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 .
Summary
The Applicant’s arguments and claim amendments received March 17, 2026 have been entered into the file. Currently, claims 1-3, 5-7, 10, 12, and 14-18 are amended; and claim 4 is cancelled; resulting in claims 1-3 and 5-19 pending for examination.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claims 1 and 14, lines 13-14 of claim 1 and lines 14-15 of claim 14 recite “the sphericity S50 represents the sphericity when a cumulative particle volume distribution of the negative electrode active material is 50%,” where the term “a shape factor value” is marked with both an underline and a strikethrough. For the purposes of examination, these limitations will be interpreted as reading “the sphericity S50 represents a shape factor value when a cumulative particle volume distribution of the negative electrode active material is 50%,” where the underline on the phrase and addition of “sphericity” appears to be a typographical error. The interpretation aligns with paragraph [0014] of the instant specification. See 37 CFR 1.121(c)(2) for guidelines on markings of amended claims.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 6 and 16 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.
Regarding claims 6 and 16, the equation provided in line 2 of these claims recites Lt=2×PD×Dv99×(1-ε), wherein Lt is the transmission length expressed with the units µm, PD is the compacted density expressed with the units g/cm3, Dv99 is the particle size when a cumulative distribution of the negative electrode active material is 99% expressed with the units µm, and ε is the porosity of the negative electrode active material layer expressed as a percentage. It is not clear how the equation results in a value of Lt, the transmission path length, with units of µm. Using the provided units for PD (g/cm3), Dv99 (µm), and ε (%), the resulting value does not seem to have the units µm. Further clarification is requested.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 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.
The factual inquiries 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.
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 1-3, 8-9, 11, 14-15, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen, et al. (US 2023/0307643 A1), US equivalent to EP 41991356, cited on IDS, in view of Choi, et al. (US 2021/0184205 A1), US equivalent to WO 2020/141953 A1, cited on IDS.
Regarding claims 1 and 14, Chen teaches the use of lithium-ion batteries for use in portable electronic devices, drones, and electric vehicles (electronic apparatus comprising an electrochemical apparatus), further teaching that these devices require batteries with high energy density and high power density (¶ [0003], Ln. 1-5). Chen teaches a secondary battery including a negative electrode plate, a positive electrode plate, and a separator film and electrolyte arranged between the positive electrode plate and negative electrode plate (¶ [0034], Ln. 1-4), teaching that the negative electrode plate improves the capacity retention rate of a battery (¶ [0004], Ln. 1-5). The negative electrode plate includes a current collector (10; Fig. 1), a first negative electrode active material layer (11) (disposed on at least one surface of the negative electrode current collector), and a second negative electrode active material layer (12) (¶ [0016], Ln. 1-6). The first negative electrode active material layer includes a first negative electrode active material and the second negative electrode active material layer includes a second negative electrode active material (¶ [0020], Ln. 3-7). Chen teaches that the tortuosity of the first active material layer (τ1) satisfies the condition 1< τ1≤5 (¶ [0016], Ln. 6-10). Specifically, the tortuosity of the first active material layer in Embodiments 2-5 ranges from 1.75-2.33, within the claimed range of greater than 1 and less than or equal to 2.5 (¶ [0044], Ln. 4-6; ¶ [0046], Ln. 4-6; ¶ [0048], Ln. 4-6; ¶ [0050], Ln. 4-6). Chen defines the tortuosity as a ratio of a transport path of lithium ions in a negative electrode active material to a layer thickness (¶ [0017], Ln. 1-3), teaching that high tortuosity provides more hole structures for the liquid phase transport of lithium ions in the electrolyte (transmission path of electrolyte through pores of the negative electrode active material layer) (¶ [0017], Ln. 10-13).
Chen further teaches that the first negative electrode active material may be selected from one or more of graphite, soft carbon, hard carbon, lithium titanate, a silicon-based material, and a tin-based material (¶ [0029], Ln. 1-5), specifically teaching the use of graphite in Embodiments 2-5. Chen does not expressly teach that a sphericity of particles of the negative electrode active material ranges from 0.70 to 0.90.
Choi teaches a negative electrode active material for a secondary battery including graphite as a main component (¶ [0042], Ln. 1-3). Choi teaches that the graphite is natural graphite, further teaching that it is a mixture of scaly natural graphite and spheroidized natural graphite (¶ [0043], Ln. 1-4). Choi teaches that the spheroidization of the spheroidized natural graphite ranges from 0.7 to 0.95, and more specifically from 0.8 to 0.9, within the claimed range of 0.70 to 0.90 (¶ [0080], Ln. 1-3). Choi teaches that graphite with this degree of spheroidization increases the apparent phase of lithium ions in the electrolyte and allows the tap density of the negative electrode to be increased (¶ [0080], Ln. 3-8), further teaching that a larger tap density improves the adhesion between the active material and the current collector (¶ [0083], Ln. 6-11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the graphite in the first negative electrode active material layer of Chen to include graphite particles with a spheroidization ranging from 0.8 to 0.9 based on the teachings of Choi. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to include graphite particles having this degree of spheroidization in order to ensure uniform particles, such that the tap density can be increased, resulting in better adhesion between the negative electrode active material layer and the current collector. Additionally, one would be motivated to include graphite particles having this degree of spheroidization in order to increase the apparent phase of lithium ions in the electrolyte.
Regarding claims 2 and 15, Chen in view of Choi teaches all of the limitations of claims 1 and 14 above and Chen further teaches that the porosity of the first negative electrode active material is 20% to 30%, within the claimed range of 20% to 40% (¶ [0025], Ln. 5-6).
Regarding claims 3 and 17, Chen in view of Choi teaches all of the limitations of claims 1 and 14 above and Chen further teaches that the compacted density of the negative electrode plate is within 1.45 g/cm3 and 1.70 g/cm3, substantially overlapping the claimed range of 1.50 g/cm3 to 1.75 g/cm3 (¶ [0027], Ln. 1-2). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Regarding claims 8 and 19, Chen in view of Choi teaches all of the limitations of claims 1 and 14 above and Chen further teaches that the thickness of the first negative electrode active material layer is within 40 µm to 75 µm, within the claimed range of 30 µm to 140 µm (¶ [0024], Ln. 10-13).
Regarding claim 9, Chen in view of Choi teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Chen further teaches that the negative electrode current collector is preferably a copper foil, which may undergo etching processing or coarsening processing to form a secondary structure, which forms a close and effective contact with the first negative electrode active material layer (¶ [0028], Ln. 6-10). Chen does not expressly teach that a bonding force between the negative electrode active material and the negative electrode current collector is greater than or equal to 6 N.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the current collector of Choi such that the bonding force between the current collector and the first negative electrode active material is greater than or equal to 6 N. One of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to perform the etching processing or coarsening processing to form a secondary structure on the current collector in order to form a close and effective contact with the first negative electrode active material layer as taught by Choi, and one would be motivated to do this to increase the bonding force as much as possible. One of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to target a bonding force above 6 N, as the goal of the etching or coarsening process is to enhance the adherence of the negative electrode active material layer and the current collector.
Regarding claim 11, Chen in view of Choi teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above and Chen further teaches that the surface density (areal density) of the negative electrode plate is within 0.3 g/dm2 and 0.8 g/dm2 (0.03 mg/mm2 and 0.08 mg/mm2), substantially overlapping the claimed range of 0.035 mg/mm2 and 0.091 mg/mm2 (¶ [0026], Ln. 1-4). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Claims 5-7, 10, 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen, et al. (US 2023/0307643 A1) in view of Choi, et al. (US 2021/0184205 A1), as applied to claims 1 and 14 above, and further in view of Feng, et al. (CN 109841831 A), cited on IDS.
Regarding claims 5-7, 16, and 18, Chen in view of Choi teaches all of the limitations of claims 1 and 14 above. Chen further teaches that teaches that the thickness of the first negative electrode active material layer is 40 µm to 75 µm (¶ [0024], Ln. 10-13), that the Dv50 particle size of the first negative electrode active material is 8 µm to 13 µm (¶ [0021], Ln. 1-2), that the porosity of the first negative electrode active material is 20% to 30% (¶ [0025], Ln. 5-6), and that the compacted density of the negative electrode plate is 1.45 g/cm3 and 1.70 g/cm3 (¶ [0027], Ln. 1-2). Chen does not expressly teach the Dv99 particle size of the first negative electrode active material, and therefore does not expressly teach that the Dv99 particle size ranges between 0.6 times the thickness of the first negative electrode active material layer and 0.9 times the thickness of the first negative electrode active material layer, that the transport path is equal to the product of 2×PD×Dv99×(1-ε), wherein PD is the compacted density of the first negative electrode active material layer and ε is the porosity of the first negative electrode active material layer, or that the value of Dv99 ranges from 30 µm to 60 µm.
Feng teaches the impact that the particle size and specific surface area of negative electrode active materials such as graphite can have on the lithium-ion insertion or extraction pathway, the rate of lithium-ion insertion and extraction, and the reaction between lithium ions and the electrolyte (¶ [0043], Ln. 1-4). Specifically, Feng teaches that when the relationship between the Dv50 particle size and the Dv99 particle size satisfies the relationship 0.8≤0.06×(Dv50)2-2.5×Dv50+Dv99≤12, the characteristics of small particle size contribute to inhibiting expansion between graphite layers, thereby improving cycling performance (¶ [0043], Ln. 19-21, ¶ [0044], Ln. 1-6). Feng includes that the Dv50 represents the particle size of the negative electrode material in a volume-based particle size distribution that is 50% smaller than this value, and Dv99 represents the particle size of the negative electrode material in a volume-based particle size distribution that is 50% smaller than this value, with both values in units of µm (¶ [0010], Ln. 1-6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the particle size distribution of the graphite particles of the first negative electrode active material of Chen such that the Dv99 particle size satisfies the relationship 0.8≤0.06×(Dv50)2-2.5×Dv50+Dv99≤12, based on the teachings of Feng. In applying this relationship to the range of Dv50 particle sizes taught by Chen, the resulting range for Dv99 particle sizes would be approximately 17 µm to 34 µm, overlapping the claimed range of 30 µm to 60 µm. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05 (I)). One would be motivated to modify the particle size distribution of the graphite particles of the first negative electrode active material of Chen such that the Dv99 particle size lies within this range in order to inhibit expansion between graphite layers, thereby improving cycling performance.
Applying the thicknesses of the first negative electrode active material taught by Chen to the equation in claim 5, the values of 0.6 times the thickness of the first negative electrode active material layer to 0.9 times the thickness of the first negative electrode active material layer range from 24 µm to 67.5 µm. Given the teachings of Chen in view of Feng above that the Dv99 particle sizes range from 17 µm to 34 µm, such that the equation 0.8≤0.06×(Dv50)2-2.5×Dv50+Dv99≤12 is satisfied, the Dv99 of the particles of Chen in view of Feng overlaps the range of 24 µm to 67.5 µm. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Applying the ranges for compacted density and porosity taught by Chen and the range for Dv99 particle sizes taught by Chen in view of Feng above in the in the equation of claim 6, the resulting transport path (Lt) ranges from approximately 35 µm to 92 µm. Given the ranges for thickness of the first negative electrode active material layer and tortuosity of the first negative electrode active material layer taught by Chen, the resulting transport path length ranges from 40 µm to 375 µm, overlapping the range of 35 µm to 92 µm. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Regarding claim 10, Chen in view of Choi teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Chen further teaches that the first negative electrode active material may be selected from one or more of graphite, soft carbon, hard carbon, lithium titanate, a silicon-based material, and a tin-based material (¶ [0029], Ln. 1-5), specifically teaching the use of graphite in Embodiments 2-5. Chen does not expressly teach an OI value, wherein OI is equal to C004/C110, and therefore does not expressly teach that the OI value satisfies the relationship 5≤OI value≤15.
Feng teaches a negative electrode with a negative electrode current collector and negative electrode active material disposed on at least one surface of the negative electrode current collector (¶ [0059], Ln. 1-3), teaching that XRD was tested for graphite crystalline materials to determine the degree of graphitization (¶ [0061], Ln. 1-5). Feng teaches that the value of C004/C110 affects the lithium-ion transport path and that the preferred range of C004/C110 is between 11.81 and 17.08 (¶ [0062], Ln. 1 4). Feng teaches that when the C004/C110 values are within the taught range, lithium ions can be easily inserted and extracted, and it may also reduce excessive formation of SEI film (¶ [0181], Ln. 1-4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the first negative electrode active material layer of Chen to have a C004/C110 value between 11.81 and 17.08, overlapping the claimed range of 5 and 15, as taught by Feng. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to include a graphitic negative electrode active material with a C004/C110 in this range in order to ensure lithium ions can be easily inserted and extracted, and also to reduce excessive formation of SEI film. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen, et al. (US 2023/0307643 A1) in view of Choi, et al. (US 2021/0184205 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yang, et al. (US 2022/0140396 A1).
Regarding claims 12-13, Chen in view of Choi teaches all of limitations of claim 1 above and further teaches that the electrolyte includes an electrolyte salt and an organic solvent, which may be selected from any conventional selections (¶ [0036], Ln. 5-10). Chen does not expressly teach that the electrolyte includes a compound containing a sulfur-oxygen double bond selected from the list included in claim 12, in an amount between 0.1% and 5% based on a weight of the electrolyte, or lithium difluorophosphate in an amount less than 1% based on a weight of the electrolyte.
Yang teaches an electrolyte for a lithium-ion battery including propylene carbonate in the solvent and at least three additives for use in a battery with a lithium-based cathode and a graphite anode (¶ [0035], Ln. 7-13). Yang teaches that the additives include vinylene carbonate, lithium difluorophosphate, and prop-1-ene-1,3-sultone (compound containing sulfur-oxygen double bond; propenyl-1,3-sultone) (¶ [0017], Ln. 1-7), further teaching that each additive is included in a weight percent of 0.05% to 5% (¶ [0018], Ln. 5-9). Yang teaches that the second and third additives, lithium difluorophosphate and prop-1-ene-1,3-sultone, are included to stabilize the anode, cathode, and the lithium salt (¶ [0058], Ln. 1-8), such that graphite anodes and lithium-based cathodes do not become exfoliated or degraded when included in a lithium-ion battery including the electrolyte (¶ [0035], Ln. 10-13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include an electrolyte in the battery of Chen including the additives vinylene carbonate, lithium difluorophosphate, and prop-1-ene-1,3-sultone, based on the teachings of Yang. One of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to include the additives an amount within the range taught by Yang, overlapping the claimed range of 0.1% to 5% of a compound containing sulfur-oxygen double bond and overlapping the claimed range of less than 1% of lithium difluorophosphate. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to include the additives within these ranges in order to stabilize the anode, cathode, and the lithium salt, preventing degradation or exfoliation of the graphite anode and lithium-based cathode. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Response to Arguments
Response-Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. 112
The previous rejection of claims 6-7, 16, and 18 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, with respect to the meaning of Dv99 is overcome by Applicant’s amendments to claims 5-6, 16, and 18 to define Dv99. However, the previous rejection of claims 6 and 16 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, with respect to how the equation for transmission path length results in a value of Lt with units of µm is maintained above. Given the equation and provided units for each variable, it is not clear how PD (g/cm3), Dv99 (µm), and ε (%), result in a value of Lt with units of µm.
Response-Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103
In light of the Applicant’s amendment to claim 1 to include the limitations of claim 4, the previous rejections of claims 1-3, 8, 11, 14-15, 17, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) over Chen, et al. (US 2023/0307643 A1) have been overcome, however, upon further consideration, the reference is applicable under 35 U.S.C. 103 and used in combination with Choi, et al. (US 2021/0184205 A1) in the rejections above. Any arguments with respect to the reference that are still deemed valid will be addressed herein.
The Applicant argues, see pages 8-9 of the remarks filed March 17, 2026, that the optimization of sphericity in the instant applicant is significantly different from the spheroidization of particles taught by Choi. This argument is not persuasive. In response to applicant's argument that adjusting sphericity within the claimed range has the advantage of uniform distribution of pore structure, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). As Choi teaches the optimization of spheroidization of graphite particles in order to increase tap density, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to modify the graphite in the first negative electrode active material layer of Chen to have high spheroidization. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to include graphite particles having the degree of spheroidization taught by Choi, within the claimed range, in order to ensure uniform particles, such that the tap density can be increased, resulting in better adhesion between the negative electrode active material layer and the current collector. Additionally, one would be motivated to include graphite particles having this degree of spheroidization in order to increase the apparent phase of lithium ions in the electrolyte.
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 SARAH J JACOBSON whose telephone number is (703)756-1647. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at (571) 272-1291.
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.
/SARAH J JACOBSON/Examiner, Art Unit 1785
/MARK RUTHKOSKY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1785
Prosecution Insights