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 .
Status of Application
Claims 1-15 are pending with claims 1-6 and 11-15 withdrawn. Claims 7-10 are presented for examination.
Response to Arguments
1. Applicant’s arguments regarding claim 7 filed on 6/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues against that the pillared silicon particles of Abdelsalam would create an interface region in which the presence of silicon-based material particles disrupts in-plane alignment of graphite particles; and further argues that the claimed limitation is directed to a specific relationship between two populations of particles while Abdelsalam discusses particle morphology but not the effect of that morphology on graphite orientation.
The Examiner respectfully submits that it is well-known in the art, that the in-plane alignment of graphite particles would be changed or disrupted by the different electrode active material morphologies, such as void spaces, particle inhomogeneous distribution, and silicon particle weight percentage etc. (Abstract and FIGs 2, 4, and 7), as evidenced by Jeschull (J. Electrochem. Soc., 2020, 167 100535).
Examiner further notes that the instant claim language or disclosure does not specify or require to what extent the graphite particles in-plane alignment is disrupted by the presence of the silicon-based material. Therefore, under a broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), as long as the presence of silicon-based particles with various void spaces or particle inhomogeneous distribution and weight percentage variation result in any degree of misarrangement and/or disruption of the in-plane alignment of the graphite particles in the interfacial region as forgoing evidenced by Jeschull, would be considered reading on the claim.
Abdelsalam at least renders obvious two adjacent anode sublayers 203a and 203b having variations in the sublayers (203a and 203b) composition in the following aspects: 1) silicon weight percentage (80-99.5 weight% vs. less than 15%); 2) silicon particles porous vs. non-porous; 3) silicon particle shapes regular vs. irregular (pillar or waffle, flake like etc.); 4) silicon-composite vs. non-composite silicon particles; 5) silicon-composite pillar grown on regular or irregular silicon core particles vs. on graphene or other carbon based core particles etc. ([0172] [0179] [0195-0197] [0204] [0206] Table 2 and FIG. 3), as detailed in the claim 7 rejection. It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to select any or a combination of above 5 variations in construction of the sublayers (203a and 203b), and would reasonably envisage the interface region formed by the two adjacent anode sublayers 203a and 203b to have differences in void spaces, particle inhomogeneous distributions, and silicon particle weight percentages, caused by the uneven presence of the silicon-based particles in the two adjacent anode sublayers 203a and 203b. Therefore, the in-plane alignment of the graphite particles would necessarily and inherently be different in the interface region due to the disruption caused by the uneven void space, particle inhomogeneous distribution and various weight percentage presence of the silicon-based particles, especially in view that: 1) the preparation methods of the first anode layer 203a and the second anode layer 203b of Abdelsalam ([0238-0239]) teaches the layers are dissimilar to each other and were formed in substantially the same way as that disclosed in the instant disclosure para [0019]; and 2) the interface would necessarily be present with inhomogeneous distribution of silicon-based particles to disrupt the in-plane alignment of the graphite particles, which is supported by the statement in the instant disclosure para [0016], quote “the disruption of the in-plane alignment of graphite particles is achieved by the presence of silicon-based material particles at the interface region between the graphite-rich layer and the silicon-rich layer.
Moreover, there is no available evidence to support Applicant’s argument in light of the instant disclosure para [0026] providing the average alignment of graphite particles being decreased due to the relatively higher silicon X particles presence in the sublayer. Apparently, Abdelsalam has included a same relatively higher weight percentage (80-99.5 weight%) of silicon particle in one of the sublayers 203a and 203b detailed in the claim 7 rejection.
Thus, this argument is not found persuasive. The previous 103 rejection over Abdelsalam is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
2. 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.
3. The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
4. 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.
5. Claims 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abdelsalam(US 20150280221 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Abdelsalam discloses an electrode (anode, [0103] and FIG. 2a) comprising: a metal current collector (current collector layer 201, [0103] and FIG. 2a) and a multi-layered active material coated thereon (anode layer 203a and 203b, [0103] and FIG. 2a), and each of composite anode layers 203a and 203b contains at least a binder and particles of one or more electroactive materials ([0104]); the first and second active materials may be selected from graphite-containing and silicon-containing active materials ([0109]); and both of the composite anode layers 203a and 203b appear to be a discrete layer (FIG. 2a).
Abdelsalam discloses a layer or sub-layer comprising up to 80 wt% of an electroactive component comprising 10 wt% of silicon and 90 wt% of graphite may comprise a binder comprising 10 wt% NaPAA and 90 wt% of PVDF by mixing each component with a solution of its compatible binder to form a slurry and then mixing the two slurries for form a slurry comprising a mixture of both the active materials and the binders ([0222]), which anticipates the claimed “a discrete layer of graphite particles suspended in a crosslinked binder”; and “the layer of graphite particles being at least 85 wt% graphite”, in light of graphite particle being the major active component suspended in a crosslinked binder NaPAA in this layer.
Specifically, Abdelsalam expressly teaches using different major active materials [0105] in these layers wherein the active materials can be present in an amount up to 100% [0105] and can be graphite or silicon, respectively [0109] when taken in context with [0105]. Abdelsalam further discloses the same overall active material may be present in both composite anode layers 203a and 203b, provided that the material is present as a major active component in one anode layer and present only as a minor active component in the other anode layer, and a minor active component may make up 0.5-20 weight% of the active materials of a layer ([0106]). A skilled artisan would reasonably envisage in the other anode layer of the multi-layers of 203a and 203b (FIG. 2a), graphite may be the minor active component with 0.5-20 weight%, thus silicon is present as the major active component in the range of 80-99.5 weight% falling within the range as claimed “the layer of silicon-based material particles being at least 15 wt% silicon-based material”.
Since both of the discrete layers 203a and 203b containing silicon-based material particles suspended in a crosslinked binder NaPAA, as set forth above, the FIG. 2a of Abdelsalam anticipates the claim limitation “a discrete layer of silicon-based material particles suspended in a crosslinked binder and disposed between the metal current collector and the layer of graphite particles” because the layer 203a corresponds to the discrete layer of silicon-based material and the layer 203b correspond to the discrete layer of graphite particles.
Abdelsalam does not explicitly mention the layers defining an interface region in which presence of the silicon-based material particles disrupts in-plane alignment of the graphite particles.
However, since Abdelsalam discloses composite anode layers 203a and 203b are in direct contact with each other (FIG. 2a), such that an interface region with graphite particles aligned therein, formed by the interfacial surfaces of the upper surface of the anode layer 203a and the bottom surface of the anode layer 203b, necessarily and inherently exists.
Further, as set forth above, layers of 203a and 203b have different active material compositions regarding weight % of silicon particles and graphite particles, i.e., one has an 80-99.5 weight% of silicon particles and the other one has at least 85 wt% graphite translating to less than 15 wt% of silicon, a skilled artisan would reasonably envisage the upper surface of the anode layer 203a and the bottom surface of the anode layer 203b forming the interface region would have substantially different active material compositions in the same fashion as its main body of the sublayers 203a and 203b, respectively.
Abdelsalam further discloses silicon particles could have different morphologies, such as pillared shape silicon having a pillar mass fraction (PMF) in the range of 15-50% ([0172] [0179]) grown on or out of starting particle core ([0195-0197] and FIG. 3) and the particles of the starting material may have any shape, for example, cuboid, cuboidal, substantially spherical or spheroid or flake-like in shape, the particle surface may be rough or angular and the particles may be multi-facets or have a single continuously curved surface; or with graphite and other carbon based particles such as graphene etc. as the starting material ([0204]); and the silicon-comprising particle core may be porous or non-porous of irregular or regular shapes ([0206]).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to prepare one of the anode layer 203a and the bottom surface of the anode layer 203b having 80-99.5 weight% of silicon particles made of silicon-based material particles, for example, with pillars grown on an irregular shapes of porous silicon core particles or on a graphene based starting core material; and the other having at least than 15 wt% of silicon (at least 85 wt% graphite) with regular sphere shape silicon particles, as taught by Abdelsalam. In this manner, a skilled artisan would reasonably envisage in the interfacial region formed by the lower surface of 203b sublayer and the upper surfaces of 203a sublayer, the in-plane alignment of graphite particles would necessarily and inherently be disrupted by the uneven presence of a higher concentration of pillar grown silicon-based porous core particles with a higher weight% (80-99.5 weight%) of silicon pillar formed on an irregular core particles (porous irregular shape of silicon core or graphene core) compared to a smaller weight% (less than 15 weight%) of regular sphere shape silicon particles mixed with graphite particles. Thus, the claimed limitation “the layers defining an interface region in which presence of the silicon-based material particles disrupts in-plane alignment of the graphite particles” is obvious to meet over Abdelsalam’s teaching.
Regarding claim 8, modified Abdelsalam discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Modified Abdelsalam has rendered obvious silicon is present as the major active component in the range of 80-99.5 weight% in the layer of silicon-based material particles, which falls within the range of at least 20 wt% as claimed.
Regarding claim 9, modified Abdelsalam discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Modified Abdelsalam includes 90 wt% of graphite in the layer of graphite and 10 wt% of silicon ([0222]), not free of silicon-based material as claimed.
However, modified Abdelsalam further discloses the major active components of the anode layers 203a and 203b could be up to 100 weight% of the active material(s) in that layer ([0105]), which renders obvious the layer of graphite particles can be modified to be free of silicon-based materials. It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the layer of graphite to be free of silicon as taught by Abdelsalam.
Regarding claim 10, modified Abdelsalam discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Modified Abdelsalam discloses the metal current collector is a metal foil (a layer of metal, [0103]).
Conclusion
6. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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.
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAN LUO whose telephone number is (571)270-5753. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM ET.
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, Jonathan Leong can be reached on (571)270-1292. 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.
/K. L./Examiner, Art Unit 1751 9/19/2026
/JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 9/20/2026
Prosecution Insights