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 .
The Applicant’s amendment filed on 6/26/2026 was received. Claims 1, 6-9 were amended. Claims 2-5, 10 were cancelled. Claims 12-14 were newly added.
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 4/1/2026.
Claim Objections
The claim objection on claim 9 is withdrawn because Applicant amended claim 9.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
Claims 1, 9-11 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (CN 113764618 A). The rejections are restated below to address the amendment.
Regarding to claims 1: Li et al. disclose a negative electrode sheet for lithium-ion batteries (par. 1). The lithium-ion battery comprising a negative electrode sheet (equivalent to a negative electrode active material layer) comprising a negative electrode active material (par. 11), wherein
the negative electrode active material includes a first active material, a second active material, a third active material (par. 115, 120, Examples 11, 12 in table 1).
The first active material (equivalent to second graphite particles) includes artificial graphite component 1 and natural graphite component 2, the second active material (equivalent to first graphite particles) is natural graphite, and the third active material (equivalent to Si-containing particles) is a silicon oxide compound (par. 115, Example 11 in table 1). The first materials have elastic moduli of 0.45 Gpa for the artificial graphite component 1 and 0.36 Gpa for the and natural graphite component 2 (Example 11 in table 1). The second materials have elastic modulus of 0.35 Gpa (Example 11 in table 1). Li et al. do not specify the elastic modulus is the tensile elastic modulus or the compressive elastic modulus. However, Li et al. teach that as the active materials, e.g. silicon oxide compound, expand during charging, the low elastic modulus materials can absorb the stress generated by the active materials and the high elastic modulus materials can prevent the electrode sheet from deformation (par. 51). Therefore, it could follow that the elastic modulus used by Li et al. is the compressive elastic modulus as the expansion of the active material compresses the low and high elastic modulus materials.
The volume percentage of the artificial graphite components 1, the natural graphite components 2, the second, and third active materials is 64: 9: 21: 6 in Example 11 (table 1).
The mass percentage of the first, second, and third active materials with respect to a total amount of the negative electrode active material can be calculated based on volume percentage and density. The densities of artificial graphite and natural graphite are 2.21 g/cm3 and 2.23 g/cm3, respectively, as evidenced by Uhm et al (US 20160133922 A1) in par. 55 and 59. The density of silicon oxide is 2.65 g/cm3 as evidenced by Sheludko et al. (US 11795055 B1) in col. 36, lines 23.
Examiner calculates the mass percentage of the first, second, third materials as below:
The mass percentage of the first materials =
(
64
x
2.21
)
+
(
9
x
2.23
)
64
x
2.21
+
(
9
x
2.23
)
+
21
x
2.23
+
(
6
x
2.65
)
x
100
%
=
72
%
The mass percentage of the second materials =
(
21
x
2.23
)
64
x
2.21
+
(
9
x
2.23
)
+
21
x
2.23
+
(
6
x
2.65
)
x
100
%
=
20.9
%
The mass percentage of the third materials =
(
6
x
2.65
)
64
x
2.21
+
(
9
x
2.23
)
+
21
x
2.23
+
(
6
x
2.65
)
x
100
%
=
7.1
%
The ratio of the particle size D50 of the first, second, and third active materials is 1:0.6:0.3 (par. 115) (equivalent to an average particle size D50 of the first graphite particles is 0.6 times of an average particle size D50 of the second graphite particles; and an average particle size D50 of the Si-containing particles is 0.3 times of the average particle size D50 of the second graphite particles).
Li et al. are silent on a contact length Lt1 between a first graphite particle of the first graphite particles and a Si-containing particle of the Si-containing particles is more than a contact length Lt2 between a second graphite particle of the second graphite particles and the Si-containing particle. However, it is the position of the examiner that the contact lengths of Lt1 and Lt2 are inherent, given that the first, second, and the third active materials disclosed by Li et al. and the present application having similar mass percentage and ratio of the particle size D50. A reference which is silent about a claimed invention’s features is inherently anticipatory if the missing feature is necessarily present in that which is described in the reference. Inherency is not established by probabilities or possibilities. In re Robertson, 49 USPQ2d 1949 (1999).
Alternatively, Li et al. recognize that as the active material, e.g. silicon oxide compound, expands during charging, the low elastic modulus material (equivalent to the first graphite particle) can absorb the stress generated by the active material (equivalent to the Si-containing particles) through its own deformation, reducing the overall charging expansion rate of the lithium-ion battery negative electrode sheet (par. 51). Therefore, better contact between the low elastic modulus materials and the active materials can result in better stress absorption. As the charging expansion rate of the negative electrode sheet is a variable that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the contact length between the low elastic modulus materials and the active materials, with the charging expansion rate of the negative electrode sheet decreasing as the contact length between the low elastic modulus materials and the active materials is increased, the relative contact lengths between the respective low and high elastic modulus materials and the active materials would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed relative contact lengths cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the relative contact lengths Lt1 and Lt2 to minimize the charging expansion rate of the negative electrode sheet. Discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art. In re Boesch, CCPA 1980, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ215.
Regarding to claim 9: Li et al. disclose a method to prepared the lithium-ion batteries. The method comprising:
preparing a slurry including a mixture of the artificial graphite component 1, the natural graphite component 2, the second active material natural graphite, the third active material silicon oxide compound, conductive graphite, and polytetrafluoroethylene (equivalent to a binder) (par. 39); and
coating the slurry on both sides of the copper foil sheet, drying, and rolling to obtain the lithium-ion battery negative electrode sheet (Example 11, par. 118) (as the mixture is in the form of slurry and is dried after coating on the copper foil, there must be a dispersion medium used in the slurry) (as the mixture already includes all ingredients, obtaining the mixture is equivalent to the combination of obtaining a first kneaded body and a second kneaded body).
Selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results (see MPEP § 2144.04 C). It is also noted that claim 9 is a product-by-process claim. “Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F. 2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Regarding to claim 11: Li et al. disclose a method to prepared the lithium-ion batteries. The method comprising:
preparing a slurry including a mixture of the artificial graphite component 1, the natural graphite component 2, the second active material natural graphite, the third active material silicon oxide compound, conductive graphite, and polytetrafluoroethylene (equivalent to a binder) (par. 39); and
coating the slurry on both sides of the copper foil sheet (equivalent to a negative electrode current collector), drying, and rolling to obtain the lithium-ion battery negative electrode sheet (Example 11, par. 118) (as the mixture is in the form of slurry and is dried after coating on the copper foil, there must be a dispersion medium used in the slurry) (as the mixture already includes all ingredients, obtaining the mixture is equivalent to the combination of obtaining a first kneaded body and a second kneaded body).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 6, 7 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (CN 113764618 A).
Regarding to claim 6: Li et al. disclose the particle size ratio (D50) of the first active material (equivalent to second graphite particles), the second active material (equivalent to first graphite particles), and the third active material (equivalent to Si-containing particles) in the ternary negative electrode active material is 1:(0.4～0.7):(0.2～0.4) (par. 18) (equivalent to the average particle size D50 of the first graphite particles is 0.4 times or more and 0.7 times or less of the average particle size D50 of the second graphite particles). 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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Regarding to claim 7: Li et al. disclose the particle size ratio (D50) of the first active material (equivalent to second graphite particles), the second active material (equivalent to first graphite particles), and the third active material (equivalent to Si-containing particles) in the ternary negative electrode active material is 1:(0.4～0.7):(0.2～0.4) (par. 18) (equivalent to the average particle size D50 of the Si-containing particles is 0.2 times or more and 0.4 times or less of the average particle size D50 of the second graphite particles). 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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Claim 8 remains rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (CN 113764618 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Put et al. (US 20180083275 A1).
Regarding to claim 8: Li et al. disclose the negative electrode active material can include silicon-based materials (par. 30). The silicon-based material includes any one or a combination of at least two of elemental silicon, silicon oxide compounds, silicon-carbon composites, or silicon alloys (par. 32). Li et al. fail to explicitly disclose the Si-containing particles include SiC particles each including a carbon domain and a silicon domain having a size of 50 nm or less, and a content of oxygen in each of the SiC particles is 7 mass% or less. However, Put et al. disclose that a composite powder used in an anode of a lithium ion battery (abstract). The composite powder (equivalent to an negative electrode active material) used in the anode of the lithium ion battery comprises silicon carbide whereby the ordered domain size of the silicon carbide is at most 15 nm (equivalent to a carbon domain and a silicon domain having a size of 50 nm or less) (par. 16). The composite powder has an oxygen content which is 3 wt % or less (par. 21). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the SiC having the ordered domain size of 15 nm and the oxygen content of 3 wt % or less of Put et al. as the third active materials in Li et al. because Put et al. teach that the composite powder according to the invention has a better cycle performance (par. 18) and a low oxygen content is important to avoid too much lithium consumption during the first battery cycles (par. 21).
Claims 12, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (CN 113764618 A).
Regarding to claim 12: Li et al. disclose the particle size ratio (D50) of the first active material (equivalent to second graphite particles), the second active material (equivalent to first graphite particles), and the third active material (equivalent to Si-containing particles) in the ternary negative electrode active material is 1:(0.4～0.7):(0.2～0.4) (par. 18) (equivalent to the average particle size D50 of the first graphite particles is 0.4 times or more and 0.7 times or less of the average particle size D50 of the second graphite particles). 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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Regarding to claim 13: Li et al. disclose the particle size ratio (D50) of the first active material (equivalent to second graphite particles), the second active material (equivalent to first graphite particles), and the third active material (equivalent to Si-containing particles) in the ternary negative electrode active material is 1:(0.4～0.7):(0.2～0.4) (par. 18) (equivalent to the average particle size D50 of the Si-containing particles is 0.2 times or more and 0.4 times or less of the average particle size D50 of the second graphite particles). 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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (CN 113764618 A) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Put et al. (US 20180083275 A1).
Regarding to claim 14: Li et al. disclose the negative electrode active material can include silicon-based materials (par. 30). The silicon-based material includes any one or a combination of at least two of elemental silicon, silicon oxide compounds, silicon-carbon composites, or silicon alloys (par. 32). Li et al. fail to explicitly disclose the Si-containing particles include SiC particles each including a carbon domain and a silicon domain having a size of 50 nm or less, and a content of oxygen in each of the SiC particles is 7 mass% or less. However, Put et al. disclose that a composite powder used in an anode of a lithium ion battery (abstract). The composite powder (equivalent to an negative electrode active material) used in the anode of the lithium ion battery comprises silicon carbide whereby the ordered domain size of the silicon carbide is at most 15 nm (equivalent to a carbon domain and a silicon domain having a size of 50 nm or less) (par. 16). The composite powder has an oxygen content which is 3 wt % or less (par. 21). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the SiC having the ordered domain size of 15 nm and the oxygen content of 3 wt % or less of Put et al. as the third active materials in Li et al. because Put et al. teach that the composite powder according to the invention has a better cycle performance (par. 18) and a low oxygen content is important to avoid too much lithium consumption during the first battery cycles (par. 21).
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s arguments filed on 06/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant primarily argues:
Li fails to disclose that the first graphite particles, the Si-containing particles, and the second graphite particles are mixed and kneaded in the specific order to achieve the feature of Lt1 > Lt2
Li is entirely silent on how the contact length affects the system.
In response:
Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive because: (1) the instant claim 1 does not recite the specific order of mixing; (2) all ingredients are eventually mixed in the slurry before applying the slurry to the current collector in both the instant application and Li reference. The contact length is related to the mass percentage and the particle size D50 ratio. Therefore, it is the position of the examiner that the contact lengths of Lt1 and Lt2 are inherent.
Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. As described in paragraph 3 above, the overall charging expansion rate is reduced when the low elastic modulus material (equivalent to the first graphite particle) absorbs the stress generated by the active material (equivalent to the Si-containing particles). One of ordinary skill in the art would make the low elastic modulus material contact the active material in order to absorb the stress effectively. Thus, Lt1 and Lt2 cannot be considered critical.
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 PIN JAN WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-7057. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached on 571-272-1295. 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.
/PIN JAN WANG/Examiner, Art Unit 1717
/Dah-Wei D. Yuan/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights