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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 December 2, 2025 has been entered.
Claims 1-4, 16 and 17 are currently amended. Claims 1-5 and 16-18 are pending review in this action. The previous 35 U.S.C 112 rejections are withdrawn in light of Applicant’s corresponding amendments.
New grounds of rejection necessitated by Applicant’s amendments are presented below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 and 16-18 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 structural limitations: “a natural graphite core, having pores therein” (line 2) and “a graphitizing filler, filled in the pores” (line 4).
Later the claim recites the following metrics: “a ratio by volume of macro-pores to all pores … ranges from 80% to 90%” (lines 6-7) and “an average pore volume ranging from 0.005 cc/g to 0.010 cc/g” (lines 9-10).
The phrasing of the claim allows for two possible interpretations and therefore the scope of the claim is unclear.
A first interpretation is that the metrics are directed to the pores without considering the filler. That is, the recited pore volumes refer to the pores prior to the addition of filler and are a characterization of the natural graphite core itself.
A second interpretation is that the metrics are directed to the remaining free volume once the filler has been introduced to the pores.
The instant application is directed to the internal densification of natural graphite. A review of the specification indicates volume metrics directed to a characterization of the natural graphite core itself (paragraphs [0073, 0074]).
On the other hand, data reported in instant Table 3 relate to the characterization of free volume following introduction of the filler and graphitization.
The value ranges of claim 1 appear to be consistent with the data reported in Table 3 and are thus interpreted to be directed to the second interpretation detailed above.
Claims 2-5 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 2 recites the structural limitations: “a natural graphite core, having pores therein” (line 2) and “the pores are filled with a graphite material” (lines 2-3).
Later the claim recites the following metrics: “a ratio by volume of macro-pores to all pores … ranges from 80% to 90%” (lines 7-8) and “an average pore volume ranging from 0.005 cc/g to 0.010 cc/g” (lines 10-11).
The phrasing of the claim allows for two possible interpretations and therefore the scope of the claim is unclear.
A first interpretation is that the metrics are directed to the pores without considering the filler. That is, the recited pore volumes refer to the pores prior to the addition of filler and are a characterization of the natural graphite core itself.
A second interpretation is that the metrics are directed to the remaining free volume once the filler has been introduced to the pores.
The instant application is directed to the internal densification of natural graphite. A review of the specification indicates volume metrics directed to a characterization of the natural graphite core itself (paragraphs [0073, 0074]).
On the other hand, data reported in instant Table 3 relate to the characterization of free volume following introduction of the filler and graphitization.
The value ranges of claim 2 appear to be consistent with the data reported in Table 3 and are thus interpreted to be directed to the second interpretation detailed above.
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 recites the limitation “the pores of the natural graphite core have a pore volume ranging from 0.01 cc/g to 0.08 cc/g”.
As in the case of claim 2 above, the phrasing of claim 3 allows for two possible interpretations and therefore the scope of the claim 3 is unclear.
A first interpretation is that the claimed pore volume is directed to the pores without considering the filler and is a characterization of the natural graphite core itself.
A second interpretation is that the claimed pore volume is directed to the remaining free volume once the filler has been introduced to the pores.
In view of the specification (paragraph [0073]), the claim is interpreted to have been directed to the first interpretation.
Given that that claim 3 is dependent on claim 2, applicant is encouraged to clearly distinguish between the pore volumes claimed in claim 2 and the pore volume claimed in claim 3.
Claim 16 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 16 recites the limitation “the pores of the natural graphite core have a pore volume ranging from 0.01 cc/g to 0.08 cc/g”.
As in the case of claim 1 above, the phrasing of claim 16 allows for two possible interpretations and therefore the scope of the claim 16 is unclear.
A first interpretation is that the claimed pore volume is directed to the pores without considering the filler and is a characterization of the natural graphite core itself.
A second interpretation is that the claimed pore volume is directed to the remaining free volume once the filler has been introduced to the pores.
In view of the specification (paragraph [0073]), the claim is interpreted to have been directed to the first interpretation.
Given that that claim 16 is dependent on claim 1, applicant is encouraged to clearly distinguish between the pore volumes claimed in claim 1 and the pore volume claimed in claim 16.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-3, 5, 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2021/0328220, hereinafter Choi in view of U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2016/0060125, hereinafter Chung.
Regarding claim 1, Choi teaches a graphite anode material. The graphite anode material comprises a natural graphite core having pores therein. A carbon coating layer is formed on a surface of the natural graphite core (abstract).
A graphitizing filler such as pitch is filled in the pores inside the natural graphite core and forms the carbon coating layer (paragraphs [0038, 0046-0051]).
Choi provides no information on the pore sizes of the material.
Chung teaches a graphite anode material which comprises a natural graphite core with a carbon coating layer (paragraphs [0020, 0022]). Chung teaches that the graphite anode material includes macropores (diameters in the range 50 nm to 400 nm) and mesopores (diameters in the range 2 nm to 50 nm). The preferred volume of macropores is in the range 0.03 cc/g to 0.1 cc/g and the preferred volume of mesopores is in the range 0.005 cc/g to 0.03 cc/g (paragraphs [0017, 0018]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to ensure that Choi’s material includes a volume of macropores and a volume of micropores as taught by Chung for the purpose of optimizing the material’s performance.
In the combination of Choi and Chung, the preferred volume of mesopores is “an average pore volume” for the graphite anode material.
Within the preferred mesopore and macropore ranges in the combination of Choi and Chung are multiple combinations of values which would result in a ratio of a total macropore volume relative to total pore volume within the claimed range. For example, selecting the preferred range edge values for a macropore volume of 0.03 cc/g and a mesopore volume of 0.005 cc/g would result in a macropore volume ratio of 0.03/0.035 = 0.86 (86%).
The optimum range for “an average pore volume” of the graphite anode material in Choi as modified by Chung overlaps the instant application's optimum range of 0.005 cc/g to 0.010 cc/g. The optimum range for the ratio of macropore volume to total pore volume of Choi as modified by Chung overlaps the instant application's optimum range of 80% to 90%. It has been held that in the case where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 2, Choi teaches a graphite anode material. The graphite anode material comprises a natural graphite core having pores therein. A carbon coating layer is formed on a surface of the natural graphite core (abstract).
The material is formed by coating natural graphite with pitch (“filler”). The pitch (“filler”) coats a surface of the natural graphite core and fills pores therein. The material is then graphitized (paragraphs [0038, 0046-0051]). It is thus understood that the pores are filled with graphite material produced by the graphitization.
Choi provides no information on the pore sizes of the material.
Chung teaches a graphite anode material which comprises a natural graphite core with a carbon coating layer (paragraphs [0020, 0022]). Chung teaches that the graphite anode material includes macropores (diameters in the range 50 nm to 400 nm) and mesopores (diameters in the range 2 nm to 50 nm). The preferred volume of macropores is in the range 0.03 cc/g to 0.1 cc/g and the preferred volume of mesopores is in the range 0.005 cc/g to 0.03 cc/g (paragraphs [0017, 0018]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to ensure that Choi’s material includes a volume of macropores and a volume of micropores as taught by Chung for the purpose of optimizing the material’s performance.
In the combination of Choi and Chung, the preferred volume of mesopores is “an average pore volume” for the graphite anode material.
Within the preferred mesopore and macropore ranges in the combination of Choi and Chung are multiple combinations of values which would result in a ratio of a total macropore volume relative to total pore volume within the claimed range. For example, selecting the preferred range edge values for a macropore volume of 0.03 cc/g and a mesopore volume of 0.005 cc/g would result in a macropore volume ratio of 0.03/0.035 = 0.86 (86%).
The optimum range for “an average pore volume” of the graphite anode material in Choi as modified by Chung overlaps the instant application's optimum range of 0.005 cc/g to 0.010 cc/g. The optimum range for the ratio of macropore volume to total pore volume of Choi as modified by Chung overlaps the instant application's optimum range of 80% to 90%. It has been held that in the case where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claims 3 and 16, Choi teaches that the natural graphite core has a particle size in the range 8 µm to 18 µm (paragraph [0034]).
Regarding claims 5 and 18, Choi teaches that the filler comprises pitch (paragraph [0038]).
Claims 4 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2021/0328220, hereinafter Choi in view of U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2016/0060125, hereinafter Chung as applied to claims 1 and 2 above and further in view of U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2012/0070733, hereinafter Yamada.
Regarding claims 4 and 17, Choi as modified by Chung teaches a graphite anode material.
Choi as modified by Chung fails to specify the O/C ratio of the material.
It is known in the art that a preferred O/C ratio in graphite active materials is in the range 0.01 to 0.04 for the purpose of managing surface reactions with the battery electrolyte – see, e.g. Yamada (paragraph [0065]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to ensure that the material of Choi as modified by Chung has an O/C ratio in the range 0.01 to 0.04 for the purpose of managing surface reactions with the battery electrolyte.
The optimum range for the O/C ratio of Choi as modified by Chung overlaps the instant application's optimum range of 0.02 to 0.04. It has been held that in the case where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05.
Claims 1, 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2017/0373315, hereinafter Lee in view of U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2016/0060125, hereinafter Chung.
Regarding claim 1, Lee teaches a graphite anode material. The graphite anode material comprises a natural graphite core having pores therein. A carbon coating layer is formed on a surface of the natural graphite core. A graphitizing filler such as pitch is filled in the pores inside the natural graphite core. The graphitizing filler forms the carbon coating layer (paragraphs [0017, 0032-0034]).
Lee provides no information on the pore sizes of the material.
Chung teaches a graphite anode material which comprises a natural graphite core with a carbon coating layer (paragraphs [0020, 0022]). Chung teaches that the graphite anode material includes macropores (diameters in the range 50 nm to 400 nm) and mesopores (diameters in the range 2 nm to 50 nm). The preferred volume of macropores is in the range 0.03 cc/g to 0.1 cc/g and the preferred volume of mesopores is in the range 0.005 cc/g to 0.03 cc/g (paragraphs [0017, 0018]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to ensure that Lee’s material includes a volume of macropores and a volume of micropores as taught by Chung for the purpose of optimizing the material’s performance.
In the combination of Choi and Chung, the preferred volume of mesopores is “an average pore volume” for the graphite anode material.
Within the preferred mesopore and macropore ranges in the combination of Choi and Chung are multiple combinations of values which would result in a ratio of a total macropore volume relative to total pore volume within the claimed range. For example, selecting the preferred range edge values for a macropore volume of 0.03 cc/g and a mesopore volume of 0.005 cc/g would result in a macropore volume ratio of 0.03/0.035 = 0.86 (86%).
The optimum range for “an average pore volume” of the graphite anode material in Choi as modified by Chung overlaps the instant application's optimum range of 0.005 cc/g to 0.010 cc/g. The optimum range for the ratio of macropore volume to total pore volume of Choi as modified by Chung overlaps the instant application's optimum range of 80% to 90%. It has been held that in the case where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 16, Lee teaches that the natural graphite core has a particle size in the range 9 µm to 14 µm (paragraph [0024]).
Regarding claim 18, Lee teaches that the graphitizing filler comprises pitch (paragraph [0033]).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2017/0373315, hereinafter Lee in view of U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2016/0060125, hereinafter Chung as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2012/0070733, hereinafter Yamada.
Regarding claim 17, Lee as modified by Chung teaches a graphite anode material.
Lee as modified by Chung fails to specify the O/C ratio of the material.
It is known in the art that a preferred O/C ratio in graphite active materials is in the range 0.01 to 0.04 for the purpose of managing surface reactions with the battery electrolyte – see, e.g. Yamada (paragraph [0065]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to ensure that the material of Lee as modified by Chung has an O/C ratio in the range 0.01 to 0.04 for the purpose of managing surface reactions with the battery electrolyte.
The optimum range for the O/C ratio of Lee as modified by Chung overlaps the instant application's optimum range of 0.02 to 0.04. It has been held that in the case where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s newly added limitations have been considered. However, after further search and consideration, the combinations of the previously presented Choi and Chung references and Lee and Chung references have been provided, as recited above, to address the amended claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LILIA V NEDIALKOVA whose telephone number is (571)270-1538. The examiner can normally be reached 8.30 - 5.00 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, Miriam Stagg can be reached at 571-270-5256. 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.
/STEWART A FRASER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1724
LILIA V. NEDIALKOVA
Examiner
Art Unit 1724