DETAILED 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 .
Claims 1-15 are pending in application.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-8, 11-12 and 15 drawn to a negative electrode slurry / negative electrode in the reply filed on 08/18/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that there exists no undue administrative burden for the Examiner to search and consider all claims in their entirety. This is not found persuasive because the claims are presented in a case filed under 35 U.S.C. 371 and therefore must be evaluated using PCT unity of invention standards instead of the independent and distinct analysis. Accordingly, the shared technical features among a group of inventions claimed in a national stage application must be considered “special technical features”, meaning those technical features that define a contribution which each of the claimed inventions, considered as a whole, makes over the prior art, for the group of inventions to relate to a single general inventive concept.
In the present application, Group I, claims 1-8, 11-12 and 15 drawn to a negative electrode slurry / negative electrode, Group II, claims 9-10 drawn to a method for preparing a negative electrode slurry, and Group III, claims 13-14 drawn to a method for manufacturing a negative electrode lack unity of invention because even though the inventions of these groups require the technical feature of particles in a negative electrode slurry having a Dmin of 8 µm or less and a Dmax of 7 µm or more and 30 µm or less in a negative electrode slurry particle size, this technical feature is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of Kim (US PG Pub 2022/0013784 A1). Kim discloses a negative electrode having a silicon-based active material (abstract) with a particle diameter (D50-) which may be from 1 µm to 10 µm (para. [0034]).
Additionally, the present application presents a serious search and examination burden because Groups I, II and III are drawn to inventions having acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter, different classification and requiring a different field of search such as employing different search strategies or search queries. Group I is classified under H01M4/386 while Groups II and III are classified under H01M4/04.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
4. 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "[…] particles in the negative electrode slurry […]" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is not clear whether the particles refer to the silicon-containing active material recited in line 5, the negative electrode conductive material recited in line 5, the negative electrode binder recited in lines 5-6, some combination of these or all particles in the negative electrode slurry of line 1. Furthermore, it is not clear whether or not claim 2 recites the same “particles” in line 1 as the “particles” of claim 1 line 7.
Applicant recites the limitation “[…] Dmin of 8 µm or less and Dmax of 7 µm or more and 30 µm or less […]” in lines 7 and 8 of claim 1 and “[…] Dmin of 6 µm or less and Dmax of 7 µm or more and 15 µm or less […]” in line 2 of claim 15. It is vague and indefinite what is meant by Dmin and Dmax. For example, Dmin and Dmax may be interpreted as an average value of particles less than a 10% particle size distribution, or greater than a 90% particle diameter distribution respectively. Dmin may also represent the smallest dimension of a single particle, while Dmax represents the greatest dimension of a single particle. Still further, Dmin may represent the smallest particle size in a mixture while Dmax represents the largest particle size in a mixture.
In pages 14 and 15 of the present specification, it is noted that a grinding gauge may be used to measure Dmin and Dmax and that the smallest and largest particle size in a mixture is thereby determined. However, it is not clear if this interpretation applies to every embodiment of the present invention from the specification.
In claim 3 line 3 and in claim 4 lines 3 and 4, Applicant recites “[…] consisting of SiOx, wherein x=0 […]” which is vague and indefinite, as it is unclear whether or not silicon oxide or pure silicon is being claimed by this limitation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
8. 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.
9. 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
10. Claims 1-7, 11 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yoo et al. (US PG Pub 2015/0072240 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 2, Yoo discloses an anode active material slurry comprising an anode active material layer composition which includes anode active material, binder, a conductive agent and solvent (para. [0089]). Furthermore, the anode active material is a porous silicon-based particle (para. [0088]). Yoo also describes the particle size distribution of the porous silicon-based particles (para. [0169]) which have a Dmin of 2.312 and a Dmax of 10.09 (Table 2), anticipating the claimed range of Dmin being 8 µm or less and Dmax being 7 µm or more or 30 µm or less. Additionally, the D50 particle diameter of the porous silicon-based particles may be in a range of 5 µm to 10 µm (para. [0041]), anticipating the claimed range of 5 µm or more and 20 µm or less. MPEP § 2131.03 I.
Regarding claims 3 and 4, the porous silicon-based particles may be Si or SiOx where 0<x<2 particles (para. [0015]) anticipating the claimed range of SiOx where x=0 or 0<x<2. Furthermore, the porous silicon-based particle may be prepared by etching from pure silicon particles (para. [0108]) and therefore comprises 70 parts by weight or more of SiOx wherein x=0, or pure silicon, based on 100 parts by weight of the porous silicon-based particles, hence anticipating the claimed range. MPEP § 2131.03 I.
Regarding claim 5, Yoo discloses the use of the porous silicon-based materials in an anode active material composition having a mass ratio of 70 parts relative to 100 parts of the total anode active material composition (para. [0118]), anticipating the claimed range of 70 parts by weight or more of SiOx as claimed. MPEP § 2131.03 I.
Regarding claim 6, the anode active material composition contains 10 parts by weight of acetylene black which is used as the negative electrode conductive material (para. [0118]), anticipating the claimed range of 5 parts by weight or more and 40 parts by weight or less based on 100 parts by weight of the negative electrode active material layer composition as claimed. MPEP § 2131.03 I.
Regarding claim 7, the negative electrode conductive material may be a planar conductive material such as graphite or a linear conductive material such as carbon fibers (para. [0091]).
Regarding claim 11, Yoo discloses an anode for a lithium secondary battery (para. [0088]) prepared from the anode slurry by coating a side of a current collector with the slurry (para. [0089]).
Regarding claim 15, Yoo also describes the particle size distribution of the porous silicon-based particles (para. [0169]) which have a Dmin of 2.312 and a Dmax of 10.09 (Table 2), anticipating the claimed range of Dmin being 6 µm or less and Dmax being 7 µm or more or 15 µm or less. MPEP § 2131.03 I.
11. Claims 1-5, 7, 11 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Park et al. (US PG Pug 2018/0287129 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 15, Park discloses a mixture including a carbon precursor and silicon material formed into a composite material and used for an anode (para. [0016]), where the mixture is in the form of a slurry comprising a solvent, a binder, and a conductive material (para. [0028]-[0030]). Furthermore, the silicon particles of the slurry may have a diameter or largest dimension of the particle of less than about 10 µm (para. [0037]), anticipating the claimed particle range of Dmin of 6 µm or less and Dmax of 7 µm or more and 15 µm or less.
Regarding claim 2, the median diameter, or equivalently D50, of the silicon particles may be between 5 µm and 20 µm (para. 0040]) anticipating the claimed range of 5 µm or more and 20 µm or less. MPEP § 2131.03 I.
Regarding claim 3, the anode mixture comprises silicon particles which may be substantially pure silicon (para. [0042]) and hence anticipates the claimed range species SiOx where x=0.
Regarding claim 4, the negative electrode slurry comprises an amount of silicon, or SiOx where x=0, in the composite material comprising 70% by weight or more (para. [0038]), anticipating the claimed range of 70 parts by weight or more based on 100 parts by weight of the composite silicon-containing active material. MPEP § 2131.03 I.
Regarding claim 5, the silicon-containing active material may be at least 60% by weight of the anode mixture (para. [0038]), anticipating the claimed range of 60 parts by weight or more based on 100 parts by weight of the anode active layer mixture. MPEP § 2131.03 I.
Regarding claim 7, the anode mixture may include graphite, a planar conductive material, in addition to carbon nanofibers, a linear conductive material (para. [0029]).
Regarding claim 11, Park discloses that the present anode can be used in a lithium ion secondary battery including a current collector wherein the anode material is pyrolyzed, and hence dried, after being adhered, or coated, to a side of the current collector (para. [0020]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. 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.
15. 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.
16. Claims 8 and 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoo et al. (US PG Pub 2015/0072240 A1) in view of Fukasawa et al. (US PG Pub 2016/0372753 A1).
Yoo is relied upon as described above.
Regarding claim 8, Yoo discloses that the binder may use water as a solvent (para. [0090]) and hence the negative electrode active material slurry comprises a water-based binder material.
However, Yoo fails to teach the amount of binder used in the anode mixture.
Fukasawa teaches a binder comprising 3 mass% to 20 mass% of the negative electrode active material composition (para. [0062]), anticipating the claimed range of 5 parts by weight or more and 15 parts by weight or less based on 100 parts by weight of the anode mixture.
Furthermore, Fukasawa teaches that the binder amount disclosed contributes to large current discharge characteristics and cycle lifetime.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the amount of binder taught by Fukasawa in the anode mixture of Yoo to improve battery discharge characteristics and cycle lifetime.
Regarding claim 12, Yoo discloses that the thickness of the slurry coated onto the current collector is 30 µm thick (para. [0118]) which anticipates the claimed range of 1 µm or more and 100 µm or less for the negative electrode active material layer. MPEP § 2131.03 I.
However, Yoo fails to teach the thickness of the current collector.
Fukasawa teaches that the thickness of a current collector for a negative electrode mixture may be 5 µm or more and 20 µm or less (para. [0063]), which falls within the claimed range of 1 µm or more and 100 µm or less. Hence, the electrode thickness which includes the current collector and the anode must be within the claimed range of 2 µm or more or 100 µm if the anode layer is less than 85 µm thick.
Furthermore, Fukusawa teaches that the current collector thickness disclosed balances between electrode strength and weight reduction (para. [0063]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a current collector within the thickness range taught by Fukasawa for the polymer coating, or anode mixture, of Yoo to balance between strength while minimizing electrode weight to optimize battery durability and performance.
17. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US PG Pug 2018/0287129 A1).
Park is relied upon as described above.
Park discloses that the conductive particles may be included in the anode mixture in an amount of 0% to 80% by weight (para. [0050]), overlapping the claimed range of 5 parts by weight or more and 40 parts by weight or less based on 100 parts by weight of the anode layer composition. Because the claimed range overlaps or lies inside the range disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP § 2144.05.
18. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US PG Pug 2018/0287129 A1) in view of Fukasawa et al. (US PG Pub 2016/0372753 A1).
Park is relied upon as described above.
Park discloses a polymer coating may be coated onto a current collector as the precursor mixture for an electrode, the coating having a thickness of about 5 µm (para. [0024]) and hence anticipating the claimed thickness range of 1 µm or more and 50 µm or less for the negative electrode active material layer. MPEP § 2131.03 I.
However, Park fails to teach the thickness of the current collector.
Fukasawa teaches that the thickness of a current collector for a negative electrode mixture may be 5 µm or more and 20 µm or less (para. [0063]), which falls within the claimed range of 1 µm or more and 100 µm or less. Hence, the electrode thickness which includes the current collector and the anode must be within the claimed range of 2 µm or more or 100 µm if the anode layer is less than 85 µm thick.
Furthermore, Fukusawa teaches that the current collector thickness disclosed balances between electrode strength and weight reduction (para. [0063]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a current collector within the thickness range taught by Fukasawa for the polymer coating, or anode mixture, of Park to balance between strength while minimizing electrode weight to optimize battery durability and performance.
Conclusion
19. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN ANDREW JON MCMULLEN whose telephone number is (571)270-0127. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Alicia Chevalier can be reached at (571) 272-1490. 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.
/N.A.M./
Nathan A McMullen
Examiner, Art Unit 1788
10/07/2026
/Alicia Chevalier/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1788
