Patent Application 18841176 - Anode for Lithium Secondary Battery and Method - Rejection

Patent Application 18841176 - Anode for Lithium Secondary Battery and Method

Title: Anode for Lithium Secondary Battery and Method for Manufacturing Same

Application Information

• Invention Title: Anode for Lithium Secondary Battery and Method for Manufacturing Same
• Application Number: 18841176
• Submission Date: 2025-04-07T00:00:00.000Z
• Effective Filing Date: 2024-08-23T00:00:00.000Z
• Filing Date: 2024-08-23T00:00:00.000Z
• Examiner Employee Number: 92217
• Art Unit: 1727
• Tech Center: 1700

Rejection Summary

• 102 Rejections: 0
• 103 Rejections: 1

Cited Patents

No patents were cited in this rejection.

Office Action Text

    DETAILED ACTION

Notice of Pre-AIA  or AIA  Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .

Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I, claims 12-16, in the reply filed on March 26, 2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 17-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on March 26, 2025.

Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.

Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on Aug. 23 and 26, 2024 and March 7, 2025 are being considered by the examiner.

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 12-16 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 negative electrode active layer".  There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. 

Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA  35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA  35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.  
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA  35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.  Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.


The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA  35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.

This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under pre-AIA  35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary.  Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA  35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA  35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA  35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claims 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (CN 113036298 A, whose English machine translation is being employed for citation purposes, hereafter referred to as Zhang) in view of Sotowa et al. (US 20190305293 A1, hereafter Sotowa) and Song et al. (KR 20190042335 A, whose English machine translation is being employed for citation purposes, hereafter referred to as Song).
Regarding claims 12 and 16, Zhang teaches a negative electrode for lithium secondary battery (Title and Abstract) comprising:
a negative electrode current; a first negative electrode active layer provided on at least one surface of the negative electrode current collector, the first negative electrode active layer containing carbon-based active material (“natural graphite”, Abstract); and a second negative electrode active layer provided on the first negative electrode active layer, the second negative electrode active layer containing carbon-based active material (“artificial graphite”, Abstract) (See at least Abstract), 
wherein
the second negative electrode active layer has an alignment (O.I2nd) of the carbon-based active material of 1-5 (See claim 4), which is close to the range of 0.4 to 0.9. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. See MPEP § 2144.05.
Zhang appears to be silent as to the claimed values of the alignment (O.I1st) of the carbon-based active material contained in the first negative electrode active layer. However, in the field of endeavor, Sotowa discloses an alignment of a carbon-based active material contained in a negative electrode active layer may be in a range of 1.25 to 5 (i.e., 1/0.8 to 1/0.2, see [0033]), which is beneficial to reducing reaction resistance and improving battery capacity ([0034]-[0035]). 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 Sotowa into Zhang such that a carbon-based active material with an alignment (O.I1st) of 1.25 to 5 is employed as an alternative to the carbon-based active material used in the first negative electrode active layer of Zhang in order to achieve benefits stated above. As a result, the ratio of O.I1st to O.I2nd is in a range of about 0.25 to 5 (i.e., 1.25/5 to 5/1), overlapping the range of 105% to 150% as 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).
Zhang in view of Sotowa is silent as to a porosity of the second negative electrode active layer being 15% to 25% as claimed. However, in the same field of endeavor, Song discloses that a porosity of 20% to 30% (See claim 2) a second negative electrode active layer that is smaller than that of a first negative electrode active layer would enhance lithium diffusion rate and ability (at least: Abstract, [0025]). 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 Song into Zhang in view of Sotowa such that the porosity of the second negative electrode active layer of Zhang is in a range of 20% to 30%, as taught by Song, for the benefit of enhancing lithium diffusion rate and ability. The claimed range of 15% to 25% overlaps that of 20% to 30%. 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 13, Zhang as modified teaches the negative electrode for lithium secondary battery of claim 12, wherein a total thickness of the first and second negative electrode active layer may be in the range of 65 µm to 80 µm, overlapping the range 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 14, Zhang as modified teaches the negative electrode for lithium secondary battery of claim 12, and further teaches the average particle diameter D50 of the second negative electrode active is in a range of 5 µm to 12 µm (claim 6), which is comparable with that (e.g., 2 µm to 7 µm, p10) of the instant invention. Thus, the instantly claimed range of a BET specific surface area is reasonably expected since a BET specific surface area is closely related to a particle size.
Regarding claim 15, Zhang as modified teaches the negative electrode for lithium secondary battery of claim 12, and the limitations as instantly claimed represent properties or characteristics of the negative electrode. Since Zhang as modified teaches the substantially similar negative electrode to that as claimed (See the above rejections), the claimed properties or characteristics are necessarily present. Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2112.01.

Correspondence
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 on (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