DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The amendment filed 08/17/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-4 and 7-22 remain pending.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, with respect to the claims have been fully considered and are persuasive. Zhang et al. (US 2020/0006750) only teaches the single value corresponding to Applicant’s c = 2. However, new rejections over Zhang, Liu et al. (US 2021/0359335), and Zou et al. (US 2023/0163367) are made as presented below.
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.
Claim 4 is 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 4 recites the broad recitation 25% ≤ a ≤ 40%, and the claim also recites 25% ≤ a ≤ 35% which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. 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.
In the present instance, claim 4 recites the broad recitation 1 µm ≤ b ≤ 7 µm, and the claim also recites 2 µm ≤ b ≤ 5 µm which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-4, 7, 10-14, 17, 19, 21, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhang et al. (US 2020/0006750).
Regarding claims 1 and 12, Zhang discloses a lithium-ion battery comprising:
a positive electrode plate;
a negative electrode plate;
a separator; and
an electrolyte (abstract).
The positive electrode plate includes a positive slurry coated on a positive current collector; the positive slurry including positive active material, PVdF (binder), and acetylene black (conductive carbon) (para 0077). The negative electrode plate includes a negative slurry coated on a negative current collector; the negative slurry including negative active material, SBR (binder), CMC (dispersant) and acetylene black (conductive carbon) (para 0079).
The negative electrode film has a porosity of 30% ~ 40% (para 0018). The particle size of the negative active material is preferably 6 µm ~ 12.9 µm (para 0013). The mass percentage of the conductive carbon is 1 wt.% (para 0079). Taking the above a porosity of 30% ~ 40%, a particle size 6 µm (Example 6), and 1 wt.% for the conductive carbon results in a value range of 4.9 to 5.0 for Applicant’s claimed anode electrode plate formula.
Regarding claims 2, 3, 13, 14, 21, and 22, instant claims are proviso upon limitation cathode electrode plate relationship expression not required by the independent claim; therefore, the limitations of instant claims do not come into force.
Regarding claims 4, 10, and 17, Zhang discloses e = 6.0 (Example 2).
Regarding claims 7, Zhang discloses values calculated to be 5.8 to 5.9 for porosity values of 30-40%.
Regarding claims 11 and 19, Zhang discloses f = 1% (para 0079).
Claims 1-4, 7, 8, 10-14, 17, 18, 21, and 22are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Liu et al. (US 2021/0359335).
Regarding claims 1 and 12, Liu discloses a sodium-ion battery comprising:
a positive electrode plate (abstract);
a negative electrode plate (abstract);
a separator (para 0066); and
an electrolyte (para 0068).
The positive electrode plate includes a positive electrode slurry coated on a positive current collector; the positive slurry including positive active material, acetylene black (conductive carbon), and PVdF (binder) (para 0096). The negative electrode plate includes a negative electrode slurry coated on a negative current collector; the negative slurry including negative electrode active material, acetylene black (conductive carbon), SBC (binder), CMC-Na (dispersant) and (para 0098).
The negative electrode film has a preferred porosity of 28% ~ 38% (para 0037). The particle size of the negative active material is preferably 5 µm ~ 12 µm (para 0030). The mass percentage of the conductive carbon is 5 wt.% (para 0098). Taking the above porosity, a particle size of 5 µm (Example 3), and 5 wt.% for the conductive carbon results in a value range of about 0.8 for Applicant’s claimed anode electrode plate formula.
Regarding claims 2, 3, 13, 14, 21, and 22, instant claims are proviso upon limitation cathode electrode plate relationship expression not required by the independent claim; therefore, the limitations of instant claims do not come into force.
Regarding claim 4, Liu discloses e = 5 (Example 3).
Regarding claims 7, 8, 10, 17, and 18, Liu discloses the value to be about 2 for porosity values of 28-38%, particle size of 10 µm (Example 1), and 5 wt.% for the conductive carbon.
Regarding claims 11, Liu discloses f = 1% (para 0079).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 9 and 15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (US 2020/0006750).
Regarding claims 9 and 15, Zhang teaches d is 30% ~ 40% (para 0018), which overlaps Applicant’s claimed range of 35-49%.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the recited values because a prima facie case of obviousness exists in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Furthermore, "[ A ] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness." In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). See MPEP 2144.05.
Claims 9, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (US 2021/0359335).
Regarding claims 9, 15, and 16, Liu teaches a preferred porosity of 28% ~ 38% and up to 45%, which overlaps Applicant’s claimed range of 35-49%. See MPEP 2144.05.
Claim 1-4 and 7-22 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zou et al. (US 2023/0163367) in view of Zhang et al. (US 2020/0006750).
Regarding claims 1 and 12, Zou teaches a lithium-ion battery comprising:
a positive electrode sheet;
a negative electrode sheet;
a separator; and
an electrolyte (abstract).
The positive electrode sheet includes a positive electrode slurry coated on a positive current collector; the positive slurry including positive active material, PVdF (binder), and acetylene black (conductive carbon) (para 0137). The negative electrode sheet includes a negative slurry coated on a negative current collector; the negative slurry including negative active material, SBR (binder), CMC (dispersant) and acetylene black (conductive carbon) (para 0138). The negative electrode film has a porosity of 30% ~ 50% (para 0027). The mass percentage of the conductive carbon is 2 wt.% (para 0138).
Zou further teaches using negative electrode materials with different particle sizes (para 0113) but is silent as to an express particle size of the negative active material.
Zhang, directed to a lithium-ion battery, teaches the average particle size of the negative active material is 6 to 18 µm (para 0053).
Taking an average porosity of 40%, an average particle size 12 µm, and 2 wt.% for the conductive carbon results in a value range of about 4.9 for Applicant’s claimed anode electrode plate formula.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the recited negative particle size because when the average particle size of the negative active material is too small, the adhesion force between the negative active material particles is smaller, the adhesion force of the negative electrode plate is smaller, the exfoliation of the negative electrode plate easily occurs during the cycle process of the lithium-ion battery to decrease the capacity of the lithium-ion battery; when the average particle size of the negative active material is too large, the diffusion path of the lithium ions in the negative active material with a large particle size is longer, and the intercalation process of the lithium ions is slower (para 0053).
Regarding claims 2, 3, 13, 14, 21, and 22, instant claims are proviso upon limitation cathode electrode plate relationship expression not required by the independent claim; therefore, the limitations of instant claims do not come into force.
Regarding claims 4, 11, 19, and 20, Zou teaches f = 2 (para 0138).
Regarding claims 7, 8, 10, 17, 18, using the lower range of Zhang (e.g., e = 6 µm), the value is about 3.
Regarding claims 9, 15, 16, Zou teaches a porosity of 30% ~ 50% (para 0027), which overlaps Applicant’s claimed range of 35-49%. See MPEP 2144.05.
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 CARLOS BARCENA whose telephone number is (571)270-5780. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8-5 pm.
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, Tong Guo can be reached at (571)272-3066. 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.
/CARLOS BARCENA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights