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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 30 December 2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, the prior art specifically teaches varying the mixing ratio of the components as shown in Table 1 (instead of the 50:50 mass% of Example 1, the following mixing ratios – see paragraph 96 of machine translation) such as Example 2 or 3 which respectively have 40mass% or 34mass% coated natural graphite particles see Table 1 below reproduced below from the human generated translation.
Mixing Ratio (mass%) -Surface Area- Electrochemical Properties
Sample
Artificial Graphite
Natural Graphite
Coated Natural Graphite
BET
(m²/g)
Volumetric Energy Density (Wh/L)
Single-Cell Capacity (Wh)
Capacity Retention After 1000 Cycles (%)
Example 1
50
0
50
2.8
366
148
87%
Example 2
40
20
40
3.2
369
150
85%
Example 3
33
33
34
3.6
370
150
83%
Example 4
20
40
40
3.6
371
150
80%
Example 5
0
50
50
3.6
372
151
80%
Example 6
0
40
60
3.3
371
150
83%
Example 7
20
20
60
2.9
368
149
87%
Example 8
20
0
80
2.3
365
148
89%
Comparative 1
0
100
0
5.2
379
154
58%
Comparative 2
0
60
40
3.9
373
151
69%
Comparative 3
20
50
30
3.9
372
151
72%
Comparative 4
40
40
20
3.9
372
151
73%
Comparative 5
50
20
30
3.4
369
150
77%
Comparative 6
60
0
40
2.9
366
149
79%
Reproduction of Table 1 of WO 2014/133070
The Examiner maintains that this application is attempting to claim a very well-studied material (carbon anode materials) and the volumes of prior art, such as those references cited above, speak to the obviousness of the necessity to optimize the variables claimed (composition, particle size D50, surface area etc.). Furthermore, the instant claims fail to establish criticality of the claimed ranges (by failing to be reasonable commensurate in scope with the results shown in the specification – see MPEP 716.02(d)) because the claims do not positively require particular amounts of the synthetic graphite or lower limits for the surface areas of the particles such as those actually tested in the instant specification and the results cannot be taken to provide unexpected results for any electrode active material.
Therefore, the rejection based on the prior art of record is maintained. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Relevant MPEP Sections
MPEP 2112.01 relating to Composition, Product, and Apparatus Claims: Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). “When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
MPEP 2113 relating to Product by Process limitations - “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
Claims 1-7, 9, 10, 20 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated, or in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious in view of by Nissan Motor Co. (WO 2014/133070 cited in IDS, a machine translation of which is of record).
In regard to claim 1, Nissan Motor Co. teaches a composition comprising: at least one carbonaceous particulate material comprised of synthetic graphite particles (“SG particles”) having a BET SSA of equal to or less than 4 m2/g (artificial graphite produced as described in paragraph 18, with a BET surface are such as ~3 m2/g as seen in the Examples of Tables 1 and 2 and described in paragraph 26 of the attached translation);
and at least one carbonaceous particulate material comprised of natural graphite particles (“cNG particles”) coated with non-graphitic carbon and having a BET SSA of equal to or less than 8 m2/g (such as ~3 m2/g); wherein the composition comprises 20-60% cNG particles by weight of the total weight of the composition (see Examples paragraph 91 and Table 1, paragraph 27 - a ratio of 1 between the different surface areas, i.e., the two carbon particles may have the same BET SSA).
The prior art specifically teaches varying the D50 of the negative electrode materials such as in the range of 10 to 30 microns as such materially effects the properties of the battery electrode, where a D50 of 10 micron gives excellent Capacity Retention (paragraphs 25, 103 and Table 3 translation of record).
In regard to the amendment, Examples 2 and 3 teach varying the mixing ratio of the components as shown in Table 1 (instead of the 50:50 mass% of Example 1, the following mixing ratios – see paragraph 96 of machine translation) such as Example 2 or 3 which respectively have 40mass% or 34mass% coated natural graphite particles see Table 1 below reproduced below from a human generated translation.
Mixing Ratio (mass%) -Surface Area- Electrochemical Properties
Sample
Artificial Graphite
Natural Graphite
Coated Natural Graphite
BET
(m²/g)
Volumetric Energy Density (Wh/L)
Single-Cell Capacity (Wh)
Capacity Retention After 1000 Cycles (%)
Example 1
50
0
50
2.8
366
148
87%
Example 2
40
20
40
3.2
369
150
85%
Example 3
33
33
34
3.6
370
150
83%
Partial Reproduction of Table 1 of WO 2014/133070
The Examples described by the prior art fall within the claimed ranges in a manner which anticipates the claimed range (see MPEP 2131.03 Anticipation of Ranges). In the alternative, the ranges described by the prior art overlap the claimed ranges in a manner which provides a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05 Obviousness of Ranges). This rationale applies to all of the dependent claims below where an Example of the prior art falls within the claimed ranges in an anticipatory manner and broader ranges are also disclosed by the prior art which obviates the claimed ranges.
In regard to claim 2, the SG particles are further characterized by a particle size distribution (PSD) with a D50 of 10-30 micron, BET SSA of 3.5 m2/g (paragraph 91, 103) and a c/2 distance of 0.3354 nm (paragraph 17).
In regard to claim 3, the cNG particles are further characterized by a particle size distribution (PSD) with a D50 of about 10-30 μm (paragraph 103).
In regard to claim 4, the cNG particles are further characterized by a BET SSA of 2.0 m2/g (paragraph 91).
In regard to claim 5, the non-graphitic carbon coating (low crystallinity layer) of said cNG particles comprises about 2% to about 10% by weight of the total weight of said cNG particles (paragraph 20).
In regard to claim 6, the non-graphitic carbon coating of said cNG particles is obtainable by CVD coating (paragraph 20, in any event, the Examiner notes the method of production does not distinguish the claimed product from the prior art see MPEP 2113).
In regard to claim 7, the non-graphitic carbon coating of said cNG particles is obtainable by chemical vapor deposition treatment of a carbonaceous particulate starting material at temperatures of 1200° C with hydrocarbon gas (paragraph 20, also note treatment times and temperatures relate to product by process limitations which do not distinguish the claimed product from the prior art, see MPEP 2113 above).
In regard to claim 9, the composition comprises one or more additives selected such as styrene butadiene rubber (SBR) in the Examples of paragraph 91.
In regard to claim 10, the composition is used as a negative electrode active material and an electrode capacity of at least about 800 mAh/L is obtained (paragraph 16). In any event, the claimed composition and that of the prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established (see MPEP 2112.01 above).
In regard to claim 20, the SG particles are further characterized by a particle size distribution (PSD) with a D50 of 20.2 micron and the cNG particles are further characterized by a particle size distribution (PSD) with a D50 of about 20 μm (paragraph 91) in one Example or 10 to 30 micron generally (paragraph 103). See also additional D50s in Tables 3, paragraph 103-104. While no D90 is disclosed, the D50 values of the prior art anticipate the claimed D90 values, alternatively, the ranges of the prior art obviate the claimed ranges as uniformity among the carbon particles is desirable (paragraph 20).
In regard to claim 21, the SG particles are further characterized by a particle size distribution (PSD) with a D50 of 20.2 micron, BET SSA of 3.5 m2/g (paragraph 91) and a c/2 distance of 0.3354 nm (paragraph 17), where the active material has an overall tap density of at least 0.9 g/cm3 (paragraph 28), the non-graphitic carbon coating (low crystallinity layer) of said cNG particles comprises about 2% by weight of the total weight of said cNG particles (paragraph 20).
While the prior art does not disclose “a xylene density”, “a ratio of the crystallographic [004] and [110] reflection intensities (OI)”, a sphericity Q3, an ID/IG ratio or “a crystallographic Lc value” for the various particles, these are material properties of the carbon material which are a result of the structure, composition and processing thereof, as the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure (see other material properties described above) or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes (CVD processes etc.), a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established (MPEP 2112.01 above).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicant’s own work US Pub 2018/0183060 teaches similar carbon materials and the measurement of properties such as those that are instant claimed. US Pub 2013/0252093 teaches similar multilayer carbon materials. US Pub 2006/0133980 teaches carbon anodes. US Patent No. 7,993,780 newly cited, teaches various processes for forming carbon anode compositions.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nicholas P D'Aniello whose telephone number is (571)270-3635. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 9am to 5pm EST.
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, Tong Guo can be reached on 571-272-3066. 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.
/NICHOLAS P D'ANIELLO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723