DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on Oct. 17, 2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-2 and 4-20 are pending, wherein claim 1 is amended and claim 13 is withdrawn. Claims 1-2, 4-12, and 14-20 are being examined on the merits in this office action.
Remarks
Any rejections and/or objections made in the previous Office Action and not repeated below, are hereby withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments or/and arguments.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. References cited in the current Office action can be found in a prior Office action. Reference not previously cited can be found per the attached PTO-892 for this Office action.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The newly added conjunction term “and” in claim 1 should be moved before the start of “the graphite being primary particles …”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-2, 4-12, and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites a number proportion of [Symbol font/0xB3] 70%, but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the desired result (e.g., [Symbol font/0xB3] 70%) is achieved (See 2163.03. V., copied below). For example, the specification does not sufficiently disclose what steps are needed to achieve various different percentages including [Symbol font/0xB3] 70%. It is not disclosed how to obtain the claimed number proportions in the first active material comprising graphite being primary particles, graphite being secondary particles, and a silicon-based materials. For instances, directly mix graphite being primary particles with graphite being secondary particles according to different ratios? Or, other approaches were employed? There is no sufficient or/and clear description in the specification as originally filed.
PNG
media_image1.png
316
1280
media_image1.png
Greyscale
This issue applies similarly to the limitation related to [Symbol font/0xB3] 55% recited in claim 1, the limitation related to [Symbol font/0xB3] 60% recited in claim 8, the limitation related to [Symbol font/0xB3] 60% recited in claim 14, and the limitation related to ≤ 15% recited in claim 16.
Claims 1-2, 4-12 and 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 limitation "the primary particles" in “the first silicon-based material comprises secondary particles formed by aggregating the primary particles”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 (last paragraph) recites the limitation “the primary particles”. The antecedent basis for this limitation is unclear because both carbon-based material and silicon-based material comprise primary particles.
Claim 8 recites “the primary particles”. The antecedent basis for this limitation is unclear because both carbon-based material and silicon-based material comprise primary particles.
Claim 14 recites “the primary particles”. The antecedent basis for this limitation is unclear because both carbon-based material and silicon-based material comprise primary particles.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the primary particles" in “the first silicon-based material comprises secondary particles formed by aggregating the primary particles”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-4, 6-10, 12-14, 16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (US 20180342757 A1, hereafter Choi) in view of Yu et al. (CN 115425206 A, whose English machine translation is being employed for citation purposes, hereafter referred to as Yu).
Regarding claims 1-2, Choi teaches a secondary battery (at least, title and abstract), comprising:
a negative electrode plate comprising:
a negative electrode current collector ([0133]); and
a negative electrode film layer (See “a negative electrode active material …”, [0133]),
wherein (see the annotated drawing based on at least [0133]),
PNG
media_image2.png
720
1280
media_image2.png
Greyscale
the negative electrode film layer has a first surface away from the negative electrode current collector and a second surface opposite the first surface;
the negative electrode film layer has a thickness of H; and
a first region of the negative electrode film layer has a thickness range from the second surface of the negative electrode film layer to a position at 0.3H away from the second surface, and a second region of the negative electrode film layer has a thickness range from the first surface of the negative electrode film layer to a position at 0.3H away from the first surface.
Choi teaches the first region comprises a first active material comprising a first carbon-based material ([0097], L6-7: “graphite-based active material particles”, which are primary particles) and a first silicon-based material (a silicon-based material contained in “the secondary particles of the above-described embodiments” formed by aggregating the primary particles, see [0097], L8).
Choi teaches the second region of the negative electrode film layer comprises a second active material ([0097]: “graphite-based active material particles” together with “the secondary particles of the above-described embodiments”).
Choi is silent as to a carbon coating layer on the surface of primary particles of graphite. However, Yu discloses that forming a hard carbon layer on a carbon-based material enables to increase transmission channels of lithium ions, which can be rapidly diffused into the carbon-based material particles through the hard carbon layer and thereby high-rate performance is achieved (at least: [0059], L618-620). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have incorporated the teachings of Yu into Choi such that the primary particles of graphite coated with a hard carbon layer is employed in Choi in order to achieve a high-rate performance.
Choi in view of Yu further discloses that the first carbon-based material comprises graphite being secondary particles (“140”, Choi).
Choi in view of Yu further discloses that the amount (weight, and thus number of mole of particles) of the primary particles of graphite relative to the secondary particles is adjustable ([0098]), and the amount (weight, and thus number of mole of particles) of secondary particles of graphite included in the secondary particles relative to that of the silicon particles included in the secondary particle is also adjustable ([0095]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have readily arrived at the claimed limitations through routine experimentations by adjusting the above-mentioned amounts since the adjustments involve merely ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art.
Regarding claim 4, Choi in view of Yu teaches the secondary battery according to claim 1, wherein a porosity of the first silicon-based material being the secondary particles may be in the range of 2% to 50%, overlapping the “[Symbol font/0xB3] 4%” as instantly claimed. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP § 2144.05 (I).
Regarding claim 6, Choi in view of Yu teaches the secondary battery according to claim 1, wherein the first carbon-based material meets “the first carbon-based material comprises graphite” ([0097]).
Regarding claim 7, Choi in view of Yu teaches the secondary battery according to claim 1, wherein the first silicon-based material meets “the first silicon-based material comprises at least one of elemental silicon …” ([0059]: 121 may include silicon).
Regarding claim 8, Choi in view of Yu teaches the secondary battery according to claim 1, wherein
the second active material comprises a second carbon-based material ([0097], L6-7: “graphite-based active material particles”);
the second carbon-based material comprises secondary particles formed by aggregation of the primary particles (240 or 250); and
since the mass of the second carbon-based material being the secondary particles in the second carbon-based material is adjustable in a range ([0098]), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to reasonably expect the claimed proportion by number can be achieved by adjusting the mass since a mass and a particle number is positively related to each other.
Regarding claim 9, Choi in view of Yu teaches the secondary battery according to claim 1, wherein
the second active material comprises a second carbon-based material ([0097], L6-7: “graphite-based active material particles”), but is silent as to the second carbon-based material having a carbon coating layer on its surface.
Yu discloses that forming a hard carbon layer on a carbon-based material enables to increase transmission channels of lithium ions, which can be rapidly diffused into the carbon-based material particles through the hard carbon layer and thereby high-rate performance is achieved (at least: [0059], L618-620). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have incorporated the teachings of Yu into Choi such that the second carbon-based material coated with a hard carbon layer is employed in Choi in order to achieve a high-rate performance.
Regarding claim 10, Choi in view of Yu teaches the secondary battery according to claim 1, wherein the second active material comprises a second carbon-based material and the second carbon-based material has a carbon coating layer on its surface (referring to the rejection of claim 1). Yu further discloses that the mass of the hard carbon layer is adjustable (at least [0076]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have readily arrived at the claimed limitations through routine experimentations by adjusting the mass of the hard carbon layer since it involves merely ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art.
Regarding claim 12, Choi in view of Yu teaches the secondary battery according to claim 1, wherein the second active material comprises a second carbon-based material ([0097], L6-7: “graphite-based active material particles”), and the second carbon-based material meets “the second carbon-based material comprises graphite ([0097]).
Regarding claim 13, Choi in view of Yu teaches the secondary battery according to claim 1, wherein the second active material comprises a second carbon-based material ([0097], L6-7: “graphite-based active material particles”); and
the second silicon-based material comprises one or more of primary particles and secondary particles formed by aggregation of the primary particles ([0097]; Fig. 5 or Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 14, Choi in view of Yu teaches the secondary battery according to claim 1, where the second active material comprises a second silicon-based material and the second silicon-based material comprises primary particles and secondary particles (e.g., Fig. 5 or/and Fig. 6).
Choi in view of Yu further discloses that the amount (weight, and thus number of mole of particles) of the primary particles of graphite relative to the secondary particles is adjustable ([0098]), and the amount (weight, and thus number of mole of particles) of secondary particles of graphite included in the secondary particles relative to that of the silicon particles included in the secondary particle is also adjustable ([0095]). The amount (thus also number of particles) of primary particles of silicon-based material is adjustable since the secondary particles are formed of graphite and silicon-based material particles. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have readily arrived at the claimed limitations through routine experimentations by adjusting the above-mentioned amounts since the adjustments involve merely ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art.
Regarding claim 16, Choi in view of Yu teaches the secondary battery according to claim 1, wherein
the second active material comprises a second silicon-based material (e.g., 250); and
the second silicon-based material comprises elemental silicon (e.g., [0059]: 121 may include silicon).
Regarding claim 18, Choi in Yu teaches the secondary battery according to claim 1, and further discloses that the amount of negative electrode active material for forming the negative electrode film layer can be adjusted (e.g., 0.2 g in Examples 7-12, and 5 g in Examples 13-17). One of ordinary skill in the art would readily appreciate that a surface density is closely related to an amount of the negative electrode active material used to form the negative electrode film layer, and thus would readily arrive at the claimed surface density through routine experimentation by adjusting the amount of negative electrode active material.
Regarding claim 19, Choi in view of Yu teaches an electric apparatus (e.g., “a battery module or a battery pack”, [0074]), comprising:
a secondary battery (at least, title and abstract), comprising:
a negative electrode plate comprising:
a negative electrode current collector ([0133]); and
a negative electrode film layer (See “a negative electrode active material …”, [0133]),
wherein (see the annotated drawing based on at least [0133]),
PNG
media_image2.png
720
1280
media_image2.png
Greyscale
the negative electrode film layer has a first surface away from the negative electrode current collector and a second surface opposite the first surface;
the negative electrode film layer has a thickness of H; and
a first region of the negative electrode film layer has a thickness range from the second surface of the negative electrode film layer to a position at 0.3H away from the second surface, and a second region of the negative electrode film layer has a thickness range from the first surface of the negative electrode film layer to a position at 0.3H away from the first surface.
Choi teaches the first region comprises a first active material comprising a first carbon-based material ([0097], L6-7: “graphite-based active material particles”, which are primary particles) and a first silicon-based material (a silicon-based material contained in “the secondary particles of the above-described embodiments” formed by aggregating the primary particles, see [0097], L8).
Choi teaches the second region of the negative electrode film layer comprises a second active material ([0097]: “graphite-based active material particles” together with “the secondary particles of the above-described embodiments”).
Choi is silent as to a carbon coating layer on the surface of primary particles of graphite. However, Yu discloses that forming a hard carbon layer on a carbon-based material enables to increase transmission channels of lithium ions, which can be rapidly diffused into the carbon-based material particles through the hard carbon layer and thereby high-rate performance is achieved (at least: [0059], L618-620). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have incorporated the teachings of Yu into Choi such that a hard carbon layer coated carbon-based material is employed in Choi in order to achieve a high-rate performance.
Regarding claim 20, Choi in view of Yu teaches the secondary battery according to claim 19, but is silent as to the first carbon-based material having a carbon coating layer on its surface.
Yu discloses that forming a hard carbon layer on a carbon-based material enables to increase transmission channels of lithium ions, which can be rapidly diffused into the carbon-based material particles through the hard carbon layer and thereby high-rate performance is achieved (at least: [0059], L618-620). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have incorporated the teachings of Yu into Choi such that a hard carbon layer coated carbon-based material is employed in Choi in order to achieve a high-rate performance.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi in view of Yu, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Oura et al. (EP 4037015 A1, hereafter Oura).
Regarding claim 5, Choi in view of Yu teaches the secondary battery according to claim 1, but appears silent as to a particle size of the first carbon-based material. However, a selection of a certain particle size would be an obvious matter of design choice and it involves merely ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. For instance, Oura teaches a similar negative electrode having a first and a second negative electrode film layers, wherein the first carbon-based material may be 1 µm to 30 µm ([0034]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have selected a particle size of the first carbon-based material to be in the range of 1 µm to 30 µm, as taught by Oura, since some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2143.
Claims 11 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi in view of Yu, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (US 20190027740 A1, hereafter Lee).
Regarding claim 11, Choi in view of Yu teaches the secondary battery according to claim 1, wherein
the second active material comprises a second carbon-based material ([0097]: “graphite-based active material particles”).
Choi is silent as to relative sizes of the first and second carbon-based materials as claimed. However, Lee discloses that a similar multi-layer negative electrode comprises a first negative electrode layer closer to a current collector and a second negative electrode layer formed on the first negative electrode (at least: abstract), both of which may contain carbon-based materials ([0041]-[0042]), and the particle size (D50) ratio of the second carbon-based material to the first carbon-based material is in the range of about 0.17 to 2.5 ([0054]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have incorporated the teachings of Lee into Choi such that the particle size (D50) ratio of the second carbon-based material to the first carbon-based material is in the range of about 0.17 to 2.5 ([0054]) since the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way is prima facie obvious (MEPE § 2143). As a result, the claimed range “≤1” (corresponding to the claimed “a particle size … of the second … is less than a particle size … of the first …) overlaps the range of about 0.17 to 2.5. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP § 2144.05 (I).
Regarding claim 15, Choi in view of Yu teaches the secondary battery according to claim 1, wherein
the second active material comprises a second silicon-based material (silicon contained in “secondary particles of the above-described embodiments”, [0097]).
Choi is silent as to relative sizes of the first and second silicon-based materials as claimed. However, Lee discloses that a similar multi-layer negative electrode comprises a first negative electrode layer closer to a current collector and a second negative electrode layer formed on the first negative electrode (at least: abstract), both of which may contain silicon-based materials ([0041]-[0042]), and the particle size (D50) ratio of the second silicon-based material to the first silicon-based material is in the range of about 0.17 to 2.5 ([0054]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have incorporated the teachings of Lee into Choi such that the particle size (D50) ratio of the second silicon-based material to the first silicon-based material is in the range of about 0.17 to 2.5 ([0054]) since the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way is prima facie obvious (MEPE § 2143). As a result, the claimed range “≤1” (corresponding to the claimed “a particle size … of the second … is less than a particle size … of the first …) overlaps the range of about 0.17 to 2.5. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP § 2144.05 (I).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi in view of Yu, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hiasa et al. (US 2019 / 0207257 A1, hereafter Hiasa).
Regarding claim 17, Choi in view of Yu teaches the secondary battery according to claim 1, but is silent as to the claimed “one or more of tin-based material and lithium titanate”.
Hiasa discloses that a negative electrode active material comprising silicon, carbon and tin can not only achieve a high battery capacity but also prevent expansion and shrinkage of the negative electrode active material during charging and discharging ([0192]-[0193]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have incorporated the teachings of Choi in view of Yu to include tin, in addition to silicon and carbon, in the negative electrode active material of Choi in view of Yu, in order to achieve a high battery capacity as well as prevent expansion and shrinkage of the negative electrode active material during charging and discharging. As a result, an intermediate region of Choi in view of Yu located between the first region and the second region comprises tin-based material.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments and Declaration filed Sept. 29, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's arguments are based on the claims as amended. The amended claims have been addressed in the new rejections above.
In addition:
1) Applicant mainly argues:
PNG
media_image3.png
191
646
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In response, it is noted that “The Federal Circuit explained that the Supreme Court’s requirement for an explicit analysis does not require record evidence of an explicit teaching of a motivation to combine in the prior art”. “[T]he analysis that "should be made explicit" refers not to the teachings in the prior art of a motivation to combine, but to the court’s analysis. . . . Under the flexible inquiry set forth by the Supreme Court, the district court therefore erred by failing to take account of ‘the inferences and creative steps,’ or even routine steps, that an inventor would employ and by failing to find a motivation to combine related pieces from the prior art." Ball Aerosol, 555 F.3d at 993, 89 USPQ2d at 1877. See MPEP § 2143.
In the instant case, an explicit analysis for how to arrive at the claimed number proportion(s) has been provided in the rejections.
2) While Applicant provides a description in the Declaration to overcome written-description 112(a) rejection on claim 10, the arguments regarding paragraphs 10, 11 and 12 of the Declaration are not commensurate with the scope of the claim(s) and do not overcome written-description 112(a) rejection, because the invention does not claim those advantages (if they are treated as “advantages”) presented in the paragraphs. Furthermore, “Arguments of counsel cannot take the place of factually supported objective evidence”. See, e.g., In re Huang, 100 F.3d 135, 139-40, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1689 (Fed. Cir. 1996); In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705, 222 USPQ 191, 196 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZHONGQING WEI whose telephone number is (571)272-4809. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:30 - 6:00.
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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at (571)272-1330. 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.
/ZHONGQING WEI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1727