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 .
The Applicant has canceled claims 1-7, 9, 10; added new claims 12-17 dependent on rewritten claim 11 (independent claim). The pending claims are claims 11-17.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 6/24/2026 has been entered.
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) 11-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiromi et al., JP 2017062991.
Regarding claim 11, Hiromi teaches a lithium ion secondary battery (0001-0002; 0015) comprising: a positive electrode (0016); an electrolyte (0016); and a negative electrode (0016) for lithium ion secondary batteries (0016) comprising: a current collector (0015); and a negative electrode material layer (0004) which contains a negative electrode material (0004) and is formed on the current collector (0006), wherein the negative electrode material comprises particles in which a plurality of flat graphite particles (0010) are in a state of being aggregated (0010) or bonded (0010) such that main surfaces thereof are not parallel (nonparallel) (0010), and in which the flat graphite particles (0010; 0021) and spheroidal particles (0011; 0030-0031) are in a state of being aggregated (0010) or bonded (0010), a post-pressurization density of the negative electrode material is 1.70 g/cm3 or more (1.7 g/cm3 (0007; 0030); (1.9 g/cm3 (0083)), and an average particle size of the spheroidal graphite particles is I um to 50 um (50 um or less; 0028).
Hiromi does not teach an oil absorption capacity of the negative electrode material is 50 ml/100 g or more.
However, the oil absorption capacity and the post-pressurization density would be within the claimed range because, It has been held that when the difference between a claimed invention and the prior art is the range or value of a particular variable, then a prima facie rejection is properly established when the difference in the range or value is minor. Titanium Metals Corp. of Am. V. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Generally, differences in ranges will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such ranges is critical. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Inre Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969). Claims that differ from the prior art only by slightly different (non-overlapping) ranges are prima facie obvious without a showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art. (In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935,1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990)). Also see MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 12, Hiromi does not teach wherein the oil absorption capacity of the negative electrode material is 95 ml/100 g or less.
However, It has been held that when the difference between a claimed invention and the prior art is the range or value of a particular variable, then a prima facie rejection is properly established when the difference in the range or value is minor. Titanium Metals Corp. of Am. V. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Generally, differences in ranges will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such ranges is critical. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Inre Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969). Claims that differ from the prior art only by slightly different (non- overlapping) ranges are prima facie obvious without a showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art. (In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935,1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990)). Also see MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 13, Hiromi teaches wherein the post-pressurization density of the negative electrode material is 1.98 g/cm3 or less (1.7 g/cm3; 0007; 0030).
Regarding claim 14, Hiromi teaches wherein a specific surface area of the negative electrode material is 1.5 m2/g to 8.0 m2/g (1.0 m2/g to 3.0 m2/g) (0051).
Regarding claim 15, Hiromi teaches wherein a degree of circularity of the negative electrode material is 0.85 to 0.95 (0.70 or higher or 0.85 or higher) (0036).
Regarding claim 16, Hiromi does not teach wherein an R value from Raman measurement of the negative electrode material is 0.03 to 0.20.
However, It has been held that when the difference between a claimed invention and the prior art is the range or value of a particular variable, then a prima facie rejection is properly established when the difference in the range or value is minor. Titanium Metals Corp. of Am. V. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Generally, differences in ranges will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such ranges is critical. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Inre Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969). Claims that differ from the prior art only by slightly different (non- overlapping) ranges are prima facie obvious without a showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art. (In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935,1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990)). Also see MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 17, Hiromi teaches wherein a tap density of the negative electrode material is 0.7 g/cm3 to 1.0 g/cm3 (0.8 g/cm3 (0035).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGELA J MARTIN whose telephone number is (571)272-1288. The examiner can normally be reached 7am-4pm.
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.
ANGELA J. MARTIN
Examiner
Art Unit 1727
/ANGELA J MARTIN/Examiner, Art Unit 1727
Prosecution Insights