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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 December 12, 2025 has been entered.
Summary
Claims 1 and 18 are amended. Claims 3 and 16-17 have been cancelled. New claims 21-23 have been added. Claim 15 was withdrawn from consideration. Claims 1-2, 4-14, 18-23 have been fully considered and examined herein.
The previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 103 are withdrawn due to applicant’s amendments.
New rejections follow.
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 1-2, 5, 7-14, 18-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xia et al. (US 2017/0047585 A1) in view of Chen et al. (CN 104528703 B, publication date 2017-02-01) and Wen (CN 107221459 A, publication date 2017-09-29).
Regarding claim 1, Xia discloses a negative electrode material (i.e., negative electrode material) [abstract] comprising:
a doped carbon material (i.e., “carbon core includes…doping element”) [¶ 0006]; wherein:
the doped carbon material comprises a carbon-based matrix (i.e., carbon core) [Id.] and doping elements (i.e., doping element) [Id.] doped in the carbon-based matrix; and
the doping elements comprise N, O, and P, and optionally one or more selected from B, S, and F (i.e., “first doping element is at least one of element N, P, B, S, O, F, Cl, or H”) [¶ 0006].
Xia further discloses that the preferred mass content of the doping elements in the composite negative electrode material is 0.1% to 50% [¶ 0029]. This overlaps the claimed range of less than or equal to 5% and thereby renders prima facie obvious the claimed range. See MPEP § 2144.05 (I).
Xia does not specifically teach that C-Ma-Mb bonds, specifically comprising C-P-O and C-P-N bonds are present in the material.
Chen et al teaches a phosphorous-nitrogen co-doped graphene for use in energy applications formed with nitrogen-dopants such as urea and melamine and phosphorus-dopants such as phosphoric acid (machine translation Abstract, p2 para 9-11). Since the material is formed by the same dopants that Applicant recites, with thermal treatment conditions essentially the same as that of Applicant (including the critical high-temperature carbonization above 900°C; see Example 1 on p6 para 2, and the overlapping temperature range on p5 para 4), it would follow that C-P-O and C-P-N bonds would be present in the material as the result of the contributions from the nitrogen-containing dopant (i.e. urea or melamine) and the phosphorus-containing dopant (i.e. phosphate; the phosphate also contributes oxygen). Chen further teaches the material can be produced with a simple process, low cost, and high yield (Abstract). Xia teaches that the carbon core can include graphite, graphite oxide, and graphene [¶ 0010]. Furthermore, reference Wen is relied upon to teach specifically that phosphorus-nitrogen co-doped graphene is known to be suitable for use as electrode material within a lithium ion battery because it is a material with excellent physical and chemical properties such as high specific surface area, high conductivity, high thermal and mechanical properties, that N and P are the two most common co-doped elements present, and that using two different heteroatoms can further improve the electrochemical performance (translation: p2 para 4).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have thus found it obvious to modify the negative electrode of Xia by specifically choosing the dopants taught by Chen for the carbon core of Xia, because both Xia and Wen disclose that doped graphene materials function as suitable materials for the electrode of a lithium ion battery, Xia suggests these dopants as providing suitable dopant elements for the core, and Chen teaches their material can be produced with a simple process, low cost, and high yield (Abstract).
Regarding claim 2, modified Xia discloses the negative electrode material of claim 1. Xia further discloses that the carbon-based material (i.e., carbon core) [supra] can be made from at least one of “natural graphite, artificial graphite, expanded graphite, graphite oxide, hard carbon, soft carbon, graphene, carbon nanotube, or carbon fiber” [¶ 0030]. Specifically, Example Embodiments 1 and 6 use natural graphite [¶¶ 0043, 0056]; 2 and 7 use artificial graphite [¶¶ 0047, 0058]; and 5 uses hard carbon [¶ 0054]. Chen teaches graphene. (Abstract)
Regarding claim 5, modified Xia discloses the negative electrode material of claim 1. Xia further depicts that the active material of at least Embodiment 1 consists of at least primary particles (i.e., the SEM image of Fig. 1 shows the particulate nature of the active material) [Fig. 1 and ¶ 0021].
Regarding claim 7, modified Xia discloses the electrode material of claim 5. Xia further discloses that the electrode material is combined with polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) [¶ 0044] upon formation of the electrode. A 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 8, modified Xia discloses the active material of claim 1. Xia further discloses that the negative electrode material is further mixed with conductive black, another negative electrode active component, to form a composite active material to be smeared onto a current collector [¶ 0044].
Regarding claim 9, modified Xia discloses the active material of claim 8. Xia further discloses that the other negative electrode active material is conductive black [¶ 0044], which is an electroconductive form of carbon black and therefore carbon-based.
Regarding claim 10, modified Xia discloses the negative electrode material of claim 8. Xia discloses that the electrode components are mixed [¶ 0044], which the skilled artisan would have understood to result in even distribution in the composite particles.
Regarding claim 11, modified Xia discloses the negative electrode material of claim 10. Xia further discloses that the electrode material is combined with polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) [¶ 0044] upon formation of the electrode. A 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, modified Xia discloses the electrode active material of claim 8. Xia further discloses that the active material comprises a doped carbon core (i.e., carbon core includes a first doping element that comprises at least one element [Xia ¶ 0006], modified in view of Chen to specifically have phosphorus and nitrogen-containing dopants that provide C-P-O and C-P-N bonds) and a carbon coating layer (i.e.), coating layer with doping element(s) that may be the same or different from those of the core. [Xia ¶ 0007]. It therefore would have been obvious to a skilled artisan, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the doped material as the coating layer in addition to the carbon core.
Regarding claim 13, modified Xia discloses the electrode material of claim 12. Xia discloses smearing varying amounts of an active material mixture [see Embodiments 1-7]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to optimize the thickness of the active material coating via routine experimentation with the amount of active material and the smearing method as in the examples of Xia. Therefore, the skilled artisan would have arrived at the claimed thickness while performing routine experimentation with the amount of active material and the smearing method as in the examples of Xia. See MPEP § 2144.05 (II) (A).
Regarding claim 14, modified Xia discloses the electrode material of claim 12. Xia discloses varying amounts of core and coating materials [see Embodiments 1-7]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to optimize the ratio of core to coating materials via routine experimentation with the amount of each material as in the examples of Xia. Therefore, the skilled artisan would have arrived at the claimed mass ratio of the coating layer to the core layer while performing routine experimentation with the amount of each material as in the examples of Xia. See MPEP § 2144.05 (II) (A).
Regarding claim 18, Xia discloses a battery (i.e., lithium ion secondary battery) [¶ 0018], comprising:
a positive electrode plate (i.e., positive electrode) [Id.];
a negative electrode plate (i.e., negative electrode) [Id.];
a separator (i.e., separator) [Id.];
and an electrolyte (i.e., non-aqueous electrolyte) [Id.]; wherein:
the negative electrode plate comprises a negative electrode active material (i.e. “the composite negative electrode material”) [¶ 0006],
which comprises a negative electrode material comprising a doped carbon material (i.e., “carbon core includes…doping element”) [¶ 0006]; wherein:
the doped carbon material comprises a carbon-based matrix (i.e., carbon core) [Id.] and doping elements (i.e., doping element) [Id.] doped in the carbon-based matrix; and
the doping elements comprise N, O, and P, and optionally one or more selected from B, S, and F (i.e., “first doping element is at least one of element N, P, B, S, O, F, Cl, or H”) [¶ 0006].
Xia further discloses that the preferred mass content of the doping elements in the composite negative electrode material is 0.1% to 50% [¶ 0029]. This overlaps the claimed range of less than or equal to 5% and thereby renders prima facie obvious the claimed range. See MPEP § 2144.05 (I).
Xia does not specifically teach that C-Ma-Mb bonds, specifically comprising C-P-O and C-P-N bonds are present in the material.
Chen et al teaches a phosphorous-nitrogen co-doped graphene for use in energy applications formed with nitrogen-dopants such as urea and melamine and phosphorus-dopants such as phosphoric acid (machine translation Abstract, p2 para 9-11). Since the material is formed by the same dopants that Applicant recites, with thermal treatment conditions essentially the same as that of Applicant (including the critical high-temperature carbonization above 900°C; see Example 1 on p6 para 2, and the overlapping temperature range on p5 para 4), it would follow that C-P-O and C-P-N bonds would be present in the material as the result of the contributions from the nitrogen-containing dopant (i.e. urea or melamine) and the phosphorus-containing dopant (i.e. phosphate; the phosphate also contributes oxygen). Chen further teaches the material can be produced with a simple process, low cost, and high yield (Abstract). Xia teaches that the carbon core can include graphite, graphite oxide, and graphene [¶ 0010]. Furthermore, reference Wen is relied upon to teach specifically that phosphorus-nitrogen co-doped graphene is known to be suitable for use as electrode material within a lithium ion battery because it is a material with excellent physical and chemical properties such as high specific surface area, high conductivity, high thermal and mechanical properties, that N and P are the two most common co-doped elements present, and that using two different heteroatoms can further improve the electrochemical performance (translation: p2 para 4).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have thus found it obvious to modify the negative electrode of Xia by specifically choosing the dopants taught by Chen for the carbon core of Xia, because both Xia and Wen disclose that doped graphene materials function as suitable materials for the electrode of a lithium ion battery, Xia suggests these dopants as providing suitable dopant elements for the core, and Chen teaches their material can be produced with a simple process, low cost, and high yield (Abstract).
Regarding claim 19, modified Xia discloses the battery of claim 18. Xia further discloses that the battery is a lithium ion battery (i.e., lithium ion secondary battery) [¶ 0018]
Regarding claim 20, modified Xia discloses the battery of claim 18. It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, 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.
Regarding claim 21, modified Xia teaches the negative electrode material of claim 1. Since Chen teaches the material is formed by essentially the same high-temperature treatment of material and same dopants as Applicant, it would follow that C-Ma-Mb would comprise C3-P=O and C-P-N chemical bonds present in the material.
Regarding claim 22, modified Xia teaches the negative electrode material of claim 1. Since the doping elements taught by Chen within the combination of prior art do not introduce doping elements other than N, O, and P, the proportion of a mass of doping elements, forming the C-Ma-Mb chemical bonds, to a total mass of the doping elements would be greater than 50%.
Regarding claim 23, modified Xia teaches the negative electrode material of claim 1. Since Chen teaches the material is formed by essentially the same high-temperature treatment of material and same dopants as Applicant, it would follow that C-Ma-Mb would comprise C-P-O and C-P-N chemical bonds present in the material, and the C-P-O bonds would comprise the three configurations C3-P=O, C2-P=O(-O), and C-P-O.
Claims 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xia et al. (US 2017/0047585 A1) in view of Chen et al (CN 104528703 B) and Wen (CN 107221459 A, publication date 2017-09-29) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Lee et al (WO 2019083332 A2 with publication date 2019-05-02, with English translation provided by US 20200243853 A1).
Regarding claims 4 and 6, modified Xia discloses the negative electrode material of claim 1. Xia further depicts that the active material of at least Embodiment 1 consists of particles (i.e., the SEM image of Fig. 1 shows the particulate nature of the active material) [Fig. 1 and ¶ 0021] but is silent regarding the size of these particles.
In the same field of endeavor, Lee teaches a negative electrode material comprising carbon material ([0018]) comprises of primary particles with an average particle diameter (D50) of 1 µm to 10 µm ([0026]). Lee defines D50 as the particle diameter at 50% of the particle diameter distribution ([0052]). Lee further teaches that in satisfying the size range, when the carbon-based primary particles aggregate into secondary particles, there is uniform contact between primary particles, thus increasing the strength of the secondary particles ([0026]). A skilled artisan would have found it obviousness to modify the median particle diameter of the primary particles of the doped carbon material of modified Xia to the range taught by Lee to take advantage of the benefits of uniform contact between primary particles, thus increasing the strength of the secondary particles ([0026]). The taught range overlaps with the claimed range, therefore providing a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP § 2144.05 (I).
A skilled artisan would also have recognized the D50 of carbon-based primary particles of carbon as a result-effective variable based on Lee’s teachings, and at the effective filing date would have been motivated to utilize routine experimentation within the taught size range to modify modified Xia’s doped carbon material to optimize uniform contact between primary particles to increase the strength of the secondary particles ([0026]), with a reasonable expectation of success, and would have arrived at the claimed size range.
Furthermore, Lee teaches that secondary particles formed by the primary particles may have an average particle diameter D50 of 10 µm to 30 µm and that in this size range, a more appropriate electrode density may be obtained so that an electrode comprising the same may have an appropriate capacity per volume and an electrode slurry forming the electrode may be coated with a uniform thickness ([0027]). A skilled artisan would have found it obviousness to modify the median particle diameter of the secondary particles of the doped carbon material of modified Xia to the range taught by Lee to take advantage of the capacity per volume and a uniform coating thickness for the electrode-forming electrode slurry. The taught range overlaps with the claimed range, therefore providing a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP § 2144.05 (I).
A skilled artisan would also have recognized the D50 of carbon-based secondary particles of carbon as a result-effective variable based on Lee’s teachings, and at the effective filing date would have been motivated to utilize routine experimentation within the taught size range to modify modified Xia’s doped carbon material to optimize the energy density and capacity per volume with a reasonable expectation of success ([0027]), and would have arrived at the claimed size range.
Claims 1-2, 5, 7-14, 18-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al (CN 104528703 B, publication date 2017-02-01) in view of Xia et al. (US 2017/0047585 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Chen teaches a doped carbon material (i.e., doped graphene) for use in energy applications, wherein the doped carbon material comprises a carbon-based matrix (i.e., graphene) and the doping elements are contributed by nitrogen-containing compounds and phosphorus-containing compounds (p2 para 9-11). Since the material is formed by the same dopants that Applicant recites, with thermal treatment conditions essentially the same as that of Applicant (including the critical high-temperature carbonization above 900°C; see Example 1 on p6 para 2, and the overlapping temperature range on p5 para 4), it would follow that C-P-O and C-P-N bonds would be present in the material as the result of the contributions from the nitrogen-containing dopant (i.e. urea or melamine) and the phosphorus-containing dopant (i.e. phosphate; the phosphate also contributes oxygen). Accordingly, the doping elements doped in the carbon-based matrix would comprise N, O, and P, and 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, wherein the C-Ma-Mb chemical bonds comprise C-P-O and C-P-N chemical bonds. The limitation of “optionally one or more selected from B, S, and F” indicates that the elements of B, S, and F are not necessary in the doped carbon material.
Chen does not teach wherein a mass content of the doping elements in the doped carbon material is less than or equal to 5%. Chen only teaches that the doping concentration of N and P can be adjusted so as to meet the different fields using the graphene (p5 para 7).
In the same field of endeavor, Xia discloses a composite negative electrode material wherein the composite negative electrode material includes a carbon core (which is taught to include graphene [¶ 0010]) including a first doping element, wherein the first doping element is at least one of a set of elements including N, P, and O [¶ 0006]. The carbon Xia further teaches that the preferred mass content of the doping elements in the composite negative electrode material is 0.1% to 50% [¶ 0029]. Xia teaches their composite negative electrode material features a high capacity, low costs, a long service life, and high-rate charging and discharging, where the composite negative electrode material can break through theoretical capacity and rate limits of a graphite negative electrode [¶ 0005]. A skilled artisan would have been motivated to incorporate Chen’s doped carbon material as the carbon core of Xia’s negative electrode material for battery applications given that Xia teaches graphene doped with N, P, and O is a suitable option that provides battery performance benefits. A skilled artisan would have also been motivated to modify Chen’s doped carbon material to utilize a mass content of the doping elements as 0.1% to 50%, as taught by Xia, for a high capacity, low costs, a long service life, and high-rate charging and discharging in the resulting battery. This overlaps the claimed range of less than or equal to 5% and thereby renders prima facie obvious the claimed range. See MPEP § 2144.05 (I).
Additionally, incorporation of the doped carbon material into a negative electrode material represents intended use of the battery and does not impose a further structural limitation. Accordingly, no particular weight was given to the limitation of “a negative electrode material.” See, generally, MPEP § 2114.
Regarding claim 2, modified Chen teaches the negative electrode material of claim 1, and Chen teaches the carbon-based matrix can be graphene (Abstract). Xia also teaches it can be graphene [¶ 0010].
Regarding claim 5, modified Chen teaches the negative electrode material of claim 1, and the incorporation of Chen’s material into the electrode material taught by Xia would have resulted in an electrode material composed of at least primary particles, as Xia further depicts that the active material of at least Embodiment 1 consists of at least primary particles (i.e., the SEM image of Fig. 1 shows the particulate nature of the active material) [Fig. 1 and ¶ 0021].
Regarding claim 7, modified Chen teaches the negative electrode material of claim 5, and the incorporation of Chen’s material into the electrode material taught by Xia would have resulted in an electrode material further comprising a protective layer disposed on a surface of the primary particles, as evidenced by Xia, who discloses that the electrode material is combined with polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) [¶ 0044] upon formation of the electrode. A 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 8, modified Chen discloses the negative electrode material of claim 1, and the incorporation of Chen’s material into the electrode material taught by Xia would have resulted in an electrode material further comprising other negative electrode active components, and the doped carbon material composited with the other negative electrode active components, as Xia further discloses that the negative electrode material is further mixed with conductive black, another negative electrode active component, to form a composite active material to be smeared onto a current collector [¶ 0044].
Regarding claim 9, modified Chen discloses the active material of claim 8, and the incorporation of Chen’s material into the electrode material taught by Xia would have resulted in an electrode material wherein the other negative electrode active components comprise a carbon-based material, as evidenced by Xia, who further discloses that the other negative electrode active material is conductive black [¶ 0044], which is an electroconductive form of carbon black and therefore carbon-based.
Regarding claim 10, modified Chen discloses the negative electrode material of claim 8, and the incorporation of Chen’s material into the electrode material taught by Xia 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 Xia discloses that the electrode components are mixed [¶ 0044], which the skilled artisan would have understood to result in even distribution in the composite particles.
Regarding claim 11, modified Chen discloses the negative electrode material of claim 10, and the incorporation of Chen’s material into the electrode material taught by Xia would have resulted in an electrode material wherein the negative electrode material further comprises a protective layer disposed on a surface of the composite particles. Specifically, Xia further discloses that the electrode material is combined with polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) [¶ 0044] upon formation of the electrode. A 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, modified Chen discloses the electrode active material of claim 8, and the incorporation of Chen’s material into the electrode material taught by Xia would have resulted in an electrode material wherein the composite particles comprise a core that is composed of the other negative electrode active components, and a coating layer disposed on a surface of the core, wherein the coating layer comprises the doped carbon material. Specifically, Xia discloses that the active material comprises a doped carbon core (i.e., carbon core includes a first doping element that comprises at least one element [Xia ¶ 0006] and a carbon coating layer (i.e.), coating layer with doping element(s) that may be the same or different from those of the core. [Xia ¶ 0007]. Xia notes that compatibility between the graphite and the electrolyte is improved using a carbon coating technology [Xia ¶ 0004] and, as previously pointed out in addressing the limitations of claim 1, that a material utilizing their invention of a doped carbon core and a doped carbon layer wherein the doping element is at least one of element N, P, B, S, O, F, Cl, or H features a high capacity, low costs, a long service life, and high-rate charging and discharging [Xia ¶ 0005-0006]. It therefore would have been obvious to a skilled artisan, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have provided the doped material of Chen as the coating layer in addition to the carbon core of modified Chen, as taught by Xia.
Regarding claim 13, modified Chen discloses the electrode material of claim 12. Xia discloses smearing varying amounts of an active material mixture [see Embodiments 1-7]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to optimize the thickness of the active material coating via routine experimentation with the amount of active material and the smearing method as in the examples of Xia. Therefore, the skilled artisan would have arrived at the claimed thickness while performing routine experimentation with the amount of active material and the smearing method as in the examples of Xia. See MPEP § 2144.05 (II) (A).
Regarding claim 14, modified Chen discloses the electrode material of claim 12. Xia discloses varying amounts of core and coating materials [see Embodiments 1-7]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to optimize the ratio of core to coating materials via routine experimentation with the amount of each material as in the examples of Xia. Therefore, the skilled artisan would have arrived at the claimed mass ratio of the coating layer to the core layer while performing routine experimentation with the amount of each material as in the examples of Xia. See MPEP § 2144.05 (II) (A).
Regarding claim 18, Chen teaches a doped carbon material (i.e., doped graphene) for use in energy applications, wherein the doped carbon material comprises a carbon-based matrix (i.e., graphene) and the doping elements are contributed by nitrogen-containing compounds and phosphorus-containing compounds (p2 para 9-11). Since the material is formed by the same dopants that Applicant recites, with thermal treatment conditions essentially the same as that of Applicant (including the critical high-temperature carbonization above 900°C; see Example 1 on p6 para 2, and the overlapping temperature range on p5 para 4), it would follow that C-P-O and C-P-N bonds would be present in the material as the result of the contributions from the nitrogen-containing dopant (i.e. urea or melamine) and the phosphorus-containing dopant (i.e. phosphate; the phosphate also contributes oxygen). Accordingly, the doping elements doped in the carbon-based matrix would comprise N, O, and P, and 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, wherein the C-Ma-Mb chemical bonds comprise C-P-O and C-P-N chemical bonds. The limitation of “optionally one or more selected from B, S, and F” indicates that the elements of B, S, and F are not necessary in the doped carbon material.
Chen does not teach wherein a mass content of the doping elements in the doped carbon material is less than or equal to 5%. Chen only teaches that the doping concentration of N and P can be adjusted so as to meet the different fields using the graphene (p5 para 7).
In the same field of endeavor, Xia discloses battery (Abstract) wherein it includes a negative electrode plate (Abstract) containing a composite negative electrode material wherein the composite negative electrode material includes a carbon core (which is taught to include graphene [¶ 0010]) including a first doping element, wherein the first doping element is at least one of a set of elements including N, P, and O [¶ 0006]. The carbon Xia further teaches that the preferred mass content of the doping elements in the composite negative electrode material is 0.1% to 50% [¶ 0029]. Xia teaches their composite negative electrode material features a high capacity, low costs, a long service life, and high-rate charging and discharging, where the composite negative electrode material can break through theoretical capacity and rate limits of a graphite negative electrode [¶ 0005].
A skilled artisan would have been motivated to incorporate Chen’s doped carbon material as the carbon core of Xia’s negative electrode material for battery applications given that Xia teaches graphene doped with N, P, and O is a suitable option that provides battery performance benefits. A skilled artisan would have also been motivated to modify Chen’s doped carbon material to utilize a mass content of the doping elements as 0.1% to 50%, as taught by Xia, for a high capacity, low costs, a long service life, and high-rate charging and discharging in the resulting battery. This overlaps the claimed range of less than or equal to 5% and thereby renders prima facie obvious the claimed range. See MPEP § 2144.05 (I). Accordingly, modified Chen teaches a negative electrode plate (i.e., negative electrode) comprising of a negative electrode active material comprising a negative electrode material comprising a doped carbon material, wherein the doped carbon material as taught by Chen comprises a carbon-based matrix and doping elements doped in the carbon-based matrix, the doping elements comprising N, O, and P and at least a part of the doping elements forming C-Ma-Mb chemical bonds with the carbon-based matrix wherein the C-Ma-Mb chemical bonds comprise C-P-O and C-P-N chemical bonds as taught by Chen, along with the claimed mass content of the doping elements in the doped carbon material.
Within their battery application, Xia further teaches a positive electrode plate (i.e., positive electrode); a separator (i.e., separator); and an electrolyte (i.e., non-aqueous electrolyte) [¶ 0018]. A skilled artisan would have 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, modified Chen teaches the battery of claim 18, and Xia further discloses that the battery is a lithium ion battery (i.e., lithium ion secondary battery) [¶ 0018]
Regarding claim 20, modified Chen discloses the battery of claim 18. It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, 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.
Regarding claim 21, modified Chen teaches the negative electrode material of claim 1. Since Chen teaches the material is formed by essentially the same high-temperature treatment of material and same dopants as Applicant, it would follow that C-Ma-Mb would comprise C3-P=O and C-P-N chemical bonds present in the material.
Regarding claim 22, modified Chen teaches the negative electrode material of claim 1. Since the doping elements taught by Chen within the combination of prior art do not introduce doping elements other than N, O, and P, the proportion of a mass of doping elements, forming the C-Ma-Mb chemical bonds, to a total mass of the doping elements would be greater than 50%.
Regarding claim 23, modified Chen teaches the negative electrode material of claim 1. Since Chen teaches the material is formed by essentially the same high-temperature treatment of material and same dopants as Applicant, it would follow that C-Ma-Mb would comprise C-P-O and C-P-N chemical bonds present in the material, and the C-P-O bonds would comprise the three configurations C3-P=O, C2-P=O(-O), and C-P-O.
Claims 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al (CN 104528703 B) in view of Xia et al. (US 2017/0047585 A1) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Lee et al (WO 2019083332 A2 with publication date 2019-05-02, with English translation provided by US 20200243853 A1).
Regarding claims 4 and 6, modified Chen discloses the negative electrode material of claim 1, and the incorporation of Chen’s material into the electrode material taught by Xia would have resulted in an electrode material composed of at least primary particles, as Xia of the combination further depicts that the active material of at least Embodiment 1 consists of particles (i.e., the SEM image of Fig. 1 shows the particulate nature of the active material) [Fig. 1 and ¶ 0021]. The combination of prior art is silent regarding the size of these particles.
In the same field of endeavor, Lee teaches a negative electrode material comprising carbon material ([0018]) comprises of primary particles with an average particle diameter (D50) of 1 µm to 10 µm ([0026]). Lee defines D50 as the particle diameter at 50% of the particle diameter distribution ([0052]). Lee further teaches that in satisfying the size range, when the carbon-based primary particles aggregate into secondary particles, there is uniform contact between primary particles, thus increasing the strength of the secondary particles ([0026]). A skilled artisan would have found it obviousness to modify the median particle diameter of the primary particles of the doped carbon material of modified Chen to the range taught by Lee to take advantage of the benefits of uniform contact between primary particles, thus increasing the strength of the secondary particles ([0026]). The taught range overlaps with the claimed range, therefore providing a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP § 2144.05 (I).
A skilled artisan would also have recognized the D50 of carbon-based primary particles of carbon as a result-effective variable based on Lee’s teachings, and at the effective filing date would have been motivated to utilize routine experimentation within the taught size range to modify modified Chen’s doped carbon material to optimize uniform contact between primary particles to increase the strength of the secondary particles ([0026]), with a reasonable expectation of success, and would have arrived at the claimed size range.
Furthermore, Lee teaches that secondary particles formed by the primary particles may have an average particle diameter D50 of 10µm to 30 µm and that in this size range, a more appropriate electrode density may be obtained so that an electrode comprising the same may have an appropriate capacity per volume and an electrode slurry forming the electrode may be coated with a uniform thickness ([0027]). A skilled artisan would have found it obviousness to modify the median particle diameter of the secondary particles of the doped carbon material of modified Chen to the range taught by Lee to take advantage of the capacity per volume and a uniform coating thickness for the electrode-forming electrode slurry. The taught range overlaps with the claimed range, therefore providing a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP § 2144.05 (I).
A skilled artisan would also have recognized the D50 of carbon-based secondary particles of carbon as a result-effective variable based on Lee’s teachings, and at the effective filing date would have been motivated to utilize routine experimentation within the taught size range to modify modified Chen’s doped carbon material to optimize the energy density and capacity per volume with a reasonable expectation of success ([0027]), and would have arrived at the claimed size range.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed December 12, 2025 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bi et al “Structural Evolution of Phosphorus Species on Graphene with a Stabilized Electrochemical Interface” ACS Appl Mater. Interfaces 2019, 11, 11421-11430.
Bi et al teaches a negative electrode material for energy-storage applications comprising a doped carbon material (PG800S) comprising a carbon-based matrix and P and O as doping elements (p2 right col para 1), and at least a part of the doping elements forming C-P-O bonds (p3 left col, Table 2, PG800S sample). The C-P-O bonds are shown to comprise of C3-P=O, C2-P=O, and C-P-O configurations (Table 2 discloses C3-P=O, C-P-O; Scheme 1 (c) indicates C2-P=O(-O) as an intermediate species). Bi describes the material as providing excellent cycling stabilities (p6 left col para 1) and reduced self-discharge and leakage current (p6 left col para 2), and improved high voltage stability and high energy density (p6 right col para 1).
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
/JEFFREY T BARTON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1726 30 January 2026