DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/11/2026 has been entered.
Claim Status
Claims 2, 4 and 11 are canceled.
Claim 1 has been amended; support for the amendment can be found in original claims 2 and 4 and [0036] of the original specification.
Claims 1, 3 and 5-10 have been examined on the merits.
Response to Arguments and Affidavit
Applicant's arguments filed 03/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s argument for unexpected results (see pg. 13, section (iii) of arguments and pg. 6 of the affidavit) is not 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, claim 1 does not require a particular range of diameters of the core or a weight ratio of the core to the natural graphite as the evidence (Table 1) provided by applicant discloses. Thus, the present claims are not commensurate in scope with the evidence provided by applicant.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and the disclosure of Lee have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Li is now relied on to teach the claimed range of sphericity.
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.
Claim 3 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 3 is indefinite because it is unclear if the recitation of “an average particle diameter” in line 2 refers to the previously recited “average particle diameter” of claim 1 or to another diameter. For examination, the former interpretation is used.
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 (“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).
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 achieve high capacity, high initial efficiency, excellent charge ratio and cycle performance 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 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
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