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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I (claims 1-2 and 5-13) in the reply filed on 07/10/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is not a significant search burden in examining Groups I and II together. This is not found persuasive because Group I (claims 1-2 and 5-13) and Group II (claims 3-4) have different classifications and have divergent subject matter. As set forth in the Restriction Requirement filed 05/12/2026, Group I is classified in H01M 4/622 (being directed to an anode plate for a secondary battery) while Group II is classified in C08F 212/08 (being directed broadly to a preparation method for a styrene-acrylic emulsion, not necessarily for a battery anode plate). Thus, due to the different classifications and divergent subject matter, Groups I and II would require vastly different search strategies and fields of search, thereby creating a serious search burden on examiner if Groups I and II were not restricted.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 3-4 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 07/10/2026.
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 1-2 and 5-13 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 1 recites the broad recitation "350-900 nm", and the claim also recites "optionally 350-800 nm" which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. Similarly, claim 2 recites the broad limitation “10-70°C,” and the claim also recites the narrower limitation “optionally 10-60°C.” Claim 8 recites the broad limitation “at least one of an irregular particle, a spherical particle and a quasi-spherical particle,” and the claim also recites the narrower limitation “optionally, the hard carbon material is an irregular particle.” The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. For examination purposes, examiner considers the narrower limitations in each of the above claims as merely exemplary and, thus, not required. However, appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2 and 5-13 are also rejected due to their dependence upon rejected claim 1.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “the styrene acrylate copolymer” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. Thus, it is unclear what this limitation is referring to. For examination purposes, “the styrene acrylate copolymer” in line 3 will be read as “a styrene acrylate copolymer.”
Appropriate correction is required in order to overcome the indefiniteness rejections. Suggested corrections are bolded and underlined for emphasis only.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-2, 5-6, and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Zhou et al. (US 2024/0222634) (Zhou).
Regarding claim 1, Zhou discloses a styrene-acrylic emulsion ([0016]; abstract), wherein a D50 particle size of a latex particle is 40 nm to 700 nm, with specific examples in which the particle size is 400 nm, 500 nm, 600 nm, and 700 nm ([0019]), reading on the claimed ranges of 350-900 nm and 350-800 nm.
Regarding claim 2, Zhou discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. Zhou further discloses that the latex particle can be a styrene-acrylate copolymer ([0016]), wherein the styrene-acrylate copolymer can have a glass transition temperature of 50°C ([0017]), reading on the claimed ranges of 10-70°C and 10-60°C.
Regarding claim 5, Zhou discloses an anode plate ([0015]; [0042]; [0058]-[0059]), comprising: an anode current collector; and an anode active material layer disposed on at least one surface of the anode current collector ([0042]; [0058]-[0059]), wherein the anode active material layer comprises a hard carbon material ([0033]) and a binder (binder A and binder B) (abstract; [0011]-[0015]), the binder is derived from the styrene-acrylate emulsion as claimed in claim 1 (abstract; [0011]-[0019]).
Regarding claim 6, Zhou discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 5. Zhou further discloses that components of the anode active material layer further comprise a conductive agent and a dispersant (abstract; [0011]). Zhou further discloses that the hard carbon material can account for 91.8%-98.9% by mass of the anode active material layer ([0033]-[0034]), with a specific example in which the anode active material accounts for 96.7% by mass ([0057]), reading on the claimed range of 85%-97%. Zhou further discloses that a styrene acrylate copolymer can account for 1.7% by mass of the anode active material layer ([0016]; [0021]), reading on the claimed range of 1%-8%. Zhou further discloses that the conductive agent can account for 0.4%-2.2% by mass of the anode active material layer ([0036]), reading on the claimed range of 0.3%-5%. Finally, Zhou discloses that the dispersant can account for 2.2% by mass of the anode active material layer ([0031]), reading on the claimed range of 0.5%-4%. Thus, Zhou reads on all of the limitations in claim 6.
Regarding claim 12, Zhou discloses a secondary battery, comprising the anode plate as claimed in claim 5 ([0009]; [0044]; [0048]; [0102]).
Regarding claim 13, Zhou discloses that the secondary battery as claimed in claim 12 is subjected to experimental tests in a constant temperature chamber where it is repeatedly charged and discharged ([0102]-[0103]). Thus, the chamber in which the secondary battery is charged and discharged clearly reads on the claimed electrical device in claim 13.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou et al. (US 2024/0222634) (Zhou) in view of Du et al. (US 2023/0246193) (Du).
Regarding claim 7, Zhou discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 5. Zhou fails to explicitly disclose, however, a specific coating weight value for the anode active material layer.
Du teaches a similar anode plate (title), comprising an anode current collector (1) and an anode active material layer (2) disposed on at least one surface of the anode current collector (1) (see Fig. 1; abstract; [0028]), wherein the anode active material layer (2) can comprise a hard carbon material and a binder, wherein the binder can be a styrene-acrylate copolymer ([0033]). Du further teaches that a coating weight of the anode active material layer (2) is 5.2 mg/cm2 to 11.7 mg/cm2 ([0037]), suggesting the claimed range of 2-13 mg/cm2. Du further teaches that configuring the coating weight in this way helps to improve energy density while also allowing lithium ions to intercalate into the anode active material layer (2) close to the current collector (1) ([0037]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured the coating weight of the anode active material layer disclosed by Zhou to be within the claimed range, as taught by Du, because they would have had a reasonable expectation that doing so would improve energy density while also allowing lithium ions to intercalate into the anode active material layer close to the current collector.
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou et al. (US 2024/0222634) (Zhou) in view of Lee (KR 20090052775 with English Machine Translation).
Regarding claims 8, 9, and 10, Zhou discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 5. Zhou fails to explicitly disclose, however, a morphology of the hard carbon material or a particle size of the hard carbon material.
However, common morphologies and particle sizes for hard carbon used in anode active material layers are known in the art. For instance, Lee teaches a similar anode active material layer (title) disposed on a surface of an anode current collector and comprising a hard carbon material and a binder (pg. 7, line 21-pg. 8, line 4). Lee further teaches that a morphology of the hard carbon material is an irregular particle (abstract; pg. 4, lines 7-11; pg. 7, lines 4-13). Lee further teaches that a D50 particle size of the hard carbon material is 0.01 to 5.0 µm (pg. 7, lines 15-17), overlapping the claimed range of 1-10 µm. In the case where the claimed range overlaps the range disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05. Lee further teaches that configuring the hard carbon material in this way can contribute to high initial efficiency during charging and discharging, excellent stability, and an increase in energy density per unit volume (pg. 6, line 15-pg. 13, line 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured the hard carbon material disclosed by Zhou to have an irregular particle shape and have a particle size within the claimed range, as suggested by Lee, because they would have had a reasonable expectation that doing so would contribute to high initial efficiency during charging and discharging, excellent stability, and an increase in energy density per unit volume.
Regarding the claimed binding force and cohesive force, the instant specification is clear that an anode plate having the a styrene-acrylic emulsion with a particle size of 350-900 nm as a binder and irregular particles as the hard carbon material leads to a binding force between the anode active material layer and the anode current collector within the claimed range and a cohesive force of the anode active material layer within the claimed range (see [0101] of the instant specification). If the composition and structure of the prior art are substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties are presumed to be inherent (see MPEP 2112.01). Therefore, since modified Zhou discloses an anode plate with a styrene-acrylic emulsion having a particle size within the range of 350-900 nm (Zhou: abstract; [0016]; [0019]) and includes the teachings from Lee regarding the irregular shaped hard carbon material, it is considered inherent that the anode plate disclosed by modified Zhou would satisfy the claimed binding force and cohesion force properties.
Claims 8-9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou et al. (US 2024/0222634) (Zhou) in view of Chen (CN 114368739 with English Machine Translation).
Regarding claims 8, 9, and 11, Zhou discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 5. Zhou fails to explicitly disclose, however, a morphology of the hard carbon material or a particle size of the hard carbon material.
However, common morphologies and particle sizes for hard carbon used in anode active material layers are known in the art. For instance, Chen teaches a similar anode active material (title; [0006]) comprising a hard carbon material and a binder (title; abstract; [0006]; [0130]). Chen further teaches that a morphology of the hard carbon material is spherical ([0113]; [0121]), with a D50 particle size of 5 µm ([0114]), suggesting the claimed range of 1-10 µm. Chen further teaches that configuring the hard carbon material in this way leads to excellent electrochemical performance and low cost ([0007]; [0142]-[0143]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured the hard carbon material disclosed by Zhou to have a spherical particle shape and have a particle size within the claimed range, as suggested by Chen, because they would have had a reasonable expectation that doing so would lead to excellent electrochemical performance and low cost.
Regarding the claimed binding force and cohesive force, the instant specification is clear that an anode plate having the a styrene-acrylic emulsion with a particle size of 350-900 nm as a binder and spherical particles as the hard carbon material leads to a binding force between the anode active material layer and the anode current collector within the claimed range and a cohesive force of the anode active material layer within the claimed range (see [0102] of the instant specification). If the composition and structure of the prior art are substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties are presumed to be inherent (see MPEP 2112.01). Therefore, since modified Zhou discloses an anode plate with a styrene-acrylic emulsion having a particle size within the range of 350-900 nm (Zhou: abstract; [0016]; [0019]) and includes the teachings from Chen regarding the spherical shaped hard carbon material, it is considered inherent that the anode plate disclosed by modified Zhou would satisfy the claimed binding force and cohesion force properties.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRENDON C DARBY whose telephone number is (571)272-1225. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 7:30am - 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, Katelyn Smith can be reached at (571) 270-5545. 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.
/B.C.D./Examiner, Art Unit 1749
/KATELYN W SMITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1749
Prosecution Insights