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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1, 4-15, 18-21, 23-25 are pending, with claim 15 withdrawn.
The amendment filed May 01, 2026 has been entered but does not place the application in condition for allowance. The amendments to claims 1 and 18 overcome the prior art rejections to the original claims. The cancellation of claims 2 and 22 are respectfully acknowledged.
New rejections follow.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 25 recites “wherein the carbon-based matrix is (i) petroleum asphalt with a softening point of 280°C and a D50 of 5 µm; or (ii) coal tar pitch with a softening point of 250°C and a D50 of 5 µum.” The instant specification does not provide support for the limitation in the relevant sections of [0006], [0045], [0061-0062], only describing the recited species as carbon source precursors to the carbon-based matrix. Appropriate correction is required.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 25 recites “wherein the carbon-based matrix is (i) petroleum asphalt with a softening point of 280°C and a D50 of 5 µm; or (ii) coal tar pitch with a softening point of 250°C and a D50 of 5 µm.” However, independent claim 1 does not include either (i) or (ii) among its list of species. Therefore, it is unclear if the carbon-based matrix is a (i) petroleum asphalt with a softening point of 280°C and a D50 of 5 µm or (ii) coal tar pitch with a softening point of 250°C and a D50 of 5 µm, in addition to one or more of the species for the carbon-based matrix recited in claim 1, or if the species in claim 1 are components of the species recited in claim 25. Appropriate correction is required. To advance prosecution, the limitation will be interpreted as “wherein the carbon source precursor to the carbon-based matrix is (i) petroleum asphalt with a softening point of 280°C and a D50 of 5 µm; or (ii) coal tar pitch with a softening point of 250°C and a D50 of 5 µm” as is consistent with the instant specification ([0006], [0045], [0062]).
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, 21, 23-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tan et al (CN109860537A, published 2019-06-07, machine translation included) and Omaru et al (US 5294498 A, published 1994-03-15).
Evidentiary support is provided by Woo et al (KR20150015835A, published 2015-02-11, machine translation provided)
Regarding claim 1, Tan teaches an electrode material, comprising a doped carbon material ([0011-0014] teaches particles of lithium manganese phosphate with a doped carbon coating, wherein the coated particles correspond to the claimed doped carbon material),
wherein the doped carbon material comprises a carbon-based matrix and doping elements doped in the carbon-based matrix (the two coatings comprise nitrogen-phosphorus co-doped carbon materials, sulfur-doped graphene, and nitrogen-doped oxygen containing compounds [0014]-[0015], which together correspond to a carbon-based matrix; phosphorus, oxygen, and nitrogen are doping elements doped in the carbon-based matrix [0015]),
the doping elements comprise N, O, and P ([0015] teaches N, O, and P as doping elements), and optionally one or more selected from B, S, and F (S is taught as a doping element in [0015]),
at least a part of the doping elements form C-Ma-Mb chemical bonds with the carbon-based matrix, and Ma and Mb represent two different types of doping elements, ([0015] teaches the doping elements N, O, P, and S can form various combinations of chemical bonds, such as C-P-N bonds, C-S-N and C-N-O, which would correspond to C-Ma-Mb bonds)
wherein the C-Ma-Mb chemical bonds comprise C-P-N chemical bonds ([0015] teaches the doping elements can form chemical bonds such as C-P-N bonds),
and wherein a mass content of the doping elements in the doped carbon material is less than or equal to 5% (the mass fraction of nitrogen in the nitrogen and phosphorus co-doped carbon material is 0.05-0.5% and the mass fraction of phosphorus is 0.05-0.8% [0012], and together they constitute a mass content of doping elements in the doped carbon material 0.10-1.3% which overlaps with the claimed range; 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, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) ),
wherein the carbon-based matrix comprises one or more selected from artificial graphite, natural graphite, hard carbon, soft carbon, mesocarbon microbeads, carbon nanotubes, carbon fibers, active carbon, porous carbon, acetylene black, and Ketjen black ([0068] teaches the carbon material of the nitrogen and phosphorus co-doped carbon material can be at least one of a list of species including carbon nanotubes, carbon fibers, acetylene black, which are claimed species),
Although Tan teaches the electrode material for a cathode material and is silent about its use for a negative electrode material, the preamble statement reciting a negative electrode material is a statement of intended use. The Courts have held that to satisfy an intended use limitation which is limiting, a prior art structure which is capable of performing the intended use as recited in the preamble meets the claim. See, e.g., In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997); see MPEP 2111.02. Evidentiary reference Woo et al discloses in the same field of endeavor a lithium manganese phosphate used as a negative active material (Woo: [0009]), therefore it is structurally capable of functioning as the negative electrode material.
Tan is silent regarding wherein the C-Ma-Mb chemical bonds comprise C-P-O chemical bonds.
Omaru teaches phosphorus dopants added to a carbonaceous material in the form of C-P-O compounds increase the lithium dosage (Col 1: lines 53-59), wherein the lithium dosage being as large as possible increases the charging/discharging capacity of the cell (Col 1: lines 15-19). A skilled artisan would have found it obvious to have modified Tan’s electrode material to utilize phosphorus doping elements in the form of C-P-O bonds for the advantages of increasing the lithium dosage and consequently the charging/discharging capacity of the cell, as taught by Omaru.
Regarding wherein a proportion of a mass of doping elements, forming the C-Ma-Mb chemical bonds, to a total mass of the doping elements is greater than 50%, as previously pointed out, Omaru also teaches that C-P-O compounds, which correspond to C-Ma-Mb chemical bonds, increase the lithium dosage, wherein increases in lithium dosage is correlated to increased charge/discharge capacity of the cell. The mass of doping elements forming the C-P-O bonds reads upon “a mass of doping elements, forming the C-Ma-Mb chemical bonds” because the limitation does not require that a mass of doping elements corresponds to the doping elements forming all the C-Ma-Mb chemical bonds. The amount of C-P-O bonds is a result-effective variable, and a skilled artisan would have found it obvious to have adjusted a proportion of a mass of doping elements forming the C-P-O chemical bonds within modified Tan’s electrode material to optimize the charge/discharge capacity of the cell as taught by Omaru, and would have consequently arrived at a proportion of a mass of doping elements, forming the C-Ma-Mb chemical bonds, to a total mass of the doping elements is greater than 50% as claimed.
Regarding claim 5, the combination teaches the negative electrode material of claim 1. Tan further teaches in Figure 1, the carbon source in-situ coated lithium manganese phosphate cathode material prepared by the present invention has primary particles which are fibrous ([0079], Fig. 1)
Regarding claim 21, the combination above teaches the negative electrode material of claim 1 and as pointed out previously, Omaru of the combination teaches C-P-O chemical bonds and Tan teaches C-P-N chemical bonds.
Omaru of the combination discloses that having anode material with an internal composition of (C6H5O)2P(=OH), has a superficial structure of (C6H5O)2P(=O)(OH) and reduced (C6H5O)2P(=O)(OH), (C6H5O)3P(=O) and (C6H5O)3P, wherein (C6H5O)3P(=O) corresponds to a C3-P=O configuration, as part of a special structure that displays the specific effect of increasing the lithium doping quantity (Col 2: lines 37-49). Hence, a skilled artisan would have found it obvious to have modified the modified negative electrode material of Tan to include the C-P-O chemical bonds with the structure taught by Omaru to take advantage of increasing the lithium doping quantity.
Regarding claim 23, the combination above teaches the negative electrode material of claim 1 and as pointed out previously, Omaru of the combination teaches C-P-O chemical bonds and Tan teaches C-P-N chemical bonds.
Omaru of the combination discloses that having anode material with an internal composition of (C6H5O)2P(=OH), has a superficial structure of (C6H5O)2P(=O)(OH) and reduced (C6H5O)2P(=O)(OH), (C6H5O)3P(=O) and (C6H5O)3P, wherein (C6H5O)3P(=O) corresponds to C3-P=O configuration and (C6H5O)2P(=O)(OH) corresponds to C2-P=O(-O), and as part of a special structure that displays the specific effect of increasing the lithium doping quantity (Col 2: lines 37-49). Additionally, the compounds disclosed above inherently include individual C-P-O chemical bonds. A skilled artisan would have found it obvious to have modified the modified negative electrode material of Tan to include the C-P-O chemical bonds with the structure taught by Omaru to take advantage of increasing the lithium doping quantity.
Regarding claim 24, the combination above teaches the negative electrode of claim 1. The limitation recites the carbon source precursor for the carbon-based matrix but does not provide structural features that would differentiate a carbon-based matrix derived from the claimed species from that of the prior art. Accordingly, no particular weight was given to the limitation of “wherein the carbon-based matrix is derived from a carbon source precursor comprising at least one selected from artificial graphite, coal tar pitch whose softening point is greater than 200°C, petroleum asphalt, and modified Courmarone resin.”
Regarding claim 25, the combination above teaches the negative electrode material of claim 1.
Additionally, as pointed out in the 112(b) rejection above, the limitation regarding the claimed species is interpreted as options for the carbon source precursor for the carbon-based matrix based on support in the instant specification, but the options for the carbon source precursor do not provide structural features that would differentiate a carbon-based matrix derived from the claimed species from that of the prior art. Accordingly, no particular weight was given to the limitation of “wherein the carbon source precursor to the carbon-based matrix is (i) petroleum asphalt with a softening point of 280°C and a D50 of 5 µm; or (ii) coal tar pitch with a softening point of 250°C and a D50 of 5 µm.”
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tan et al (CN109860537A) in view of Omaru et al (US 5294498 A) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Woo et al (KR20150015835A).
Regarding claim 4, the combination above teaches the negative electrode of claim 1 but is silent regarding a median particle diameter of the doped carbon material.
In the same field of endeavor, Woo teaches an average particle size D50 is between 10 nm and 10 µm to control its specific surface area and packing density to optimize the efficiency and capacity retention rate of the secondary battery [0053]. Woo teaches the average particle size can be measured according to a laser diffraction method in which average particle size D50 can be defined as the particle size at the 50% standard of the particle size distribution, i.e. a median particle diameter. A skilled artisan would have found it obvious to have modified the negative electrode of modified Tan to utilize the median particle diameter taught by Woo to optimize the efficiency and capacity retention rate of the secondary battery. The taught median particle diameter overlaps with the claimed range. 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, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tan et al (CN109860537A) in view of Omaru et al (US 5294498 A) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Woo et al (KR20150015835A).
Regarding claim 6, the combination above teaches the negative electrode of claim 5 but is silent regarding a median particle diameter of the primary particles of the doped carbon material and a median particle diameter of the secondary particles of the doped carbon material.
In the same field of endeavor, Woo teaches an average particle size D50 of the lithium manganese phosphate, i.e. a primary particle, is between 10 nm and 10 µm to control its specific surface area and packing density to optimize the efficiency and capacity retention rate of the secondary battery [0053]. Woo teaches the average particle size can be measured according to a laser diffraction method in which average particle size D50 can be defined as the particle size at the 50% standard of the particle size distribution, i.e. a median particle diameter. A skilled artisan would have found it obvious to have modified the negative electrode of modified Tan to utilize the median particle diameter of lithium manganese phosphate as taught by Woo to optimize the efficiency and capacity retention rate of the secondary battery. The taught median particle diameter overlaps with the claimed range. 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, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)
Woo further teaches that a carbon coating on the lithium manganese phosphate particles [0055-0056] can be 5 nm to 100 nm to optimize increase in electrical conductivity and mobility of the lithium ions that affects resistance of the material [0056]. A skilled artisan would have further modified the modified negative electrode of Tan to utilize the carbon coating thickness taught by Woo to optimize electrical conductivity and resistance of the coated material. Consequently, the coated lithium manganese phosphate particles of median particle size 10 nm and 10 µm with the carbon coating range of between 5 nm to 100 nm would correspond to secondary particles, and the median particle diameter of the secondary particles of the doped carbon material would necessarily overlap with the claimed range. 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, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)
Regarding claim 7, the combination above teaches the negative electrode material of claim 5 but is silent regarding the negative electrode material further comprising a protective layer.
In the same field of endeavor, Woo teaches a carbon-coated lithium manganese phosphate material which is mixed with PVdF as a binder to manufacture a negative electrode [0128]. A skilled artisan would have found it obvious to have modified the modified negative electrode of Tan to mix PVdF as a binder with the carbon-coated lithium manganese phosphate material, given that it is a known configuration. They would have also recognized that providing the combination of elements in combination would merely provide the predictable result of similar function as performed separately with expectation of success; see KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) (see MPEP §2143, A). The skilled artisan would have understood that this PVdF material would coat the particles upon mixing and act as both a protective surface and binder.
Claims 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tan et al (CN109860537A) in view of Omaru et al (US 5294498 A) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Woo et al (KR20150015835A).
Regarding claim 8, the combination above teaches the negative electrode material of claim 1 but is silent regarding the negative electrode material further comprises other negative electrode active components. In the same field of endeavor, Woo teaches the negative electrode material can further include one or more active materials selected from the group consisting of carbon-based materials, transition metal oxides, Si-based and Sn-based materials [0085].
A skilled artisan would have found it obvious to have modified the modified negative electrode of Tan to include additional active materials taught by Woo such as carbon-based materials, transition metal oxides, Si-based and Sn-based material, because Woo teaches it is a known configuration for an electrode. The skilled artisan would have also recognized that providing the combination of elements in combination would merely provide the predictable result of similar function as performed separately with expectation of success; see KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) (see MPEP §2143, A).
Alternatively, Woo teaches conductive agents can be used in preparation of the electrode, wherein suitable options for the conductive agents are graphite and carbon black, which are also active materials, and wherein they are mixed together with the coated lithium manganese phosphate material to form the electrode [0090, 0128]. It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to have modified the modified negative electrode of Tan to include conductive agent as taught by Woo for the expected function of improved conductivity.
Consequently, the incorporation of modified Tan’s material with additional active materials as taught by Woo would have read on the limitation of the doped carbon material particles composited with the other negative electrode active components to form composite particles.
Regarding claim 9, the combination above teaches the negative electrode material of claim 8 and as pointed out previously in addressing the limitations of claim 8, Woo teaches the other negative electrode active components can be carbon-based materials, transition metal oxides, Si-based and Sn-based materials [0085, 0090, 0128], which includes the claimed species of a carbon-based material, a silicon-based material, a tin-based material, and a metal compound.
Regarding claim 10, the combination above teaches the negative electrode material of claim 8. Woo teaches the preparation of an electrode by mixing the electrode components [0128], which corresponds to compositing of the doped carbon material with the other negative electrode active components. The incorporation of modified Tan’s material into an electrode as taught by Woo would have resulted in an electrode material wherein the doped carbon material and the other negative electrode active components are evenly distributed in the composite particles, as Woo teaches the electrode components are mixed [0128] which a skilled artisan would have understood to result in even distribution in the composite particles.
Regarding claim 11, the combination above teaches the negative electrode material of claim 10. Woo also teaches the electrode can further comprise PVdF mixed with the carbon-coated lithium manganese phosphate material as a binder to manufacture a negative electrode [0128]. A skilled artisan would have found it obvious to have modified the modified negative electrode material of Tan to include PVdF, given that Wu teaches it is a known configuration for providing a binding function to an electrode. The skilled artisan would have also recognized that providing the combination of elements in combination would merely provide the predictable result of similar function as performed separately with expectation of success; see KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) (see MPEP §2143, A). The skilled artisan would have understood that this PVdF material would coat the particles upon mixing and act as both a protective surface and binder.
Regarding claim 12, the combination above teaches the negative electrode material of claim 8.
As pointed out previously in addressing the limitations of claim 8, the composite particles are formed of the doped carbon material and the other negative electrode active components, wherein the claimed core would correspond to the other negative electrode active components and satisfy the claimed “core that is composed of the other negative electrode active components.” Furthermore, Woo teaches the mixture of a carbon conductive agent, the lithium manganese phosphate material and binder PvdF into a slurry to form an electrode [0128], wherein Woo also teaches suitable carbon conductive agents as graphite and carbon black [0090], which correspond to other negative electrode active components. A skilled artisan would have found it obvious to have further included the carbon conductive agent and PvdF binder with modified Tan’s negative electrode material, given that Woo teaches it is a known configuration for a negative electrode to include electrode active materials with conductive agent and binder. The skilled artisan would have also recognized that providing the combination of elements in combination would merely provide the predictable result of similar function as performed separately with expectation of success; see KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) (see MPEP §2143, A). Woo teaches the electrode components are mixed, therefore the slurry components of the doped carbon material and the binder correspond to a coating layer disposed on a surface of the core (corresponding to the conductive agent) wherein the coating layer comprises the doped carbon material.
Regarding claim 13, the combination above teaches the negative electrode material of claim 12. Woo further teaches that a carbon coating on the lithium manganese phosphate particles [0055-0056] can be 5 nm to 100 nm to optimize increase in electrical conductivity and mobility of the lithium ions that affects resistance of the material [0056]. A skilled artisan would have further modified the modified negative electrode of Tan to utilize the carbon coating thickness taught by Woo to optimize electrical conductivity and resistance of the coated material. Consequently, taught carbon coating range of between 5 nm to 100 nm corresponds to a thickness of the coating layer and overlaps with the claimed range. 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, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)
Regarding claim 14, the combination above teaches the negative electrode material of claim 12.
Woo teaches the thickness of the carbon coating layer is a result-effective variable; a skilled artisan would have found it obvious to optimize the amount of thickness, correlated to its mass, for increase in electrical conductivity and resistance of the material (Woo: [0056]). The mass of the carbon coating layer (corresponding to a mass of the coating layer), and its optimization relative to the amount of conductive agents [0128] (corresponding to a mass of the core) would have resulted in the claimed range of mass ratio.
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tan et al (CN109860537A) in view of Omaru et al (US 5294498 A) and Woo et al (KR20150015835A).
Regarding claim 18, Tan teaches an electrode material, comprising a doped carbon material ([0011-0014] teaches particles of lithium manganese phosphate with a doped carbon coating, wherein the coated particles correspond to the claimed doped carbon material),
wherein the doped carbon material comprises a carbon-based matrix and doping elements doped in the carbon-based matrix (the two coatings comprise nitrogen-phosphorus co-doped carbon materials, sulfur-doped graphene, and nitrogen-doped oxygen containing compounds [0014]-[0015], which together correspond to a carbon-based matrix; phosphorus, oxygen, and nitrogen are doping elements doped in the carbon-based matrix [0015]),
the doping elements comprise N, O, and P ([0015] teaches N, O, and P as doping elements), and optionally one or more selected from B, S, and F (S is taught as a doping element in [0015]),
at least a part of the doping elements form C-Ma-Mb chemical bonds with the carbon-based matrix, and Ma and Mb represent two different types of doping elements, ([0015] teaches the doping elements N, O, P, and S can form various combinations of chemical bonds, such as C-P-N bonds and C-S-N and C-N-O, which would correspond to C-Ma-Mb bonds)
wherein the C-Ma-Mb chemical bonds comprise C-P-N chemical bonds ([0015] teaches the doping elements can form chemical bonds such as C-P-N bonds),
and wherein a mass content of the doping elements in the doped carbon material is less than or equal to 5% (the mass fraction of nitrogen in the nitrogen and phosphorus co-doped carbon material is 0.05-0.5% and the mass fraction of phosphorus is 0.05-0.8% [0012], and together they constitute a mass content of doping elements in the doped carbon material 0.10-1.3% which overlaps with the claimed range; 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, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) ),
wherein the carbon-based matrix comprises one or more selected from artificial graphite, natural graphite, hard carbon, soft carbon, mesocarbon microbeads, carbon nanotubes, carbon fibers, active carbon, porous carbon, acetylene black, and Ketjen black ([0068] teaches the carbon material of the nitrogen and phosphorus co-doped carbon material can be at least one of a list of species including carbon nanotubes, carbon fibers, acetylene black, which are claimed species),
Tan is silent regarding wherein the C-Ma-Mb chemical bonds comprise C-P-O chemical bonds.
Omaru teaches phosphorus dopants added to a carbonaceous material in the form of C-P-O compounds increase the lithium dosage (Col 1: lines 53-59), wherein the lithium dosage being as large as possible increases the charging/discharging capacity of the cell (Col 1: lines 15-19). A skilled artisan would have found it obvious to have modified Tan’s electrode material to utilize phosphorus doping elements in the form of C-P-O bonds for the advantages of increasing the lithium dosage and consequently the charging/discharging capacity of the cell, as taught by Omaru.
Regarding wherein a proportion of a mass of doping elements, forming the C-Ma-Mb chemical bonds, to a total mass of the doping elements is greater than 50%, as previously pointed out, Omaru also teaches that C-P-O compounds, which correspond to C-Ma-Mb chemical bonds, increase the lithium dosage, wherein increases in lithium dosage is correlated to increased charge/discharge capacity of the cell. The mass of doping elements forming the C-P-O bonds reads upon “a mass of doping elements, forming the C-Ma-Mb chemical bonds” because the limitation does not require that a mass of doping elements corresponds to the doping elements forming all the C-Ma-Mb chemical bonds. The amount of C-P-O bonds is a result-effective variable, and a skilled artisan would have found it obvious to have adjusted a proportion of a mass of doping elements forming the C-P-O chemical bonds within modified Tan’s electrode material to optimize the charge/discharge capacity of the cell as taught by Omaru, and would have consequently arrived at a proportion of a mass of doping elements, forming the C-Ma-Mb chemical bonds, to a total mass of the doping elements is greater than 50% as claimed.
Although Tan teaches the electrode material for a cathode material and is silent about its use for a negative electrode material, Woo discloses in the same field of endeavor a lithium manganese phosphate material doped with iron and/or cobalt used as a negative electrode active material which possess excellent rate characteristics due to an easy conversion reaction but also has improved capacity ([0009], [0054]). A skilled artisan would have found it obvious to have improved the modified electrode material of Tan to comprise cobalt and/or iron-substituted lithium manganese phosphate for the advantages of excellent rate characteristics due to an easy conversion reaction but also has improved capacity, as recognized by Woo.
Woo additionally teaches a battery comprising a positive electrode plate, a negative electrode plate using the lithium manganese phosphate material, a separator, and an electrolyte [0087]. A skilled artisan would have found it obvious to have incorporated the modified electrode material of Tan within the battery taught by Woo, given that Woo teaches it is a known configuration to combine a negative electrode plate using a lithium manganese phosphate material with a positive electrode plate, a separator, and an electrolyte. The skilled artisan would have also recognized that providing the combination of elements in combination would merely provide the predictable result of similar function as performed separately with expectation of success; see KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) (see MPEP §2143, A).
Regarding claim 19, the combination above teaches the battery of claim 18 and also teaches a lithium secondary battery, i.e. a lithium ion battery [0001], [0056].
Regarding claim 20, the combination above teaches the battery of claim 18. It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to include a terminal and associated housing into the battery for purposes of electrical connection, as this is a common structural feature of batteries.
Furthermore, connection of the battery to a circuit board to supply power to the circuit board is an intended use of the battery and does not impose a further structural limitation. Accordingly, no particular weight was given to the limitation of “the battery is electrically connected to the circuit board to supply power to the circuit board.” See, generally, MPEP 2114.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the prior art rejections have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that “the mass content of the doping elements being less than or equal to 5% is a critical range for achieving high initial coulombic efficiency” is not sufficient for demonstrating unexpected results. The Courts have established that a showing of unexpected results must be based on evidence, not argument or speculation. In re Mayne, 104 F.3d 1339, 1343-44, 41 USPQ2d 1451, 1455-56 (Fed. Cir. 1997); see MPEP 2145 and 716.02. For example, to establish unexpected results over a claimed range, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range. In re Hill, 284 F.2d 955, 128 USPQ 197 (CCPA 1960); see MPEP 716.02(d).
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 GIGI LIN whose telephone number is (571)272-2017. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:30 - 6.
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, Jeffrey T Barton can be reached at (571) 272-1307. 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.
/G.L.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1726
/BACH T DINH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726 09/25/2026
