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 claim 8. The pending Claims are claims 1-7, 9-11.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
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) 1-7, 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karasawa Hiromi et al., JP 2017062991.
Regarding claim 1, Hiromi et al., teaches a negative electrode material (0001; 0015) for lithium ion secondary batteries (0015), comprising particles in which a plurality of flat graphite particles (0010; 0021) are in a state of being aggregated (0010; 0021) or bonded (0010; 0023) such that main surfaces thereof are not parallel (“non-parallel”) (0004; 0010; 0021), and in which the flat graphite particles (0010) and spheroidal particles (0030-0033) are in a state of being aggregated or bonded (0010; 0021; 0023), and an average particle size of the spheroidal graphite particles is 1 um to 50 um (“50 um or less, 25 um or less, or 15 um or less”) (0028).
Hiromi et al., does not teach wherein an oil absorption capacity is 50 ml/100 g or more, a post-pressurization density exceeds 1.7 g/cm3 (0030) or 1.9 g/cm3 (0083).
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 2, Hiromi et al., does not teach wherein the oil absorption capacity 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 3, Hiromi et al., teaches wherein the post-pressurization density is 1.98 g/cm3 or less (“pellet density is 1.40 g/cm to 1.65 g/cm3”) (0021).
Regarding claim 4, Hiromi et al., teaches wherein a specific surface area is 1.5 m2/g to 8.0 m2/g (“1.0 m2/g to 3.5 m2/g”) (0012; 0051).
[Regarding claim 5, Hiromi et al., teaches wherein a degree of circularity is 0.85 to 0.95 (“circularity of the spherical graphite particles may be 0.70 or more, or may be 0.85 or more.”) (0036).
Regarding claim 6, Hiromi et al., does not teach wherein an R value from Raman measurement 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 7, Hiromi et al., teaches, wherein a tap density is 0.7 g/cm3 to 1.0 g/cm3. (“0.8 g/cm3 to 1.1 g/cm3, or 0.9 g/cm3 to 1.05 g.cm3”) (0035).
Regarding claim 9, Hiromi et al., teaches, a negative electrode material slurry (0014; 0017) for lithium ion secondary batteries (0019), comprising: the negative electrode material (0009-0010) for lithium ion secondary batteries according to claim 1 (0019); an organic binding material (0014; 0074); and a solvent (0014; 0074).
Regarding claim 10, Hiromi et al., teaches, a negative electrode for lithium ion secondary batteries (0009-0010), comprising: a current collector (0015); and a negative electrode material layer which contains the negative electrode material (0015) for lithium ion secondary batteries (0015) according to claim 1 and is formed on the current collector (0015).
Regarding claim 11, Hiromi et al., teaches, a lithium ion secondary battery comprising: a positive electrode (0016; 0084); an electrolyte; and the negative electrode for lithium ion secondary batteries according to claim 10 (0016; 0084).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant argues that “it is apparent that the density of Hiromi is required to be 1.65 g/cm3 or less, which is outside of the claimed range of 1.70 g/cm3 or more.”
However, Hiromi teaches electrode density exceeding 1.7 g/cm3 (0030); 1.9 g/cm3 (0083), which are within the claimed density range.
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
/BARBARA L GILLIAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1727