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 1-7 and 15) in the reply filed on 07/30/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there exists no undue administrative burden to search and consider all the claims in their entirety. This is not found persuasive because group I which is directed to a negative electrode for a lithium secondary battery is classified in H01M 2004/027 and group II which is directed to a method for manufacturing a negative electrode for a lithium secondary battery is classified in H01M 4/139. These different classifications establish a different field of search which demonstrates a serious search burden on the Examiner. See MPEP § 806.02.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 8-14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 07/30/2026.
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.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-7, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong et al. (US-20200227753-A1) in view of Huang et al. (CN-107799721-A, Translation used for citation).
With regards to claim 1, Hong teaches a negative electrode for a lithium secondary battery (¶ 0001). Hong teaches that the negative electrode comprises a negative electrode current collector layer (current collector); a negative electrode active material layer formed on the surface of the negative electrode current collector layer which reads on the electrode comprising a negative electrode active material layer composition on the surface of the negative electrode current collector layer (¶ 0039); and a lithium diffusion rate-controlling layer on a surface of the negative electrode active material layer (¶ 0039). As shown in Fig. 1 below, the lithium diffusion rate-controlling layer is formed opposite to a surface of the negative electrode active material layer facing the negative electrode current collector layer. Hong teaches that the lithium diffusion rate-controlling layer controls (reduces) the lithium diffusion rate from the lithium layer and assists diffusion of lithium into the negative electrode active material layer with homogeneous distribution (¶ 0048). This reads on the buffer layer comprising a buffer layer composition provided on a surface of the negative electrode active material layer opposite to a surface of the negative electrode active material layer facing the negative electrode current collector layer. Hong teaches a thickness of the buffer layer (lithium diffusion rate-controlling layer) may be 0.1 µm or more and 3 µm or less (¶ 0052). In ¶ 0052, Hong teaches that the buffer layer (lithium diffusion rate-controlling layer) may comprise polymers such as polyacrylic acid which is an acrylic polymer. In ¶ 0041, Hong teaches that the negative electrode active material layer includes a binder and a conductive material. Although the buffer layer taught by Hong may comprise a conductive material (¶ 0052, the layer allows electric current to pass between the lithium and the negative electrode), Hong does not teach that the conductive material is present in 1 part by weight or more and 10 parts by weight or less on the basis of based on 100 parts by weight of the buffer layer composition is considered an optional limitation given the context of the claim. Fig. 1 is
PNG
media_image1.png
650
1092
media_image1.png
Greyscale
shown below.
In a similar field of endeavor, Huang teaches a negative electrode for a lithium secondary battery that comprises a negative electrode active layer and a buffer layer (first reaction buffer layer) formed on a surface of a current collector (page 3). Similar to Hong, Huang teaches that the buffer layer comprises at least one polymer (page 3). On page 3, Huang goes on to teach that the buffer layer (first reaction buffer layer) may also comprise electronic conductor material and electronic-ion in the mixed conductor material which reads on a conductive material. Huang teaches that the mass percentage of the polymer account for 30% to 99.99% while the conductive material is included in amount of 0.01% to 70%. Since the polymer and the conductive material are the only two components in the buffer layer, the mass percentage of the conductive material taught by Huang is based on 100 parts by weight.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the buffer layer taught by Hong to include the conductive material in an amount of 0.01% to 70% of the buffer layer composition as taught by Huang as there are no unpredictable results. Through this modification, modified Hong teaches that the conductive material is present in an amount of 0.01% to 70% based on 100 parts by weight of the buffer layer composition. The claimed range of 1 part by weight or more and 10 parts by weight or less lies within this range. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
With regards to claim 2, as discussed above, Hong teaches that the buffer layer may include polyacrylic acid which is an acrylic polymer (¶ 0052). This reads on the acrylic polymer comprising at least one selected from the group consisting of polyethylene (PE), polypropylene (PP), polyacrylic acid (PAA), and polyester.
With regards to claim 3, In ¶ 0045, Hong teaches that the binder may include polymers such as polyvinylidene fluoride and various copolymers. In ¶ 0050, Hong teaches copolymers such as polyvinylidene fluoride-co-hexafluoropropylene that may be included in the buffer layer. Modified Hong does not specifically teach that the binder comprises a binder copolymer comprising a monomer unit containing a fluoro group.
However, similar to Hong, Huang teaches that the negative electrode active material comprises a binder (page 6). Like Hong, Huang also teaches that the binder (adhesive material) may include polyvinylidene fluoride (page 6). Along with polyvinylidene fluoride, Huang also teaches polyvinylidene-hexafluoropropylene (PVDF-HFP) as a suitable binder (page 6). This binder reads on a binder copolymer comprising a monomer unit containing a fluoro group.
Since Hong teaches that the binder may include various copolymers, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed to substitute the binder taught by Hong with a copolymer such as polyvinylidene-hexafluoropropylene (PVDF-HFP) as taught by Huang as there are no unpredictable results. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.). Through this modification, the binder taught by modified Hong comprises a binder copolymer comprising a monomer unit containing a fluoro group.
With regards to claim 4, Hong teaches that the negative electrode active material layer includes a negative electrode active material, a binder and a conductive material (¶ 0041). Hong teaches that the active material may include a metal oxide that includes silicon (¶ 0042). This reads on the negative electrode active material layer composition comprising a silicon-containing active material, a negative electrode conductive material, and a negative electrode binder. In ¶ 0042, Hong goes on to teach that metal oxide may also include a silicon alloy and SiOx (0<x≤2) which reads on the silicon-containing active material comprising at least one selected from the group consisting of SiOx, wherein x=0, SiOx, wherein 0<x<2, SiC, metal impurities, and a Si alloy.
With regards to claim 5, as discussed above, Hong teaches that the silicon-containing active material may comprise SiOx (0<x≤2) only (¶ 0042) which reads on the silicon-containing active material comprising at least one selected from the group consisting of SiOx, wherein x=0, and SiOx, wherein 0<x<2. The silicon-containing active material comprising the SiOx, wherein x=0, of 70 parts by weight or more based on 100 parts by weight of the silicon-containing active material is considered an optional limitation given the context of the claim.
With regards to claim 6, Hong teaches that the acrylic polymer (polymer) may be included in the buffer layer (lithium diffusion rate-controlling layer) in an amount of 90 wt.% or more based on 100 wt.% of the buffer layer (lithium diffusion rate-controlling layer) (¶ 0051). The claimed of 90 parts by weight or more and 99 parts by weight or less falls within the range taught by Hong. This reads on at least one material selected from the group consisting of the acrylic polymer and the binder being present in an amount of 90 parts by weight or more and 99 parts by weight or less based on 100 parts by weight of the buffer layer composition.
With regards to claim 7, Hong teaches that the negative electrode current collector is formed to have a thickness of 3-500 µm (¶ 0040). This overlaps with the claimed range of 1 µm or more and 100 µm or less. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Modified Hong silent on the thickness of the negative electrode active material layer, however, Huang teaches that the thickness of the negative electrode active material may be 2-200 µm (Page 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the negative electrode active material taught by Hong to have a thickness within a range of about 2-200 µm as taught by Huang as there are no unpredictable results. Through this modification, modified Hong teaches that a thickness of the negative electrode active material is about 2-200 µm which overlaps with the claimed range of 20 µm or more and 500 µm or less. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
With regards to claim 15, as discussed above, modified Hong teaches that the binder may comprise a polyvinylidene-hexafluoropropylene (Huang: page 6). Hexafluoropropylene is made up of perfluoroolefins monomer units. Since the binder copolymer taught by modified Hong includes hexafluoropropylene, the monomer unit comprises a perfluoroolefin.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUNSUYADOR YUSIF whose telephone number is (571)272-4531. The examiner can normally be reached 7 am - 5 pm (M-R).
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, Galen H Hauth can be reached at (571) 270-5516. 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.
/HUNSUYADOR MUGEESATU YUSIF/Examiner, Art Unit 1743
/GALEN H HAUTH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1743
Prosecution Insights