CTNF 18/471,751 CTNF 101549 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Priority 02-26 AIA Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Specification The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 3, “a negative a negative active material layer” should read “a negative active material layer”. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claims 1-10 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. The term “about” in claims 1-5 is a relative term which renders the claims indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claims, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The amount of carbon-based conductive material of claims 1-3 and the peak intensity ratio of claims 1 and 4-5 are rendered indefinite by the use of the term “about”. Claims 6-10 are similarly rejected because they are dependent on claim 1. 07-36 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d): (d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph: Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 6 recites “wherein the XRD is measured by using a CuKα ray as a target ray.” The use of CuKα as a target ray does not modify the negative electrode of claim 1, and therefore does not constitute a further limitation. Applicant may cancel the claim or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim complies with the statutory requirements. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1 and 4-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (WO 2021215768 A1, corresponding US 2023/0246173 A1 relied upon herein, and hereinafter Kim) in view of Temmyo et al. (US 2012/0164530 A1, hereinafter Temmyo) . Regarding claim 1, Kim discloses a negative electrode for a rechargeable lithium battery ([0088], negative electrode), comprising: a negative active material layer ([0088], negative electrode active material layer) comprising a negative active material ([0030], silicon-carbon composite negative electrode active material) comprising a silicon core ([0030], SiO x , where x can be 0) and an amorphous carbon layer on a surface of the silicon core ([0033]-[0034], carbon layer positioned on the core that may be amorphous carbon), and a carbon-based conductive material ([0030], carbon nanotubes; [0095]-[0096], natural or artificial graphite; and [0101], conductive material that may be carbon black), wherein an amount of the carbon-based conductive material is about 10 wt% or more based on the total, 100 wt% of the negative active material layer ([0097]-[0098], carbon nanotube included in an amount of 0.01 wt% to 0.5 wt% and carbon-based active material included in an amount of 70 wt% to 99.5 wt%). Kim does not disclose that the negative electrode has a peak intensity ratio (I (110) /I (002) ) at a (110) plane relative to a (002) plane of about 1.0 or more measured by x-ray diffraction (XRD). Temmyo discloses a negative electrode mixture layer with a peak intensity ratio (I (110) /I (002) ) at a (110) plane relative to a (002) plane of graphite particles is 0.05 or more and 1 or less as measured by X-ray diffraction ([0043]). Temmyo further discloses a method for orienting the (002) planes of the graphite particles to obtain the desired peak intensity ratio, by coating a current collector with a negative electrode slurry containing the graphite particles and providing a magnetic field with magnetic flux density more preferably from 0.3 to 2 Tesla (3000 to 20000 Gauss) for 0.5 to 30 seconds ([0066]-[0069]). In [0025]-[0028] of the instant specification, a method of orienting the conductive material is disclosed, by coating a current collector with the negative active material layer and applying a magnetic field with a strength of about 2000 Gauss to about 8000 Gauss for about 3 seconds to about 9 seconds. This orientation can then be confirmed by a peak intensity ratio (I (110) /I (002) ) of about 1.0 or more when measured using XRD. Kim and Temmyo are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of silicon-carbon based 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 modified the silicon-carbon composite negative electrode active material of Kim with the teachings of Temmyo, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. Doing so would improve the discharge capacity ratio as I (110) /I (002) increases (Temmyo [0043]). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See In re Wertheim , 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP § 2144.05(I)). Regarding claim 4, modified Kim discloses the limitations of claim 1, including a peak intensity ratio (I (110) /I (002) ) of 0.05 to 1.0 (Temmyo [0043]). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See In re Wertheim , 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP § 2144.05(I)). Regarding claim 5, modified Kim discloses the limitations of claim 1, including a peak intensity ratio (I (110) /I (002) ) of 0.05 to 1.0 (Temmyo [0043]). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See In re Wertheim , 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP § 2144.05(I)). Regarding claim 6, modified Kim discloses the limitations of claim 1. The limitation “wherein the XRD is measured by using a CuKα ray as a target ray” does not further limit the negative electrode of claim 1, so modified Kim also discloses the limitations of claim 6. Regarding claim 7, modified Kim discloses the limitations of claim 1. Kim further discloses wherein the amorphous carbon layer comprises mesophase pitch carbide ([0035], pitch carbide). Regarding claim 8, modified Kim discloses the limitations of claim 1. Kim further discloses wherein the carbon-based conductive material is natural graphite, artificial graphite, carbon black, carbon nanotube, carbon fiber, or combinations thereof ([0030], carbon nanotubes; [0095]-[0096], natural or artificial graphite; and [0101], conductive material that may be carbon black). Regarding claim 9, modified Kim discloses the limitations of claim 1. Kim further discloses wherein the carbon-based conductive material is a three-mixture of carbon nanotube; natural graphite or artificial graphite; and carbon black ([0030], carbon nanotubes; [0095]-[0096], natural or artificial graphite; and [0101], conductive material that may be carbon black). Regarding claim 10, modified Kim discloses the limitations of claim 1. Kim further discloses a rechargeable lithium battery ([0104], secondary battery) comprising: the negative electrode of claim 1 ([0104], negative electrode of the embodiment); a positive electrode comprising a positive active material ([0105], positive electrode with positive electrode active material layer); and a non-aqueous electrolyte ([0113], electrolyte is a non-aqueous organic solvent) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Green (US 2013/0224583 A1) in view of Temmyo (US 2012/0164530 A1). Regarding claim 1, Green discloses a negative electrode for a rechargeable lithium battery ([0066], anode), comprising: a negative active material layer ([0067], layer) comprising a negative active material ([0067], anode mix) comprising a silicon core ([0023], elongate elements and particles that may comprise substantially pure silicon) and an amorphous carbon layer on a surface of the silicon core ([0047], coating made with amorphous carbon or electroactive hard carbon), and a carbon-based conductive material ([0060], conductive material that may be natural or artificial graphite), wherein an amount of the carbon-based conductive material is 1 to 20% based on the total, 100 wt% of the negative active material layer ([0060]). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See In re Wertheim , 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP § 2144.05(I)). Green does not disclose that the negative electrode has a peak intensity ratio (I (110) /I (002) ) at a (110) plane relative to a (002) plane of about 1.0 or more measured by x-ray diffraction (XRD). Temmyo discloses a negative electrode mixture layer with a peak intensity ratio (I (110) /I (002) ) at a (110) plane relative to a (002) plane of graphite particles is 0.05 or more and 1 or less as measured by X-ray diffraction ([0043]). Temmyo further discloses a method for orienting the (002) planes of the graphite particles to obtain the desired peak intensity ratio, by coating a current collector with a negative electrode slurry containing the graphite particles and providing a magnetic field with magnetic flux density more preferably from 0.3 to 2 Tesla (3000 to 20000 Gauss) for 0.5 to 30 seconds ([0066]-[0069]). In [0025]-[0028] of the instant specification, a method of orienting the conductive material is disclosed, by coating a current collector with the negative active material layer and applying a magnetic field with a strength of about 2000 Gauss to about 8000 Gauss for about 3 seconds to about 9 seconds. This orientation can then be confirmed by a peak intensity ratio (I (110) /I (002) ) of about 1.0 or more when measured using XRD. Green is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of silicon-carbon based 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 modified the silicon-carbon composite negative electrode active material of Green with the teachings of Temmyo, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. Doing so would improve the discharge capacity ratio as I (110) /I (002) increases (Temmyo [0043]). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See In re Wertheim , 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP § 2144.05(I)). Regarding claim 2, modified Green discloses the limitations of claim 1, and an amount of conductive material from 1 to 20% by weight based on the total weight of the anode mix (Green [0060]). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See In re Wertheim , 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP § 2144.05(I)). Regarding claim 3, modified Green discloses the limitations of claim 1, including an amount of conductive material from 1 to 20% by weight based on the total weight of the anode mix (Green [0060]). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See In re Wertheim , 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP § 2144.05(I)). Regarding claim 4, modified Green discloses the limitations of claim 1, including a peak intensity ratio (I (110) /I (002) ) of 0.05 to 1.0 (Temmyo [0043]). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See In re Wertheim , 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP § 2144.05(I)). Regarding claim 5, modified Green discloses the limitations of claim 1, including a peak intensity ratio (I (110) /I (002) ) of 0.05 to 1.0 (Temmyo [0043]). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See In re Wertheim , 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP § 2144.05(I)). Regarding claim 6, modified Green discloses the limitations of claim 1. The limitation “wherein the XRD is measured by using a CuKα ray as a target ray” does not further limit the negative electrode of claim 1, so modified Green also discloses the limitations of claim 6. Regarding claim 7, modified Green discloses the limitations of claim 1. Green further discloses wherein the amorphous carbon layer comprises hard carbon ([0047], coating can be electroactive hard carbon). Regarding claim 8, modified Green discloses the limitations of claim 1. Green further discloses wherein the carbon-based conductive material is natural graphite, artificial graphite, carbon black, carbon nanotube, or carbon fiber ([0060]). Regarding claim 10, modified Green discloses the limitations of claim 1. Green further discloses a rechargeable lithium battery ([0070], secondary battery) comprising: the negative electrode of claim 1 ([0070], anode); a positive electrode comprising a positive active material ([0070]-[0071], cathode comprising a lithium cathode active material); and a non-aqueous electrolyte ([0070] and [0073], non-aqueous electrolyte) . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Lee et al. (US 2018/0123120 A1) discloses the use of a CuKα ray as a target ray in XRD ([0030]) . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jackie Liang whose telephone number is (571)-272-0880. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30AM - 4:30PM. 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, Jeffrey T. Barton can be reached at (571)-272-1307. 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.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1726 /JEFFREY T BARTON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1726 30 April 2026 Application/Control Number: 18/471,751 Page 2 Art Unit: 1726 Application/Control Number: 18/471,751 Page 3 Art Unit: 1726 Application/Control Number: 18/471,751 Page 4 Art Unit: 1726 Application/Control Number: 18/471,751 Page 5 Art Unit: 1726 Application/Control Number: 18/471,751 Page 6 Art Unit: 1726 Application/Control Number: 18/471,751 Page 7 Art Unit: 1726 Application/Control Number: 18/471,751 Page 8 Art Unit: 1726 Application/Control Number: 18/471,751 Page 9 Art Unit: 1726 Application/Control Number: 18/471,751 Page 10 Art Unit: 1726
