DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on June 9, 2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1 and 9 are amended. Claims 1-20 are pending and being examined on the merits in this office action.
Remarks
Applicant’s amendments and arguments have been entered. A reply to the Applicant’s remarks/arguments is presented after addressing the claims.
Any rejections and/or objections made in the previous Office Action and not repeated below, are hereby withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments or/and arguments.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. References cited in the current Office action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “type” in claims 1 and 9 render the claims indefinite because the claims include elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by “type”), thereby rendering the scope of the claims unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(b) III.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu et al. (CN 111710832 A, whose English machine translation is being employed for citation purposes, hereafter Zhu), or in the alternative, further in view of Li et al. (US 20200152964 A1, hereafter Li).
Regarding claims 1 and 4, Zhu teaches an electrode plate (e.g., “negative electrode sheet”, [0059]-[0061], Fig. 2), comprising a current collector (“2”, Fig. 2) and a membrane (“porous composite layer” plus “silicon-containing anode material layer”, [0012]-[0013]),
wherein the membrane comprises a primer layer (“porous composite layer”, [[0012]) provided on a surface of the current collector ([0014]; Fig. 2) and an active substance layer (“silicon-containing anode material layer”, [0013]) provided on a surface of the primer layer ([0014]; Fig. 2), wherein an active substance in the active substance layer consists essentially of graphite-type material (e.g., “natural graphite”, [0030]) or silicon-based material (e.g., “silicon-containing composite materials”, [0030]), and wherein the primer layer comprises a first binder (“adhesive polymer material”, [0016]) and a first conductive agent (“inorganic conductive material”, [0016]); wherein
the binder includes one of a carboxyl group or a carbon-carbon double bond (e.g., “styrene-butadiene rubber”, [0020]) that provides an adhesion between the membrane and the current collector. Since Zhu teaches substantially the same composition of the membrane and structure of the electrode plate as claimed, the adhesion between the membrane and the current collector that is greater than or equal to 130 N/m is reasonably expected (although Zhu does not appear to expressly disclose the claimed range of adhesion). Note that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). Regarding product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (MPEP § 2112.01).
As to the claimed property or characteristic that “a compacted density of the membrane is 1.30 g/cm3 - 1.80 g/cm3”, Zhu discloses that both the thickness (“a”) of the silicon-containing anode material layer (i.e., the active substance layer as claimed) and the thickness (“b”) of the porous composite layer (i.e., the primer layer as claimed) can be adjusted following 3 ≤a/b ≤ 500 ([0026]). Accordingly, the volume of each of the two layers of the electrode plate is adjustable. Further, for a fixed composition of each of the two layers, the density of each of the two layers is a constant. The densities of the two layers are different because of different compositions. Thus, by adjusting the thickness ratio of a/b, one of ordinary skill in the art would have readily adjusted the compacted density of the entire membrane (i.e., the combination of the said two layers) to arrive at the claimed range through routine experimentation (MPEP § 2144.05 II-A).
As an alternative rejection regarding the limitation of compact density, Li discloses that a compact density of a membrane (a negative electrode active material layer) disposed on a current collector is from 1.5 g/cm3 to 1.75 g/cm3 ([0026]). When using the compact density of 1.5 g/cm3 to 1.75 g/cm3, the diffusion rate of manganese ions in the negative active material layer is low, thereby further reducing the ion exchange between the manganese ions and the lithium in the negative electrode, and suppressing the destruction of the negative electrode caused by manganese, improving the stability of the negative electrode ([0026]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to have incorporated the teachings of Li into Zhu such that the compact density of the membrane of Zhou is 1.5 g/cm3 to 1.75 g/cm3 in order to achieve the above stated benefits/advantages. As a result, the claimed range of 1.30 g/cm3 - 1.80 g/cm3 overlaps that of 1.5 g/cm3 to 1.75 g/cm3. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP § 2144.05 (I).
Regarding claims 2-3, Zhu in view of Li teaches the electrode plate according to claim 1, wherein a thickness of the primer layer can be, for example, 0.5 µm ([0017]).
Regarding claim 5, Zhu in view of Li teaches the electrode plate according to claim 1, wherein the first binder may comprise, for example, styrene-butadiene rubber ([0020]).
Regarding claims 6-7, Zhu in view of Li teaches the electrode plate according to claim 1, wherein an average particle size (D) of the first conductive agent may be, for example, 0.5 µm ([0019]), and a thickness (H) of the primer layer may be, for example, 0.5 µm ([0017]). Thus, the ratio of D to H is 1, reading on the claimed ranges in claims 6-7.
Regarding claim 8, Zhu in view of Li teaches the electrode plate according to claim 1, wherein the active substance layer comprises a second binder (“a binder” in [0027]) and an active substance, which may be a silicon-based material (e.g., “silicon-containing anode material”, [0012]-[0013], [0027]-[0028]), such as a “silicon-carbon composite materials” ([0028]).
Regarding claims 9 and 12, Zhu teaches an electrochemical apparatus (“a lithium-ion secondary battery”, [0048]-[0049]) comprising:
a positive electrode plate, a negative electrode plate, and a separator disposed between the positive electrode plate and the negative electrode plate (See [0049]),
wherein the negative electrode plate (e.g., “negative electrode sheet”, [0059]-[0061], Fig. 2) comprising a current collector (“2”, Fig. 2) and a membrane (“porous composite layer” plus “silicon-containing anode material layer”, [0012]-[0013]),
wherein the membrane comprises a primer layer (“porous composite layer”, [[0012]) provided on a surface of the current collector ([0014]; Fig. 2) and an active substance layer (“silicon-containing anode material layer”, [0013]) provided on a surface of the primer layer ([0014]; Fig. 2), wherein an active substance in the active substance layer consists essentially of graphite-type material (e.g., “natural graphite”, [0030]) or silicon-based material (e.g., “silicon-containing composite materials”, [0030]), and wherein the primer layer comprises a first binder (“adhesive polymer material”, [0016]) and a first conductive agent (“inorganic conductive material”, [0016]); wherein
the binder includes one of a carboxyl group or a carbon-carbon double bond (e.g., “styrene-butadiene rubber”, [0020]) that provides an adhesion between the membrane and the current collector. Since Zhu teaches substantially the same composition of the membrane and structure of the electrode plate as claimed, the adhesion between the membrane and the current collector that is greater than or equal to 130 N/m is reasonably expected (although Zhu does not appear to expressly disclose the claimed range of adhesion). Note that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). Regarding product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (MPEP § 2112.01).
As to the claimed property or characteristic that “a compacted density of the membrane is 1.30 g/cm3 - 1.80 g/cm3”, Zhu discloses that both the thickness (“a”) of the silicon-containing anode material layer (i.e., the active substance layer as claimed) and the thickness (“b”) of the porous composite layer (i.e., the primer layer as claimed) can be adjusted following 3 ≤a/b ≤ 500 ([0026]). Accordingly, the volume of each of the two layers of the electrode plate is adjustable. Further, for a fixed composition of each of the two layers, the density of each of the two layers is a constant. The densities of the two layers are different because of different compositions. Thus, by adjusting the thickness ratio of a/b, one of ordinary skill in the art would have readily adjusted the compacted density of the entire membrane (i.e., the combination of the said two layers) to arrive at the claimed range through routine experimentation (MPEP § 2144.05 II-A).
As an alternative rejection regarding the limitation of compact density, Li discloses that a compact density of a membrane (a negative electrode active material layer) disposed on a current collector is from 1.5 g/cm3 to 1.75 g/cm3 ([0026]). When using the compact density of 1.5 g/cm3 to 1.75 g/cm3, the diffusion rate of manganese ions in the negative active material layer is low, thereby further reducing the ion exchange between the manganese ions and the lithium in the negative electrode, and suppressing the destruction of the negative electrode caused by manganese, improving the stability of the negative electrode ([0026]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to have incorporated the teachings of Li into Zhu such that the compact density of the membrane of Zhou is 1.5 g/cm3 to 1.75 g/cm3 in order to achieve the above stated benefits/advantages. As a result, the claimed range of 1.30 g/cm3 - 1.80 g/cm3 overlaps that of 1.5 g/cm3 to 1.75 g/cm3. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP § 2144.05 (I).
Regarding claims 10-11, Zhu in view of Li teaches the electrochemical apparatus according to claim 9, wherein a thickness of the primer layer can be, for example, 0.5 µm ([0017]).
Regarding claim 13, Zhu in view of Li teaches the electrochemical apparatus according to claim 9, wherein the first binder may comprise, for example, styrene-butadiene rubber ([0020]).
Regarding claims 14-15, Zhu in view of Li teaches the electrochemical apparatus according to claim 9, wherein an average particle size (D) of the first conductive agent may be, for example, 0.5 µm ([0019]), and a thickness (H) of the primer layer may be, for example, 0.5 µm ([0017]). Thus, the ratio of D to H is 1, reading on the claimed ranges in claims 14-15.
Regarding claim 16, Zhu in view of Li teaches the electrochemical apparatus according to claim 9, wherein the active substance layer comprises a second binder (“a binder” in [0027]) and an active substance, which may be a silicon-based material (e.g., “silicon-containing anode material”, [0012]-[0013], [0027]-[0028]), such as a “silicon-carbon composite materials” ([0028]).
Regarding claim 20, Zhu in view of Li teaches an electronic device (e.g., “electric vehicles”, [0004]) comprising the electrochemical apparatus according to claim 9.
Claims 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu in view of Li, as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (US 20160359196 A1, hereafter Kim).
Regarding claims 17-18, Zhu in view of Li teaches the electrochemical apparatus according to claim 9, and the electrochemical apparatus comprises an electrolyte ([0052]) but is silent to an S=O double bond-containing compound as claimed.
However, Kim discloses an electrolyte comprising an S=O double bond-containing compound represented by the following formula ([0017]-[0020]):
PNG
media_image1.png
111
222
media_image1.png
Greyscale
A lithium secondary battery employing the above electrolyte has excellent high-temperature storage characteristics, excellent low-temperature discharge characteristics, high-rate charge and discharge characteristics, life cycle characteristics, etc. ([0012]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have included an S=O double bond-containing compound taught by Kim in the electrolyte of Zhu, in order to achieve advantages stated above. Furthermore, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See MPEP § 2144.07.
As a result, the formula shown above reads on claims 17-18.
Regarding claim 19, Zhu in view of Li teaches the electrochemical apparatus according to claim 18, and further teaches the mass percentage of the S=O double bond-containing compound in the electrolyte is adjustable ([0034]). Thus, the ratio of the said mass percentage to the porosity is also adjustable for a given porosity of the membrane. One of ordinary skill in the art would have readily adjusted the said mass percentage through routine experimentation to arrive at a desired ratio including the range as claimed. Absent persuasive evidence showing that the ratio is significant, selecting a ratio involves a merely ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's lengthy arguments filed Jun. 9, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's arguments are based on the claims as amended. The amended claims have been addressed in the new rejections above.
In addition:
1) In response to the arguments with respect to the claimed limitation about compacted density of the membrane, the current office action has been modified to address the limitation (See the rejections above in claims 1 and 9). In addition, the burden is on the applicant to establish that the results are in fact unexpected, unobvious, and of statistical and practical significance. Applicant does not provide convincing data to demonstrate the criticality of the range as claimed. Note that to establish unexpected results over a claimed range, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range. In re Hill, 284 F.2d 955, 128 USPQ 197 (CCPA 1960). The unexpected property or result must actually be unexpected and of statistical and practical significance. The "objective evidence of nonobviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support." In other words, the showing of unexpected results must be reviewed to see if the results occur over the entire claimed range. In re Clemens, 622 F.2d 1029, 1036, 206 USPQ 289, 296 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP 716.02(d).
The data in Table 2 does not meet all the above requirements, at least because there is a lack of data points outside of the lower end of the range and there is not sufficient number of data points outside of the upper end of the range.
2) The argument with respect to the claimed limitation about the ratio y/V is not persuasive. The above reasons in 1) are similarly applied. Moreover, claim 19 reciting the y/V limitation is not allowable, at least because claim 9 upon which claim 19 depends is not allowable.
3) The arguments presented on pages 15-16 are moot because the ground upon which the arguments are based is no longer available in this office action. Note, however, that this does not necessarily mean the ground said above is improper.
4) In response to applicant's arguments (pages 16-18) that “Li contemplates this being a property of a homogeneous negative active material layer rather than of any multi-layer membrane”, etc., the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Also, it is iterated again that 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).
5) In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning (top of page 19), it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
6) In response to the argument with respect to “result-effective variable” (page 19), it should be noted that after KSR, the presence of a known result-effective variable would be one, but not the only, motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). See MPEP 2144.05 III-C. Furthermore, in this office action, no rationale based on “result-effective variable” is applied in the rejections.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZHONGQING WEI whose telephone number is (571)272-4809. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:30 - 6:00.
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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at (571)272-1330. 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.
/ZHONGQING WEI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1727
