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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/16/2025, 12/17/2025 and 01/16/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: please delete “has”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-5, 7-10, 12, 16-20 and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada et al. (“Yamada”, JP 2013201125 A, disclosed by IDS which includes its machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, Yamada teaches a carbonaceous matter (Yamada, claim 1, e.g., multi-layer carbon material (which is being interpreted as carbonaceous material)), comprising:
an amorphous carbon coating (Yamada, claim 1, [0145], e.g., a multi-layer carbon material for a non-aqueous secondary battery, wherein at least a portion of the surface of graphite particles is coated with a carbonaceous material; in the multilayer carbon material, the carbonaceous material covers at least part of the surface of the graphite particles; the carbonaceous material may be amorphous carbon (which is being interpreted as amorphous carbon coating)); and
a carbon material overlapping the claimed inequality (1K) of claim 1; therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP § 2144.05, I.) (Yamada, [0094], [0099], [0117], [0120], e.g., graphite particles (which is being interpreted as carbon material); volume-based average particle diameter (d50) of graphite particles determined by a laser diffraction/scattering method is usually 15 um or more; d50 is usually 100 um or less, and particularly preferably 31 um or less; true density of the graphite particles is usually 2 g/cm3 or more, with the upper limit being 2.26 g/cm3; tap density of the graphite particles is usually 0.67 g/cm3 or more; tap density is preferably 1.1 g/cm3 or less (when the volume-based average particle diameter (d50) is 15-100 um or 15-31 um, true density is 2-2.26 g/cm3, and tap density is 0.67-1.1 g/cm3, the graphite particle/carbon material of Yamada overlaps that of the claimed inequality (1K) regardless of the value of D100 (a density in g/cm3 of carbon material under uniaxial load of 100 kgf/3.14 cm2); therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP § 2144.05, I.))).
wherein the carbon material has a volume-based average particle diameter d50 overlapping the claimed range of from 1 to 18 um; therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP § 2144.05, I.) (Yamada, [0099], e.g., volume-based average particle diameter (d50) of graphite particles (which is being interpreted as carbon material) determined by a laser diffraction/scattering method is usually 15 um or more; d50 is usually 100 um or less, and particularly preferably 31 um or less (which overlaps the claimed range of 1 to 18 um; therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP § 2144.05, I.))), and
wherein at least part of a surface of the carbon material is coated with the amorphous carbon coating (Yamada, claim 1, [0145], e.g., a multi-layer carbon material for a non-aqueous secondary battery, wherein at least a portion of the surface of graphite particles is coated with a carbonaceous material; in the multilayer carbon material, the carbonaceous material covers at least part of the surface of the graphite particles (which is being interpreted as carbon material); the carbonaceous material may be amorphous carbon (which is being interpreted as amorphous carbon coating)).
Regarding claim 2, Yamada teaches a carbonaceous matter (Yamada, claim 1, e.g., multi-layer carbon material (which is being interpreted as carbonaceous material)), comprising:
an amorphous carbon coating (Yamada, claim 1, [0145], e.g., a multi-layer carbon material for a non-aqueous secondary battery, wherein at least a portion of the surface of graphite particles is coated with a carbonaceous material; in the multilayer carbon material, the carbonaceous material covers at least part of the surface of the graphite particles; the carbonaceous material may be amorphous carbon (which is being interpreted as amorphous carbon coating)); and
a carbon material overlapping the claimed inequality (3K) of claim 2; therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP § 2144.05, I.) (Yamada, [0094], [0117], [0120], e.g., graphite particles (which is being interpreted as carbon material); true density of the graphite particles is usually 2 g/cm3 or more, with the upper limit being 2.26 g/cm3; tap density of the graphite particles is usually 0.67 g/cm3 or more; tap density is preferably 1.1 g/cm3 or less (when the true density is 2-2.26 g/cm3, and tap density is 0.67-1.1 g/cm3, the graphite particle/carbon material of Yamada overlaps that of the claimed inequality (3K) regardless of the value of D100 (a density in g/cm3 of carbon material under uniaxial load of 100 kgf/3.14 cm2); therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP § 2144.05, I.))).
wherein the carbon material has a volume-based average particle diameter d50 overlapping the claimed range of from 1 to 18 um; therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP § 2144.05, I.) (Yamada, [0099], e.g., volume-based average particle diameter (d50) of graphite particles (which is being interpreted as carbon material) determined by a laser diffraction/scattering method is usually 15 um or more; d50 is usually 100 um or less, and particularly preferably 31 um or less (which overlaps the claimed range of 1 to 18 um; therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP § 2144.05, I.))), and
wherein at least part of a surface of the carbon material is coated with the amorphous carbon coating (Yamada, claim 1, [0145], e.g., a multi-layer carbon material for a non-aqueous secondary battery, wherein at least a portion of the surface of graphite particles is coated with a carbonaceous material; in the multilayer carbon material, the carbonaceous material covers at least part of the surface of the graphite particles (which is being interpreted as carbon material); the carbonaceous material may be amorphous carbon (which is being interpreted as amorphous carbon coating)).
Regarding claims 3 and 8, Yamada teaches wherein the carbon material has a true density of 2.20 g/cm3 or more (Yamada, [0117], e.g., true density of the graphite particles (which is being interpreted as carbon material as disclosed above) is usually 2.22 g/cm3 or more, with the upper limit being 2.26 g/cm3).
Regarding claims 4 and 9, Yamada teaches wherein the carbon material has a true density of less than 2.262 g/cm3 (Yamada, [0117], e.g., true density of the graphite particles (which is being interpreted as carbon material as disclosed above) is usually 2.22 g/cm3 or more, with the upper limit being 2.26 g/cm3).
Regarding claims 5 and 10, Yamada teaches wherein the carbon material has a tap density of 0.85 g/cm3 or more (Yamada, [00120], e.g., tap density of the graphite particles (which is being interpreted as carbon material as disclosed above) is preferably 0.88 g/cm3 or more; tap density is preferably 1.1 g/cm3 or less).
Regarding claims 7 and 12, Yamada teaches wherein the carbon material is a spheroidal graphite particle (Yamada, [0026], [0131], e.g., spherical graphite particles; spheroidized natural graphite obtained by subjecting natural graphite to a spheroidizing treatment is particularly preferred as the graphite particles (which is being interpreted as carbon material as disclosed above)).
Regarding claims 16-20, Yamada teaches the carbonaceous matter of claim 1 as disclosed above. Yamada teaches a nonaqueous secondary battery includes a positive electrode and a negative electrode, and a nonaqueous electrolyte solution (Yamada, [0259]); the multi-layered carbon material for a non-aqueous secondary battery serves as the negative electrode (Yamada, [0031]); and a negative electrode active material layer comprising the multi-layered carbon material is deposited on a current collector (Yamada, [0043]). Yamada teaches a method of making the nonaqueous secondary battery and the negative electrode, wherein the negative electrode is formed by a negative electrode active material layer comprising the carbon material on a current collector (Yamada, at least [0323], [0324], [0309]).
Regarding claim 22, Yamada teaches the carbonaceous matter of claim 1 as disclosed above. Yamada teaches the graphite particle/carbon material of Yamada overlaps that of the claimed inequality (1K) regardless of the value of D100 (a density in g/cm3 of carbon material under uniaxial load of 100 kgf/3.14 cm2) as disclosed in claim 1 above; therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP § 2144.05, I.))).
Regarding claim 23, Yamada teaches the carbonaceous matter of claim 1 as disclosed above. Yamada teaches wherein the volume-based average particle diameter d50 overlaps that of the claimed a range of from 12 to 18 um; therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP § 2144.05, I.) (Yamada, [0099], e.g., volume-based average particle diameter (d50) of graphite particles determined by a laser diffraction/scattering method is usually 15 um or more (which overlaps that of the claimed range; therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP § 2144.05, I.))).
Yamada teaches the graphite particle/carbon material of Yamada overlaps that of the claimed inequality (1K) regardless of the value of D100 (a density in g/cm3 of carbon material under uniaxial load of 100 kgf/3.14 cm2) as disclosed in claim 1 above; therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP § 2144.05, I.))).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/17/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “In contrast to the claims, Yamada discloses d50 of carbon material in Yamada’s [0099], however, the carbon material is a graphite particle of core, that is, Yamada's d50 corresponds to a d50 of the carbon material before coating with amorphous carbon in the present claims. While it is noted that Yamada describes a true density and a tap density of a carbon material in Yamada's [0117] and [0120], these values correspond to the carbon material without an amorphous carbon coating. Further, Yamada describes the carbon material coated with amorphous carbon having a d50 of from 19.1 to 50 pm, as described in Yamada's [0036]. This numerical range is distinct from that recited in claims 1 and 2. … Thus, it should not have been obvious to modify Yamada to reflect the claims, as doing so would not have had a reasonable expectation of success. A significant difference between the claimed invention and Yamada lies in their different approaches to ‘material destruction during electrode pressing.’ Yamada describes increasing the average particle size in Yamada's [00261 and [0027]), enhance roundness, and increase tap density, as described in Yamada's [0137] to [0139]), in order to prevent the material destruction. Yamada describes that ‘high capacity can be obtained even with rolling at a pressure sufficient to prevent material destruction and keep the irreversible charge / discharge capacity small by the above increase, as described in Yamada's [0026]. That is, Yamada's solution aims to avoid strong electrode pressing by increasing the tap density. In contrast, the claimed invention specifies carbon materials satisfying either Formula (1) or Formula (3), assuming electrode pressing will be performed. According to Formula (1) or Formula (3), the carbon material of the claimed invention has a difference (y) between D100(100 kgf compression density) and tap density, of at least a predetermined value, when the true density (x) and particle size (a) are the same. This means that the particles of the carbon material of the claimed invention are more easily compressed compared to conventional carbon materials having similar crystallinity. That is, the claimed invention employs a solution different from that of Yamada, namely. the solution does not cause material destruction even when strong electrode pressing is applied. The present application describes examples and comparative examples showing whether or not formula (1) or (3) is satisfied. This experimental evidence examines and illustrates the presence or absence of a specific process step before spheroidization as one method for controlling formula 5x-y, e.g., in Table 1K. On the other hand, Yamada fails to disclose manufacturing process prior to spheroidization. Furthermore, as described above, the volume-based average particle diameter d50 of the carbon materials are also different. This difference is not merely a numerical range difference but difference of particle design philosophies.” (Remarks, Pages 7-8).
Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, Yamada teaches a carbonaceous matter (Yamada, claim 1, e.g., multi-layer carbon material (which is being interpreted as carbonaceous material)), comprising:
an amorphous carbon coating (Yamada, claim 1, [0145], e.g., a multi-layer carbon material for a non-aqueous secondary battery, wherein at least a portion of the surface of graphite particles is coated with a carbonaceous material; in the multilayer carbon material, the carbonaceous material covers at least part of the surface of the graphite particles; the carbonaceous material may be amorphous carbon (which is being interpreted as amorphous carbon coating)); and
a carbon material overlapping the claimed inequality (1K) of claim 1; therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP § 2144.05, I.) (Yamada, [0094], [0099], [0117], [0120], e.g., graphite particles (which is being interpreted as carbon material); volume-based average particle diameter (d50) of graphite particles determined by a laser diffraction/scattering method is usually 15 um or more; d50 is usually 100 um or less, and particularly preferably 31 um or less; true density of the graphite particles is usually 2 g/cm3 or more, with the upper limit being 2.26 g/cm3; tap density of the graphite particles is usually 0.67 g/cm3 or more; tap density is preferably 1.1 g/cm3 or less (when the volume-based average particle diameter (d50) is 15-100 um or 15-31 um, true density is 2-2.26 g/cm3, and tap density is 0.67-1.1 g/cm3, the graphite particle/carbon material of Yamada overlaps that of the claimed inequality (1K) regardless of the value of D100 (a density in g/cm3 of carbon material under uniaxial load of 100 kgf/3.14 cm2); therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP § 2144.05, I.))).
wherein the carbon material has a volume-based average particle diameter d50 overlapping the claimed range of from 1 to 18 um; therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP § 2144.05, I.) (Yamada, [0099], e.g., volume-based average particle diameter (d50) of graphite particles (which is being interpreted as carbon material) determined by a laser diffraction/scattering method is usually 15 um or more; d50 is usually 100 um or less, and particularly preferably 31 um or less (which overlaps the claimed range of 1 to 18 um; therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP § 2144.05, I.))), and
wherein at least part of a surface of the carbon material is coated with the amorphous carbon coating (Yamada, claim 1, [0145], e.g., a multi-layer carbon material for a non-aqueous secondary battery, wherein at least a portion of the surface of graphite particles is coated with a carbonaceous material; in the multilayer carbon material, the carbonaceous material covers at least part of the surface of the graphite particles (which is being interpreted as carbon material); the carbonaceous material may be amorphous carbon (which is being interpreted as amorphous carbon coating)).
Regarding claim 2, Yamada teaches a carbonaceous matter (Yamada, claim 1, e.g., multi-layer carbon material (which is being interpreted as carbonaceous material)), comprising:
an amorphous carbon coating (Yamada, claim 1, [0145], e.g., a multi-layer carbon material for a non-aqueous secondary battery, wherein at least a portion of the surface of graphite particles is coated with a carbonaceous material; in the multilayer carbon material, the carbonaceous material covers at least part of the surface of the graphite particles; the carbonaceous material may be amorphous carbon (which is being interpreted as amorphous carbon coating)); and
a carbon material overlapping the claimed inequality (3K) of claim 2; therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP § 2144.05, I.) (Yamada, [0094], [0117], [0120], e.g., graphite particles (which is being interpreted as carbon material); true density of the graphite particles is usually 2 g/cm3 or more, with the upper limit being 2.26 g/cm3; tap density of the graphite particles is usually 0.67 g/cm3 or more; tap density is preferably 1.1 g/cm3 or less (when the true density is 2-2.26 g/cm3, and tap density is 0.67-1.1 g/cm3, the graphite particle/carbon material of Yamada overlaps that of the claimed inequality (3K) regardless of the value of D100 (a density in g/cm3 of carbon material under uniaxial load of 100 kgf/3.14 cm2); therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP § 2144.05, I.))).
wherein the carbon material has a volume-based average particle diameter d50 overlapping the claimed range of from 1 to 18 um; therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP § 2144.05, I.) (Yamada, [0099], e.g., volume-based average particle diameter (d50) of graphite particles (which is being interpreted as carbon material) determined by a laser diffraction/scattering method is usually 15 um or more; d50 is usually 100 um or less, and particularly preferably 31 um or less (which overlaps the claimed range of 1 to 18 um; therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP § 2144.05, I.))), and
wherein at least part of a surface of the carbon material is coated with the amorphous carbon coating (Yamada, claim 1, [0145], e.g., a multi-layer carbon material for a non-aqueous secondary battery, wherein at least a portion of the surface of graphite particles is coated with a carbonaceous material; in the multilayer carbon material, the carbonaceous material covers at least part of the surface of the graphite particles (which is being interpreted as carbon material); the carbonaceous material may be amorphous carbon (which is being interpreted as amorphous carbon coating)).
Yamada teaches the limitations of clams 1 and 2 as disclosed above. Argument’s regarding manufacturing process prior to spheroidization is not commensurate in scope with the claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAIXIA ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-5697. The examiner can normally be reached Monday and Tuesday 9-5.
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, Tiffany Legette can be reached at (571) 270-7078. 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.
/HAIXIA ZHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723