DETAILED ACTION
The response filed February 20, 2026 has been entered. Claim 8 has been added. Claims 1-8 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 4, and 5 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claims 2, 4, and 5, the examiner suggests using “relative to 100 parts by mass of the negative electrode active material” instead of the current claim language.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The previous 112 rejection has been withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsujiko et al. (“Tsujiko”, US 2019/0115585 A1) in view of Fukumoto et al. (“Fukumoto”, US 2021/0193991 A1), Choi et al. (“Choi”, US 2021/0075016 A1), Torita et al. (“Torita”, US 2018/0090763 A1), and Fukuda et al. (“Fukuda”, US 2019/0288289 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 7, and 8, Tsujiko discloses a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery with a positive electrode terminal and a negative electrode terminal ([0027]). The negative electrode plate contains graphite and silicon oxide as a negative electrode active material ([0033]) and includes a current collector ([0034]). The negative electrode composite material layer may be formed on both the front surface and the back surface of the negative electrode current collector ([0037]). Tsujiko teaches a binder bonds the components of the negative electrode composite material layer to each other ([0063]).
Further regarding claim 1, Tsujiko does not teach an average 10% yield strength of the graphite particle is equal to or less than 12 MPa.
However, Fukumoto discloses a negative electrode for a nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery (abstract) and teaches graphite P1 with a 10% proof stress of 5MPa or more and graphite P2 with a 10% proof stress of 3MPa or less ([0044]). 10% proof stress and 10% yield strength appear to be synonymous since Applicant’s specification and Fukumoto [0044] both reference using a micro-compression tester MCT-211 and the same methodology.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to use graphite particles with a 10% proof stress (yield strength) in the range taught by Fukumoto since Tsujiko does not specify the 10% yield strength, and Fukumoto teaches cycle characteristics of the battery can be improved (Fukumoto, [0008]).
The courts have held that 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).
Tsujiko does not teach a BET specific surface area of the graphite particle is equal to or more than 0.5 m2/g and not more than 3.5 m2/g.
However, Choi discloses a negative electrode active material for a lithium secondary battery (abstract) and teaches the negative electrode active material includes an artificial graphite particle ([0026]) which may have a (BET) specific surface area of 0.5 to 1.5 m2/g ([0033]), which overlaps the claimed range.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to modify Tsujiko with the graphite particle with the BET specific surface area taught by Choi in order to have excellent quick charging and an excellent cycle lifetime characteristic (Choi, [0033]), as taught by Choi.
Tsujiko teaches a spring constant of 700 kN/mm or more to 3000 kN/mm or less (abstract) which differs from the claimed spring constant in a thickness direction of the negative electrode is equal to or less than 200 and less than140 kN/mm.
Torita discloses a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery (title) and teaches a negative electrode may have a spring constant of about 90 to 150 kN/mm ([0076]), which overlaps the claimed range.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the spring constant of Tsujiko with the spring constant taught by Torita so that high-rate cycling characteristics are further improved.
Tsujiko does not teach a 90o peel strength between the current collector and the negative electrode active material layer is equal to or more than 1.5 N/m.
Fukuda discloses a battery with a negative electrode (abstract) and teaches the peel strength between the negative electrode active material layer and the negative electrode current collector may preferably be between 0.1 mN/mm and 80 mN/mm ([0068]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to use the range for peel strength taught by Fukuda in Tsujiko to prevent the risk of cycle characteristics being degraded (Fukuda, [0068]).
As to claim 2, Tsujiko teaches the binder may be 3.5 to 4 parts by mass relative to 100 parts by mass of the negative electrode active material ([0065]).
As to claim 3, Tsujiko teaches a combination of CMC, PAA, and SBR may be used as the binder ([0063]).
As to claims 4 and 5, Tsujiko teaches in Table 1, Example 1, an embodiment containing 1.5 parts CMC, 1 part PAA, and 1 part SBR, relative to 100 parts of the negative electrode active material (see Table 1), which meets the limitations of both claims 4 and 5.
As to claim 6, Tsujiko does not teach the yield loop height claimed.
However, Tsujiko as modified by Fukumoto, Choi, Oyama, and Fukuda, as discussed above, teach or render obvious the claimed negative electrode, nonaqueous secondary battery, current collector, negative electrode active material layer, binder, graphite particle and Si-containing particle, yield strength, BET specific surface area, spring constant, and 90o peel strength.
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). See MPEP 2112.01(I). When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not (MPEP 2111.01). This was considered for possible enablement concerns as the specific nature of the testing and correlation did not appear to be a common unit of measuring and correlating in the art and instead appeared to be a test defined by only the applicant. In that scenario, it was surmised that only through the execution of individual testing and undue experimentation would this property have revealed itself, but ultimately the examiner made the determination that these appear to be physical properties resulting from the claimed invention itself and thus the position was set forth above that the negative electrode of the prior art, which meets the claimed electrode, would likewise be expected to possess such properties. Should this point be rebutted, the examiner would request clarification as to what guidance would have guided an ordinary skilled artisan to make and use the invention outside the scope of the exactly disclosed embodiments, either in the disclosure or otherwise.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but are either moot in view of the new grounds of rejection or are not found persuasive.
Applicant cites MPEP 2143.01, which states that “if a proposed modification would render the prior art invention being modified unsatisfactory for its intended purpose, there may be no suggestion or motivation to make the proposed modification.” Oyama has been removed as a secondary reference since Oyama does not teach a spring constant below 140 kN/mm.
Torita has been applied as a new secondary reference (necessitated by amendment), and teaches spring constant overlapping the claimed range. Torita teaches the high-rate cycling characteristics are expected to be further improved, providing motivation to modify Tsujiko.
It is understood that Applicant takes the position the Tsujiko suggests unsatisfactory performance below a certain range. However, Torita’s range teaches improved high-rate cycling characteristics, which would motivate one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Tsujiko.
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 DANIEL H. LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-2548. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00.
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, Michael Orlando can be reached at 5712705038. 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.
DANIEL H. LEE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1746
/DANIEL H LEE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746