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 .
Response to Amendment and Claim Status
The amendment filed 8 July 2025 has been entered. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the claim objection set forth in the Office Action mailed 9 April 2025. Claim 4 has been canceled. Claims 1–3 and 5–6 are pending in the application.
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 and 5–6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Yamami et al. (US 2018/0277831 A1) in view of Madokoro et al. (JP 2011/243567 A; see attached translation).
Regarding Claim 1, Yamami ([0009], [0034] & Fig 4) discloses a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery, comprising:
([0009]) a positive electrode;
([0009]) a negative electrode; and
([0009]) a non-aqueous electrolyte, wherein
([0034] & Fig 4) the negative electrode has a negative electrode core and a negative electrode mixture layer formed on a surface of the negative electrode core,
([0009]) the negative electrode mixture layer includes:
a negative electrode active material in which a coating layer containing a first amorphous carbon and a second amorphous carbon is formed on a particle surface of graphite, and
([0009]) a third amorphous carbon as a conductive agent, and
([0017]) the second amorphous carbon and the third amorphous carbon are carbon black; and
([0009]) the non-aqueous electrolyte includes a difluorophosphate salt and a lithium salt having an oxalate complex as an anion.
Yamami is silent as to the first amorphous carbon being a sintered product of pitch, and instead discloses ([0017]) that the first amorphous carbon is preferably a pitch fired product. However, Yamami discloses ([0031]–[0032]) with regards to the formation of the coated graphite particles that the modified spherical natural graphite particles were first mixed with carbon black followed by pitch in a mass ratio of 88.4:4.7:6.9, fired in an inert gas atmosphere of 1250 °C for 24 hours, then crushed/ground to produce coated graphite particles. Yamami discloses ([0032]) that the mass of the pitch is decreased by 30% due to carbonization by firing, but the masses of the graphite particles and the carbon black are substantially not decreased; Yamami further discloses ([0032]) that the median particle diameter D50 of the final coated graphite particles was 9 µm.
The instant specification similarly discloses ([0047]) that natural graphite particles modified to be spherical were first compressed, then mixed with carbon black followed by pitch in a mass ratio of 90:3:7, sintered in an inert gas atmosphere at 1250 °C for 24 hours, then crushed to produce coated graphite particles. The instant specification discloses ([0049)] that the mass of pitch is decreased by approximately 30% due to carbonization, but the mass of graphite particles and carbon black are substantially not decreased; the instant specification further discloses ([0048]) that the median particle diameter D50 of the final coated graphite particles was 9 µm.
In summary, the production of the negative electrode active material as disclosed by Yamami and the instant specification differ only in a slightly different mass ratio of graphite:carbon black:pitch and the step of compressing the graphite particles which is only present in the instant invention; in both cases the mixture components, heating conditions including temperature and time, and final crushing are the same. Furthermore, both processes result in the mass of the pitch decreasing by about 30% due to carbonization during the heating process as well as a final median particle diameter D50 of the coated graphite particle of 9 µm.
As the preparation of the first amorphous carbon by Yamami is effectively the same as that of the instant application, such a preparation would inherently result in the first amorphous carbon of Yamami being a sintered product of pitch.
Yamami is silent as to the limitation that the negative electrode active material has a pore volume of 0.5 ml/g or less. Madokoro ([0001]) discloses a negative electrode material for a lithium-ion secondary battery which ([0009]) comprises a high crystallinity graphite core and a low crystallinity carbonaceous coating layer that ([0020)] is formed from the carbonization of pitch. Madokoro further discloses ([0017]) that the negative electrode carbonaceous material is pulverized such that the pore volume of the graphite core material is measured to be 0.05 to 0.4 cm3/g (i.e. ml/g), which anticipates the claimed range of 0.5 ml/g or less (note that Madokoro ([0017]) discloses that as the low crystallinity carbonaceous coating layer does not have gaps or pores, the porosity of the graphite core material is considered to be the porosity of the entire negative electrode carbonaceous material). Finally, Madokoro discloses ([0017]) that when the pore volume of the graphite core material is within the disclosed range, the pores absorb the expansion that occurs during charging and also function to retain the electrolyte, so that lithium ions are not depleted even during high-speed charging.
Yamami and Madokoro are analogous to the claimed invention as they are in the same field of non-aqueous electrolyte secondary batteries. It would therefore have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the pore volume of the negative electrode active material of Yamami within a range of 0.05 to 0.4 cm3/g via pulverization of the material as disclosed by Madokoro, in order to ensure that the pores can absorb the expansion that occurs during charging and also function to retain the electrolyte, so that lithium ions are not depleted even during high-speed charging.
Regarding Claim 2, modified Yamami teaches the non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery according to Claim 1. Yamami ([0016]) further discloses wherein the coating layer has a structure in which particles of the second amorphous carbon are dispersed in the first amorphous carbon being formed in layers.
Regarding Claim 3, modified Yamami teaches the non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery according to Claim 1. Yamami ([0016]) further discloses wherein the second amorphous carbon has a higher electric conductivity than the first amorphous carbon.
Regarding Claim 5, modified Yamami teaches the non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery according to Claim 1. Yamami ([0036]) further discloses wherein the difluorophoshate salt is lithium difluorophosphate.
Regarding Claim 6, modified Yamami teaches the non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery according to Claim 1. Yamami ([0036]) further discloses wherein the lithium salt having an oxalate complex as an anion is lithium bisoxalate borate.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 8 July 2025 have been with respect to Claims 1–6 in regards to the rejection on the basis of the references Yamami in view of Madokoro have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (Remarks p. 6) that the disclosure indicates criticality or synergism of aspects (a) through (d) below in combination:
“a negative electrode active material in which a coating layer containing a first amorphous carbon [being a sintered product of pitch] and a second amorphous carbon [being carbon black] is formed on a particle surface of graphite,”
the negative electrode active material having “a pore volume of 0.5 ml/g or less,”
“a third amorphous carbon [being carbon black] as a conductive agent” in the negative electrode mixture layer, and
a “non-aqueous electrolyte [that] includes a difluorophosphate salt and a lithium salt having an oxalate complex as an anion.”
and specifically argues (p. 7 Remarks) that Example 1 and Comparative Example 10 illustrate unexpected synergistic effects—i.e., the simultaneous improvement in low-temperature characteristic and durability as well as protection against lithium precipitation—of the above aspects (a) through (d) in combination that could not be derived from the individual references in isolation, given that Yamami discloses aspects (a), (c), and (d), but relies on Madokoro for providing the teaching of aspect (b).
This argument has been fully considered but is not persuasive, as arguments presented by the Applicant cannot take the place of evidence in the record. In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965) and In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705, 222 USPQ 191, 196 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Examples of statements which are not evidence and which must be supported by an appropriate affidavit or declaration include statements regarding unexpected results, commercial success, solution of a long-felt need, inoperability of the prior art, invention before the date of the reference, and allegations that the author(s) of the prior art derived the disclosed subject matter from the inventor at least one joint inventor (see MPEP § 716.01(c).II). Firstly, the Examples in the Instant Application do not appear to be commensurate with the scope of the claims, be compared with the closest prior art, are not described as unexpected in the specification, and do not show statistical analysis indicating the differences are significant. Further, to establish unexpected results over a claimed range, Applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range. In re Hill, 284 F.2d 955, 128 USPQ 197 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 716.02(d).II). In the instant case, only one pore volume outside the claimed range (0.8 mL/g) have been tested, which is not sufficient to establish the criticality of the 0.5 mL/g or less range of pore volumes.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JULIA MARIE FEHR, Ph.D. whose telephone number is (571)270-0860. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM 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, BASIA RIDLEY can be reached on (571)272-1453. 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.M.F./Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/BASIA A RIDLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1725