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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 07/17/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Applicant’s amendment and arguments filed 07/17/2026 have been fully considered. Claim(s) 16-18 are new; claim(s) 1 is/are amended; claim(s) 11-15 remain withdrawn. Examiner notes that the original disclosure does not appear to provide adequate support for the amendment (see § Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 below).
Upon considering said amendment and arguments, the previous rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 103 set forth in the Office action mailed 04/20/2026 has/have been withdrawn.
New grounds of rejection are presented hereinbelow.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. In particular, claim 1 currently recites inter alia “particles of the particle group B are configured to fill internal pores formed in particles of the particle group A”. The relevant portions of the instant specification (see § Advantageous Effects, p.5) recite “as secondary particles are granulated from carbon-based initial particles having different average particle diameters, relatively small initial particles are filled in the pores of relatively large initial particles, which significantly increases the tap density”. The instant specification does not specify the whether the pores are internal pores within individual particles of the larger particle (i.e., group A), or other forms of pores such as interparticle pores formed as gaps between multiple group A particles.
Thus, while the instant specification would support the structure of smaller group B particles being configured to fill pores of the larger group A particles, the emphasized limitation of claim 1 specifying that these pores are internal pores formed in the group A particles is interpreted as introducing new matter.
Suggested amendments to the relevant portion of claim 1 which are supported by p.5 of the specification are “particles of the particle group B are configured to fill to increase the tap density of the obtained negative electrode active material” as non-limiting examples.
Claims 5-10 and 16-18 are similarly rejected for their dependency on claim 1 as rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 1 be found allowable, claims 16 and 17 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
In particular, particle groups A and B are currently recited as components of the carbon-based initial particles in claim 1; that is, particle groups A and B are groups of carbon-based initial particles and the limitations of “the carbon-based initial particles of particle group (A/B)” in claim 16 and “the particle group (A/B)” in claim 17 appear to be identical in scope.
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, 9, 10, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gong et al. (CN-110127687-A; see attached machine translation) in view of Kim et al. (US-20040137328-A1):
Regarding claims 1 and 18, Gong discloses a negative electrode active material for a lithium secondary battery (Gong, machine translation [0002]);
wherein the negative electrode active material comprises artificial graphite secondary particles (“artificial graphite”) obtained by granulating carbon-based initial particles (“precursor powder”) ([0041]).
An example embodiment (see Example 5, [0071-0074]) comprises carbon-based initial particles comprising particle group A (“needle-shaped precursor”) having an average particle diameter (D50) a of 12 µm ([0071]), which falls within claim 1’s a range of 11-15 µm and claim 18’s a range of 11-13 µm, and a particle group B (“fibrous non-needle precursor”) having a D50 b of 8 µm ([0072]); Gong Ex.5 thus has b=0.66a, which approaches but does not fall within claim 1’s range of b <0.6a.
However, Gong discloses that b of the particle group B (“non-needle-shaped precursor”) ranges from at least 3 µm to avoid agglomeration and less than 10 µm to improve the tap density and resultant energy density when mixing with the larger particle group A (“needle-shaped precursor”) ([0037]).
Thus, in seeking to increase tap density and energy density of Gong’s negative electrode active material without causing agglomeration by adjusting b of particle group B, it would be obvious before the effective filing date of the instant application for one having ordinary skill in the art to utilize ranges of a and b between b=0.25a to b=0.83a by adjusting b between 3-10µm, and thus use the portion overlapping with claim 1’s b <0.6a range between b=0.25a to b>0.60 with a reasonable expectation of success from optimizing within Gong’s disclosed range of b (MPEP 2144.05 II).
Additionally, although performing the above modification of Gong would effectively result in increasing the tap density of the artificial graphite ([0037]), Gong fails to expressly specify numeric tap densities of the artificial graphite.
However, comparable prior as Kim (US20040137328A1) which similarly teaches graphite secondary particles obtained by granulating (“agglomerating”) larger group A (“macro-particles”) and group B (“micro-particles”) (Kim [0030-0035]), teaches a tap density of at least 1.20 g/cc to be desirable for providing a sufficiently large volumetric capacity; the tap density is also physically limited to a maximum of 1.50 g/cc ([0026]).
Thus, in seeking to provide a sufficiently large energy density of modified Gong’s active material by increasing the tap density, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to seek to utilize a tap density of at least 1.20 g/cc as taught by Kim with a practical upper limit being 1.5 g/cc, which closely encompasses claim 1’s tap density range of 1.2 g/cc to 1.4 g/cc such that one of ordinary skill in the art would have routinely selected within the encompassed claimed range through increasing the tap density under Gong and Kim’s disclosure, with a reasonable expectation of success since Gong and Kim similarly utilize effects of differently sized initial particles and because Gong recognizes b of particle group B as a results-effective variable to increase the tap density (MPEP 2144.05 I).
Gong avoids agglomerating the particles of particle group B (“non-acicular precursor”) to allow uniform mixture with the particle group A (“acicular precursor”) and a binder during granulation (Gong [0037]). Since the particles of group B are uniformly present around group A particles, some particles of group B would be capable (i.e., configured) to fill internal pores of particle group A as claimed in claim 1, which would be precluded if the respective group A and group B particles were instead agglomerated only other particles of the same group.
Regarding claim 9, modified Gong discloses the negative electrode active material of claim 1, wherein the secondary particles comprise adhesive binders (“binder”) located between the carbon-based initial particles (“precursor powder”) (Gong [0041])
Regarding claim 10, modified Gong discloses the negative electrode active material of claim 1. Gong Ex. 5 comprises initial particles of group A (“needle-shaped precursor”) being needle coke (“petroleum-based needle coke”) (Gong [0071]) and initial particles of Group B (“fibrous non-needle precursor”) being petroleum coke ([0072, 0052]), which read on the selection of petroleum coke and needle coke in the Markush group of claim 10.
Regarding claims 16 and 17, modified Gong discloses the negative electrode active material of claim 1. Gong Ex. 5 comprises a weight ratio of the carbon-based initial particles of particle group A to group B (and a mixture of group A to group B) in a range of 40:10 (Gong [0073]), which is itself outside the claimed mixing ranges of 2:1 and 1:2 based on weight.
However, Gong envisions a mixing ratio of Group A to Group B ranging from 95:5 to 30:70, where Group A provides energy density and Group B provides rate performance ([0041-0042]). It would therefore be obvious for a skilled artisan to utilize the claimed weight ratios of carbon-based initial particles of Group A and Group B between 2:1 and 1:2 in claims 16 and 17 through seeking to balance the rate performance and energy density of modified Gong’s Ex. 5’s negative electrode active material by optimizing a mixing ratio of carbon-based initial particles of Group A to Group B within the encompassing range of 95:5 to 30:70 with a reasonable expectation of success (MPEP 2144.05 II).
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gong (CN-110127687-A) in view of Kim (US-20040137328-A1) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Fu et al. (CN-108199043-A; see attached machine translation):
Regarding claims 5-7, Modified Gong discloses the negative electrode active material of claim 1. Gong’s initial particle groups A and B are mixed with pitch or asphalt or as a binder before the granulation process ([0041]); while the pitch/asphalt binder is broadly and reasonably understood as a carbon-based initial material ([0042]), Gong does expressly describe the pitch/asphalt binder as provided as a particle, i.e., as a carbon-based initial particle group C wherein c<b, c< 0.4a, and c< 0.6b as claimed in claims 5-7.
Fu (CN108199043A), directed to similar artificial graphite secondary particles (Fu, machine translation [0009]) teaches mixing initial particles (“graphite precursor fine powder”) with a similar asphalt or pitch binder as a particle with a D50 of 1-6 µm (i.e., a particle group C where c is 1-6 µm) prior to granulation and graphitization ([0014-0016, 0020]). A skilled artisan would recognize this step helps distribute the binder particles among the initial particles, with applicable utility in Gong which requires the binder to be uniformly mixed with the initial particle groups (Gong [0042]).
Thus, in seeking to uniformly distribute modified Gong’s binder prior to granulation, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to utilize Fu’s method of mixing asphalt/pitch binder particles (i.e., an initial particle group C) having a D50 c of 1-6 µm. The range of c overlaps with or extends beyond the lower portions of Gong’s D50 b of group B between 3-10µm ([0037]) and D50 a of group A of 12 µm such that a skilled artisan providing Gong’s binder as the initial particle group C with a D50 c of 1-6 µm would have routinely selected values of a, b, and c within portions overlapping with the claimed ranges of c<b, c< 0.4a, and c< 0.6b in claims 5, 6, and 7 respectively (MPEP 2144.05 I). Such a modification to provide the asphalt/pitch binder as a particle and select c would be made with a reasonable expectation of success, since Gong and Fu are analogous methods of granulating and graphitizing artificial graphite secondary particles with the same asphalt/pitch material binder.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gong (CN-110127687-A) in view of Kim (US-20040137328-A1) as applied to claim 1, further in view of An et al. (KR-20200076504-A; cited in 09/22/2022 IDS; machine translation with 12/03/2025 Office action):
Regarding claim 8, modified Gong discloses the negative electrode active material of claim 1; while a measure of average particle diameter D50 is necessarily present in Gong’s secondary particles, Gong fails to numerically disclose the D50 where claim 8 recites a D50 of 10-25 µm.
An, directed to analogous artificial graphite secondary particles (An, machine translation [0013]), teaches that a D50 of the secondary particles is preferably at least 11 µm to prevent excessively increasing the active material surface area and reducing the battery efficiency, and less than 25 µm to provide sufficient tap density and form a uniform negative electrode surface ([0052-0055]).
It would therefore be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to utilize a secondary particle D50 range of 11-25 µm as taught by An, within the claimed range of 10-25 µm in seeking to balance the surface area and tap density effects as discussed above, with a reasonable expectation of success since a skilled artisan necessarily selects some measure of D50 in producing the negative electrode active material (MPEP 2144.05 II).
Response to Arguments
The amendments to the specification filed 07/17/2026 to correct an oversight in the reference number of an experimental example overcomes the objection to the specification in the Office action filed 04/20/2026; the objection is withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of claims 1, 5-10 (remarks p. 6-7), and 16-18 (p. 8-9) under previously cited prior art Yamada et al. (US20180013146A1) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EVERETT T CHOI whose telephone number is (703)756-1331. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 11:00-8:00.
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, Jonathan G Leong can be reached on (571) 270 1292. 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.
/E.C./Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 9/23/2026
