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 .
This is the initial Office action based on application number 18/297011 filed on 12/23/2025. Claims 1-11 are currently pending and have been considered below.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant amended claim 9 to be a dependent claim of the claim 1 on 12/23/2025. Therefore, the election requirement mailed on 11/12/2025 is withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding to claim 9: In line 1 “A method of producing the non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery according to claim 1”,
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
(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.
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.
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.
Claims 1-5, 9-11 are 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 English translation of the CN 113764618 A is attached.
Regarding to claims 1-5: 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 ratio of the particle size D50 of the first, second, and third active materials is 1:0.6:0.3 (par. 115). 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
%
Li et al. are silent on a contact length Lt1 between a first graphite particle and a Si-containing particle is equal to or more than a contact length Lt2 between a second graphite particle 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 rationally matching the particle size and the volume percentage of the negative electrode active materials can get the uniformity of the porosity (equivalent to the antonymy of the contact length Lt1 and Lt2) of the negative electrode sheet, thereby improving energy density and promoting battery performance (par. 51-54, fig. 2). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention can adjust the particle size and the volume percentage of the first, second, and third active materials to yield the desired relative contact length of Lt1 and Lt2 in 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 claims 9, 11: Li et al. disclose a method to prepared the lithium-ion batteries. The method comprising:
mixing artificial graphite component 1, natural graphite component 2, second active material natural graphite, third active material silicon oxide compound, conductive graphite and polytetrafluoroethylene into a slurry, 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).
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 10: Li et al. disclose polytetrafluoroethylene is a binder (par. 39).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 6, 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (CN 113764618 A).
Regarding to claims 6, 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). 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 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (CN 113764618 A) 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).
Conclusion
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