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 .
Status of Claims
Applicant’s amendment and arguments filed 03/02/2026 have been fully considered. Claim(s) 1 is/are amended; claim(s) 11-15 are withdrawn; and claim(s) 2-4 has/have been canceled. Claims 1 and 5-15 are pending, of which, claims 1 and 5-10 are rejected. Examiner affirms that the original disclosure provides adequate support for the amendment.
Upon considering said amendment and arguments, the previous rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103 set forth in the Office action mailed 12/03/2026 has/have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new grounds of rejection below.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In Comparative Example 3, pp. 21 of the instant specification recites “A negative electrode active material, where the average particle diameter was 7 µm, was manufactured by performing a granulation and graphitization for the particle group F in the example 1” (inst. spec. pp. 21 ln. 14-17).
Example 1 (pp. 19 ln. 18-pp.20 ln. 5) recites only particle groups D and E, and does not appear to define a particle group F.
It is interpreted that this portion of the specification refers to the particle group F which is positively recited as a group of particles having an average particle diameter of 4 µm in Examples 2 and 3 (pp. 20-21).
Appropriate correction is required to clarify which example(s) comprise the particle group F used in Comparative Example 3.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada et al. US20180013146A1 cited in the 12/03/2025 Office action.
Regarding claim 1, Yamada discloses a negative electrode active material for a lithium secondary battery (Abstract). Yamada further discloses the negative electrode active material comprises graphite secondary particles (“composite carbon material”) obtained by granulating carbon-based initial particles (“raw material graphites”) ([0120]). The graphite secondary particles are graphitized after compositing, i.e., granulating the initial particles ([0379-0380]), and are thus broadly and reasonably interpreted to be artificial graphite secondary particles.
Yamada discloses the carbon-based initial particles comprise particle group A having an average particle diameter (D50) of a ([0434], [0159]) and particle group B having an average particle diameter (D50) of b ([0434], [0192]). An experimental example is produced wherein a=14.8 µm and b= 7.2 µm such that it would be obvious to select a particle group A and B having these respective values of a and b (Experimental example A3, [0588-0589], [0594-0595]). In doing so, a skilled artisan would produce a negative electrode active material wherein a ratio of a to b is b=0.47a, which is within the claimed relation of b<0.6a, reading on limitations of claim 1, and the value of a=14.8 µm reads on the claimed range of 11-15 µm recited in claim 1.
Yamada further discloses considerations of increasing the tap density above at least 0.5 g/cm3 in order to improve the ease of forming a high-density negative electrode sheet, and less than 1.6 g/cm3 to maintain high-speed charging and discharging characteristics ([0290-0291]).
As such, in seeking to balance considerations of formability and high-speed charge and discharge characteristics, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to optimize a tap density of the negative electrode active material within a range of 0.5 g/cm3 to 1.6 g/cm3 according to Yamada’s disclosure, which encompasses the claimed range of 1.2-1.4 g/cc in claim 1 such that a skilled artisan would have selected within the encompassed range through routine optimization under Yamada’s teaching (MPEP 2144.05 II). Such an optimization of the tap density would be made with a reasonable expectation of success, being performed within the suitable range disclosed by Yamada.
Regarding claims 5-7, modified Yamada discloses the negative electrode active material of claim 1, and produces an experimental example wherein the carbon-based initial particles further comprise particle group C (“artificial graphite particles (C)”) ([0598]).
Yamada indicates particle group C comprises an average particle diameter c smaller than that of a ([0214]); while Yamada does not further indicate a relation of c to b or narrow the relation to c<0.4a or c<0.6b, Yamada indicates that particle group C is formed as a fine powder produced during granulation of particle group A ([0213-0214]) and adhered to the carbon-based initial particles to suppress the amount of independent fine powder present ([0118]). Yamada recognizes fine powder as being particles of group A having a diameter of 4µm or less ([0163]); therefore, particle group C comprised of the fine powder of particle group A inherently comprises a particle diameter c of 4 µm or less.
In modified Yamada’s negative electrode active material comprising a=14.8 µm and b= 7.2 µm ([0594-0595]), a value of c relative to a is thus c<0.27a, which falls within the claimed range of c<0.4a as claimed in claim 6 and a value of c relative to b is c<0.55b, which falls within the claimed ranges of c<b in claim 5 and c<0.6b in claim 7.
Regarding claim 8, modified Yamada discloses the negative electrode active material of claim 1. Yamada produces an Experimental Example A3 ([0594-0595]), having an average particle diameter of the negative electrode active material of 16.3 µm (pp. 39, Table A1), such that it would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to select this particle diameter which falls within the claimed range of 10-25 µm.
Regarding claim 9, modified Yamada discloses the negative electrode active material of claim 1, wherein the secondary particles comprise adhesive binders (“granulating agent”) located between the carbon-based initial particles ([0434-0437]).
Claim 10 recites “The negative electrode active material of claim 1, wherein the carbon-based initial particles are at least one selected from the group consisting of petroleum coke, pitch coke and needle coke” which is a product by process limitation, limited only to the structure implied by the recited steps (MPEP 2113 I).
Specifically, this limitation implies the structure of artificial graphite obtained by graphitizing coke through heat treatment, this interpretation being supported by pp. 2 ln. 8-10 of the instant specification (“cokes […] are graphited through heat treatment, to thereby obtain artificial graphite”). As such, it is interpreted that petroleum coke, pitch coke and needle coke initial particles would produce the structure implied by the recited steps, as well as artificial graphite initial particles obtained by graphitizing coke made from petroleum (i.e., petroleum coke, needle coke) and pitch.
Regarding claim 10, Yamada discloses the negative electrode active material of claim 1. Yamada discloses that the carbon-based initial particles of group A are preferably artificial graphite for the purpose of cycle characteristics, high temperature storage, and stability ([0149]), which are manufactured by graphitizing coke ([0150]) and thus produce the structure implied by carbon-based initial particles which are at least one selected from the group consisting of petroleum coke, pitch coke and needle coke as claimed.
Yamada further discloses that the graphite particles of group B are selected from a finite group of materials where natural graphite and artificial graphite (“graphite”) are preferable for purposes of charging and discharging characteristics at a high current density ([0177]), where the artificial graphites are produced by baking (i.e., coking) and then graphitizing pitch and petroleum raw materials or other polymer and resin raw materials (“obtained by baking organic materials such as coal-tar pitch, coal-based heavy oil[…] and by graphitizing the resultant material”) ([0180]). The negative electrode active material produced from graphitized and coked pitch and petroleum raw materials for group B would similarly produce the structure implied by claim 10 (“petroleum coke, pitch coke and needle coke[…]”).
Given that a skilled artisan must select some identity of raw material to successfully form modified Yamada’s negative electrode active material, where Yamada’s finite set of precursor materials including natural and artificial graphite and further including artificial graphites obtained from various raw materials are predictable solutions in Yamada’s disclosure apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art, it would be obvious for a skilled artisan to explore selecting artificial graphite as precursor materials for Group B and further selecting coked pitch and petroleum as raw materials for the particles of Group B with a reasonable expectation of successfully producing Yamada’s negative electrode active material (MPEP 2143 I. E).
In doing so, a skilled artisan would form a negative electrode active material having the structure implied by the steps of claim 10 wherein the carbon-based initial particles are at least one selected from the group consisting of petroleum coke, pitch coke and needle coke.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of claims 1-3 and 8-10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over An (KR20200076504A) as applied in the Office action filed 12/03/2026 (Remarks pp. 4-5) 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, as the amendment to claim 1 filed 03/02/2026 to recite “wherein the a is in a range of 11 µm to 15 µm” overcomes the rejection to these claims as applied in the Office action filed 12/03/2026.
Applicant's arguments with respect to the rejection of amended claims 1 and 4-10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Yamada (US20180013146A1) filed 03/02/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Yamada, cited in the rejection of amended claim 1, discloses a ratio of a to b of b=0.47a and a=14.8 µm which falls within the claimed range of initial particle sizes (Yamada experimental example A3, [0588-0589], [0594-0595]), and discloses a range of tap density between 0.5-1.6 g/cc which encompasses the claimed tap density between 1.2-1.4 g/cc ([0289-0292]). Applicant asserts that this specific tap density is necessary to obtain an unexpected increase to adhesion and battery performance (remarks pp. 5-6).
While this argument has been considered, it has not yet been found persuasive. Yamada teaches that an increased tap density is advantageous for ease of forming negative electrode plate ([0290-0291]), but Yamada fails to explicitly link a tap density of the negative electrode material to improvements to adhesive force. However, it is not fully clear from Applicant’s experimental data whether the initial particle size ratio, the tap density, or a synergy thereof in the negative electrode active material (the claimed intermediate) is the contributing cause of the observed increases to adhesive force and battery performance in the negative electrode/secondary battery (the end product) (MPEP 716.02(b) III), such that these increases to adhesive force and battery performance are both unexpected over the prior art and commensurate in scope with the claims.
Particularly, Applicant’s examples (inst. spec. pp. 19-20) all comprise a negative electrode active material with the claimed tap density produced by granulating Group A and Group B where b<0.6a, while the comparative examples (pp. 21) all have a lower tap density and are produced by granulating only a single group of initial particles. None of the examples or comparative examples evaluate effects to adhesive force or battery performance from only the tap density or only the initial particle size distribution.
As such, it is unclear whether Applicant’s identified improvements to adhesive force and battery performance would or would not inherently be present in Yamada’s negative electrode active material obtained by granulating group A and group B but lacking the claimed tap density. It would likewise be unclear whether the same improvements would occur in a negative electrode active material comprising a tap density between 1.2-1.4 g/cc produced without using carbon-based initial particles where b<0.6a (MPEP 716.02(b) III).
Furthermore, it is not fully clear whether the unexpected improvements to adhesion result from a particular combination of the active material and a binder used in a negative electrode comprising the claimed negative electrode active material, from a particular method of manufacturing the negative electrode, or from an inherent property of the negative electrode active material itself, and would therefore be attainable with binders or manufacturing procedures outside those used in the experimental examples or without using any binder in the negative electrode.
For example, pp. 7 ln. 22-pp. 8 ln. 6 of the instant specification suggest that the increased tap density is used to allow “the content of solids in the slurry may be made to be equal to or greater than 56 wt%”, such that “the migration of the binder is restricted during the drying process, [and] the adhesive force between the negative electrode and the current collector may be improved”. Consequently, it would appear that a binder and certain slurry parameters are necessary to achieve the unexpected improvements to adhesion, while the instant claims do not recite these components or parameters and are thus not commensurate in scope with the evidence of unexpected results (MPEP 716.02(d)).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment to include limitations of claims 2-4 in amended claim 1 necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action by requiring claims 5-10 to be newly considered in combination with the limitations of cancelled claims 2-4. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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 4/16/2026
Prosecution Insights