DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Status
Claims 2, 4 and 11 have been canceled.
Claims 1, 3 and 6 have been amended; support for the amendment can be found in [0025] and [0033] of the original specification.
Claims 1, 3 and 5-10 have been examined on the merits.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Li teaches away from a core-shell structure and there would be no motivation to selectively extract only the sphericity value while excluding its embedded particle structure (pg. 5, para. 2).
This argument is not found persuasive because Li teaches spheronization as an important part of particle shaping which allows the particle size distribution to be centralized, reduces the settling phenomenon during pole piece production, improves the yield of battery production, and enables the battery to effectively exhibit high capacity, high initial efficiency, excellent charge ratio and cycle performance (Li [0058]). Thus, Li provides motivation to one of ordinary skill in the art to employ spheronization, and the specific sphericity range disclosed, in active material particles to achieve the benefits set forth in [0058].
Further, the examiner notes that Li distinguishes the structure disclosed by the invention from a core-shell structure in [0014] but does not teach away from a core-shell structure as alleged.
Applicant argues for the criticality of the claimed sphericity range (pg. 6, para. 3). This argument is not found persuasive because whether the unexpected results are the result of unexpectedly improved results or a property not taught by the prior art, the "objective evidence of nonobviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support." (MPEP 716.02(d)). In this case, the examiner notes that the claimed ranges of the average particle diameter of the core, the average particle diameter of the primary particles and the aspect ratio are significantly larger than the average particle diameter of the core, the average particle diameter of the primary particles and the aspect ratio tested in the specification and previously filed affidavit.
Applicant argues against certain features of Li (pg.7, para. 2-3, pg. 8, para.2). This argument is not found persuasive because the features pointed to by applicant are not relied on in the rejection of record.
Applicant argues that the number of references used in the rejection demonstrates the non-obviousness of the claimed invention (pg. 8, para. 4). This argument is not found persuasive because reliance on a large number of references in a rejection does not, without more, weigh against the obviousness of the claimed invention. In the instant case, clear motivation for the modifications set forth in the rejection are presented.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 3, line 2-3 “the flake artificial graphite primary particles” should be deleted as the recitation is superfluous.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1, 3 and 5-10 are 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 1 recites the limitation "the average diameter (D50)" in line 21. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 3 and 5-10 are rejected for dependence on claim 1.
Claim 5 is indefinite because it is unclear if the recitation of “an average particle diameter (D50)” of claim 5 refers to the previous recitation of “the average particle diameter (D50) of the core” of claim 1 or to another diameter. For examination, former interpretation is used.
Claim 6 is indefinite because it is unclear from the recitation” 64.29:35.71 to 89.47:10.53 64.29:35.71 to 88.10:11.90.” what range is being claimed. For examination, the range 64.29:35.71 to 88.10:11.90 is used.
Claim 6 is indefinite because it is unclear if the recitation “a weight ratio of the core to the natural graphite” of claim 6 refers to the recitation “a weight ratio of the core to the natural graphite” of claim 1 or to another ratio. For examination, the former interpretation is used.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 5 claims an average particle diameter of the core. However, the claimed diameter range is already claimed in claim 1. Therefore, claim 5 fails to further limit claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3, and 5-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Piao (KR20180029919A, US 2019/0088947 A1 used as translation) in view of Li (CN107706387A, machine translation used below), Ahn (US 2019 / 0229325 A1) and Tuduki (US20180183042A1).
Regarding claim 1, Piao discloses a negative electrode ([0020]), comprising:
a negative electrode active material layer ([0020]),
wherein the negative electrode active material layer ([0020]) comprises a negative electrode active material (the combination of the second particles on the surface of the first particles per [0032]; including the “pitch” and “soft carbon” that [0026] teaches may be in the first particle),
wherein the negative electrode active material ([0026]; [0032]) comprises carbon-based negative electrode active material particles (the combination of the second particles on the surface of the first particles per [0032]; including the “pitch” and “soft carbon” that [0026] teaches may be in the first particle),
wherein each carbon-based negative electrode active material particle ([0026]; [0032]) comprises a core (“the first active material particle in the form of a secondary particle may be prepared by mixing primary particles with pitch as a binder”; [0026]) comprising a plurality (“plurality of primary particles”; [0024]) of flake ([0024]) artificial graphite ([0021]) primary particles ([0024]);
natural graphite (“second active material particle”; “natural graphite” [0028]) present (“the second active material particles may sufficiently fill a concave portion of an irregular surface of the first active material particle”; [0032]) on the core ([0026]); and an amorphous carbon-based material (“pitch” and “soft carbon”; [0026]),
wherein the natural graphite ([0028]) is present in the carbon-based negative electrode active material particles ([0020]) in an amount of 10 wt% to 30 wt.% (“20 wt% to 90 wt%” [0036]),
wherein the amorphous carbon-based material ([0026]) is disposed between (the amorphous carbon is on the surface of the core per [0026] and the natural graphite is on the surface of the composite of the amorphous carbon and core, aka the first active material particles, per [0032]) the core ([0026]) and the natural graphite ([0028]), on (“coating”; [0026]) a surface (“a surface of a secondary particle”; [0026]) of the core ([0026]), on ([0026] teaches that amorphous carbon is at the external surface of the first particles; [0032] teaches that the natural graphite is on the external surface of the first particles) a surface (external surface of “the second active material particles”; [0032]) of the natural graphite ([0028]) and in (“mixing primary particles with pitch”; [0026]) the core ([0026]) and
wherein the amorphous carbon-based material ([0026]), is present in the carbon-based negative electrode active material particles ([0026]; [0032]) in an amount ([0026]),
wherein the flake artificial graphite primary particles ([0021, 0024]) have an average particle diameter (D50) of 3 microns to 15 microns ([0023] teaches 5 microns to 20 microns),
wherein the average diameter (D50) of the core ([0026]) is from 10 um to 25 um (“10 um to 35 um”; [0027]), and wherein a weight ratio of the core ([0026]) to the natural graphite ([0028]) is from 64.29:35.71 to 89.47:10.53 (10:90 to 80:20 as taught by [0036]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have employed a weight ratio of the core to the natural graphite of 64.29:35.71 to 80:20 in Piao because that range is encompassed by the range taught by Piao ([0036]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have employed an average diameter of the core of 10 um to 25 um in Piao because that range is encompassed by the range taught by Piao ([0027]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have employed the natural graphite in an amount of 20 wt% to 30 wt.% and the flake artificial graphite primary particles having an average particle diameter (D50) of 5 microns to 15 microns because these values are within the ranges disclosed by Piao.
Piao fails to disclose wherein the carbon-based negative electrode active material particles have a sphericity of 0.78 to 0.83 or wherein the amorphous carbon-based material is present in the carbon- based negative electrode active material particles in an amount of 5 wt% to 16 wt%, and wherein the flake artificial graphite primary particles have an aspect ratio of 0.5 to 1.
Li discloses wherein carbon-based ([0020]) negative electrode ([0022]) active material particles (“composite anode material”; [0022]) have a sphericity of 0.78 to 0.827 ([0022] teaches 0.8-0.9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Piao by substituting the undisclosed sphericity of Piao’s carbon-based negative electrode active material particles for the sphericity of Li, such that the carbon-based negative electrode active material particles have a sphericity of 0.8 to 0.827 in order to centralize the particle size distribution and reduce the settling phenomenon of the negative material as taught by Li (0058]).
Piao in view of Li still fails to disclose wherein the amorphous carbon-based material is present in the carbon- based negative electrode active material particles in an amount of 5 wt% to 16 wt% and wherein the flake artificial graphite primary particles have an aspect ratio of 0.5 to 1.
Ahn discloses a carbon-based negative electrode active material ([0022]) comprising a plurality ([0022]) of artificial graphite ([0031]) primary particles ([0022]), wherein the artificial graphite ([0031]) primary particles ([0022]) have an aspect ratio of 0.5 to 1 ([0027] teaches a range of about 1 to 7; taking the reciprocal of the aspect ratio taught by Ahn yields about 0.14 to 1).
The examiner notes that aspect ratios are calculated in a number of ways in the art and merely refers to a ratio of two different dimensions of a particle. Taking the reciprocal of Ahn’s disclosed range would still result in a ratio of two different dimensions of a particle; thus, the reciprocal would qualify as an aspect ratio as instantly claimed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Piao in view of Li by using the aspect ratio of 0.5 to 1, taught by Ahn, as the aspect ratio of the flake artificial graphite primary particles of Piao in view of Li, in order to improve the battery characteristics as taught by Ahn ([0027]).
Piao in view of Li and Ahn still fails to disclose wherein the amorphous carbon-based material is present in the carbon- based negative electrode active material particles in an amount of 5 wt% to 16 wt%.
Tuduki discloses a negative electrode ([0014]), comprising:
a negative electrode active material layer ([0016]), wherein the negative electrode active material layer ([0016]) comprises a negative electrode active material ([0039]), wherein the negative electrode active material comprises carbon-based negative electrode active material particles (“a graphite-based material, an amorphous/non-crystalline carbon material”; [0039]), wherein the carbon-based negative electrode active material particles comprises graphite particles ([0044]); and an amorphous carbon-based material ([0045]), wherein the amorphous carbon-based material, is present in the carbon-based negative electrode active material particles ([0039]) in an amount of 5 wt% to 16 wt% (“1% by mass or more”; “15% by mass or less relative to the total amount of the negative electrode active material”; [0049]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Piao in view of Li and Ahn by using an amount of amorphous carbon-based material present in the carbon-based negative electrode active material particles of 5 wt% to 15 wt% as taught by Tuduki, such that the amorphous carbon-based material is present in the carbon-based negative electrode active material particles in an amount of 5 wt% to 15 wt%, in order to reduce resistance and avoid degradation of the long-term battery life characteristics at high temperature as taught by Tuduki ([0049]).
Regarding claim 3, Piao in view of Li, Ahn and Tuduki discloses wherein the flake artificial graphite primary particles ([0021, 0024]) have an average particle diameter (D50) of the flake artificial graphite primary particles ([0021, 0024]) is 10 microns to 12 microns ([0023] teaches 5 microns to 20 microns).
Regarding claim 5, Piao in view of Li, Ahn and Tuduki discloses wherein the core ([0026]) has an average particle diameter (D50) of 10 microns to 25 microns ([0027] teaches 10 microns to 35 microns).
Regarding claim 6, Piao in view of Li, Ahn and Tuduki discloses wherein a weight ratio of the core ([0026]) to the natural graphite is in a range of 64.29:35.71 to 89.47:10.53 ([0036] teaches 10:90 to 80:20).
Regarding claim 7, Piao in view of Li, Ahn and Tuduki discloses wherein the carbon-based negative electrode active material particles ([0032]) have an average particle diameter (D50) in the range of 11 microns ([0027] teaches the lower limit of the first particles is 10 microns; [0034] teaches that the lower limit of the second particles is 5 microns; in total the lower limit is 15 microns) to 26 microns ([0027] teaches the upper limit of the first particles is 35 microns; [0034] teaches that the upper limit of the second particles is 12 microns; in total the upper limit is 47 microns).
Regarding claim 8, Piao in view of Li, Ahn and Tuduki discloses a negative electrode binder ([0038]).
Regarding claim 9, Piao in view of Li, Ahn and Tuduki discloses wherein the negative electrode binder is present in the negative electrode active material layer in an amount of 1.2 wt.% to 5 wt.% ([0038], [0040]; [0042] teach that the layer may only include the first and second particles and the binder; [0037] teaches that components (including the binder [0038]) of the negative electrode layer not including the first and second particles, ranges from 0 wt.% to 10 wt.%, thus the binder may be present from 0 wt.% to 10 wt.%).
Regarding claim 10, Piao in view of Li, Ahn and Tuduki discloses a secondary battery ([0046]) comprising the negative electrode of claim 1.
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 GRACE A KENLAW whose telephone number is (571)272-1253. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM-6:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tiffany Legette-Thompson can be reached at (571) 270-7078. 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.A.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1723 /TIFFANY LEGETTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights