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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 December 29, 2025, has been entered.
Response to Arguments
The rejections under 35 USC 112 have been overcome by the amendments and are withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pp. 6-11, filed December 29, 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 2, 4-10, 12-16, and 18-20 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Lilin (KR 20180033800 A), Choi (US 2022/0336809 A1), Neubert ("The Structure and Properties of Artificial and Natural Graphite," ANL-5524, February 1956), Wachtler et al. (“Carbon and Graphite for Electrochemical Power Sources”, in Industrial Carbon and Graphite Materials, Volume I: Raw Materials, Production and Applications, ISBN:9783527674046, April 2021), and Davis (“Granulation of ultra-fine powders: Examination of granule microstructure, consolidation behavior, and powder feeding”, Doctoral Thesis, Purdue University, December 2015).
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 5, 8, 12-15, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lilin et al. (KR 20180033800 A; all citations refer English translation attached to the office action mailed September 23, 2025) in view of Choi (US 2022/0336809 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Lilin discloses an anode for a secondary battery comprising a first anode active material comprising artificial graphite particles (second negative electrode active material) and second anode active material particles comprising an assembly of artificial graphite sub-particles (first negative electrode active material) mixed in an anode active material layer (anode composite layer) (Lilin [0005] and [0022]-[0023]).
The first anode active materials have a particle size of 10-16 µm (Lilin [0023]), which is close to the range of the instant claim. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties (or results). See MPEP 2144.05 I, citing, e.g., Titanium Metals Co. of Am. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985); Accord, In re Kirsch, Barnby, and Potts, 182 USPQ 286, 290 (CCPA 1974) (finding that prior art teachings lying slightly outside of a claimed range nevertheless negate non-obviousness, especially in the absence of any criticality statements regarding the claimed range). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to select a particle size close the range disclosed by Lilin, including values within the range of the instant claim.
Lilin does not teach that the first anode active material particles include a coating layer formed on a core particle. Choi teaches that providing a coating layer on such artificial graphite core particles improves charge/discharge performance (Choi [0042]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to provide the coating layer of Choi on the artificial graphite particles of Lilin in order to improve charge/discharge performance.
Regarding claim 4, modified Lilin teaches that the coating may contain amorphous carbon (Choi [0043]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to select amorphous carbon, since it is the only form mentioned by Choi.
Regarding claim 5, modified Lilin teaches that the coating is made from pitch (Choi [0071]).
Regarding claim 8, the carbon coating layer has a thickness of approximately 50 nm (Choi [0071]), so the diameter of the core particle will be essentially the same as the diameter of the coated particles, which falls within the range of the instant claim.
Regarding claim 12, the uncoated particles have a larger diameter than the coated particles (Lilin [0023]).
Regarding claim 13, modified Lilin teaches that the uncoated particles should have an average diameter of 16-32 µm (Lilin [0022]), which overlaps the range of the instant claim. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 14, modified Lilin teaches that the hardness of the coated particles is greater than that of the uncoated particles (Choi [0029]).
Regarding claim 15, Lilin discloses an anode for a secondary battery comprising a first anode active material comprising artificial graphite particles (second negative electrode active material) and second anode active material particles comprising an assembly of artificial graphite sub-particles (first negative electrode active material) mixed in an anode active material layer (anode composite layer) (Lilin [0005] and [0022]-[0023]).
The first anode active materials have a particle size of 10-16 µm (Lilin [0023]), which is close to the range of the instant claim. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties (or results). See MPEP 2144.05 I, citing, e.g., Titanium Metals Co. of Am. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985); Accord, In re Kirsch, Barnby, and Potts, 182 USPQ 286, 290 (CCPA 1974) (finding that prior art teachings lying slightly outside of a claimed range nevertheless negate non-obviousness, especially in the absence of any criticality statements regarding the claimed range). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to select a particle size close the range disclosed by Lilin, including values within the range of the instant claim.
Lilin does not teach that the first anode active material particles include a coating layer formed on a core particle. Choi teaches that providing a coating layer on such artificial graphite core particles improves charge/discharge performance (Choi [0042]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to provide the coating layer of Choi on the artificial graphite particles of Lilin in order to improve charge/discharge performance.
Lilin teaches that anode should be included in a battery comprising a positive electrode (Lilin [0002]), and that the positive electrode material preferably includes a lithium metal oxide (Lilin [0030]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to select a lithium metal oxide, since Lilin teaches that is preferred.
Regarding claim 18, modified Lilin teaches that the coating may contain amorphous carbon (Choi [0043]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to select amorphous carbon, since it is the only form mentioned by Choi.
Regarding claim 19, modified Lilin teaches that the coating is made from pitch (Choi [0071]).
Regarding claim 20, the uncoated particles have a larger diameter than the coated particles (Lilin [0023]).
Claim(s) 2, 10, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lilin in view of Choi as applied to claims 1 and 15 above, as evidenced by Neubert et al. ("The Structure and Properties of Artificial and Natural Graphite," ANL-5524, February 1956).
Regarding claims 2, 10, and 16, modified Lilin does not teach that the particles comprise amorphous carbon. Neubert teaches that artificial graphite is formed by firing amorphous carbon (Neubert 2. THE GENERAL NATURE OF GRAPHITE) and that ungraphitized material remains in the product (Neubert 4. THE GENERAL NATURE OF ARTIFICIAL GRAPHITE). The artificial graphite particles of modified Lilin therefore necessarily include amorphous carbon.
Claim(s) 6 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lilin in view of Choi as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Wachtler et al. (“Carbon and Graphite for Electrochemical Power Sources”, in Industrial Carbon and Graphite Materials, Volume I: Raw Materials, Production and Applications, ISBN:9783527674046, April 2021) and Davis (“Granulation of ultra-fine powders: Examination of granule microstructure, consolidation behavior, and powder feeding”, Doctoral Thesis, Purdue University, December 2015).
Regarding claims 6 and 7, modified Lilin does not teach any particular particle size of pitch to form the coating. Wachtler teaches that such coatings are typically made with ultra-fine pitch (Wachtler 7.4.3.3 Natural Graphite, last paragraph, p. 411). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to use any conventional method to form the coating, including using ultra-fine pitch.
Davis teaches that ultra-fine powders are sized between 0.1-10 µm (Davis Abstract), which overlaps the ranges of the instant claims. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES A CORNO JR whose telephone number is (571)270-0745. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 am - 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, Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at (571) 272-3433. 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.
/J.A.C/ Examiner, Art Unit 1722
/NIKI BAKHTIARI/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1722