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 .
2. The Applicant's amendments filed on April 28, 2026, were received. Claims 1, 2 and 11 have been amended. None of the Claims have been cancelled, withdrawn from consideration, or added as new. Therefore, Claims 1-10 and 12-16 are pending in this office action.
3. 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 February 9, 2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. Information disclosure statement (IDS), submitted April 6, 2023, has been received and considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
5. The rejection of Claims 1-4 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nobuhiro et al. (JP 2013073924), has been overcome based on the amendments to the Claims and the arguments presented on pages 5-7 of the Remarks dated April 28, 2026.
6. The rejection of Claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nobuhiro et al. (JP 2013073924), as evidenced by Yang et al. (U.S. Pub. US 2019/0044183), has been overcome based on the amendments to the Claims and the arguments presented on pages 5-7 of the Remarks dated April 28, 2026.
7. Claims 1, 3, 4, 9 and 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Xu et al. (CN 112151777 A).
With regard to Claim 1, Xu et al. disclose an anode plate for a lithium-ion battery, wherein the anode plate comprises: i) a current collector; ii) an anode active material layer located on at least one surface of the current collector (paragraphs 0028, 0045-0046); and iii) a lithium-precipitation inhibiting layer located on the anode active material layer, wherein the lithium-precipitation inhibiting layer contains at least one of following lithium-precipitation inhibiting materials: LiMPO4 (paragraphs 0029, 0041).
With regard to Claim 3, Xu et al. disclose wherein the lithium-precipitation inhibiting layer contains no conductive material, since it is just lithium phosphate being stably deposited onto the negative active material (paragraph 0047).
With regard to Claim 4, Xu et al. disclose wherein the lithium-precipitation inhibiting layer contains no carbon-based conductive material, since it is just lithium phosphate being stably deposited onto the negative active material (paragraph 0047).
With regard to Claim 9, Xu et al. disclose a lithium-ion battery, which comprises a cathode plate, an electrolyte, and the anode plate noted above (paragraph 0004).
With regard to Claim 12, Xu et al. disclose a battery module, comprising the lithium-ion battery noted above (paragraph 0004).
With regard to Claim 13, Xu et al. disclose a battery pack, comprising the battery module noted above (paragraph 0004).
With regard to Claim 14, Xu et al. disclose a power consumption device, which comprises at least one of the lithium-ion battery noted above (paragraph 0004).
With regard to Claim 15, Xu et al. disclose a power consumption device, which comprises the battery module noted above (paragraph 0004).
With regard to Claim 16, Xu et al. disclose a power consumption device, which comprises the battery pack noted above (paragraph 0004).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. The rejection of Claims 5 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nobuhiro et al. (JP 2013073924), has been overcome based on the amendments to the Claims and the arguments presented on pages 5-7 of the Remarks dated April 28, 2026.
9. The rejection of Claims 6 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nobuhiro et al. (JP 2013073924), in view of Zhamu et al. (U.S. Pub. US 2018/0175433), has been overcome based on the amendments to the Claims and the arguments presented on pages 5-7 of the Remarks dated April 28, 2026.
10. The rejection of Claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nobuhiro et al. (JP 2013073924), in view of Son et al. (U.S. Pub. US 2016/0181603), has been overcome based on the amendments to the Claims and the arguments presented on pages 5-7 of the Remarks dated April 28, 2026.
11. The rejection of Claims 12-16 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nobuhiro et al. (JP 2013073924), in view of Kim et al. (U.S. Pub. US 2018/0040875), has been overcome based on the amendments to the Claims and the arguments presented on pages 5-7 of the Remarks dated April 28, 2026.
12. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al. (CN 112151777 A), as applied to Claims 1, 3, 4, 9 and 12-16 above, and in further view of Liu et al. (US 2021/0184209 A1).
With regard to Claim 2, Xu et al. disclose the anode plate in paragraph 7 above, including the lithium-precipitation inhibiting layer containing lithium phosphate, but do not specifically disclose wherein the lithium-precipitation inhibiting layer contains at least one of the following lithium-precipitation inhibiting materials: LiFePO4, LiCoPO4, LiNiPO4, and LiMnPO4.
Liu et al. disclose a lithium ion rechargeable battery having a positive electrode material and a coating layer (considered a lithium-precipitation inhibiting layer) on the electrode material (paragraph 0157). Liu et al. disclose wherein the coating layer is LiFePO4 (paragraph 0166). Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the anode plate of Xu et al. to include the lithium-precipitation inhibiting layer containing at least one of the following lithium-precipitation inhibiting materials: LiFePO4, LiCoPO4, LiNiPO4, and LiMnPO4, because Liu et al. teach that these materials reduce the reaction with the electrolyte, increase life cycle, and lead to better performance such as high-rate properties of the battery (paragraph 0167).
13. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al. (CN 112151777 A), as applied to Claims 1, 3, 4, 9 and 12-16 above, and in further view of Nobuhiro et al. (JP 2013073924).
With regard to Claim 5, Xu et al. disclose the anode plate in paragraph 7 above, but do not specifically disclose wherein the lithium-precipitation inhibiting layer comprises lithium-precipitation inhibiting material and one or more binders.
Nobuhiro et al. disclose in Figure 1, an anode plate (2) for a lithium-ion battery, wherein the anode plate comprises: i) a current collector (10); ii) an anode active material layer (11) located on at least one surface of the current collector (top of 10); and iii) a lithium-precipitation inhibiting layer (12) (see Pg2:L29-34) located on the anode active material layer (11), wherein the lithium-precipitation inhibiting layer (12) contains at least one of following lithium-precipitation inhibiting materials: LiMPO4, and LTO (20) (see Pg1:L36-38, Pg4:L36-38). Nobuhiro teaches the lithium-precipitation inhibiting layer comprises one or more binders (Pg3:L21-24). Before the effective filing date of the invention It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the lithium-precipitation inhibiting layer of the embodiment of Fig. 3 of Nobuhiro to comprise a binder because Nobuhiro teaches such is an effective equivalent that would yield the same predictable result. Further, it has been held that combining two embodiments disclosed adjacent to each other in a prior art patent does not require a leap of inventiveness and involves only routine skill in the art.
14. Claims 6, 7, 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al. (CN 112151777 A), as applied to Claims 1, 3, 4, 9 and 12-16 above.
With regard to Claim 6, Xu et al. disclose the anode plate in paragraph 7 above, including wherein the lithium-precipitation inhibiting layer has a thickness of 1-100 nm (paragraph 0009), which meets the claimed limitation of 1.8-20 microns, but do not specifically disclose wherein the anode active material layer has a thickness of 30-340 microns, and the thickness of the lithium-precipitation inhibiting layer is 0.018-0.2 times that of the anode active material layer. Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to manufacture the anode active material layer to have a thickness of 30-340 microns, and the thickness of the lithium-precipitation inhibiting layer to be 0.018-0.2 times that of the anode active material layer, since such a modification would only involve a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04(IV).
With regard to Claim 7, Xu et al. disclose the anode plate in paragraph 7 above, including wherein the lithium-precipitation inhibiting layer has a thickness of 1-100 nm (paragraph 0009), which meets the claimed limitation of 2.3-15 microns, but do not specifically disclose wherein the anode active material layer has a thickness of 55-260 microns, and the thickness of the lithium-precipitation inhibiting layer is 0.023-0.11 times that of the anode active material layer. Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to manufacture the anode active material layer to have a thickness of 55-260 microns, and the thickness of the lithium-precipitation inhibiting layer to be 0.023-0.11 times that of the anode active material layer, since such a modification would only involve a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04(IV).
With regard to Claim 8, Xu et al. disclose the anode plate in paragraph 7 above, but do not specifically disclose wherein a potential difference between the lithium-precipitation inhibiting layer and the anode active material layer is 1-4 volts. Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to manufacture the anode plate to have a potential difference between the lithium-precipitation inhibiting layer and the anode active material layer at 1-4 volts, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05.
With regard to Claim 10, Xu et al. disclose the anode plate in paragraph 7 above, but do not specifically disclose wherein a capacity ratio of the anode plate and the cathode plate is 1.07 to 1.01. Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to manufacture the anode plate to have a capacity ratio of the anode plate and the cathode plate at 1.07 to 1.01, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05.
Response to Arguments
15. Applicant’s arguments, see pages 5-7, filed April 28, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of Claims 1-4 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nobuhiro et al. (JP 2013073924), have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Xu et al. (CN 112151777 A).
Conclusion
16. 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.
17. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KARIE O APICELLA whose telephone number is (571)272-8614. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday; 8:00AM to 5:00PM EST.
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, Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at 571-270-3879. 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.
/KARIE O'NEILL APICELLA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights