DETAILED ACTION
Application 17/631857, “NEGATIVE ELECTRODE MATERIAL FOR LITHIUM ION SECONDARY BATTERY, NEGATIVE ELECTRODE FOR LITHIUM ION SECONDARY BATTERY, AND LITHIUM ION SECONDARY BATTERY”, is the national stage entry of a PCT application filed on 7/31/19.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Office Action on the merits is in response to communication filed on 9/30/25.
Claim Interpretation
The recitation, “with respect to a volume-based particle diameter… a cumulative value at 9.516 μm is 8.0% or less” [as in the originally filed claim 1] is not commonly used in the art.
For the purposes of the art rejections below, the recitation is interpreted to mean that in a particle distribution curve, 8.0% or less of the particles have a diameter of 9.516 μm or less, and 92.0% or more of the particles have a diameter of greater than 9.516 μm. See Examiner’s illustration below.
In the prior at (e.g. Yamazaki: US 2021/0020906 which was applied in the 8/1/24 Non-Final Rejection), D10, D50 and D90 values are commonly reported, with a D10 value corresponding to the diameter value at which 10% of the distribution lies below. Thus, the claimed “a cumulative value at 9.516 μm is 8.0% or less” is believed to correspond to a D8.0 value of 9.516 μm, in the nomenclature commonly used in the prior art.
The same principles of interpretation may be applied to the 4.6% and 6% values of the pending claims.
PNG
media_image1.png
479
763
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 9/30/25 have been fully considered, but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claimed invention is patentable over the combination of Yamazaki (US 2021/0020906) and Shen (US 2019/0074539) because the cited art fails to teach a composition layer having the claimed springback rate characteristic.
Applicant notes that Yamazaki and Shin are silent as to any measurement or concept of springback rate for a composition layer. Applicant further notes that the method for producing graphite particles described in the Examples of the present application is not disclosed in the cited references. Applicant points out that the springback rate recited in claim is critical to technical advantages, such as improved quick charging performance, achieved in the present disclosure. Applicant further argues that applicant’s inventive Examples, which possess the claimed springback characteristic, outperform the Comparative Examples, which do not exhibit the claimed springback characteristic.
In response, applicant’s argument is not found persuasive because there is no evidence of record tending to demonstrate that the recited springback characteristic would not be achieved in the composition layer if it contained the negative electrode material disclosed or suggested by the prior art. The claim is drawn to the negative electrode material, not the composition layer, therefore, the “spring back rate” clause is given weight in terms of the structure that it implies of the negative electrode material (see the art rejections below for more detail). Since the negative electrode material suggested by the prior art appears to structurally be the same or substantially the same as the claimed negative electrode material, e.g. a mass formed of a plurality of flat graphite particles, then the same springback rate would be expected of a layer containing the prior art negative electrode material.
Applicant’s remarks appear to simply argue that since the prior art does not disclose a springback rate, and the prior art negative electrode active material is made by a different technique from applicant’s Examples 1 and 2, then the claim is patentable. This is not the law because such arguments of counsel should be supported by appropriate evidence tending to show that the claimed property is not present. MPEP 2112 II teaches that inherent features need not be recognized by the prior art, in this case clarifying that patentability cannot achieved by simply pointing out that Yamazaki and Shin fail to disclose a springback rate. The remarks do not include an evaluation which considers the disclosures of Yamazaki and Shen, and provides evidence and/or technical reasoning to explain why the required springback characteristic would not be achieved.
See also MPEP V which clarifies that once a rationale tending to show inherency is presented by the Office, the burden shifts to applicant to demonstrate that the prior art products would in fact not possess the claimed characteristic. In this case, there is no such evidence, particularly considering that the arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence on the record (MPEP 716.01(c) II).
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 of this title, 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, 3, 5-6, 12, and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Yamazaki (US 2021/0020906) and Shen (US 2019/0074539).
Regarding claim 1 and 3, Yamazaki teaches a negative electrode material for a lithium ion secondary battery (see title), the negative electrode material comprising particles in a state in which a plurality of flat graphite particles are aggregated or bonded (abstract, paragraph [0030-0031]). Yamazaki further teaches the particles having a specific surface area of 3.0 m2/g or less, or more narrowly 0.5 m2/g to 2.5 m2/g as required by claim 3 or 7 (“0.8 to 3 m2/g” at paragraph [0107]; for example,1.6 m2/g at Table 1 Example 1).
Yamazaki is silent as to wherein: i), with respect to a volume-based particle diameter measured by a laser diffraction/scattering method, a cumulative value at 9.516 μm is 4.6% or more and 6% or less; ii), a standard deviation of a particle size distribution is 0.22 or less; iii), a graphitization degree of the negative electrode material is 93% or more and 95% or less; and iv) a springback rate of a composition layer containing the negative electrode material for a lithium ion secondary battery is from 2.0% to 4.0%, and the composition layer is formed by a composition containing 96 parts by mass of the negative electrode material, 1.5 parts by mass of styrene-butadiene rubber, 1.5 parts by mass of carboxymethyl cellulose and 1.0 part by mass of carbon black.
However, as to i), Yamazaki does teach that the graphite particles have a 10% cumulative particle size [D10] of 4 μm to 18 μm (paragraph [0071]), including Example D10 values of 9.6, 13.0 and 15.5 μm (Table 1). Yamazaki further teaches that such D10 values provide graphite aggregates providing desirable initial charge/discharge efficiency (paragraph [0072]).
A D10 value of 9.6 μm suggests that the cumulative value at 9.516 μm would be about 10%, and D10 value of 13.0 and 15.5 μm suggest that the cumulative value at 9.516 μm would be significantly less than 10%, at least approaching the claimed range.
Thus, although Yamazaki is silent as to the cumulative value at 9.516 μm, Yamazaki appears to suggest a similar size cumulative value at 9.516 μm by expressly teaching D10 values in a range of 4 μm to 18 μm, including Example values of 13.0 and 15.5 μm. Further, Yamazaki teaches this distribution is effective for providing good initial charge/discharge efficiency (paragraph [0072]), which is similar to applicant’s teaching that desirable cumulative value corresponds to quick charging efficiency (applicant’s as-filed paragraph [0013] corresponding to applicant’s published paragraph [0018]).
Therefore, this limitation does not provide patentability because the express disclosure of D10 value in Yamazaki appears to provide an implicit teaching of a cumulative value at 9.516 μm lying within, or at least overlapping the claimed range. Moreover, even if it was determined that the Yamazaki range did not lie within or overlap the claimed range, the claimed cumulative value feature is found to be obvious because the suggested value of the prior art is at least close and the same function (e.g. improved charging efficiency) is reported for both the prior art range and applicant’s invention as described in the instant specification.
As to ii), the standard deviation is a representation of the uniformity of the particle size, with values approaching 0 as uniformity increases towards perfection; therefore, the claimed standard deviation range of “0.22 or less” represents particles having high degree of size uniformity, i.e. a narrow particle size distribution.
Although Yamazaki does not characterize uniformity of the negative electrode particles using standard deviation, Yamazaki does characterize the uniformity of the particles using a D90/D10, preferring that D90/D10 is low value lying between 2.0 and 2.7 for the benefit of providing desirable aggregation, binding, and cycle characteristics (paragraphs [0077-0078]), such as 2.2 (Table 1 Example 1). It is noted that a low D90/D10 value suggests a compact particle size distribution, with D90/D10 approaching 1.0 as uniformity approaches perfection. More generally, Yamazaki characterizes the inventive particles as having “a narrow particle size distribution”, (paragraph [0030, 0278]), with the narrow particle size distribution contributing to improved strength, tolerance to pressure, improved cycle lifetime and capacity, and other desirable mechanical and electrochemical properties (paragraph [0015, 0278]).
By teaching a D90/D10 of 2.0 to 2.7, and further emphasizing the narrow particle size distribution, Yamazaki implicitly teaches a low standard deviation, which would appear to suggest a standard deviation of less than 0.22, so as to implicitly teach the product defined by claim 1. Alternatively, the claimed standard deviation requirement is found to be obvious over Yamazaki because the D90/D10 ratio being 2.0 to 2.7 suggests a range of powders which would have sufficient particle size uniformity to overlap the claimed range wherein the standard deviation is 0.22 or less, or at least would suggest highly uniform particles which would behave functionally the same or similar to the highly uniform particles defined by the claimed standard deviation range so as to support a prima facie case of obviousness.
As to iii), Yamazaki teaches that that the graphtization treatment is controllable by the skilled artisan to achieve a desired amount of graphitization (paragraphs [0175-0177]), but does not reasonably suggest wherein a graphitization degree of the negative electrode material should be 93% or more and 95% or less.
In the battery art, Shen teaches that it is desirable to configure a graphite material to have a graphitization degree of 92 to 96% for the benefit of balancing increased capacity, desirable interlayer distance and desirable cycling characteristics (paragraph [0023]). Shen further teaches desirable embodiments having graphitization degree of 94% (see Table 1).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to configure the negative electrode active material to have a graphitization degree within the range of 93% to 95% since graphitization values overlapping, or lying within, this range may provide a desirable combination of increased capacity, desirable interlayer distance and desirable cycling characteristics as taught by Shen.
And as to iv), Yamazaki teaches a similar negative electrode material comprised of a plurality of flat graphite particles aggregated or bonded to form secondary electrode material particles (see Fig. 2 and abstract).
The “springback rate” recited in claim 4 is a property of the composition layer which includes the negative electrode material, i.e. the aggregated or bonded plurality of flat graphite particles, and further includes styrene-butadiene rubber, carboxymethyl cellulose, and carbon black in the claimed relative amounts. Since claim 1 is drawn to the negative electrode material itself, not the composition layer, then the additional components of the composition layer are not required to be taught by the prior art.
However, the claim is interpreted to require that if the negative electrode material of the prior art were included in a composition layer as claimed, then a springback rate of 2.0% to 4.0% would be achieved. Thus, the “springback” clause iv) is understood to implicitly describe a materials property of the negative electrode material, namely that its inclusion in a layer as described would produce the required springback rate.
Although Yamazaki does not report this characteristic, the limitation is presumed to be coupled to the structure of the negative electrode material. Since the negative electrode material possesses substantially the same structure as the claimed particles (e.g. formed by an aggregated or bonded mass of a plurality of flat graphite particles), the same implicit springback-causing property is expected absent any evidence to the contrary. No such evidence has been presented; therefore, the limitation iv) is not found to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the cited art.
Regarding claims 5, 6, and 12, Yamazaki remains as applied to claims 1 or 3. Yamazaki further teaches the negative electrode active material disposed in a layer on a current collector to provide a negative electrode, which is used as a subcomponent of a lithium ion secondary battery further comprising a positive electrode and an electrolyte (Figure 1; paragraphs [0231-0238]).
Regarding claims 18 and 19, Yamazaki remains as applied to claims 1. Claims 18 and 19 recite narrower limitations for the cumulative value at 9.516 μm and standard deviation of particle size distribution than those included in claim 1, respectively.
However, while conceding that Yamazaki is silent as to these features as described in the rejection of claim 1 in detail, the same ground(s) of rejection may be applied to these narrowed ranges added by claims 18 and 19. In short, the basis for the finding of obviousness is that the prior art’s express disclosure suggests the claimed features as either i) implicitly present, ii) obvious due to the prior art’s express description of the particles suggesting a range which would overlap the claimed range, or iii) obvious because the difference, if present, is not associated with a functional difference in properties achieved by the claimed invention compared to that of the prior art.
Relevant or Related Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, though not necessarily pertinent to applicant’s invention as claimed.
Ulmann (US 2019/0237749) negative electrode material with spring back of less than 12%;
Yasuda (US 2021/0075003): negative electrode active material of flat primary particles, but the D10 value is lower than the claimed invention;
Yamamoto (US 2022/0293941): negative electrode material layer with spring-back resistance similar to applicant, but spring-back may be defined differently than in instant specification;
Miyauchi (US 2022/0320482): aggregate graphite particles of the claimed size, but not expressly comprised of flat primary particles.
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 JEREMIAH R SMITH whose telephone number is (571)270-7005. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri: 9 AM-5 PM (EST).
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, Milton Cano can be reached on 313-446-4937. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JEREMIAH R SMITH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights