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 pending claims are claims 1, 2, 4, 8.
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, 2, 4, 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yokomizo Masakazu et al., JP 2007180025.
Regarding claim 1, Masakazu et al., teaches a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery (abstract; 0001) comprising:
a positive electrode (0014), a negative electrode (0014), a separator (0137; 0172) interposed between the positive electrode and the negative electrode (0172), and a non-aqueous electrolyte (0001; 0014),
wherein the negative electrode includes a graphite (0014; 0031),
the graphite has a BET specific surface area of 0.1-2 m2/g or more (0069), the non-aqueous electrolyte includes a silyl compound (0032; 0036; 0041); (0032; 0043-trimethylsilyl); the silyl compound is contained in the non-aqueous electrolyte in an amount of 0.1 ppm or more of electrolytic solution (0143; 0202) and having a formula as seen in (0014); wherein the graphite form a composite particle including a surface layer composed of an amorphous carbon (0113; 0155) and containing the graphite in an interior of the composite particle (0184; 0190-0197).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 2, Masakazu et al., teaches the silyl compound is at least one of tris(siloxanes) (0035), trimethylsilyl (0032), trimethylsilyl phosphite (0043), trimethylsilyl sulfate (0043).
Regarding claim 4, Masakazu et al., teaches wherein the graphite has a BET specific surface area of 0.1- 2 m2/g or less (0069);
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 8, Masakazu et al., teaches a mass ratio of the graphite in the composite particle is higher than a mass ratio of the amorphous carbon (Table 1-2) (0195-0198).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/24/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that Yokomizo “at least partially relies on inaccurate machine translation of the original Japanese text of the reference.” Although Applicant submitted paragraphs [0113-0115] of the human translation of Yokomizo, it appears that Yokomizo still reads on the claims of record.
Applicant argues that “coating of the carbonaceous particles to form “composite particles” does not appear to be supported by the cited paragraphs, particularly in view of the human translation.”
However, Yokomizo teaches a carbonaceous material (0013) having a coating on the surface (0033) which would form a composite particle (0040).
The Applicant argues that “the word “amorphous” highlighted in the above machine translation appear to be a mistranslation.”
However, the machine translation recites “amorphous” in paragraph [0113], referring to “particles become more amorphous as a result of grinding” and “finer amorphous particles adhere to the particle surface with a certain degree of strength” (0113).
While the human translation recites “irregularly shaped” in paragraph [0113], referring to “irregularly shaped by pulverization” (0113) and “finer irregularly shaped particles are attached to the surface of the particles.” (0113).
Comparing the machine translation versus the human translation, “amorphous” appears to be synonymous to “irregularly shaped.” Therefore, the machine translation reads on the human translation.
The Applicant argues that, “There appears to be no evidence of record supporting that the reference particle is “a composite particle including a surface layer composed of an amorphous carbon” with graphite in an interior of said composite as defined in instant claim 1.”
However, Yokomizo teaches graphite carbon particles in the composite (0056; 0098), including an amorphous carbon graphite (0099) having a surface coating (0141; 0150).
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