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 .
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is responsive to the amendment filed on 3/17/2026. Claims 1-5, 8, 9, 11, 14-20 are pending. Applicant’s arguments have been considered. Claims 1-5, 8, 9, 11, 14-20 are non-finally rejected for reasons stated herein below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed 6/22/2026 has been placed in the application file and the information referred to therein has been considered.
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 1-5, 8, 9, 11, 14-20 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 1 recites “the negative electrode active material layer comprises a first negative electrode active material layer comprising artificial graphite and natural graphite, and a second negative electrode active material layer comprising at least one of artificial graphite or natural graphite, and a silicon-based active material”. It is noted that the artificial graphite, the natural graphite, and the silicon-based active material are all active materials in the active material layer.
In claim 1, line 12 and line 17, the recitations “two or more types” is confusing because the above limitation in claim 1 already discloses what the active materials are. In other words, how are the “two or more chemical types” related to “artificial graphite,” “natural graphite,” and “a silicon-based active material”? “Two or more types” is redundant. Please delete.
In claim 1, line 8-9, “of negative electrode active materials” is confusing because the limitations “artificial graphite,” “natural graphite,” and “a silicon-based active material” already recite active materials.
In claim 3-5, 8, the limitation “of negative electrode active materials” is confusing because the limitations “artificial graphite,” “natural graphite,” and “a silicon-based active material” already recite active materials in claim 1.
In claim 3, the recitations “three or more types” is confusing because the limitations “artificial graphite,” “natural graphite,” and “a silicon-based active material” already recite active materials in claim 1.
In claims 4, 5, 8, the recitations “two or more types” is confusing because the above limitation in claim 1 already discloses what the active materials are.
In claim 17, “a silicon-based active material” has antecedent basis in claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-5, 8, 9, 11, 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeon (US 2023/0089248).
Regarding claim 1, Jeong discloses a negative electrode for a lithium secondary battery comprising: a current collector and a negative electrode active material layer provided on at least one surface of the current collector.
The negative active material layer comprises a first negative electrode active material layer comprises at least one of artificial graphite or natural graphite, and second negative electrode active material layer comprises at least one of artificial graphite or natural graphite, and a silicon-based active material [0035, 0090, 0091].
wherein the negative electrode active material layer comprises a first region corresponding to 50% of a total thickness of the negative electrode active material layer from a surface facing the current collector and a second region corresponding to 50% of the total thickness of the negative electrode active material layer from a surface opposite to the surface facing the current collector [0093],
wherein the negative electrode active material layer comprises two or more types of negative electrode active materials having D50 different from each other [0090, 0091].
Regarding claim 2, a composition of the negative electrode active material in the first region and a composition of the negative electrode active material in the second region are different. See Example 2.
Regarding claim 3, the negative electrode active material layer comprises three or more types of negative electrode active materials having D50 different from each other. See Example 1.
Regarding claim 4, at least one of the first region or the second region comprises two or more types of negative electrode active materials having D50 different from each other. See Example 1.
Regarding claim 5, the first region or the second region comprise two or more types of negative electrode active materials having D50 different from each other. See Example 1.
Regarding claim 9, a boundary between the first negative electrode active material layer and the second negative electrode active material layer is different from a boundary between the first region and the second region, The negative electrode for a rechargeable lithium battery according to an embodiment may be a thickened negative electrode for maximizing or increasing capacity, and thus each thickness of the first region and each thickness of the second region may range from about 30 μm to about 100 μm, for example, about 30 μm to about 80 μm, or about 40 μm to about 70 μm. A total thickness of the negative electrode active material layer including the first region and the second region may range from about 60 μm to about 200 μm, for example, about 70 μm to about 150 μm, or about 80 μm to about 140 μm. When the negative electrode active material layer is formed on both (e.g., simultaneously) surfaces of the current collector, the negative electrode may have a total thickness of about 120 μm to about 400 μm, about 130 μm to about 400 μm, for example, about 150 μm to about 300 μm, or about 160 μm to about 250 μm. When each region and the thickness of the negative electrode satisfy the ranges, very high capacity may be realized, and according to an embodiment, porosities of the first region and the second region may be adjusted to realize excellent or suitable output characteristics and cycle-life characteristics with this thickness [0043].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time the invention was made to adjust the thickness of each region for the benefit of optimizing high capacity.
Regarding claim 11, wherein the silicon-based active material comprises at least one selected from a group of a silicon oxide, a silicon metal complex, and a silicon carbon composite [0039].
Regarding claim 14, the second negative electrode active material layer comprises natural graphite and a silicon-based active material [0090, 0091].
Regarding claim 15, wherein the first negative electrode active material layer further comprises a silicon-based active material [0090, 0091].
Regarding claim 16, the negative electrode active material layer comprises 1 part by weight to 10 parts by weight of a silicon-based active material based on 100 parts by weight of a total of the negative electrode active materials [0090, 0091].
Regarding claim 17, at least one layer of the first negative electrode active material layer or the second negative electrode active material layer comprises 1 part by weight to 20 parts by weight of a silicon-based active material based on 100 parts by weight of a total of the negative electrode active materials of each layer.
Regarding claim 1, satisfying Equations 1 and 2 as claimed, wherein, in Equation 1 and Equation 2, D50,total is D50 of the two or more types of the negative electrode active materials in the negative electrode active material layer, D50,1st is D50 of the negative electrode active material in the first region, and D50,2nd is D50 of the negative electrode active material in the second region, and
Regarding claim 8, at least one of the first negative electrode active material layer or the second negative electrode active material layer comprises two or more types of negative electrode active materials having D50 different from each other and satisfies Equations 3 and 4 as claimed,
wherein, in Equations 3 and 4, D50, total is D50 of the two or more types of the negative electrode active materials in the negative electrode active material layer, D50,L1 is D50 of the negative electrode active material in the first negative electrode active material layer, and D50,L2 is D50 of the negative electrode active material in the second negative electrode active material layer,
Jeong discloses in Example 1:
First region [0090]:
93 wt% graphite with D50 of 16.0 um
7 wt% silicon-carbon composite D50 of 10.2 um
D50,1st = 0.93 (16.0) x 0.07 (10.2)
= 14.88 + 0.71
= 15.59 um
Thickness = 50 um [0093]
The porosity = 14.8% [0099], hence the volume occupied is 85.2%
Second region [0091]:
93 wt% graphite with D50 of 14.5 um
7 wt% silicon-carbon composite D50 of 10.2 um
D50,2nd = 0.93 (14.5) x 0.07 (10.2)
= 14.06 + 0.71
= 14.77 um
Thickness = 50 um [0093]
The porosity = 18.4% [0099], hence the volume occupied is 81.6%
V1/V2 = 85.2%/81.6% = 1.04
Given that the first region thickness and the second region thickness are the same, D50, total = (1.04 * 15.59 +1 * 14.77)/2 = 15.49 um
Hence, Equation 1 = 0.6%
Equation 2 = 4.6%
Equation 3 = 0.6%
Equation 4 = 4.6%
However, Jeong discloses a negative electrode for a rechargeable lithium battery structurally has the second region with higher porosity than that of the first region by applying a negative electrode active material having different morphologies in the first region (lower or inner portion) and the second region (upper or outer portion) as well as making the electrode plate thicker to increase capacity. Thereby, the resistance on the surface of the electrode plate may be alleviated (reduced) and the output characteristics of the battery may be improved [0030].
The average particle diameter (D50) of the first negative electrode active material and the average particle diameter (D50) of the second negative electrode active material may be similar to each other, and may range from about 9 μm to about 22 μm. When the first negative electrode active material and the second negative electrode active material satisfy these particle diameter ranges, high capacity may be realized and excellent or suitable output characteristics and cycle-life characteristics may be exhibited [0036].
Further, the first negative electrode active material applied to the first region and the second negative electrode active material applied to the second region may have the same average particle diameters and different morphologies. For example, the first negative electrode active material may be substantially spherical, and the second negative electrode active material may be amorphous. In an embodiment, the spherical shape includes a shape similar to a sphere and refers to a round shape without an angle. The first negative electrode active material has a morphology close to (similar to) a sphere and has a form easily pressed during the compression. The first region composed of these has a high internal density and relatively low porosity. The second negative electrode active material has a substantially non-uniform morphology, whose specific surface area is higher than that of a spherical shape. The second region composed of these may have a relatively (compared to the first negative electrode) high porosity [0034].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time the invention was made to form the active material particles of Jeong in the first and second regions with similar average particle diameters that are close to being the same average particle diameters with different morphologies for forming a higher porosity on the second region for the benefit of forming increased capacity. It is noted that when the average particle diameters in the first and second regions are close to being the same, the Equations 1 and 2 become closer to zero, absent unexpected results.
MPEP states:
2144.01 Implicit Disclosure [R-10.2019]
"[I]n considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom." In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968) (underline added)
Given that Jeong discloses the second region with higher porosity than that of the first region by applying a negative electrode active material having different morphologies in the first region (lower or inner portion) and the second region (upper or outer portion) as well as making the electrode plate thicker to increase capacity and decrease the resistance on the surface of the electrode plate to improve the output characteristics of the battery [0030], an ordinary artisan would be disposed to form the active material particles of Jeong in the first and second regions with similar average particle diameters that are close to being the same average particle diameters with different morphologies for forming a higher porosity on the second region for the benefit of forming increased capacity. It is noted that when the average particle diameters in the first and second regions are close to being the same, the Equations 1 and 2 become closer to zero.
Further, the Examiner notes that Applicant’s “having D50 different from each other” (emphasis added) is found to be obvious from Jeong’s disclosure where the particles in each layer are the same because the Examiner notes that output characteristics of the battery would be the same when equation 1 and equation 2 are zero, and just outside zero, for example 0.001. It has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2144.05.
Further, it would have been obvious to try for an ordinary artisan to choose diameters that are close to each other that have different morphologies to assess how much capacity would increase. It has been held that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success would have been “obvious to try ” for an ordinary artisan. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. ___, ___, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007). See MPEP 2143.
Regarding claim 18, Jeong teaches a lithium secondary battery comprising the negative electrode of claim 1, a positive electrode, and a separator.
Regarding claim 19, the positive electrode comprises a lithium composite transition metal compound comprising nickel (Ni) and cobalt (Co), as an active material [0055].
Regarding claim 20, the lithium composite transition metal compound further comprises at least one of manganese or aluminum [0055].
Pertinent Prior Art
Tashita (US 2024/0145681) - Tashita discloses a negative electrode having a lower layer and an upper layer. The upper layer and the lower layer have the same average particle diameter, and reads on Applicant's Equations 1 and 2. Although Applicant's claim 1 recites that the D50 of the active material particles be different, the Examiner notes that Tashita's same D50 values would expect to have the same properties as Applicant's values just outside of zero in equation 1 and equation 2, and hence would have been found obvious, absent unexpected results. See MPEP 2144.05.
Response to Arguments
Arguments dated 3/17/2026 addressed:
Applicant argued that the prior art Jeong (US 2023/0089248) does not disclose the Equations of 1, 2, 3, and 4.
In response, Jeong discloses the values of 0.6% for Equation 1 and Equation 3, and a value of 4.6% for Equation 2 and Equation 4. See rejection above for mathmatical calcuation.
However, MPEP states:
2144.01 Implicit Disclosure [R-10.2019]
"[I]n considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom." In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968) (underline added)
Jeong discloses a negative electrode for a rechargeable lithium battery structurally has the second region with higher porosity than that of the first region by applying a negative electrode active material having different morphologies in the first region (lower or inner portion) and the second region (upper or outer portion) as well as making the electrode plate thicker to increase capacity. Thereby, the resistance on the surface of the electrode plate may be alleviated (reduced) and the output characteristics of the battery may be improved [0030].
The average particle diameter (D50) of the first negative electrode active material and the average particle diameter (D50) of the second negative electrode active material may be similar to each other, and may range from about 9 μm to about 22 μm. When the first negative electrode active material and the second negative electrode active material satisfy these particle diameter ranges, high capacity may be realized and excellent or suitable output characteristics and cycle-life characteristics may be exhibited [0036].
Further, the first negative electrode active material applied to the first region and the second negative electrode active material applied to the second region may have the same average particle diameters and different morphologies. For example, the first negative electrode active material may be substantially spherical, and the second negative electrode active material may be amorphous. In an embodiment, the spherical shape includes a shape similar to a sphere and refers to a round shape without an angle. The first negative electrode active material has a morphology close to (similar to) a sphere and has a form easily pressed during the compression. The first region composed of these has a high internal density and relatively low porosity. The second negative electrode active material has a substantially non-uniform morphology, whose specific surface area is higher than that of a spherical shape. The second region composed of these may have a relatively (compared to the first negative electrode) high porosity [0034].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time the invention was made to form the active material particles of Jeong in the first and second regions with similar average particle diameters that are close to being the same average particle diameters with different morphologies for forming a higher porosity on the second region for the benefit of forming increased capacity. It is noted that when the average particle diameters in the first and second regions are close to being the same, the Equations 1 and 2 become closer to zero, absent unexpected results.
Given that Jeong discloses the second region with higher porosity than that of the first region by applying a negative electrode active material having different morphologies in the first region (lower or inner portion) and the second region (upper or outer portion) as well as making the electrode plate thicker to increase capacity and decrease the resistance on the surface of the electrode plate to improve the output characteristics of the battery [0030], an ordinary artisan would be disposed to form the active material particles of Jeong in the first and second regions with similar average particle diameters that are close to being the same average particle diameters with different morphologies for forming a higher porosity on the second region for the benefit of forming increased capacity. It is noted that when the average particle diameters in the first and second regions are close to being the same, the Equations 1 and 2 become closer to zero.
Further, the Examiner notes that Applicant’s “having D50 different from each other” (emphasis added) is found to be obvious from Jeong’s disclosure where the particles in each layer are the same because the Examiner notes that output characteristics of the battery would be the same when equation 1 and equation 2 are zero, and just outside zero, for example 0.001. It has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2144.05.
Further, it would have been obvious to try for an ordinary artisan to choose diameters that are close to each other that have different morphologies to assess how much capacity would increase. It has been held that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success would have been “obvious to try ” for an ordinary artisan. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. ___, ___, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007). See MPEP 2143.
Applicant asserts on page 10 of the Office Action, the Examiner's position that "when the average particle diameters in the first and second regions are close to being the same, the Equations 1 and 2 become closer to zero," appears to rely on inherency. However, as mentioned above, Jeong does not disclose or suggest that the average particles diameters could or should be "close to being the same," but instead discloses that they can be the same (see [0034]) or similar (see [0036]). When they are the same, this is contrary to the claims, which require the negative electrode active material layer to comprise two or more chemical types of negative electrode active materials having D₅₀ different from each other. When they are similar, Equations 1 and 2 may or may not be met. As evidenced by the Examiner's calculations, Equation 2 is not met in Example 1. This "may or may not" is not sufficient for inherency. That is, the fact that some of the embodiments in Jeong may satisfy Equations 1 and 2, while some may not, is not sufficient for inherency. Inherency requires Equations 1 and 2 to necessarily be satisfied. See MPEP § 2112 IV. Page 13 of Response.
In response, the Examiner further notes that the Examiner's position is not relying on inherency, but an obviousness to try forming the particle sizes of first active material and second active material that are similar to each other by their particle sizes close to being the same with different morphologies for the benefit of trying to obtain better output characteristics and cycle life.
Further, the Examiner notes that Applicant’s “having D50 different from each other” (emphasis added) is found to be obvious from Jeong’s disclosure where the particles in each layer are the same because the Examiner notes that output characteristics of the battery would be the same when equation 1 and equation 2 are zero, and just outside zero, for example 0.001. It has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2144.05.
Further, it would have been obvious to try for an ordinary artisan to choose diameters that are close to each other that have different morphologies to assess how much capacity would increase. It has been held that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success would have been “obvious to try ” for an ordinary artisan. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. ___, ___, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007). See MPEP 2143.
The Declaration dated 8/5/2025 is addressed:
The Declaration is not commensurate in scope with the claims. Table 1 appears to show superior results for Example 1 and Example 2 over the comparative examples. However, claim 1 does not recite many features of the examples that produced the superior cycle life performance, such as the active material particle size, the active material amounts, the SiO, the SiO amount, the cycle life performance when the equations are just inside and outside 3 and -3, as well as throughout the entire claimed range. The Applicant further needs to show how the Applicant's invention of "having D50 different from each other" differs unobviously from Jeong’s “same particle size” by showing cycle life performance when the Applicant's Equations 1, 2, 3, 4 are zero.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CYNTHIA KYUNG SOO WALLS whose telephone number is (571)272-8699. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F until 5pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jonathan Leong can be reached at 571-270-1292. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CYNTHIA K WALLS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1751
Prosecution Insights