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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10/30/25 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
The following is in response to the applicant’s remarks filed 10/30/25.
The applicant submits that the previous rejection is improper as the citations of Kawaguchi relied upon for teaching the claimed range of XRD ratio values are not equivalent. Specifically, the applicant submits that the teachings of Kawaguchi are directed at an XRD analysis of a graphite powder of an anode active material and not the anode active material layer. Further, the applicant has supplied data in an affidavit illustrating the above distinction. It is explained that the variables of the anode active material such as a carbon coating, sphericity, electrode density, particle size and undergoing heat treatment are variables which impact the resulting XRD analysis.
The above submissions are made moot by the new basis for rejection presented below. However, to promote clarity of the record, they will be discussed. The examiner notes the distinction, but the remarks are considered unpersuasive. Similar to that of the instant application, the technical problem of focus in the anode material of Kawaguchi is to improve the poor cycle characteristics of natural graphite which are due to the particle shape [0008]. Again, similar to the instant specification, the method of which said improvement is achieved is by changing parameters such as sphericity [0032], electrode density [0114], and particle size [0047] of the anode material. Further, the examination of the morphology of the natural graphite is measured through the same metric of XRD analysis which is a ratio of peak intensity of the (110) and (004) plane [0032]. While it is true that the XRD analysis of Kawaguchi is performed on graphite powder, Kawaguchi also teaches that it is the resultant electrode surface morphology which impacts cycle characteristics [0008][0014][0063]. Then, any differences between the instant application and Kawaguchi regarding XRD analysis of the anode material are considered to be within the skill of an ordinary artisan as a matter of routine experimentation of known parameters attempting to solve a known problem and are not a patentable distinction.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1 – 5 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Onishi, US20080199777A1, and Misaki, JP2018170246A (previously cited).
Regarding claim 1, Onishi teaches an anode for a lithium secondary battery [0001],
comprising a current collector; and an anode active material layer coated on the current collector, the anode active material layer comprising an anode active material that comprises natural graphite particles [0009][0013] and
having an electrode density of 1.50 g/cc or more (1.55 g/cm3 or more)[0133], a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close [MPEP 2144.05 I],
wherein an XRD orientation index defined as I(004)/1(110) is 8 or less (5.5 – 12.5)[0046], a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close [MPEP 2144.05 I],
I(004) is a peak intensity corresponding to a (004) plane of the anode active material obtained by an XRD measurement from the anode active material layer, and I(110) is a peak intensity corresponding to a (110) plane of the anode active material obtained by the XRD measurement from the anode active material layer (measuring crystal orientation on the electrode)[0046],
Onishi does not teach wherein a total pore volume ratio of the natural graphite particles measured by a nitrogen adsorption method is in a range from 0.01 cm3/g to 0.03 cm3/g.
Misaki teaches a lithium secondary battery [0001] comprising an anode active material comprising graphite [0012] wherein a total pore volume of the natural graphite particles measured by a nitrogen adsorption method is in a range from 0.01 g/cm3 to 0.03 g/cm3 (0.06 cm3/g or less)[0012]. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close [MPEP 2144.05 I]. Further, Misaki teaches an anode material having the above porosity improves capacity retention and reduces expansion. Then, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the porosity of Misaki into the material of Kawaguchi to improve capacity retention.
Regarding claim 2, combined Onishi teaches the anode for a lithium secondary battery of claim 1.
Further, Onishi teaches wherein the XRD orientation index is in a range from 2 to 8 (5.5 – 12.5)[0046]. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close [MPEP 2144.05 I].
Regarding claim 3, combined Onishi teaches the anode for a lithium secondary battery of claim 1.
Further, Onishi teaches wherein the electrode density of the anode active material layer is in a range from 1.50 g/cc to 1.80 g/cc (1.55 g/cm3 or more)[0133]. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close [MPEP 2144.05 I].
Regarding claim 4, combined Onishi teaches the anode for a lithium secondary battery of claim 1.
Further, Onishi teaches wherein the electrode density of the anode active material layer is in a range from 1.70 g/cc to 1.80 g/cc (1.55 g/cm3 or more)[0133]. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close [MPEP 2144.05 I].
Regarding claim 5, combined Onishi teaches the anode for a lithium secondary battery of claim 1.
Further, Onishi teaches wherein a sphericity of the natural graphite particles is in a range from 0.88 to 0.99 (0.83 – 1)[0011]. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close [MPEP 2144.05 I].
Regarding claim 9, Onishi teaches a lithium secondary battery, comprising a cathode comprising lithium-transition metal composite oxide particles as a cathode active material; and the anode for a lithium secondary battery of claim 1 facing the cathode [0138][0140].
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 by Onishi, US20080199777A1, and Misaki, JP2018170246A (previously cited) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of, Kim, US20230223535A1 (previously cited).
Regarding claim 6, combined Onishi teaches the anode for a lithium secondary battery of claim 1.
Combined Onishi does not teach wherein the anode active material further comprises an amorphous carbon layer formed on the natural graphite particles.
Kim teaches an anode for a lithium secondary battery wherein the anode comprises a natural graphite particle comprising an amorphous carbon layer [0033][0034]. Further, Kim teaches this relationship to provide stability and improved output characteristics [0034]. Then, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the weight % of Kim with the anode material of Kawaguchi to improve stability and output.
Regarding claim 7, combined Onishi teaches the anode for a lithium secondary battery of claim 6.
Further, Kim teaches an anode for a lithium secondary battery wherein the anode comprises a natural graphite particle comprising an amorphous carbon layer wherein the weight of the amorphous carbon layer is 1 – 10% (1 – 15 wt%) relative to the natural graphite [0033][0034]. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close [MPEP 2144.05 I].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK M GREENE whose telephone number is (571)270-1340. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Miriam Stagg can be reached at (571)270-5256. 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.
/PATRICK MARSHALL GREENE/Examiner, Art Unit 1724
/MIRIAM STAGG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1724