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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The Examiner notes that copies of the foreign patent documents and the non-patent literature documents cited on the IDS dated March 6, 2024 are provided in the file wrapper of parent application 16/968,779.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: The Examiner suggests amending the claim to recite “wherein the second anode active material comprises the silicon-based compound in an amount of not more than 9 wt%” in order to improve clarity of the claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 9-18, and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 11,936,037 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because U.S. Patent No. 11,936,037 B2 discloses all of the limitations of Claims 1, 9-18, and 20 of the instant application in combination with additional limitations.
Thus, the Examiner notes that Claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 11,936,037 B2 are more specific and therefore necessarily read on Claims 1, 9-18, and 20 of the instant application.
Claims 2-8 and 19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 11,936,037 B2 in view of Abdelsalam et al. (US PGPub 2015/0280221 A1).
Regarding Claims 2-8 and 19, U.S. Patent No. 11,936,037 B2 discloses all of the limitations of the instant application except for:
wherein at least part of the silicon-based compound in the second anode layer reacts before the artificial graphite during a charging cycle and during a discharging cycle;
wherein the first anode layer contacts the anode current collector, wherein the natural graphite in the first anode active material increases adhesion of the first anode layer onto the anode current collector when compared to the first anode layer without the natural graphite in the first anode active material;
wherein the first anode active material consists of the natural graphite and the artificial graphite as anode active materials;
wherein the second anode active material consists of the artificial graphite and the silicon-based compound as anode active materials.
Abdelsalam teaches the limitations as set forth in the rejection of record below.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the anode of U.S. Patent No. 11,936,037 B2 in light of the teachings of Abdelsalam, as such are known configurations in the art and therefore the skilled artisan would have a reasonable expectation that such could successfully be applied to the anode of U.S. Patent No. 11,936,037 B2.
Claims 1, 9-18, and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1-16 of U.S. Patent No. 11,811,055 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because U.S. Patent No. 11,811,055 B2 discloses all of the limitations of Claims 1, 9-18, and 20 of the instant application in combination with additional limitations.
Thus, the Examiner notes that Claims 1-16 of U.S. Patent No. 11,811,055 B2 are more specific and therefore necessarily read on Claims 1, 9-18, and 20 of the instant application.
Claims 2-8 and 19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1-16 of U.S. Patent No. 11,811,055 B2 in view of Abdelsalam et al. (US PGPub 2015/0280221 A1).
Regarding Claims 2-8 and 19, U.S. Patent No. 11,811,055 B2 discloses all of the limitations of the instant application except for:
wherein at least part of the silicon-based compound in the second anode layer reacts before the artificial graphite during a charging cycle and during a discharging cycle;
wherein the first anode layer contacts the anode current collector, wherein the natural graphite in the first anode active material increases adhesion of the first anode layer onto the anode current collector when compared to the first anode layer without the natural graphite in the first anode active material;
wherein the first anode active material consists of the natural graphite and the artificial graphite as anode active materials;
wherein the second anode active material consists of the artificial graphite and the silicon-based compound as anode active materials.
Abdelsalam teaches the limitations as set forth in the rejection of record below.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the anode of U.S. Patent No. 11,811,055 B2 in light of the teachings of Abdelsalam, as such are known configurations in the art and therefore the skilled artisan would have a reasonable expectation that such could successfully be applied to the anode of U.S. Patent No. 11,811,055 B2.
Claims 1, 9-16, and 20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1-18 of copending Application No. 18/439,022 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because copending Application No. 18/439,022 discloses all of the limitations of Claims 1, 9-16, and 20 of the instant application in combination with additional limitations.
Thus, the Examiner notes that Claims 1-18 of copending Application No. 18/439,022 are more specific and therefore necessarily read on Claims 1, 9-16, and 20 of the instant application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 2-8 and 17-19 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1-18 of copending Application No. 18/439,022 in view of Abdelsalam et al. (US PGPub 2015/0280221 A1).
Regarding Claims 2-8 and 17-19, copending Application No. 18/439,022 discloses all of the limitations of the instant application except for:
wherein at least part of the silicon-based compound in the second anode layer reacts before the artificial graphite during a charging cycle and during a discharging cycle;
wherein the first anode layer contacts the anode current collector, wherein the natural graphite in the first anode active material increases adhesion of the first anode layer onto the anode current collector when compared to the first anode layer without the natural graphite in the first anode active material;
wherein the first anode active material consists of the natural graphite and the artificial graphite as anode active materials;
wherein the second anode active material consists of the artificial graphite and the silicon-based compound as anode active materials;
wherein the first binder and the second binder are the same or different;
wherein both the first anode layer and the second anode layer further comprises an electrically conductive material.
Abdelsalam teaches the limitations as set forth in the rejection of record below.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the anode of copending Application No. 18/439,022 in light of the teachings of Abdelsalam, as such are known configurations in the art and therefore the skilled artisan would have a reasonable expectation that such could successfully be applied to the anode of copending Application No. 18/439,022.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
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.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claims 1-9, 12 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abdelsalam et al. (US PGPub 2015/0280221 A1).
Regarding Claims 1 and 5-8, Abdelsalam discloses in Fig. 2A an anode (201, 203a, 203b) for a lithium secondary battery (200) ([0103], [0143]), the anode (201, 203a, 203b) comprising:
an anode current collector (201) ([0103]);
a first anode layer (203a) formed over the anode current collector (201) and comprising a first anode active material ([0103]-[0104]);
a second anode material (203b) formed over the first anode material layer (103a) and comprising a second anode active material ([0103]-[0104]),
wherein the first anode active material comprises graphite ([0136]), wherein the graphite may be chosen to consist of natural graphite and artificial graphite ([0040]),
wherein the second anode active material comprises a silicon-based compound ([0136]) and may further comprise an active carbon material ([0041], [0058]-[0059]), such as artificial graphite ([0040], e.g. [0239]), so as to consist of artificial graphite and the silicon-based compound.
Specifically, Abdelsalam discloses wherein the anode (201, 203a, 203) achieves enhanced charge discharge capacity characteristics ([0114]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize natural graphite and artificial graphite as the graphite of the first anode active material, as disclosed by Abdelsalam, wherein the skilled artisan would have a reasonable expectation that such would successfully form an anode that achieves enhanced charge discharge capacity characteristics.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize artificial graphite as the active carbon material of the second anode active material, as disclosed by modified Abdelsalam, wherein the skilled artisan would have a reasonable expectation that such would successfully form an anode that achieves enhanced charge discharge capacity characteristics.
Regarding Claims 2-3, 12, and 19, modified Abdelsalam discloses all of the limitations as set forth above and further discloses wherein the silicon-based compound may be chosen to comprise pure Si ([0161], e.g. [0239]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize pure Si as the silicon-based compound of the second anode active material, as disclosed by modified Abdelsalam, wherein the skilled artisan would have a reasonable expectation that such would successfully form an anode that achieves enhanced charge discharge capacity characteristics.
The Examiner notes that because Abdelsalam discloses wherein the second anode layer (203b) comprises a silicon-based compound comprising pure Si and artificial graphite ([0161], [0040]-[0041], [0058]-[0059], e.g. [0239]), at least part of the silicon-based compound in the second anode layer necessarily and inherently reacts before the artificial graphite during a charging cycle and a discharging cycle, as evidenced by [0025], [0030] of the instant specification.
Regarding Claim 4, modified Abdelsalam discloses all of the limitations as set forth above and further discloses wherein the first anode layer (203a) contacts the anode current collector (201) (Fig. 2).
The Examiner notes that modified Abdelsalam discloses wherein the first anode active material comprises natural graphite ([0040]) and therefore modified Abdelsalam necessarily and inherently discloses wherein the natural graphite in the first anode active material increases adhesion of the first anode layer onto the anode current collector when compared to the first anode layer without the natural graphite in the first anode active material, as evidenced by [0006], [0024], [0026]-[0027] of the instant specification.
Regarding Claim 17, modified Abdelsalam discloses all of the limitations as set forth above and further discloses wherein the first anode layer (203a) comprises a first binder, and the second anode layer (203b) comprises a second binder, wherein the first binder and the second binder are the same or different ([0103], [0060]-[0066]).
Regarding Claim 18, modified Abdelsalam discloses all of the limitations as set forth above and further discloses wherein both the first anode layer (203a) and the second anode layer (203b) may further comprise an electrically conductive material ([0072], [0223], e.g. [0238]-[0239]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form both the first anode layer and the second anode layer to further comprise an electrically conductive material, as disclosed by modified Abdelsalam, wherein the skilled artisan would have a reasonable expectation that such would successfully form the anode desired by modified Abdelsalam.
Regarding Claim 20, modified Abdelsalam discloses a lithium secondary battery (200) comprising the anode (201, 203a, 203b) set forth above (Fig. 2, [0143]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abdelsalam et al. (US PGPub 2015/0280221 A1), as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Kang et al. (US PGPub 2017/0133682 A1).
Regarding Claim 9, modified Abdelsalam discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. However, modified Abdelsalam remains silent regarding a weight ratio of the natural graphite to the artificial graphite in the first anode active material and consequently does not disclose wherein such is 13-34 : 66-87.
Kang teaches an anode active material used in an anode for a lithium secondary battery having improved rolling property and capacity characteristics ([0002]).
Specifically, Kang teaches wherein the anode active material comprises natural graphite and artificial graphite in a weight ratio of 5-20 : 80-95 ([0034]), which overlaps with the instantly claimed range of 13-34 : 66-87.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the first anode active material of modified Abdelsalam to comprise a weight ratio of the natural graphite to the artificial graphite in the overlapping portion of the range taught by Kang, in order to form an anode having improved rolling property and capacity characteristics.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abdelsalam et al. (US PGPub 2015/0280221 A1), as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Ueda et al. (US PGPub 2007/0048609 A1).
Regarding Claim 13, modified Abdelsalam discloses all of the limitations as set forth above and further discloses wherein the silicon-based compound is not particularly limited and may comprise a compound containing silicon and one or more further elements ([0161]).
However, modified Abdelsalam does not disclose wherein the silicon-based compound comprises a silicon oxide represented by the following formula:
SiOx [Chemical Formula 1]
wherein 0<x<2.
Ueda teaches a silicon-based compound for use as an anode active material in an anode for a lithium secondary battery ([0022], [0040]).
Specifically, Ueda teaches wherein the silicon-based compound may be a compound comprising silicon and one further element, such as a silicon oxide represented by SiOx, wherein 0<x<2 ([0040]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a silicon oxide represented by [Chemical Formula 1] as the silicon-based compound of modified Abdelsalam, as taught by Ueda, as the silicon-based compound is not particularly limited and such is known in the art as being suitable for use as an anode active material in an anode for a lithium secondary battery and therefore the skilled artisan would have a reasonable expectation that such would successfully function as the silicon-based compound of modified Abdelsalam.
Claims 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abdelsalam et al. (US PGPub 2015/0280221 A1), as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Zaghib et al. (US PGPub 2009/0301866 A1).
Regarding Claims 14, modified Abdelsalam discloses all of the limitations as set forth above and further discloses wherein the first anode layer (203a) has a first thickness, and the second anode layer (203b) has a second thickness, wherein the second thickness is preferably thinner than the first thickness ([0157]).
Consequently, modified Abdelsalam does not disclose wherein the second thickness is greater than the first thickness.
However, the Examiner notes that modified Abdelsalam is not limited to the preferred embodiments ([0272]).
Zaghib teaches in Fig. 1 an anode for a lithium secondary battery comprising an anode current collector (1), a first anode layer (A) formed over the anode current collector (1) comprising a first anode active material, such as natural graphite and artificial graphite, and a second anode layer (B) formed over the first anode layer (A) comprising a second anode active material, such as graphite and a silicon-containing compound ([0035]-[0036]).
Specifically, Zaghib teaches wherein the first anode layer (A) has a first thickness, and the second anode layer (B) has a second thickness, wherein the second thickness may be greater than or less than the first thickness ([0254]-[0255], [0259]-[0261]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the second thickness of modified Abdelsalam to be greater than the first thickness of Abdelsalam, as taught by Zaghib, as such is a known configuration in the art and therefore the skilled artisan would have a reasonable expectation that such can successfully be done in order to form an anode for a lithium secondary battery, as desired by modified Abdelsalam.
Regarding Claim 16 modified Abdelsalam discloses all of the limitations as set forth above and further discloses wherein the first anode layer (203a) comprises a first binder, and the second anode layer (203b) comprises a second binder ([0103]-[0104]).
Moreover, modified Abdelsalam discloses in the exemplary embodiments wherein a weight ratio of the first binder to the second binder may be 3:14, which falls outside of the instantly claimed range of 1 to 2:1.
Consequently, modified Abdelsalam does not disclose wherein a weight ratio of the first binder and the second binder is 1 to 2:1.
Zaghib teaches in Fig. 1 an anode for a lithium secondary battery comprising an anode current collector (1), a first anode layer (A) formed over the anode current collector (1) comprising a first anode active material, such as natural graphite and artificial graphite), and a second anode layer (B) formed over the first anode layer (A) comprising a second anode active material, such as graphite and a silicon-containing compound ([0035]-[0036]).
Zaghib further teaches wherein the first anode layer (A) comprises between 0 and 99% by weight of a first binder, and the second anode layer (B) comprises between 0 and 99% by weight of a second binder ([0053]-[0061]) and therefore Zaghib teaches wherein a weight ratio of the first binder and the second binder may be 1 to 2:1.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the anode of modified Abdelsalam to comprise a weight ratio of the first binder and the second binder to be 1 to 2:1, as taught by Zaghib, as such is a known suitable range in the art and therefore the skilled artisan would have a reasonable expectation that such would successfully form an anode for a lithium secondary battery, as desired by modified Abdelsalam.
Claims 1 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US PGPub 2017/0125806 A1, cited on the IDS dated March 6, 2024).
Regarding Claim 1, Wang discloses in Fig. 1 an anode (10) for a lithium secondary battery ([0022], e.g. [0025]), the anode (10) comprising:
an anode current collector (11) ([0023]);
a first anode layer (12b) formed over the anode current collector (11) and comprising a first anode active material ([0034]);
a second anode layer (12a) formed over the first anode layer (12b) and comprising a second anode active material ([0034]);
wherein the first anode active material comprises graphite ([0025]), wherein the graphite may be chosen to comprise natural graphite and artificial graphite ([0027]),
wherein the second anode active material comprises a silicon-based compound and graphite ([0025]), wherein the graphite may be chosen to comprise natural graphite and artificial graphite ([0027]).
Specifically, Wang discloses wherein a lithium ion battery comprising the anode achieves good discharge rate characteristics ([0006]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize natural graphite and artificial graphite as the graphite in the first and second anode layers, as disclosed by Wang, such that the first anode active material comprises natural graphite and artificial graphite and the second anode active material comprises the silicon-based compound and artificial graphite, wherein the skilled artisan would have a reasonable expectation that such would successfully form a lithium ion battery that achieves good discharge rate characteristics.
Regarding Claims 10-11, modified Wang discloses all of the limitations as set forth above and further discloses wherein a weight ratio of the graphite to the silicon-based compound in the first and second anode active material layers (12a, 12b) is 90-97 : 3-10 in order to obtain a high capacity and improve the rate characteristics and cycle characteristics ([0026]).
Therefore, modified Wang discloses wherein a weight ratio of the artificial graphite to the silicon-based compound in the second anode active material layer (12a) may be 91-99 : 1-9.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the anode such that a weight ratio of the artificial graphite to the silicon-based compound in the second anode active material layer is 91-99 : 1-9, as disclosed by modified Wang, wherein the skilled artisan would have a reasonable expectation that such would successfully obtain a high capacity and improve the rate characteristics and cycle characteristics.
Thus, modified Wang discloses wherein the second anode active material comprises the silicon-based compound in an amount of not more than 9 wt%.
Claims 1 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuzuki et al. (US PGPub 2021/0013496 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Tsuzuki discloses in Fig. 1 an anode (12) for a lithium secondary battery (10) ([0012, e.g. [0013]), the anode (12) comprising:
an anode current collector (40) ([0022]);
a first anode layer (42) formed over the anode current collector (40) and comprising a first anode active material ([0022]-[0023]);
a second anode layer (43) formed over the first anode layer (42) and comprising a second anode active material ([0022]-[0023]]);
wherein the first anode active material comprises graphite, wherein the graphite may be chosen to comprise natural graphite and artificial graphite ([0023]),
wherein the second anode active material comprises a silicon-based compound and graphite, wherein the graphite may be chosen to comprise natural graphite and artificial graphite ([0023]).
Specifically, Tsuzuki discloses wherein a lithium ion battery comprising the anode has a high energy density and excellent output characteristics ([0007]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize natural graphite and artificial graphite as the graphite in the first anode layer and artificial graphite as the graphite in the second anode layer, as disclosed by Tsuzuki, wherein the skilled artisan would have a reasonable expectation that such would successfully form a lithium ion battery that has a high energy density and excellent output characteristics
Regarding Claims 14-15 modified Tsuzuki discloses all of the limitations as set forth above and further discloses wherein the first anode layer (42) has a first thickness, and the second anode layer (43) has a second thickness, wherein the second thickness may be greater than the first thickness ([0026]).
Specifically, modified Tsuzuki discloses wherein a thickness ratio of the first thickness to the second thickness is preferably 30-80 : 20-70 in order to readily ensure compatibility between high energy density and favorable output characteristics ([0026]), which encompasses the instantly claimed range of 35-45 : 55-65.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the anode such that a thickness ratio of the first thickness to the second thickness falls within the encompassing portion of the range disclosed by modified Tsuzuki in order to readily ensure compatibility between high energy density and favorable output characteristics.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Katogi et al. (US PGPub 2023/0018422 A1) teaches in Fig. 2 an anode (12) comprising a first anode layer (32a) comprising graphite and a second anode layer (32b) comprising graphite, wherein the second anode layer (32b) may further comprise silicon ([0019], [0021]-[0022], [0037).
However, the effective filing date of Katogi is later than the effective filing date of the instant application and therefore Katogi is not considered to be prior art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIMBERLY WYLUDA whose telephone number is (571)272-4381. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7 AM - 3 PM EST.
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, BASIA RIDLEY can be reached at (571)272-1453. 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.
/KIMBERLY WYLUDA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights