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 Claims
Applicant’s amendment and arguments, filed 09/09/2025, have been fully considered. Claim(s) 1, 2, 4–6, 9, 12, 13, 15, and 16 is/are amended; and claim(s) 3, 7, 8, 10, 11, 14, and 17–20 stand(s) as originally or previously presented; no new matter has been added. Examiner affirms that the original disclosure provides adequate support for the amendment.
Upon considering said amendment and arguments, the previous claim objections as well as 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 rejections set forth in the Office Action mailed 06/09/2025 has/have been withdrawn. Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new grounds of rejection below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text forming the basis for the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 may be found in a prior Office Action.
Claim(s) 1, 3, and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hong et al. (KR 20150091896 A, from 06/09/25 PTO-892) (Hong).
Regarding claim 1, Hong discloses an electrochemical device (lithium battery, e.g., ¶ 0017, 0023) comprising a negative electrode (e.g., ¶ 0017) comprising a current collector (10 of fig. 1) and an active material layer located on at least one surface of the current collector (20 of fig. 1), the active material layer comprising an inorganic thickener (gas adsorbent 24 of, e.g., bentonite (¶ 0025), which, per the instant specification’s ¶ 0005, is an inorganic thickener), and a specific surface area of the inorganic thickener is 1–50 m2/g (¶ 0011), falling within 0.4–100 m2/g.
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Hong discloses the electrochemical device according to claim 3, wherein the inorganic thickener is of a lamellar structure (see layered-plate and, thus, lamellar structure, ¶ 0027), wherein anions are present on a layer surface of each particle of the lamellar structure, and cations are present on an end surface of each particle of the lamellar structure (¶ 0027).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text forming the basis for the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 may be found in a prior Office Action.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13, 17, 18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al. (CN 112151803 A, from 06/09/25 PTO-892) (Xu) in view of Makihara et al. (JP 2013028733 A) (Makihara).
Regarding claims 1, 2, 12, and 13, Xu discloses an electronic device (e.g., power vehicle, ¶ 0004) comprising an electrochemical device (lithium battery, e.g., ¶ 0004, 0058) comprising a negative electrode comprising a current collector and an active material layer located on at least one surface of the current collector (negative electrode slurry atop Cu foil, ¶ 0058), the active material layer comprising an inorganic thickener (lithium magnesium silicate additive, e.g., ¶ 0022 and Ex. 1, ¶ 0038; per instant claims 2 and 13, such is an inorganic thickener).
Xu further discloses that the lithium magnesium silicate improves the slurry’s suspension and chemical stability to increase the slurry’s solid content (¶ 0022)—and, thus, as alluded to above, is a thickener or thixotropic modifier—but, in being unconcerned with the lithium magnesium silicate’s specific physical properties, Xu fails to explicitly address the silicate’s specific surface area and, thus, 0.4–100 m2/g.
Makihara, in teaching a liquid resin composition used in a semiconductor (Abstract), teaches that the composition contains a thixotropic agent (Abstract). Makihara teaches that that the thixotropic agent’s surface area is preferably ≥ 35 m2/g because such a larger specific surface area more effectively imparts thixotropy (bridge ¶ between p. 4/5).
Xu is analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely inorganic thickeners in negative electrodes. Makihara is analogous because they are reasonably pertinent to a problem the inventor would have faced, namely selecting the physical properties of thickening/thixotropic agents for compositions used in electrochemical devices.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the claimed invention's effective filing date, that Xu's lithium magnesium silicate must necessarily be incorporated with some surface area, and, as demonstrated by Makihara, the skilled artisan would find it obvious to employ a specific surface area of ≥ 35 m2/g to effectively impart thixotropy. This range overlaps the recited range such that the skilled artisan could have routinely selected within the overlap with a reasonable expectation of selecting a suitable surface area for proper thixotropy (MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Regarding claims 6 and 17, modified Xu discloses the electrochemical device according to claim 1 and the electronic device according to claim 12.
As seen in the ratios of Xu’s Ex. 1 (¶ 0034–0039), the inorganic thickener is included at a very small amount relative to the active layer’s other components, though, in including the amount of DI water added versus the final ratio of solid contents, Xu appears to fail to explicitly disclose a mass percentage of the thickener of 0.1–0.5%.
As discussed above, however, Xu discloses that, of the active layer’s solid components, the lithium magnesium silicate improves the slurry’s suspension and chemical stability to increase the slurry’s solid content (¶ 0022), further disclosing that lithium polyacrylate increases adhesion of the electrode and keeps the particles from being pulverized (¶ 0022). The skilled artisan, meanwhile, would recognize that Xu’s graphite (¶ 0039), as the active material, affords capacity, while Xu’s conductive carbon (¶ 0039) imparts conductivity. To balance all these effects, then, it would have been obvious to routinely optimize the inorganic thickener’s mass percentage in the active layer (MPEP 2144.05 (II)).
Regarding claims 7 and 18, modified Xu discloses the electrochemical device according to claim 1 and the electronic device according to claim 12, wherein the active material layer further comprises an organic thickener comprising sodium carboxymethyl cellulose (Na-CMC in Xu’s ¶ 0036, which is an organic thickener, per instant claims 7 and 18).
Regarding claims 9 and 20, modified Xu discloses the electrochemical device according to claim 1 and the electronic device according to claim 12, wherein the active material layer further comprises a binder comprising polyacrylate (Li-polyacrylate, Xu’s ¶ 0022 and 0035).
As seen in the ratios of Xu’s Ex. 1 (¶ 0034–0039), the polyacrylate binder is included at a small amount relative to the active layer’s other components, though, in including the amount of DI water added versus the final ratio of solid contents, Xu appears to fail to explicitly disclose a mass percentage of the binder of 0.8–5%.
As discussed above, however, Xu discloses that, of the active layer’s solid components, the lithium magnesium silicate improves the slurry’s suspension and chemical stability to increase the slurry’s solid content (¶ 0022), further disclosing that lithium polyacrylate increases adhesion of the electrode and keeps the particles from being pulverized (¶ 0022). The skilled artisan, meanwhile, would recognize that Xu’s graphite (¶ 0039), as the active material, affords capacity, while Xu’s conductive carbon (¶ 0039) imparts conductivity. To balance all these effects, then, it would have been obvious to routinely optimize the binder’s mass percentage in the active layer (MPEP 2144.05 (II)).
Regarding claim 10, modified Xu discloses the electrochemical device according to claim 1.
Although modified Xu fails to explicitly articulate the recited adhesive and cohesive forces, the instant specification notes that decreasing the ratio of binder or thickener decreases adhesion between the active layer and current collector (¶ 0017) and that using the inorganic thickener improves the adhesive and cohesive forces (¶ 0018), finding that lithium magnesium silicate best improves these forces (¶ 0075).
As modified Xu discloses the recited electrode with lithium magnesium silicate thickener as well as the recited polyacrylate binder at ratios appearing to respectively correspond to the instant mass ratios, the skilled artisan would have reasonably expected modified Xu’s electrode to exhibit adhesive and cohesive forces falling within or at least overlapping the respectively recited ranges, per MPEP 2112.01 (I). Such overlap would render the recited ranges obvious such that the skilled artisan could have routinely selected within each overlap with a reasonable expectation of forming a successful electrode with suitable adhesion and cohesion (MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
More importantly, though, Xu discloses that, of the active layer’s solid components, the lithium magnesium silicate improves the slurry’s suspension and chemical stability to increase the slurry’s solid content (¶ 0022), further disclosing that lithium polyacrylate increases adhesion of the electrode and keeps the particles from being pulverized (¶ 0022). The skilled artisan, meanwhile, would recognize that Xu’s graphite (¶ 0039), as the active material, affords capacity, while Xu’s conductive carbon (¶ 0039) imparts conductivity. To balance all these effects, then, it would have been obvious to routinely optimize the binder and inorganic thickener’s mass percentages in the active layer and, thus, reasonably control the adhesive and cohesive forces based on the instant spec.’s ¶ 0017, 0018, and 0075 (MPEP 2144.05 (II)).
Claim(s) 3–5 and 14–16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al. (CN 112151803 A) (Xu) in view of Makihara et al. (JP 2013028733 A) (Makihara), as evidenced by Ye et al. (CN 112457731 A) (Ye).
Regarding claims 3–5 and 14–16, modified Xu discloses the electrochemical device according to claim 1 and the electronic device according to claim 12, wherein the inorganic thickener is of a lamellar structure (as evidenced by Ye’s ¶ 0018, lithium magnesium silicate exists as flaky powder with thin film surfaces and distinct end surfaces and, thus, is layered/lamellar), wherein anions are present on a layer surface of each particle of the lamellar structure, and cations comprising lithium ions are present on an end surface of each particle of the lamellar structure (as evidenced by Ye’s ¶ 0018).
Claim(s) 8, 11, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al. (CN 112151803 A) (Xu) in view of Makihara et al. (JP 2013028733 A) (Makihara), further in view of Lee et al. (US 20200259162 A1) (Lee).
Regarding claims 8 and 19, modified Xu discloses the electrochemical device according to claim 7 and the electronic device according to claim 18.
However, in being unconcerned with the specific amount of Na-CMC in the active layer, modified Xu fails to explicitly articulate a mass percentage of the organic thickener in the active layer of 0.3–1.5%.
Lee, in teaching a negative electrode slurry including a clay additive and CMC (Abstract), teaches including the CMC as a thickener at preferably 0.5–1.5% of based on the total weight of solids of the slurry (¶ 0036). Lee teaches that when the composition comprises CMC in this range, an appropriate thickening amount is secured without affecting the battery’s performance (¶ 0037).
Lee is analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely negative electrodes.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate Xu’s Na-CMC at 0.5–1.5 mass% of the active material layer, as taught by Lee, with the reasonable expectation of securing appropriate thickening without affecting the battery’s performance, as taught by Lee.
Regarding claim 11, modified Xu discloses the electrochemical device according to claim 1, wherein the active material layer comprises a negative electrode material of graphite (Xu, ¶ 0039).
However, in being unconcerned with the specific type of graphite, modified Xu fails to explicitly disclose artificial or natural graphite.
Lee, in teaching a negative electrode slurry (Title), teaches a negative electrode material of, e.g., natural or artificial graphite (¶ 0040).
Lee is analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely negative electrodes.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to routinely incorporate Lee’s artificial or natural graphite as Xu’s graphite negative electrode material with a reasonable expectation of forming a successful negative electrode material (e.g., MPEP 2143 (A.)).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record but not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure:
US 20190386341 A1 (from 09/10/25 IDS): negative electrode containing layered silicate, where central cation may be lithium or magnesium.
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 JOHN S MEDLEY whose telephone number is (703)756-4600. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00–5:00 EST M–Th and 8:00–12:00 EST F.
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 571-270-192. 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.
/J.S.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 10/22/2025
Prosecution Insights