it would be obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art to apply the C-rate values of Schramm, which are disclosed as being 0.2 (Paragraph 0048, “In one preferred embodiment, the current applied in method step b) corresponds to a C-rate of C/5”) for the second and third charging steps to minimize volume fluctuations, thereby reading upon and making obvious a method where the second charging after the first charging comprises performing charging at a constant current of 0.5C or lower. Therefore, Kim in view of Guo, Oh, and Schram make obvious a first charge rate of 1.0 C, and a second charging at a second charge rate of 0.5 C or lower, thereby reading upon and making obvious the limitation which requires that the charging comprises multi-stage charging from a first charging at a first charge rate to a second charging at a second charge rate that is lower than the first charge rate.
Regarding Claim 3, modified Kim makes obvious the invention of Claim 1. Additionally, in regards to the limitation of Claim 3 which requires that the second charging after the first charging comprises performing charging at a constant current of 0.5C or lower, modified Kim makes obvious a method wherein the second charging after the first charging comprises performing charging at a constant current of lower than 0.5C, specifically teaching a charge rate of 0.2 C (Paragraph 0048, “In one preferred embodiment, the current applied in method step b) corresponds to a C-rate of C/5”), as discussed above in regards to claim 1.
Regarding Claim 4, modified Kim makes obvious the invention of Claim 1. Additionally, in regards to the limitation which requires that an activation time of the activating is 10 hours or shorter, Kim discloses a discharging rate of 0.2 C, which is a rate which will take 5 hours to fully discharge. Accordingly, where the charging conditions take 0.25 hours to reach 25% at 1.0C (where 1.0C for the initial charging condition is made obvious by Oh, as discussed above) and 3.75 hours to go from 25% to 100% at 0.2C as per Kim (Paragraph 0120, “charging conditions: 0.2 C”), the charging takes 4 hours and the discharging takes 5 hours, a single activation cycle of charging and discharging takes 9 hours, which falls into the scope of the instant claim which requires that an activation time of the activating is 10 hours or shorter.
Regarding Claims 5 and 6, modified Kim makes obvious the invention of Claim 1. Additionally, Kim discloses that their silicon-based negative electrode comprises a negative electrode current collector layer and a negative electrode active material provided on a surface of the negative electrode current collector layer, where the negative electrode active material layer comprises a negative electrode active material layer composition comprising a silicon-based active material (Paragraph 0030, “The negative electrode may comprise a negative electrode current collector and a negative electrode active material layer formed on the negative electrode current collector. In this case, the silicon-based active material may be comprised in the negative electrode active material layer.”).
Additionally, the silicon-based active material comprises SiO0 (Si) in an amount of 75 parts by weight on the basis of 100 parts by weight of the silicon-based active material (Paragraph 0105, “Si (average particle diameter (D50 ): 2.5 μm) as a silicon-based active material,”; Paragraph 0105, “The silicon-based active material, the negative electrode conductive material, and the negative electrode binder were mixed at a weight ratio of 75:10:15.”), which satisfies the requirement of claim 5 that the silicon based active material comprise Si in an amount of 50 parts by weight or more on the basis of 100 parts, and the requirement of claim 6 that the active material comprise Si in an amount of 60 party by weight or more on the basis of 100 parts.
Regarding Claim 7, modified Kim makes obvious the invention of Claim 5. Additionally, Kim discloses that their negative electrode active material comprises a negative electrode conductive material (Paragraph 0105, “carbon black (product name: Super C65, manufacturer: TIMCAL), as a negative electrode conductive material,”) and a binder (Paragraph 0105, “and a mixture (weight average molecular weight: about 360,000 g/mol) obtained by mixing polyvinyl alcohol and polyacrylic acid in a weight ratio of 66:34 as a negative electrode binder”).
Regarding Claim 8, modified Kim makes obvious the invention of Claim 7. Additionally, Kim discloses that their negative electrode conductive material comprises a linear conductive material (Paragraph 0052, “a conductive tube such as carbon nanotubes or the like;”) and a planar conductive material (Paragraph 0041, “Specifically, the conductive material may comprise at least one selected from the group consisting of natural graphite, artificial graphite,”).
Regarding Claim 9, modified Kim makes obvious the invention of Claim 1. Additionally, modified Kim makes obvious a lithium secondary battery manufactured according to the manufacturing method of a lithium secondary battery according to claim 1 (Paragraph 0102, “The secondary battery manufactured by the method of manufacturing a secondary battery of the present invention”).
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 JONATHAN W ESTES whose telephone number is (571)272-4820. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 - 5:30.
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, Basia Ridley can be reached at 5712721453. 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.
/J.W.E./Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/BASIA A RIDLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights