DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
1. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/23/2025 has been entered.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Objections
2. The prior objection to claim 1 is withdrawn.
3. Claims 1-3 are objected to for clarity and failure to invoke full and proper antecedent basis given:
Applicant did not correct the dependent claims to match the Examiner-corrected claim as previously advised (see page 4 of prior Office Action noting Applicant should address the dependent claims such that they invoke full and proper antecedent basis);
the amendments made to claim 1 fail to utilize full and proper antecedent basis to the entities claimed; and
not all of the Examiner-corrected claim (ECC) corrections were implemented.
Accordingly, for claim 1:
the prior ECC claim correction needs implemented (lines 12-13):
“the plurality of tungsten trioxide particles are attached to the respective surface of each of the amorphous carbon particles in a composite state, wherein”
“the tungsten trioxide has” (final line) should be corrected to “the plurality of tungsten trioxide particles have”
Claims 2-3 each should correct, “the tungsten trioxide particles to “the plurality of tungsten trioxide particles…”
Claim 7 is in a withdrawn status; however, in order to be eligible for rejoinder, the following should be corrected in claim 7:
“Claim” should be “claim” as it is not a proper noun (line 2)
The amended portion of claim 7 (final three lines) should use proper punctuation and indentation. A suitable example follows:
“wherein the negative-electrode-material product step includes:
a dry step of drying the additive solution to product a negative-electrode intermediate, and
a heating step of heating the negative-electrode intermediate.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
4. The rejection of claim 1, and thus dependent claims 2-5, 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 is withdrawn.
Claim Analysis – Applicant as his/her own Lexicographer
5. An applicant is entitled to be his or her own lexicographer and may rebut the presumption that claim terms are to be given their ordinary and customary meaning by clearly setting forth a definition of the term that is different from its ordinary and customary meaning(s). See In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1674 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Where an explicit definition is provided by the applicant for a term, that definition will control interpretation of the term as it is used in the claim. Toro Co. v. White Consolidated Industries Inc., 199 F.3d 1295, 1301, 53 USPQ2d 1065, 1069 (Fed. Cir. 1999); MPEP 2111.01, Section IV.
The Applicant has provided their own definitions to the following phrase:
“composite state” – (P43 of the PGPUB: “…the WO3 particle 32 and the amorphous carbon particle 30 are in a composite state. The composite state means a state in which the WO3 particle 32 cannot be separated from the amorphous carbon particle 30 at least when no external force acts.”
Accordingly, this explicit definition will control the interpretations of this phrase as used in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. The rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuhara et al. (US 2019/0115588) as evidenced by Zhang et al, “Status of rechargeable potassium batteries,” Nano Energy 83 (2021) 105792 (copy previously provided) is withdrawn as claim 1 was amended to incorporate the subject matter of prior claim 3. Thus, the prior art rejection applied to claim 3 (as well as claim 2) from the prior Office Action is incorporated into the rejection of claim 1 and is thus a maintained rejection. Accordingly:
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuhara et al. (US 2019/0115588) as evidenced by Zhang et al, “Status of rechargeable potassium batteries,” Nano Energy 83 (2021) 105792 (copy previously provided) in view of Tamura et al. (WO 2014/142066) (copy previously provided).
Regarding claim 1, Matsuhara teaches a negative-electrode material 100 for a battery, the negative-electrode material 100 (Fig. 1; entire disclosure relied upon) comprising:
amorphous carbon particles 110 [see P35 in which particle 110 can be at least partially amorphous carbon in the forms of soft carbon and hard carbon]; and
a plurality of tungsten trioxide particles 121 (P4, 12, 42-45, also referred to as “first metal oxide 121”) provided on a respective surface (inner wall pore 111) of the [at least partially] amorphous carbon particles 110, wherein:
the average particle size of the plurality of tungsten trioxide particles 121 is smaller than the average particle size of the amorphous carbon particles (Fig. 1; P36, P42),
the average particle size d50 of the [at least partially] amorphous carbon particles is not smaller than 1 µm and not greater than 30 µm (P36), thereby rendering the claimed range of “equal to or larger than 1 µm and equal to or smaller than 50 µm,” prima facie obvious given
in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP § 2144.05), and
wherein the [plurality of] tungsten trioxide particles are adhered to (P4, 8-9, 12, 41, 43) (i.e., “attached to”) the [respective] surface of [each of] the amorphous carbon particles in a composite state.
Regarding the latter feature, P43 of Matsuhara explicitly teaches that the first metal oxide 121 (which may be tungsten trioxide- P4, 12, 41-45) adheres to the inner wall of open pore 111 (P4, 8-9, 12, 41, 43). Matsuhara explicitly teaches that the “…diffusion of Li ions into the inside of graphite particle 110 is facilitated as a result of adhesion of the first metal oxide 121 substantially only to the inner wall of open pore 111.” Accordingly, Matsuhara teaches the tungsten trioxide particles are adhered/attached to the surface of the amorphous carbon particles in a composite state (P4, 8-9, 12, 41, 43).
Matsuhara teaches that the tungsten trioxide 121 may be in particulate form (P42) and adheres to the inner wall of open pore 111 (P43). In view of the illustrated pore size 111 of Fig. 1, it is considered inherent that the tungsten trioxide 121 that may be in particulate form is smaller than 30 µm given the taught average particle size of base 110 which is 1-30 µm. In other words, the average particle size of tungsten trioxide 121 that is in particulate form and preferably only adheres to the inner wall of the pore cannot be a larger value than the base 110 which is taught as having an upper limit of 30 µm. Accordingly, it is inherent that the particulate form tungsten trioxide 121 has an average particle size of less than 30 µm, thereby rendering the claimed range of 100 nm-20 µm prima facie obvious given in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP § 2144.05).
Moreover, “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Accordingly, it is additionally considered an obvious expedient to determine the appropriate or workable average particle size of the tungsten trioxide 121 particulates given the general conditions are disclosed, the size of the particles 121 dictating the amount held therein, with the amount being taught as a known result-effective variable (see P46-48).
Zhang is quoted below in terms of showing that hard carbon and soft carbon are amorphous carbons (p. 12-13):
PNG
media_image1.png
327
517
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Matsuhara is silent as to the type of crystal structure(s) present in the tungsten trioxide particles. In the same field of endeavor, Tamura teaches analogous art of a negative active material for a secondary battery (P1/P1-2; P6/P1; P10/P6-P11/P4) comprising tungsten oxide (WO3) powder, and that that when used for the negative electrode of a lithium ion secondary battery, it is effective to use it mixed with carbon powder (P6/P1), with the examples teaching the specific combination of WO3 powder mixed with acetylene black (an amorphous carbon material) (P10/P7). Tamura teaches the tungsten trioxide (WO3) has a hexagonal crystal structure in at least a part of whole thereof (P1, bottom paragraph, P2/P1-3), and further teaches the following with regard to the specific crystal structures present within the WO3 utilized and the optimization thereof (page 2):
PNG
media_image2.png
258
715
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
82
614
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Tamura further teaches how to manipulate the type of crystal structure obtained, wherein in the range of 400-500 °C, a mixture of monoclinic and hexagonal crystal structures are achieved (pages 7-9; Table 1), and above 500 °C, there is a phase change to entirely monoclinic crystal structure (pages 7-9; Table 1). Tamura teaches the method of achieving this is by taking a tungsten oxide powder that has been reacted, filtered, washed, and dried, and subjecting it to a subsequent heat treatment +(P7/P5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to optimize the crystal structure construct of the tungsten trioxide (WO3) particles 121 of Matsuhara such that it has at least part of a hexagonal crystal structure (preferably 50% or more by volume as taught by Tamura; the remainder being a monoclinic crystal structure) given Tamura teaches a negative active material comprising tungsten trioxide (WO3) and the optimization of the crystal system(s) thereof in order to efficiently deliver lithium ions and improve electrode reaction (page 2 of Tamura; entire disclosure relied upon), wherein one of ordinary skill in the art could simply take the reacted, filtered, washed, and dried product taught by Matsuhara (P116-117), and subject it to the heat treatment taught by Tamura in a temperature range suitable to achieve the desired crystal systems of monoclinic, triclinic, and/or hexagonal (P2/P3) to achieve the desired lithium ion diffusion rates.
Regarding claims 2-3, Matsuhara as modified by Tamura teaches the optimization and inclusion of tungsten trioxide particles having a hexagonal crystal structure and a monoclinic crystal structure (see rejection of claim 1).
7. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuhara et al. (US 2019/0115588) as evidenced by Zhang et al, “Status of rechargeable potassium batteries,” Nano Energy 83 (2021) 105792 in view of Tamura et al. (WO 2014/142066) (copy previously provided) as applied to at least claim 1 above, and further in view of Gulas et al. (US 2017/0200950).
Regarding claim 4, Matsuhara is silent as to the amorphous carbon including a functional group at the surface. In the same field of endeavor, Gulas teaches analogous art of an active material in the negative electrode of lithium ion batteries (abstract) in which an amorphous carbon undergoes hydrophilic surface-modification via oxidation in order to introduced hydrophilic surface groups, thereby increasing the hydrophilicity of the particle surface (P17-18). The increased hydrophilicity decreases the reactivity of the negative active material to the electrolyte, ensures excellent wettability and other favorable properties including better Li-ion diffusion which in turn results in a large rate of discharge (P17).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the amorphous carbon of Matsuhara such that the amorphous carbon layer undergoes hydrophilic surface-modification via oxidation in order to introduced hydrophilic surface groups as taught by Gulas, thereby increasing the hydrophilicity of the particle surface (P17-18), in order to achieve the advantages and predictable results described above.
8. The rejection of claims 1 and 5 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (KR 2018-0082006) (machine translation provided by Applicant) in view of Matsuhara et al. (US 2019/0115588), as evidenced by Zhang et al, “Status of rechargeable potassium batteries,” Nano Energy 83 (2021) 105792 (copy previously provided) and Uchida et al. (US 2013/0255074) is withdrawn as claim 1 was amended to incorporate the subject matter of prior claim 3. Thus, the prior art rejection applied to claim 3 (as well as claim 2) from the prior Office Action is incorporated into the rejection of claim 1 and is maintained. Accordingly:
Claims 1-3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (KR 2018-0082006) (machine translation provided by Applicant) in view of Matsuhara et al. (US 2019/0115588) and Tamura et al. (WO 2014/142066) as evidenced by Zhang et al, “Status of rechargeable potassium batteries,” Nano Energy 83 (2021) 105792 (copy previously provided) and Uchida et al. (US 2013/0255074).
Regarding claim 1, Kim teaches a negative-electrode material for a battery (abstract; P1, 9, 12), the negative-electrode material comprising:
a carbon-based material that may be soft carbon or hard carbon (P9-10, 18, 32) (i.e., amorphous carbon), wherein soft carbon and hard carbon are intrinsically amorphous in nature is evidenced by Zhang (citation above) and would further be immediately recognized by one having ordinary skill in the art (see pages 12-13; quoted below);
and tungsten trioxide (WO3) provided on the surface of the amorphous carbon (abstract; P1, 9, 26, 31, 34; entire disclosure relied upon), the tungsten trioxide (WO3) coated on the surface of the carbon-based material (i.e., “attached to the surface of the carbon-based material in a composite state”) (see abstract, P26, 31; SEM images of achieved product, analogous method of making to that of the instant application; wherein the entire disclosure is relied upon).
Zhang is quoted below in terms of showing that hard carbon and soft carbon are amorphous carbons (p. 12-13):
PNG
media_image1.png
327
517
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It is noted that although P37 of Kim teaches heat treatment and crystallization of the reaction product (i.e., the sol-gel tungsten oxide and/or carbon), it is noted that hard carbon, also termed “non-graphitizing carbon” (Uchida '074: P66) does not convert into graphite (i.e., undergo crystallization and become non-amorphous) as would be immediately understood by one having ordinary skill in the art such that it remains amorphous.
The construct of Kim is one in which amorphous carbon particles have a tungsten trioxide applied thereto in the form of film, with a specific example in which the average particle size of the carbon base may be 6 µm (P56). Kim does not teach the WO3 is applied in the form of particles to the amorphous carbon surface such that the WO3 particles are attached to the surface of the amorphous carbon particles in a composite state; however, the feature is considered an obvious expedient in view of the teachings of Matsuhara.
Matsuhara teaches analogous art of a carbon base 110 (including soft/hard carbon- P35) to which metal oxides 121, 122, and specifically WO3 (P4, 12-16, 41-45) are applied to the carbon base, wherein the form of either metal oxide 121, 122 is not limited and may be in the form of a film or particulate (P42, 51), and wherein the first metal oxide 121 that may specifically be WO3 particles are adhered to the carbon base particle 110 (P4, 8-9, 12, 41, 43). P43 of Matsuhara explicitly teaches that the first metal oxide 121 (which may be tungsten trioxide) adheres to the inner wall of open pore 111 (P4, 8-9, 12, 41, 43). Matsuhara teaches that the “…diffusion of Li ions into the inside of graphite particle 110 is facilitated as a result of adhesion of the first metal oxide 121 substantially only to the inner wall of open pore 111.” Accordingly, Matsuhara teaches the tungsten trioxide particles are adhered/attached to the surface of the amorphous carbon particles in a composite state.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to alter the format of the applied WO3 of Kim to be that of particulates versus a film, the feature being considered a design choice in view of the teachings of Matsuhara teaching analogous art of metal oxides applied to a carbon base for a negative electrode active material, Matsuhara teaching the form of the applied metal oxide 121, 122 is not limited and may be particulate or film formats (P42, 51), and to further provide the WO3 particles as adhered to (“attached to”) the surface of the amorphous carbon particles in a composite state given Matsuhara teaches the construct and that it provides the advantageous, predictable result of promoting diffusion of Li ions (P4, 8-9, 12, 41, 43).
As to the particle size ranges claimed, Kim teaches a suitable average particle size of the carbon base is 6 µm (P56), and Matsuhara teaches the average particle size d50 of the carbon base is not smaller than 1 µm and not greater than 30 µm (P36). Accordingly either or both of Kim or Matsuhara provide the necessary teaching, suggestion, and motivation to arrive at the average particle size of the amorphous carbon particles to be within the range of 1-50 µm.
Kim as modified by Matsushara in terms of utilizing particles versus a film metal oxide teaches that the metal oxide particles 122 adhered to the outer surface of the carbon base particle 110 preferably have a d50 of not smaller than 1 nm and not greater than 100 nm (P76), thereby rendering the claimed range as prima facie obvious given in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP § 2144.05).
Moreover, “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Accordingly, in the absence of new or unexpected results for which objective evidence exists that is fully commensurate in scope with the claimed construct, it is additionally considered an obvious expedient to determine the appropriate or workable average particle size of the tungsten trioxide particulates within the modified construct given the general conditions are disclosed.
Furthermore regarding claim 1, Kim nor Matsuhara teaches the type of crystal structure(s) present in the tungsten trioxide particles; however, it is noted that Kim teaches the method of making the WO3-carbon material that includes a first reaction step performed at room temperature with the obtained reaction product dried and powdered (step a, P36, 38-48). This step is then followed by a crystallization/heat treatment step of 400-800 °C to achieve the desired crystallization of the tungsten oxide powder (step b, P37, 49-50).
In the same field of endeavor, Tamura teaches analogous art of a negative active material for a secondary battery (P1/P1-2; P6/P1; P10/P6-P11/P4) comprising tungsten oxide (WO3) powder, and that that when used for the negative electrode of a lithium ion secondary battery, it is effective to use it mixed with carbon powder (P6/P1), with the examples teaching the specific combination of WO3 powder mixed with acetylene black (an amorphous carbon material) (P10/P7). Tamura teaches the tungsten trioxide (WO3) has a hexagonal crystal structure in at least a part of whole thereof (P1, bottom paragraph, P2/P1-3), and further teaches the following with regard to the specific crystal structures present within the WO3 utilized and the optimization thereof (page 2):
PNG
media_image2.png
258
715
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
82
614
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Tamura teaches how to manipulate the type of crystal structure obtained, wherein in the range of 400-500 °C, a mixture of monoclinic and hexagonal crystal structures are achieved (pages 7-9; Table 1), and above 500 °C, there is a phase change to entirely monoclinic crystal structure (pages 7-9; Table 1). Tamura teaches the method of achieving this is by taking a tungsten oxide powder that has been reacted, filtered, washed, and dried, and subjecting to a subsequent heat treatment (P7/P5).
As detailed above, Kim teaches the step b heat treatment at a temperature of 400-800 °C for 1 to 5 hours. Accordingly, if 400°C is selected for 1 hour, there will be a mix of monoclinic and hexagonal crystal structures as is taught by Tamura. If 500°C is selected for 1 hour, there will be only monoclinic crystal structures. The Example utilizes 600 °C for 2 hours (P56); this specific example would solely and intrinsically be monoclinic crystal structures.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to optimize the crystal structure construct of the tungsten trioxide (WO3) particles of modified Kim/Matsuhara such that it has at least part of a hexagonal crystal structure (preferably 50% or more by volume as taught by Tamura; the remainder being monoclinic and/or triclinic crystal structures) given Tamura teaches a negative active material comprising tungsten trioxide (WO3) and the optimization of the crystal system(s) thereof in order to efficiently deliver lithium ions and improve electrode reaction (page 2 of Tamura; entire disclosure relied upon). It is noted that given the heat treatment step of Kim is carried out for at least an hour in a range of 400-800 °C, there is intrinsically some level of monoclinic crystal structure in the tungsten oxide as is taught by Tamura.
Regarding claims 2-3, Kim as modified by Tamura teaches the optimization and inclusion of tungsten trioxide particles having a hexagonal crystal structure and a monoclinic crystal structure (see rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 5, Kim teaches the negative-electrode material may utilize hard carbon as the supporting structure (P9-10, 18, 32) such that it “comprises no graphite” (note that hard carbon cannot graphitize).
9. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (KR 2018-0082006) in view of Matsuhara et al. (US 2019/0115588) and Tamura et al. (WO 2014/142066) (copy previously provided) as evidenced by Zhang et al, “Status of rechargeable potassium batteries,” Nano Energy 83 (2021) 105792 and Uchida et al. (US 2013/0255074) as applied to at least claim 1 above, and further in view of Xiao et al. (US 2016/0006024).
Regarding claim 4, Kim is silent as to the amorphous carbon (hard carbon) including a functional group at the surface. In the same field of endeavor, Xiao teaches analogous art of a negative electrode material for a secondary lithium battery, wherein the hard carbon is provided with organic functional groups such as hydroxyl and carboxyl groups that are able to react with functional groups of the binder utilized in the final negative electrode construct such that the components are held closer together. This interaction advantageously allows for higher active material loadings, and prevents direct contact of the active material with the electrolyte to avoid the SEI layer forming thereon, which in turn improves cycling performance (P13).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to provide the hard carbon (amorphous carbon) of Kim with organic functional groups such as hydroxyl and carboxyl groups as taught by Xiao in order to achieve the predictable, advantageous results as described by Xiao (P13).
Response to Arguments
10. Applicant’s arguments filed 12/23/2025 have been fully considered. Respectfully, it is noted that Applicant’s summary of the prior art rejections (see page 6-11) are not necessary (previously noted with respect to the response filed 9/22/2025 doing the same) as there is no need to summarize the Office Action rejections of record. The actual response to the cited art rejections begins on page 11 and ends on page 12. Applicant’s arguments are reproduced below:
PNG
media_image4.png
337
655
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
69
657
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
517
676
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
190
649
media_image7.png
Greyscale
In response: Tamura does disclose that the hexagonal crystal structure is used in a at least a part of the whole of the tungsten oxide powder (page 1, final paragraph) in a volume percent of 50% or more, wherein it is noted that the instant application claims the use of a hexagonal crystal structure (see claim 2) and teaches its use within the tungsten trioxide particles of instant application, as well as teaches the same thing as Tamura – when multiple crystal structures are present, it is preferable that the hexagonal crystal structure is contained in the largest amount:
Claim 2 of the instant application (emphasis added)-
PNG
media_image8.png
80
633
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Instant application (P7, 8, 44; emphasis added)-
PNG
media_image9.png
162
580
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
323
463
media_image10.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image11.png
255
479
media_image11.png
Greyscale
The instant application does not expand upon why the hexagonal crystal structure is preferably contained in the largest amount relative to the other oxides; however Tamura teaches the reason: the hexagonal crystal structure has a tunnel structure which acts as a diffusion channel for lithium ions such that diffusion of Li is rapid. The rapid diffusion of lithium ions allows for a lithium ion secondary battery to have higher charging/discharging speed in a short time (P2/P3).
Thus, Tamura teaches the tungsten trioxide (WO3) has a hexagonal crystal structure in at least a part of whole thereof (P1, bottom paragraph, P2/P1-3; page 2). Tamura further teaches how to manipulate the type of crystal structure obtained, wherein in the range of 400-500 °C, a mixture of monoclinic and hexagonal crystal structures are achieved (pages 7-9; Table 1), and above 500 °C, there is a phase change to entirely monoclinic crystal structure (pages 7-9; Table 1). Tamura teaches the method of achieving this is by taking a tungsten oxide powder that has been reacted, filtered, washed, and dried, and subjecting to a subsequent heat treatment (P7/P5).
Accordingly, Tamura teaches the optimization of the crystal structures achieved in the tungsten oxide, and how to achieve this: subjecting a reacted, filtered, washed and dried tungsten oxide powder to a heat treatment at a given temperature and time. Accordingly, all that would be needed to achieve the taught, desirable optimization of the crystal structures within the tungsten oxide of Matushara is to take the reacted, filtered, washed and dried negative electrode active material of Matsuhara comprising the tungsten trioxide particles, and subject it to a heat treatment at a given temperature and time as taught by Tamura to achieve the desired crystal structures therein. There is no undue experimentation required.
Applicant’s arguments pertaining to the method of making taught by Matsuhara is that because the reaction step of obtaining the negative electrode active material including the tungsten oxide particles occurs at a lower temperature (P72), this somehow means that a subsequent heat treatment at a higher temperature cannot occur which is entirely unclear to the Examiner, especially in view of the method of making of Tamura.
Tamura teaches a method in which a reacted, filtered, washed and dried reaction product is provided in a first step, and then subsequently subjected to the heat treatment step to achieve the desired crystal structures (pages 7-9; Table 1). It is not clear to the Examiner why the reacted, filtered, washed and dried reaction product of Matsuhara (P109-117) could not also be subsequently taken and subjected to the heat treatment step taught by Tamura to achieve the desired crystal structure(s). In other words, the fact that Matsuhara teaches a reaction step of how to achieve the tungsten oxide at the taught temperatures and/or pressures (P72) is respectfully not germane to the fact that this obtained reaction product could then be subjected to a heat treatment, which is the same process as taught by Tamura.
With regard to the combination of Kim, Matsuhara, and Tamura, Kim teaches the same method as Tamura in providing the taught WO3 -carbon material: there is a reaction step performed at room temperature with the obtained reaction product dried and powdered (step a, P36, 38-48), and this step is then followed by the crystallization/heat treatment step of 400-800 °C (step b, P37, 49-50). Accordingly, if 400°C is selected for 1 hour, there will be a mix of monoclinic and hexagonal crystal structures as is taught by Tamura (pages 7-9; Table 1). If 500°C is selected for 1 hour, there will be only monoclinic crystal structures as taught by Tamura (page 9). The Example of Kim utilizes 600 °C for 2 hours (P56); this specific example would solely and intrinsically be monoclinic crystal structures as taught by Tamura (page 9).
Therefore, it was concluded that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to optimize the crystal structure construct of the tungsten trioxide (WO3) particles of modified Kim such that it has at least part of a hexagonal crystal structure (preferably 50% or more by volume as taught by Tamura; the remainder being monoclinic and/or triclinic crystal structures) given Tamura teaches a negative active material comprising tungsten trioxide (WO3) and the optimization of the crystal system(s) thereof in order to efficiently deliver lithium ions and improve electrode reaction (page 2 of Tamura; entire disclosure relied upon). It is noted that given the heat treatment step of Kim is carried out for at least an hour in a range of 400-800 °C (P25, 49), there is intrinsically some level of monoclinic crystal structure in the tungsten oxide as is taught by Tamura (P2/P6; pages 7-9; Table 1), and in the example of 600°C held for two hours, it would solely be monoclinic crystal structures as taught by Tamura (P2/P6; pages 7-9; Table 1), with Tamura providing teaching to provide tungsten trioxide particles having a hexagonal crystal structure (claim 2).
Applicant further argues that Matsuhara “implies” (i.e., suggested but not directly expressed) attachment of the tungsten trioxide particles; however, it is noted that Matsuhara directly teaches the feature as emphasized in the rejections of record):
P43 of Matsuhara explicitly teaches that the first metal oxide 121 (which may be tungsten trioxide) adheres to the inner wall of open pore 111 (P4, 8-9, 12, 41, 43). Matsuhara teaches that the “…diffusion of Li ions into the inside of graphite particle 110 is facilitated as a result of adhesion of the first metal oxide 121 substantially only to the inner wall of open pore 111.” Accordingly, Matsuhara teaches the tungsten trioxide particles are adhered/attached to the surface of the amorphous carbon particles in a composite state.
As to the argument that because Matsuhara teaches a reaction step that is performed at lower temperatures, there would be no reason to combine the features of Matsubara into Kim, this is addressed above: there is no reason that the obtained product of Matsuhara could not be subjected to the subsequent heat treatment step taught in both of Kim and Tamura (citations above). Accordingly, the arguments presented are not persuasive, and all prior rejections of record from the prior Office Action are respectfully maintained.
Conclusion
11. The prior art previously made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Rehman et al. (US 2016/0087286) teaches WO3- OMC [OMC = ordered mesoporous carbon, an amorphous carbon material) (entire disclosure; P18-19, 50-56).
Sasaki et al. (WO 2019/163931) (machine translation provided; published 2019-08-29) teaches a negative electrode active material for a secondary battery comprising a tungsten trioxide having a hexagonal tunnel structure that is mixed with carbon powder (page 9)—specifically acetylene black (Page 9). As evidenced by Lee et al. (US 2019/0273247), acetylene black is an amorphous carbonaceous material (P55). It’s not stated if the tungsten trioxide is on the surface of the amorphous carbon; however, given the mixing and pressing step, it would appear intrinsic that this is the case.
Takeda (US 2018/0076462) teaches tungsten trioxide on negative active material (i.e., graphite), wherein by disposing WO-3 on the surface of the graphite, this serves to significantly improve the lithium ion conductivity and the surface of the negative active material (P9). See also P27:
PNG
media_image12.png
181
359
media_image12.png
Greyscale
12. All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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.
13. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMANDA J BARROW whose telephone number is (571)270-7867. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am - 6pm CST.
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, Ula Ruddock can be reached on (571) 272-1481. 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.
/AMANDA J BARROW/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729