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 .
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 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.
Claims 1, 3, 5-6, 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada (US 20220013779 A1).
Regarding claim 1 and 11-13, Yamada teaches a negative electrode active material (see [0071]) for a secondary battery (see [0071]), comprising a carbon-based active material (see [0071]), wherein Dp is a pellet density (g/cm3) of the carbon-based active material (see [0304]), DT is a tap density (g/cm3) of the carbon-based active material (see [0302]), and the sphericity is a sphericity of a particle of the carbon-based active material (see [0123]).
Yamada does not specifically teach wherein the negative electrode active material satisfies the following Relationship Expression 1,
[Relational Expression 1]
< (Dp – DT)/sphericity < 0.28.
[Relational Expression 2]
Dp – DT < 0.3
And Dp is 1.0-1.4 g/cm3
However, Yamada specifically teaches an overlapping value for Dp – DT (relational expression 2) of between 0.1-0.8 g/cm3 [0306]. Yamada also teaches that the tap density of the negative electrode material can be between 1.15-1.4 g/cm3 [0302] and that the sphericity can be between 0.88-0.99 [0123]. Therefore, the effective range of (Dp – DT)/sphericity taught by Yamada is 0.101-0.909 g/cm3, which overlaps the claimed values for Relational expression 1 and the effective range of Dp is 1.25-2.2 g/cm3, which overlaps the claimed range of Dp.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have chosen freely from these ranges for instance DT = 1.15 g/cm3, Dp – DT of 0.1 g/cm3 (thus Dp would be 1.25 g/cm3) and even at the low end of the taught sphericities (0.88), relationship 1 is 0.113 g/cm3. Still further, [0305-0306] teaches that relational expression 1 is a result effective variable with a trade-off between a desired intermediate hardness that allows the electrolyte to move smoothly and sphericity improves cycle characteristics while allowing the electrolyte to move smoothly.
Regarding claim 3, Yamada teaches wherein the sphericity (see [0123]) of the particle of the carbon-based active material is 0.88 to 0.99.
Regarding claim 5, Yamada teaches wherein the carbon-based active material (see [0071]) is natural graphite (see [0130]) or artificial graphite.
Regarding claim 6, Yamada teaches wherein a Raman R value (see [0102]) of the negative electrode active material (see [0071]) is 0.01 to 1.4 (see [0106]), the Raman R value being represented by the following Equation 1 (see [0102]),
[Equation 1]
Raman R = Id/Ig (see [0102], IB corresponds to Id, and IA corresponds to Ig)
wherein the Raman R value is an index indicating a relative sphericity, and is calculated as a ratio of an intensity value of a peak in an absorption region of 1,350 to 1,380 cm-1 (see [0102]) (Id) to an intensity value of a peak in an absorption region of 1,580 to 1,600 cm-1 (see [0102]) (Ig) in Raman spectroscopy.
Regarding claim 9, Yamada teaches a negative electrode (see [0158]) for a secondary battery (see [0166]), comprising the negative electrode active material of claim 1 (see [0166], and 35 USC § 103 rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 10, Yamada teaches a secondary battery (see [0166]) comprising: the negative electrode of claim 9 (see [0166]), and 35 USC § 103 rejection of claim 9 above); a positive electrode (see [0168]); a separator (see [0176]) interposed between the negative electrode and the positive electrode (see [0176]); and an electrolyte (see [0166]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada (US 20220013779 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yada (US 20130260250 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Yamada does not teach further comprising one or more selected from the group consisting of hard carbon and soft carbon. However, Yada teaches further comprising one or more selected from the group consisting of hard carbon (see [0058]) and soft carbon.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the negative electrode active material taught by Yamada (see [0071]) to include hard carbon as taught by Yada (see [0058]) in order to increase relative permittivity and capacity of the secondary battery (see [0008]-[0009]). Further, Yamada teaches that modifications can be made without departing from the scope of the invention (see [0070]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada (US 20220013779 A1) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Yada (US 20130260250 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Yamada in view of Yada does not specifically teach wherein an amount of the one or more selected from the group consisting of hard carbon and soft carbon comprised in the negative electrode active material is 5 to 15 wt% with respect to a total weight of the negative electrode active material.
However, Yada teaches wherein an amount of the one or more selected from the group consisting of hard carbon (see [0058]) and soft carbon comprised in the negative electrode active material is 10 to 15 wt% with respect to a total weight of the negative electrode active material (see [0058)).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the wt% of the hard carbon with respect to a total weight of the negative electrode active material to between 10 and 15 wt% as taught by Yada (see [0058]) in order to lower the interface resistance between the positive and negative electrodes (see [0017]-[0019]). Further, Yamada teaches that modifications can be made without departing from the scope of the invention (see [0070]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/25/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the present specification demonstrates unexpected results for the claimed ranges. The argument is unconvincing because the showing is not commensurate in scope with the claims. The showing is limited to natural graphite, whereas the claims permit any carbon-based material and must embrace other forms of carbon than graphite or else claim 5 fails to further limit. Furthermore the graphite is treated in the manner described on pp. 18-19 and combined with carbon black and a specific pair of binders [0082], none of which is limited in the claims. Still further, results are not shown for the full range of the claims. Results are only shown for Dp of 1.32-1.34 g/cm3, sphericity of 0.96-0.97, (Dp – DT)/sphericity of between 0.12-0.28 g/cm3.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL B CLEVELAND whose telephone number is (571)272-1418. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday; 9:00 am - 5:30 pm.
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, Alexa Neckel can be reached on 571-272-2450. 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.
/MICHAEL B CLEVELAND/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1712