DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/26/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 01/26/2026 has been entered. Claim 1 has been amended, Claim 7 has been newly added and Claims 1-7 are pending.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Petibon et al. (Electrolyte System for High Voltage Li-Ion Cells, Journal of The Electrochemical Society, 163 (13) A2571-A2578 (2016)), hereinafter “Petibon” in view of Ishii et al. (JP 6219715 B2 - Machine Translation), hereinafter “Ishii” as evidenced by Mundszinger et al. (FIB-tomography of graphite anode particles for lithium ion batteries, European Microscopy Congress Proceedings, Pgs 854-855, 2016), hereinafter “Mundszinger”. Petibon, Ishii and Mundszinger et al. are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely graphite negative electrode active materials.
In regard to Claims 1-2 and 7, Petibon et al. discloses a nonaqueous electrolyte energy storage device comprising: a negative electrode including a negative active material layer (Petibon, Abstract), and a nonaqueous electrolyte containing an unsaturated cyclic carbonate (Petibon, vinylene carbonate, Experimental). Petibon et al. also discloses wherein the negative active material layer contains a solid graphite particle (Petibon, pg 2571). Further, Petibon et al. discloses an amount of the unsaturated cyclic carbonate contained in the nonaqueous electrolyte of the nonaqueous electrolyte energy storage device completed through an initial charge-discharge as related to the initial amount of VC before charging and discharging and experimentally was within a range of 0.13-1.49% residual VC (Petibon, pg 2576, Figures 4A, 4D).
Using the calculation disclosed in the current application to determine the amount of substance of the unsaturated cyclic carbonate in the electrolyte in mmol/m2 after a charge/discharge cycle (Original Specification, [0030-0033]) and the given specific surface area of the negative electrode, with the mass of electrode and electrolyte, the remaining VC in the electrolyte after charging and discharging disclosed in Petibon (Petibon, 2572-2574) the amount of substance of the unsaturated cyclic carbonate with respect to a surface area of the negative active material layer is in a range of 0.010 mmol/m2 - 0.116 mmol/m2, which overlaps the claimed ranges. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obvious. 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). See MPEP § 2144.05.
While Petibon discloses a solid graphite particle in the negative electrode, it is silent as to the aspect ratio or porosity of the negative active material. However, the skilled artisan of Petibon must provide a negative electrode active material for the cell with some properties and this is not particularly limited, thus the skilled artisan may provide another known negative active material to pair with the non-aqueous electrolyte. Ishii et al. discloses a beneficial negative active material comprising a solid graphite wherein the solid graphite particle has an average particle size of 1-20 μm (Ishii, Paragraph [35]), which overlaps the claimed range and with an aspect ratio of 1 or more and 5 or less by disclosing a spheroidized graphite which by definition has an aspect ratio of 1 or more and 5 or less (Ishii, Paragraphs [36-37]). The spheroidized graphite particle is considered solid as evidenced by Mundszinger et al. wherein a cross-section of the natural spheroidized graphite shows a total porosity of 4.85% meaning by definition an area ratio of an area of the solid graphite particle excluding voids in the solid graphite particle to a total area of the solid graphite particle is 95% or more (Mundszinger, Fig 3), and also an area of the artificial spheroidized graphite particle excluding voids was near 100%, i.e. almost no porosity was observed by cross sectioning (Mundszinger, Page 854). In addition, the examples in the original specification provide spheroidized graphite particles as the preferred embodiment for the solid graphite particles (Original Specification, Paragraphs [0049-0051]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide a solid graphite as the negative active material as disclosed in both Petibon and Ishii et al. and provide that material with the properties taught in Ishii et al. as doing so would give the skilled artisan the reasonable expectation of success and as doing so would amount to nothing more than a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
In regard to Claims 3 and 6, Petibon in view of Ishii et al. as evidenced by Mundszinger et al. discloses the nonaqueous electrolyte energy storage device according to claim 1. Petibon et al. also discloses an embodiment wherein a negative active material contained in the negative active material layer is 98% of the solid graphite particle (Petibon, Experimental), which anticipates the claimed range. The skilled artisans of Petibon must provide a graphite particle as the negative active material in some percentage and its not particularly limited by the disclosed embodiment and may be other percentages known to the skilled artisan. Ishii et al. disclose a beneficial solid graphite negative active material contained in the negative active material layer which is 100% solid graphite particle (Ishii, Examples 1-7), which is a negative electrode that is substantially only the solid graphite particle. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide the solid graphite particle in the beneficial ratio disclosed in Ishii et al. as the solid graphite particle of Petibon et al. as doing so would be obvious to try for the skilled artisan and would amount to nothing more than choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success.
In regard to Claim 5, Petibon in view of Ishii et al. as evidenced by Mundszinger et al. discloses the nonaqueous electrolyte energy storage device according to claim 1. The skilled artisan of Petibon must provide a positive electrode active material for the cell and Petibon discloses an embodiment with an NMC positive active material, however this is not particularly limited and the skilled artisan may provide another known positive active material to pair with the solid graphite particle anode. Ishii et al. discloses a positive electrode including a positive active material layer, wherein the positive active material layer contains a polyanion compound (LiFePO4) as a positive active material as listed in the preferred list (Ishii, Paragraph [13]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide a polyanion compound in the positive electrode active material as taught in Ishii et al. as doing so would give the skilled artisan the reasonable expectation of success and would amount to nothing more than a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Petibon et al. (Electrolyte System for High Voltage Li-Ion Cells, Journal of The Electrochemical Society, 163 (13) A2571-A2578 (2016)), hereinafter “Petibon” in view of Ishii et al. (JP 6219715 B2 - Machine Translation), hereinafter “Ishii” as evidenced by Mundszinger et al. (FIB-tomography of graphite anode particles for lithium ion batteries, European Microscopy Congress Proceedings, Pgs 854-855, 2016), hereinafter “Mundszinger” as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shim et al. (Effect of electrode density on cycle performance and irreversible capacity loss for natural graphite anode in lithium-ion batteries, Journal of Power Sources Volumes 119–121, 1 June 2003, Pages 934-937), hereinafter “Shim”. Petibon, Ishii, Mundszinger, and Shim et al. are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely graphite negative electrode active materials.
In regard to Claim 4, Petibon in view of Ishii et al. as evidenced by Mundszinger et al. discloses the nonaqueous electrolyte energy storage device according to claim 1. While the skilled artisan of Petibon is aware of the production methods of electrodes and Ishii et al. also discloses the steps of forming a slurry, casting and drying the mixture they both are silent to the negative active material layer being subjected to pressing.
Shim et al. teaches negative electrodes with graphite active materials can obtain improved properties by foregoing the pressing step during manufacturing (Shim, Abstract), wherein the improved properties are taught as an unpressed anode being capable of yielding superior performance due to faster kinetics and less disruption of the graphite morphology (Shim, Section 1. Introduction). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to form a slurry of solid graphite, cast the slurry and dry it as disclosed in Ishii et al. and forgo the pressing step, which would give the skilled artisan the reasonable expectation of achieving the benefits taught in Shim et al. and provide this electrode to the cell in Petibon et al. as doing so would amount to nothing more than the use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the reference applied in the prior rejection of record for teaching the limitation of the amount of substance of the unsaturated cyclic carbonate contained in the nonaqueous electrolyte of the nonaqueous electrolyte energy storage device completed through an initial charge-discharge, with respect to a surface area of the negative active material layer specifically challenged in the argument.
While Ishii et al. was relied upon in the Final rejection filed 10/01/2025 to teach the limitation of an amount of substance of cyclic carbonate normalized by the surface area of the negative electrode, it was not measured or calculated after cycling the cell as in amended claim 1. Petibon et al. discloses the same measurement technique to obtain the results of determining the amount of VC after cycling as the original specification (GC-MS, Petibon, pg 2572) and as discussed above and in view of Ishii, discloses all of the limitation of amended claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH MAX OTERO whose telephone number is (571)272-2559. The examiner can normally be reached M-F Generally 7:30-430.
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, Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at (571) 270-3879. 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.
/K.M.O./Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/NICOLE M. BUIE-HATCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1725