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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because reference character 5 is missing arrows in Fig. 2 and 3, reference character 4 is missing an arrow in Fig. 4, and reference charter 1 is missing arrows in Fig. 5 and 6. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The use of the terms: Bettersize in Para. 105, Mastersizer in Para. 106, Tristar in Para. 111 and 112, Equinox in Para. 113, and AccPyc in Para. 114, which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore, the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 2 and 5 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 4 of claim 2 recites the limitation “have a the median particle size.” This should read “have a median particle size.”
Line 2 of claim 5 recites the limitation “on single side.” This should read “on a single side.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 11 and 13 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.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the mass percentage" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claims 1-3, 9, 11, 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2021/0202931 A1) in view of Yamaguchi et al. (US 2017/0062823 A1) and Shen et al. (CN 108844878 A). Lee et al. was cited in the IDS filed 8/20/2025. Shen et al. was cited in the IDS filed 7/16/2024.
Regarding claim 1, Lee et al. teaches a negative electrode plate, comprising:
a negative electrode current collector (see e.g. negative electrode comprising negative electrode active material coating negative electrode current collector in Para. 62 in which the current collector may be a metal sheet in Para. 67); and
a negative electrode film layer (see e.g. negative electrode active material slurry that is coated, dried, and then pressed onto the current collector producing what one would reasonably expect to be considered a film in Para. 62) which is located on at least one surface of the negative electrode current collector (see e.g. coating on a negative electrode current collector in Para. 62 inherently would be on a surface) and comprises first negative electrode active material particles and second negative electrode active material particles (see e.g. the negative electrode active material comprises a first carbon-based particle and a second carbon-based particle in Para. 19. It is relevant to note the labeling of first and second is arbitrary)
and having a tap density of 0.4 g/cm3-1.4 g/cm3 (see e.g. Lee et al. teaches the second carbon-based particle may have a tap density of 0.7 – 1 g/cc or grams per cubic centimeter in Para. 31).
wherein a difference d in median particle size between the first negative electrode active material particles and the second negative electrode active material particles satisfies: 3 µm ≤ d ≤ 19 µm (see e.g. Lee et al. teaches particle diameter of second carbon-based particle ranges from 15 to 25 µm in Para. 34 while the first carbon-based particle ranges from 8 to 16 µm in Para. 30 so the difference may from -1 ≤ d ≤ 17 of the difference between the second carbon-based particle and the first carbon-based particle. This overlaps the claimed range in a manner which provides a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05)).
the first negative electrode active material particles are selected from one or more of hard carbon, soft carbon, and mesophase carbon microbeads (see e.g. Lee et al. teaches the second carbon-based particle may be soft carbon, hard carbon or meso-carbon microbeads in Para. 35); and the second negative electrode active material particles are selected from one or more of hard carbon. soft carbon, and mesophase carbon microbeads (see e.g. Lee et al. teaches the first carbon-based particle may be soft carbon, hard carbon or meso-carbon microbeads in Para. 35), and
Lee et al. fails to explicitly teach the first negative electrode active material particles comprising a plurality of adsorption holes, and
a compaction density PD of the negative electrode film layer satisfies: 0.8 g/cm3 ≤ PD ≤ 1.4 g/cm3.
However, Yamaguchi et al. teaches anode active material particles including carbon particles with pores having contact with an ionic liquid having a lithium ion conducting property in Para 6. Yamaguchi et al. teaches it is possible to manufacture an anode active material particle which can provide both the improvement in the ion conducting property and securement of the formability in Para 21. Pores that are capable of comprising ionic liquid would inherently be capable of adsorption.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the carbon-based particles of Lee et al., including the first negative electrode active material particles, so that they comprise pores that may comprise ionic liquid having a lithium ion conducting property, as taught by Yamaguchi et al., for the improvement of the ion conducting property and securement of the forming of the anode as noted in Para 21 of Yamaguchi et al..
Lee et al. in view of Yamaguchi et al. fails to explicitly teach a compaction density PD of the negative electrode film layer satisfies: 0.8 g/cm3 ≤ PD ≤ 1.4 g/cm3.
However, Shen et al. teaches a negative electrode pole piece between 0.8-2 g/cm3 as it influences the active specific surface area and for example if it’s too large, the active site exposed to the electrolyte of the active site will be reduced and thus less electrode can participate in the reaction in Para. 26-28 and 81-82.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the compaction density of the negative electrode film layer of Lee et al. in view of Yamaguchi et al. to be between 0.8 and 2 g/cm3, as taught by Shen et al., in order to optimize the negative electrode activity ratio as noted in Para. 26 of Shen et al..
Regarding claim 2, Lee et al. in view of Yamaguchi et al. and Shen et al. teaches the negative electrode plate according to claim 1, wherein the first negative electrode active material particles have a median particle size D150 of 4 µm - 50 µm (see e.g. Lee et al. teaches the second carbon-based particle may have an average particle diameter D50 of 15-20 µm in Para. 34 which overlaps the claimed range in a manner which provides a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05)); and
the second negative electrode active material particles have a median particle size D250 of 1 µm - 40 µm (see e.g. Lee et al. teaches the first carbon-based particle may have an average particle diameter D50 of 8-16 µm in Para. 30 which overlaps the claimed range in a manner which provides a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05)).
Regarding claim 3, Lee et al. in view of Yamaguchi et al. and Shen et al. teaches the negative electrode plate according to claim 1, wherein based on a total mass of the first negative electrode active material particles and the second negative electrode active material particles, a mass percentage of the first negative electrode active material particles is 5%-95% (see e.g. Lee et al. teaches a first carbon-based particle and a second carbon-based particle may comprise 5-20 parts by weight and 55-90 parts by weight respectively based on 100 parts by weight of the total negative electrode active material in Para. 19. Thus, the difference in weight ratio may range from:
90
90
+
5
=
90
95
=
94.7
%
90
90
+
9
=
90
99
=
90.91
%
*
*Para. 21 also notes 1-20 parts by weight are silicon-based particles so in this case if the second carbon-based particle is 90 parts by weight out of 100 parts by weight of the total negative electrode active particle, then the highest the first carbon-based particle may be is 9 parts by weight.
55
55
+
5
=
55
60
=
91.67
%
55
55
+
20
=
55
75
=
73.3
%
I.e. the ratio of second carbon-based particles to a total of the first and second carbon-based particles may range from 73.3% to 94.7% which fall within the claimed range.)
Regarding claim 9, Lee et al. in view of Yamaguchi et al. and Shen et al. teaches the negative electrode plate according to claim 1, wherein the first negative electrode active material particles have an irregular shape and/or microspheric shape (see e.g. Lee et al. teaches the diameter of the second carbon-based particle is on a scale of micrometers in para. 34 and it would be obvious for it have a high sphericity given the example of 0.9 or less in Para. 41), and the second negative electrode active material particles have an irregular shape and/or microspheric shape (see e.g. Lee et al. teaches the diameter of the first carbon-based particle is on a scale of micrometers in para. 30 and it would be obvious for it have a high sphericity given the example of 0.9 or greater in Para. 40).
Regarding claim 11, Lee et al. in view of Yamaguchi et al. and Shen et al. teaches the negative electrode plate according to claim 1,
wherein the first negative electrode active material particles are selected from microspheric hard carbon particles (see e.g. Lee et al. teaches the diameter of the second carbon-based particle is on a scale of micrometers in para. 34 and it would be obvious for it have a high sphericity given the example of 0.9 or less in Para. 41. See e.g. Lee et al. teaches the second carbon-based particle may be soft carbon, hard carbon or meso-carbon microbeads in Para. 35), and a median particle size D150 of the first negative electrode active material particles is 10 µm – 50 µm (see e.g. Lee et al. teaches the particle diameter of second carbon-based particle ranges from 15 to 25 µm in Para. 34 while the first carbon-based particle ranges from 8 to 16 µm in Para. 30 so the difference may from -1 ≤ d ≤ 17 of the difference between the second carbon-based particle and the first carbon-based particle. This overlaps the claimed range in a manner which provides a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05)); and
the second negative electrode active material particles are selected from microspheric hard carbon particles (see e.g. Lee et al. teaches the diameter of the first carbon-based particle is on a scale of micrometers in para. 30 and it would be obvious for it have a high sphericity given the example of 0.9 or greater in Para. 40. See e.g. Lee et al. teaches the first carbon-based particle may be soft carbon, hard carbon or meso-carbon microbeads in Para. 35), and a median particle size D250 of the second negative electrode active material particles is 5 µm – 40 µm (see e.g. Lee et al. teaches the first carbon-based particle may have an average particle diameter D50 of 8-16 µm in Para. 30 which overlaps the claimed range in a manner which provides a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05)).
wherein based on a total mass of the first negative electrode active material particles and the second negative electrode active material particles, the mass percentage of the first negative electrode active material particles is 5%-95% (see e.g. Lee et al. teaches a first carbon-based particle and a second carbon-based particle may comprise 5-20 parts by weight and 55-90 parts by weight respectively based on 100 parts by weight of the total negative electrode active material in Para. 19. Thus, the difference in weight ratio may range from:
90
90
+
5
=
90
95
=
94.7
%
90
90
+
9
=
90
99
=
90.91
%
*
*Para. 21 also notes 1-20 parts by weight are silicon-based particles so in this case if the second carbon-based particle is 90 parts by weight out of 100 parts by weight of the total negative electrode active particle, then the highest the first carbon-based particle may be is 9 parts by weight.
55
55
+
5
=
55
60
=
91.67
%
55
55
+
20
=
55
75
=
73.3
%
I.e. the ratio of second carbon-based particles to a total of the first and second carbon-based particles may range from 73.3% to 94.7% which fall within the claimed range.)
Regarding claim 13, Lee et al. in view of Yamaguchi et al. and Shen et al. teaches the negative electrode plate according to claim 11, wherein the negative electrode film layer further comprises a slip increment component (see e.g. Lee et al. teaches the negative electrode active material may include a conductive agent in Para. 62 in which the conductive agent may be natural graphite or artificial graphite in Para. 66 of which the claim later defines as making up the slip increment component), a ratio of a sum of a mass of the first negative electrode active material particles and a mass of the second negative electrode active material particles to a mass of the slip increment component is 100:2-100:1 (see e.g. Lee et al. teaches the conductive agent is 1 wt.% to 9 wt.% based on the total weight of the slurry for the negative electrode active material in Para. 66. Lee et al. teaches the slurry also comprises the active material, a solvent and may also comprise a binder in an amount of 0.1 wt.% to 10 wt.% in Para. 62-65 and the active material comprises a silicon-based particle content preferably of 90:10 to 95:5 of first and second carbon particles to silicon-based particles in Para 25. Lee et al. teaches the solvent quantity in the examples is minimal in Para. 76, 80-83 e.g. 5:95 parts by weight of solvent to the rest of the active material in example 1 in Para. 76. Considering these factors, the wt.% of the conductive agent is not expected to significantly change relative to the first and second carbon particles and if anything be only slightly smaller considering the binder, solvent, and silicon quantities may be so small, thus approximately overlapping the claimed range in a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05)), and the slip increment component comprises one or more of artificial graphite, natural graphite, and graphene (see e.g. Lee et al. teaches the negative electrode active material may include a conductive agent in Para. 62 in which the conductive agent may be natural graphite or artificial graphite in Para. 66).
Regarding claim 14, Lee et al. in view of Yamaguchi et al. and Shen et al. teaches the negative electrode plate according to claim 1, wherein the negative electrode film layer further comprises a flexible binder (see e.g. Lee et al. teaches the negative electrode active material may include a binder in Para. 62 that may be rubber in Para. 64), the flexible binder comprises one or more of a styrene-acrylic emulsion, a copolymer of vinylidene fluoride and tetrafluoroethylene, a copolymer of vinylidene fluoride and hexafluoropropylene, a copolymer of vinylidene fluoride and acrylate, polytetrafluoroethylene, nitrile rubber, and hydrogenated nitrile rubber (see e.g. Lee et al. teaches acrylonitrile-butadiene rubber in Para. 64).
Regarding claim 15, Lee et al. in view of Yamaguchi et al. and Shen et al. teaches a secondary battery (see e.g. Lee et al. teaches a secondary battery in Para. 19), comprising the negative electrode plate according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 by Lee et al. in view of Yamaguchi et al. and Shen et al. above).
Regarding claim 16, Lee et al. in view of Yamaguchi et al. and Shen et al. teaches a battery module (see e.g. Lee et al. teaches a battery module comprising the lithium secondary cell in Para. 73), comprising the secondary battery according to claim 15 (see rejection of claim 15 by Lee et al. in view of Shen et al. above).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2021/0202931 A1) in view of Yamaguchi et al. (US 2017/0062823 A1) and Shen et al. (CN 108844878 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wang et al. (US 2019/0097271 A1). Wang et al. was cited in the IDS filed 8/20/2025.
Regarding claim 5, Lee et al. in view of Yamaguchi et al. and Shen et al. teaches the negative electrode plate according to claim 1.
Lee et al. in view of Yamaguchi et al. and Shen et al. fails to teach wherein a coating weight CW of the negative electrode film layer on single side is 2 mg/cm2 - 13 mg/cm2.
However, Wang et al. teaches a negative electrode active material with graphite material in Para. 8 in which the single side of the negative electrode layer has a coating weight CT per unit area of 2 mg/cm2 ≤ CW ≤ 18 mg/cm2. Wang et al. associates this with high charging speed, high energy density, and long cycle life in Para. 5.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the negative electrode film layer of Lee et al. in view of Yamaguchi et al. and Shen et al. to have a coating weight between 2 and 18 mg/cm2, as taught by Wang et al., to improve charging speed, energy density, and cycle life as noted by Wang et al. in Para 5.
This overlaps the claimed range in a manner which provides a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2021/0202931 A1) in view of Yamaguchi et al. (US 2017/0062823 A1) and Shen et al. (CN 108844878 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wang et al. (CN 113113601 A).
Regarding claim 7, Lee et al. in view of Yamaguchi et al. and Shen et al. teaches the negative electrode plate according to claim 1.
Lee et al. in view of Yamaguchi et al. and Shen et al. fails to teach wherein the first negative electrode active material particles satisfy at least one of the following:
(1) a pore size of the adsorption pores is 0.1 nm-16 nm:
(2) a specific surface area of the first negative electrode active material particles is 1 m3/g-40 m3/g:
(3) a (002) interplanar spacing of the first negative electrode active material particles is 0.34 nm-0.45 nm; and
(4) a true density of the first negative electrode active material particles is 1.3 g/cm3 - 2.0 g/cm3.
However, Wang et al. teaches hard carbon in a negative electrode material with a true density of 1.3 g/cm3 to 1.8 g/cm3 in Para. 66. Wang et al. teaches changing hard carbon parameters can greatly influence electrochemical performance in Para 112. Wang et al. teaches improvements of cycle performance and capacity retention in Para. 31.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the hard carbon particles of Lee et al. in view of Yamaguchi et al. and Shen et al. so that the true density was 1.3 g/cm3 to 1.8 g/cm3, as taught by Wang et al., as modification of hard carbon parameters are taught to greatly influence electrochemical performance in Para 112 of Wang and Wang et al. teaches improvements of cycle performance and capacity retention associated with hard carbon in this range in Para 31.
This overlaps the claimed range in a manner which provides a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05).
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2021/0202931 A1) in view of Yamaguchi et al. (US 2017/0062823 A1) and Shen et al. (CN 108844878 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jung et al. (US 2019/0260019 A1)
Regarding claim 17, Lee et al. in view of Yamaguchi et al. and Shen et al teaches the battery module according to claim 16.
Lee et al. in view of Yamaguchi et al. and Shen et al. fails to explicitly teach a battery pack, comprising the battery module according to claim 16.
However, Jung et al. teaches a battery pack including a battery module (see e.g. Jung et al. teaches a battery pack including the battery module provided to be used as a power source of a medium and large-sized device in Para. 59).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the battery modules of Lee et al. in view of Yamaguchi et al. and Shen et al. so that they are incorporated into a battery pack, as taught by Jung et al. in order to have the benefit of being able to power a medium or large-sized device as noted in Para. 59 of Jung et al..
Regarding claim 18, Lee et al. in view of Yamaguchi et al., Shen et al., and Jung et al. teaches an electrical device (see e.g. Lee et al. teaches examples of use of medium and large sized devices such as electric vehicles in Para. 74).
Lee et al. teaches the electrical device comprises battery cells and modules of Lee et al. (see e.g. Lee et al. teaches the electric vehicle comprises the medium and large-sized device of the prior paragraph of battery cells and or medium and large-sized modules Para 73-74).
Lee et al. in view of Yamaguchi et al. and Shen et al. fails to explicitly teach an electrical device, comprising the battery pack according to claim 17.
However, Jung et al. teaches a battery pack including a battery module for an electric vehicle (see e.g. Jung et al. teaches a battery pack including the battery module provided to be used as a power source of a medium and large-sized device in Para. 59).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the battery modules of Lee et al. in view of Yamaguchi et al. and Shen et al. so that they are incorporated into a battery pack, as taught by Jung et al. in order to have the benefit of being able to power a medium or large-sized device as noted in Para. 59 of Jung et al.. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the battery module of the combination of teachings of Lee et al, Shen et al., and Jung et al. into the electric vehicle of Lee et al. considering both Lee et al. and Jung et al. teaches incorporation of the battery cells and packs into an electric vehicle and Li et al. teaches the battery module can be incorporated to meet the power source needs of an electric vehicle in para. 59.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20160156029 A1 teaches carbon particle interplanar spacing
US 20180241038 A1 teaches two types of carbon materials in a negative electrode
US 20170288224 A1 teaches carbon particle pores or holes
US 20140227522 A1 teaches porous hard carbon
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHERINE J METZGER whose telephone number is (571)272-0170. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday (1st week) or Monday - Friday (2nd week) 7:30am-5:00am - 9-day biweekly schedule.
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.
/KATHERINE J METZGER/Examiner, Art Unit 1723
/TONG GUO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1723