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
The amendments filed 1/22/2026 have been entered. Claims 1-4, 6-8, 11-12, 17, and 19 are amended, Claim 21 is new, and Claim 20 is canceled.
Support for the amendments can be found in original Claims 1-4 and 9.
Claims 1-19 and 21 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to amended claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's arguments with respect to Claims 9 and 10 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 8 and 9, Applicant argues that Ho does not disclose or suggest carbon matrix particles, wherein the carbon matrix particle comprises a three-dimensional network cross-linked pore structure, and that Antonietti does not disclose that at least some of the silicon-based nanoparticles are disposed in the three-dimensional network cross-linked pore structure.
However, Ho teaches porous carbon aerogel particles comprising silicon residing in the pores of the carbon aerogel (0067, Fig. 2). Although Ho does not explicitly disclose that the pores of the aerogel are interconnected, Antonietti is used an evidentiary reference to teach that carbon aerogels comprise an interconnected macropore network (Pg. 197, Col. 1, paragraph 3; Fig. 1d), which would read on “three-dimensional network cross-linked pore structure”.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: at least paragraphs 0044, 0132, and 0133 disclose a positive electrode active material with a formula which may contain “Ay”. The specification does not appear to disclose what element(s) “Ay” is.
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 6, 8-9, and 11-12 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 6 recites the limitation "the silicon-based material" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the silicon-based material" in lines 2 and 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 is dependent on Claim 6 and also recites the limitation "the silicon-based material" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the silicon-based material" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the silicon-carbon material" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For the purposes of examination, it is assumed that the negative electrode sheet comprises a silicon-based material or a silicon-carbon material.
Claims 18 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.
In claim 18, the claimed positive electrode active material has the formula Lix(NiaCobMnc)1-dMdO2-yAy. It is unknown what element “A” refers to.
For the purposes of examination, due to the lack of a definition provided in the instant specification, “A” is interpreted to be the same as the elements presented in paragraph 0078 of Wang (US 20220052341 A1, cited in the 8/7/2025 IDS): S, N, F, Cl, Br, and I.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 10-11, 13, 15, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ho (US 20190157682 A1) in view of Ishii (US 20170104205 A1) and Evans (US 20190267617 A1).
Regarding Claims 1-4, Ho teaches a negative electrode sheet comprising a negative electrode (0145-0146: coin cells with anodes, 0148-0151: pouch cells with anodes), the negative electrode comprising a negative electrode current collector and a negative electrode film layer provided on at least one side of the negative electrode current collector (0145: anode slurry is coated on copper foil, which can be viewed as a current collector, to form a negative electrode film layer), wherein the negative electrode film layer comprises a negative electrode active material and a binder (Abstract).
The binder is present in an amount of about 1% to about 20% by weight based on the total weight of the anode slurry (0123). As the anode slurry forms the negative electrode film layer (0145), the binder amount in the slurry would be directly equivalent to the amount of binder in the negative electrode film layer. This range overlaps the claimed ranges of 1-5 parts by weight of the binder based on 100 parts by weight of the negative electrode film layer (Claim 1) and 2-4 parts by weight (Claim 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have routinely selected the overlapping portions of the disclosed binder weight ranges as selection of overlapping portions of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05). This would also read on the claimed range of Claim 3 (2-4 parts by weight binder).
Ho teaches that the binder can be various materials such as styrene-butadiene rubber, polyethylene oxide, polyvinyl alcohol, polyvinyl acetate, polyurethane, carboxymethyl cellulose, and polyvinylidene fluoride (0021) but does not disclose the average-volume particle diameter of the binder.
Ishii teaches a binder for an electrode (0028). The binder can be a dispersion-type binder (0029-0031 – dispersion-type binders include polyurethane, polyacrylate and butadiene copolymers, PTFE, and PVDF) with an average particle diameter between 0.001 to 10 µm, preferably between 50 to 1000 nm (0.05 to 1 µm) (0049). This range overlaps the claimed ranges of 0.3 µm to 0.8 µm (Claim 1) and 0.3 µm and 0.5 µm (Claim 2).
Ho and Ishii are considered analogous to the claimed invention as they relate to the same field of endeavor, namely batteries with electrodes.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the average particle diameter size of the binder of Ho to be between 0.05 and 1 µm as Ishii teaches it as a suitable average particle diameter size for a binder for an electrode and the simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved (see MPEP 2143 B). Doing so would provide nothing more than the predictable results of a binder with an average particle diameter known to function in an electrode.
It would also have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have routinely selected the overlapping portions of the disclosed ranges as selection of overlapping portions of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05).
Modified Ho does not disclose the porosity of the overall negative electrode sheet.
Evans teaches that anodes comprising silicon active materials (Abstract) require a high porosity to accommodate the volume expansion of the silicon (0052). This porosity can be 40% to 70% (0052). This range overlaps the claimed ranges of 15% to 60% (Claim 1) and 20% to 45% (Claim 4).
Evans is considered analogous to the claimed invention as it relates to the same field of endeavor, namely silicon-based anodes.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the porosity of the negative electrode (negative electrode sheet) of modified Ho to be the porosity taught by Evans in order to accommodate the volume expansion of the silicon active material.
It would also have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have routinely selected the overlapping portions of the disclosed porosity ranges as selection of overlapping portions of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding Claim 10, modified Ho teaches the negative electrode sheet of Claim 1. Modified Ho does not disclose the total pore volume of pores whose pore diameter is greater than 100 nm in the carbon matrix particle.
However, modified Ho teaches that the carbon aerogel can have a density ranging from 0.01 g/cm3 to about 0.9 g/cm3 (Ho: 0019), a porosity of 50% to 90% (Ho: 0017), and can be added in an amount of 0.1 kg (Ho: 0139). This would result in a minimum pore volume of about 55.56 cm3 (0.1 kg of aerogel with a density of 0.9 g/cm3 and a porosity of 50%).
The average pore size (diameter) of the carbon aerogel can range from 80 nm to 500 nm (0073), which overlaps the claimed range of greater than 100 nm. When the average pore diameter of the carbon aerogel is greater than 100 nm, one of ordinary skill would expect that the pore volume provided from those pores would be responsible for the majority of the total pore volume (at least 0.01 cm3/g).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have routinely selected the overlapping portions of the disclosed pore diameter ranges (greater than 100 nm) as selection of overlapping portions of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding Claim 11, as best understood in light of the 112(b) issues presented above, modified Ho teaches the negative electrode sheet of Claim 1. Modified Ho teaches that the silicon-based material is a silicon-carbon material (Ho: 0011, Claim 2).
Regarding Claim 13, modified Ho teaches the negative electrode sheet of Claim 1. Modified Ho teaches that the binder can comprise polyacrylate, polyurethane, acrylonitrile-butadiene rubber, polytetrafluoroethylene, polyvinylidene fluoride, poly(vinylidene fluoride)-hexafluoropropylene (which can be viewed as a modified product of polyvinylidene fluoride), and combinations thereof (0021).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected one of the binders as modified Ho provides them as part of a list of possible binders and it has been held that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation for success, is likely to be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP 2143 E).
Regarding Claim 15, modified Ho teaches the negative electrode sheet of Claim 1. Modified Ho teaches that the negative electrode active material further comprises graphite (Ho: Abstract, 0107, 0143). The amount of graphite can range from about 40% to about 95% based on the total weight of the anode slurry (precursor to film layer) (Ho: 0124), which overlaps the claimed range of 45-70 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the negative electrode film layer.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have routinely selected the overlapping portions of the disclosed weight ranges as selection of overlapping portions of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding Claim 17, modified Ho teaches a battery cell comprising the negative electrode sheet of Claim 1 (Ho: 0145-0146: coin cells with anodes, 0148-0151: pouch cells with anodes). The battery cell comprises a positive electrode sheet, comprising a positive electrode current collector and a positive electrode film layer provided on at least one side of the positive electrode current collector (Ho: 0150 – positive electrode slurry is coated onto both sides of an aluminum foil to form film layers on the foil). The positive electrode film layer comprises a positive electrode active material (Ho: 0149).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ho, Ishii, and Evans as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee (US 20220140346 A1).
Regarding Claim 5, modified Ho teaches the negative electrode sheet of Claim 1. Modified Ho does not teach that the binder comprises a hydrophilic group.
Lee teaches a cellulose derivative and styrene-butadiene rubber binder for a negative electrode (0028). The cellulose derivative comprises hydrophilic functional groups (0049) such as hydroxyl groups, carboxylic acid groups, and sulfonic acid groups (0052). The binder of Lee provides simplified manufacturing and improved movement properties of lithium ions in an electrode (0062).
Lee is considered analogous to the claimed invention as it relates to the same field of endeavor, namely binders for negative electrodes.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the binder of modified Ho to be the binder of Lee, which comprises hydrophilic functional groups, in order to provide simpler manufacturing and improved lithium-ion movement properties.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ho, Ishii, and Evans as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yamada (US 20120070733 A1).
Regarding Claim 6, as best understood in light of the 112(b) issues presented above, modified Ho teaches the negative electrode sheet of Claim 1. Modified Ho teaches that the negative electrode sheet comprises a silicon-based material (Ho: 0158-0161 – the silicon, graphite, and a porous carbon aerogel can be viewed as forming a silicon-based material) but does not teach that the silicon-based material comprises at least one of a carboxyl group, a hydroxyl group, an aldehyde group, or a carbonyl group.
Yamada teaches that the surface of a carbon particle/material can be modified to comprise an oxygen-containing functional group such as a carboxyl or carbonyl group in order to form a good SEI film (0006).
Yamada is considered analogous to the claimed invention as it relates to the same field of endeavor, namely batteries with negative electrodes.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the surface of at least one of the graphite or carbon aerogel of modified Ho to comprise a carboxyl or carbonyl group in order to form a good SEI film.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ho, Ishii, Evans, and Yamada as applied to claim 6 above, and as evidenced by Antonietti (Carbon Aerogels and Monoliths: Control of Porosity and Nanoarchitecture via Sol−Gel routes).
Regarding Claim 9, as best understood in light of the 112(b) issues presented above, modified Ho teaches the negative electrode sheet of Claim 6. The silicon-based material comprises carbon matrix particles (Ho: Abstract – carbon aerogel), wherein the carbon matrix particle comprises a three-dimensional network cross-linked pore structure (Antonietti: Pg. 197, Col. 1, paragraph 3 and Fig. 1d – carbon aerogels comprise an interconnected macropore network and can thus be viewed as comprising a three-dimensional network cross-linked pore structure); and silicon-based nanoparticles, wherein at least some of the silicon-based nanoparticles are disposed in the three-dimensional network cross-linked pore structure (Ho: 0067, Fig. 2 – silicon-based material 2 resides in the pores 3 of the porous carbon aerogel).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ho, Ishii, and Evans as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Park (US 20140170498 A1).
Regarding Claim 7, modified Ho teaches the negative electrode sheet of Claim 1. Modified Ho does not disclose the specific surface area of the silicon-based material.
Park teaches silicon particles for battery electrodes (Title). Park teaches that the silicon particles can comprise an average surface area per unit mass (specific surface area) of between about 1 to about 100 m2/g (0057) to allow for enhanced performance of electrochemical cells (0058). This range overlaps the claimed range of 2 to 10 m2/g.
Park is considered analogous to the claimed invention as it relates to the same field of endeavor, namely silicon-based active materials for negative electrodes.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the specific surface area of the silicon particles of modified Ho to be within the range taught by Park in order to provide enhanced performance for an electrochemical cell.
It would also have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have routinely selected the overlapping portions of the disclosed porosity ranges as selection of overlapping portions of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05).
Claim(s) 8, 12, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ho, Ishii, and Evans as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sheng (US 20210313567 A1).
Regarding Claim 8, modified Ho teaches the negative electrode sheet of Claim 1. Modified Ho does not disclose the average-volume particle diameter of the silicon-based material.
Sheng teaches a silicon-based negative electrode active material (0040). The silicon-based material can have an average particle size (Dv50) of 0.1 to 50 µm to provide higher capacity and safety performance (0077). This range overlaps the claimed range of 5-20 µm.
Sheng is considered analogous to the claimed invention as it relates to the same field of endeavor, namely negative electrodes with silicon-based active materials.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the average particle size of the silicon-based material of modified Ho to be within the range taught by Sheng in order to provide higher capacity and safety performance.
It would also have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have routinely selected the overlapping portions of the disclosed particle size ranges as selection of overlapping portions of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding Claim 12, as best understood in light of the 112(b) issues presented above, modified Ho teaches the negative electrode sheet of Claim 6. Modified Ho teaches that the silicon-based material is a silicon-carbon composite (Ho: 0011, Claim 2). Modified Ho does not disclose the mass ratio between the carbon element and the silicon element in the silicon-carbon composite.
Sheng teaches a silicon-carbon composite negative electrode active material (0075). The mass/weight ratio between the carbon element (B) and the silicon element (A) in the silicon-carbon composite is 1:1 to 20:1 (1 ≤ B/A ≤ A) (0076). This material allows for higher capacity performance and higher safety performance (0076). This range overlaps the claimed range of 1.3 ≤ B/A ≤ 2.
Sheng is considered analogous to the claimed invention as it relates to the same field of endeavor, namely silicon-based active materials for negative electrodes.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the silicon-carbon composite of modified Ho to be the silicon-carbon composite of Sheng with the same carbon to silicon ratio in order to provide higher capacity performance and higher safety performance.
It would also have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have routinely selected the overlapping portions of the disclosed carbon to silicon ranges as selection of overlapping portions of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding Claim 16, modified Ho teaches the negative electrode sheet of Claim 1. Modified Ho does not disclose the compacted density of the negative electrode.
Sheng teaches that a negative electrode with a silicon active material (Abstract). The negative electrode can have a compacted density of 1.2 to 2 g/cm3 (0083), which falls within the claimed range of 1.0-2.2 g/cm3. This allows the battery to have a higher energy density and cycle life (0083).
Sheng is considered analogous to the claimed invention as it relates to the same field of endeavor, namely negative electrodes with silicon-based active materials.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the compacted density of the negative electrode of modified Ho to be within the range taught by Sheng in order to provide higher energy density and cycle life.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ho, Ishii, and Evans as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Wang (US 20220052341 A1, cited in the 8/7/2025 IDS).
Regarding Claim 18, as best understood in light of the 112(b) issues presented above, modified Ho teaches the battery cell of Claim 17. Modified Ho does not teach that the positive electrode active material comprises the claimed chemical formula: Lix(NiaCobMnc)1-dMdO2-yAy, where M comprises at least one of Zr, Al, B, Ta, Mo, W, Nb, Sb, or La, 0.2 < x ≤ 1.2, 0.5 ≤ a < 1.0, 0 ≤ b < 0.5, 0 ≤ c < 1, 0 ≤ d < 1, and 0 ≤ y < 0.02.
Wang teaches a battery (Claim 1) comprising a positive electrode. The positive electrode active material can comprise LiNi0.6Co0.2Mn0.2O2 (0078), which would read on the claimed formula where x = 1, a = 0.6, b = 0.2, c = 0.2, d = 0, and y = 0.
Wang is considered analogous to the claimed invention as it relates to the same field of endeavor, namely batteries.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have substituted the positive electrode active material of modified Ho with the active material taught by Wang as it is a known positive electrode active material for a battery. Doing so would provide nothing more than the predictable results of a battery with a suitable positive electrode active material.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ho, Ishii, and Evans as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Kumar (US 20120028105 A1).
Regarding Claim 19, modified Ho teaches the battery cell of Claim 17. Modified Ho teaches that the battery cell is a pouch battery (Ho: 0151) but does not teach a battery comprising the battery cell.
Kumar teaches that pouch batteries can be used in a battery pack (0005).
Kumar is considered analogous to the claimed invention as it relates to the same field of endeavor, namely batteries.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have used the battery cell of modified Ho in a battery pack as Kumar teaches it as a known use for a pouch battery. This would result in a battery (battery pack) comprising the battery of Claim 1.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ho (US 20190157682 A1) in view of Ishii (US 20170104205 A1) and Evans (US 20190267617 A1), and as evidenced by Antonietti (Carbon Aerogels and Monoliths: Control of Porosity and Nanoarchitecture via Sol−Gel routes).
Regarding Claims 21, Ho teaches a negative electrode sheet comprising a negative electrode (0145-0146: coin cells with anodes, 0148-0151: pouch cells with anodes), the negative electrode comprising a negative electrode current collector and a negative electrode film layer provided on at least one side of the negative electrode current collector (0145: anode slurry is coated on copper foil, which can be viewed as a current collector, to form a negative electrode film layer), wherein the negative electrode film layer comprises a negative electrode active material and a binder (Abstract).
Ho teaches that the active material comprises a silicon-based material comprisng carbon matrix particles (Ho: Abstract – carbon aerogel), wherein the carbon matrix particle comprises a three-dimensional network cross-linked pore structure (Antonietti: Pg. 197, Col. 1, paragraph 3 and Fig. 1d – carbon aerogels comprise an interconnected macropore network and can thus be viewed as comprising a three-dimensional network cross-linked pore structure); and silicon-based nanoparticles, wherein at least some of the silicon-based nanoparticles are disposed in the three-dimensional network cross-linked pore structure (Ho: 0067, Fig. 2 – silicon-based material 2 resides in the pores 3 of the porous carbon aerogel).
The binder is present in an amount of about 1% to about 20% by weight based on the total weight of the anode slurry (0123). As the anode slurry forms the negative electrode film layer (0145), the binder amount in the slurry would be directly equivalent to the amount of binder in the negative electrode film layer. This range overlaps the claimed range of 1-5 parts by weight of the binder based on 100 parts by weight of the negative electrode film layer.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have routinely selected the overlapping portions of the disclosed binder weight ranges as selection of overlapping portions of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05).
Ho teaches that the binder can be various materials such as styrene-butadiene rubber, polyethylene oxide, polyvinyl alcohol, polyvinyl acetate, polyurethane, carboxymethyl cellulose, and polyvinylidene fluoride (0021) but does not disclose the average-volume particle diameter of the binder.
Ishii teaches a binder for an electrode (0028). The binder can be a dispersion-type binder (0029-0031 – dispersion-type binders include polyurethane, polyacrylate and butadiene copolymers, PTFE, and PVDF) with an average particle diameter between 0.001 to 10 µm, preferably between 50 to 1000 nm (0.05 to 1 µm) (0049). This range overlaps the claimed range of 0.3 µm to 0.8 µm.
Ho and Ishii are considered analogous to the claimed invention as they relate to the same field of endeavor, namely batteries with electrodes.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the average particle diameter size of the binder of Ho to be between 0.05 and 1 µm as Ishii teaches it as a suitable average particle diameter size for a binder for an electrode and the simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved (see MPEP 2143 B). Doing so would provide nothing more than the predictable results of a binder with an average particle diameter known to function in an electrode.
It would also have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have routinely selected the overlapping portions of the disclosed ranges as selection of overlapping portions of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05).
Modified Ho does not disclose the porosity of the overall negative electrode sheet.
Evans teaches that anodes comprising silicon active materials (Abstract) require a high porosity to accommodate the volume expansion of the silicon (0052). This porosity can be 40% to 70% (0052). This range overlaps the claimed range of 15% to 60%.
Evans is considered analogous to the claimed invention as it relates to the same field of endeavor, namely silicon-based anodes.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the porosity of the negative electrode (negative electrode sheet) of modified Ho to be the porosity taught by Evans in order to accommodate the volume expansion of the silicon active material.
It would also have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have routinely selected the overlapping portions of the disclosed porosity ranges as selection of overlapping portions of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05).
Claim(s) 1-4, 8, and 14-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (US 20220052341 A1, cited in the 8/7/2025 IDS) in view of Ishii (US 20170104205 A1) and Evans (US 20190267617 A1).
Regarding Claims 1-4, Wang teaches a negative electrode sheet comprising a negative electrode, the negative electrode comprising a negative electrode current collector and a negative electrode film layer provided on at least one side of the negative electrode current collector (Wang: Claim 1), The negative electrode comprises a negative electrode active material and a binder (Wang: Claim 1). The binder can be present in an amount between 3% and 9% (Wang: Claim 8), which overlaps the claimed ranges of 1-5 parts by weight (Claim 1) and 2-4 parts by weight (Claim 3).
Wang teaches that the binder can be various binders commonly used in the field of lithium-ion batteries (0061) but does not disclose the average-volume particle diameter of the binder.
Ishii teaches a binder for an electrode (0028). The binder can be a dispersion-type binder (0029-0031 – dispersion-type binders include polyurethane, polyacrylate and butadiene copolymers, PTFE, and PVDF) with an average particle diameter between 0.001 to 10 µm, preferably between 50 to 1000 nm (0.05 to 1 µm) (0049). This range overlaps the claimed ranges of 0.3 µm to 0.8 µm (Claim 1) and 0.3 µm and 0.5 µm (Claim 2).
Wang and Ishii are considered analogous to the claimed invention as they relate to the same field of endeavor, namely batteries with electrodes.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the average particle diameter size of the binder of Wang to be between 0.05 and 1 µm as Ishii teaches it as a suitable average particle diameter size for a binder for an electrode and the simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved (see MPEP 2143 B). Doing so would provide nothing more than the predictable results of a binder with an average particle diameter known to function in an electrode.
It would also have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have routinely selected the overlapping portions of the disclosed ranges as selection of overlapping portions of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05).
Modified Wang does not disclose the porosity of the overall negative electrode sheet.
Evans teaches that anodes comprising silicon active materials (Abstract) require a high porosity to accommodate the volume expansion of the silicon (0052). This porosity can be 40% to 70% (0052). This range overlaps the claimed ranges of 15% to 60% (Claim 1) and 20% to 45% (Claim 4).
Evans is considered analogous to the claimed invention as it relates to the same field of endeavor, namely silicon-based anodes.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the porosity of the negative electrode (negative electrode sheet) of modified Wang to be the porosity taught by Evans in order to accommodate the volume expansion of the silicon active material.
It would also have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have routinely selected the overlapping portions of the disclosed porosity ranges as selection of overlapping portions of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding Claim 8, as best understood in light of the 112(b) issues presented above, modified Wang teaches the negative electrode sheet of Claim 1. Modified Wang teaches that the Dv50 of the silicon-based material can be between 3 and 10 µm (0065). Specifically, modified Wang teaches that the silicon-based material can have an average particle diameter of 7.6 µm (Table 1 – Embodiment 1).
Regarding Claim 14, modified Wang teaches the negative electrode sheet of Claim 1. The silicon-based material can be present in an amount of 37 parts by weight based on 100 parts (Wang: Table 1 – Embodiment 16: the silicon-based active material is 40% of the total active material, which is 92.5% of the mass of the negative electrode film layer).
Regarding Claim 15, modified Wang teaches the negative electrode sheet of Claim 1. Modified Wang teaches that the negative electrode active material further comprises graphite (Wang: Abstract). The graphite can be present in an amount of 55.5 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the negative electrode film layer (Wang: Table 1 – Embodiment 16: the graphite active material is 60% of the total active material, which is 92.5% of the mass of the negative electrode film layer).
Regarding Claim 16, modified Wang teaches the negative electrode sheet of Claim 1. Modified Wang teaches that the compacted density of the negative electrode film is 1.6-2.0 g/cm3 (Wang: 0032), which falls within the claimed range of 1.0-2.2 g/cm3.
Regarding Claim 17, modified Wang teaches a battery cell comprising the negative electrode sheet of Claim 1 (Wang: Claim 1). The battery comprises a positive electrode sheet, which comprises a positive electrode current collector and a positive electrode film layer provided on at least one side of the positive electrode current collector. The positive electrode film layer comprises a positive electrode active material (Wang: 0036).
Regarding Claim 18, modified Wang teaches the battery cell of Claim 17. The positive electrode active material can comprise LiNi0.6Co0.2Mn0.2O2 (0078), which would read on the claimed formula where x = 1, a = 0.6, b = 0.2, c = 0.2, d = 0, and y = 0.
Although modified Wang does not teach an specific embodiment comprising that material, modified Wang teaches the positive electrode active material as part of a list of suitable positive electrode active materials and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected LiNi0.6Co0.2Mn0.2O2 as the positive electrode active material as choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation for success, is likely to be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP 2143 E).
Regarding Claim 19, modified Wang teaches the battery cell of Claim 1 and a battery comprising the battery cell of Claim 1 (Wang: 0086, Claim 19).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZIHENG LU whose telephone number is (703)756-1077. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 - 5 ET.
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, Nicholas Smith can be reached at (571) 272-8760. 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.
/ZIHENG LU/Examiner, Art Unit 1752
/NICHOLAS A SMITH/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752