DETAILED ACTION
Claim Analysis
The present application contains one active independent claim(s) (claim 1) and fourteen active dependent claims (claims 2 - 15). Claims 16 – 18 are currently withdrawn.
Examiner’s Comments
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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.
Column and line (or Paragraph Number) citations have been provided as a convenience for Applicants, but the entirety of each reference should be duly considered. Any recitation of a Figure element, e.g. “Figure 1, element 1” should be construed as inherently also reciting “and relevant disclosure thereto”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION — The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the carbonized secondary particle" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The addition of a carbonization process step is added in claim 12, not in claim 1. For the purpose of evaluating the prior art, the Examiner has interpreted this claim as depending from claim 12.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) The claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) The claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(g)(1) During the course of an interference conducted under section 135 or section 291, another inventor involved therein establishes, to the extent permitted in section 104, that before such person’s invention thereof the invention was made by such other inventor and not abandoned, suppressed, or concealed, or (2) before such person’s invention thereof, the invention was made in this country by another inventor who had not abandoned, suppressed, or concealed it. In determining priority of invention under this subsection, there shall be considered not only the respective dates of conception and reduction to practice of the invention, but also the reasonable diligence of one who was first to conceive and last to reduce to practice, from a time prior to conception by the other.
A rejection on this statutory basis (35 U.S.C. 102(g) as in force on March 15, 2013) is appropriate in an application or patent that is examined under the first to file provisions of the AIA if it also contains or contained at any time (1) a claim to an invention having an effective filing date as defined in 35 U.S.C. 100(i) that is before March 16, 2013 or (2) a specific reference under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c) to any patent or application that contains or contained at any time such a claim.
Claims 1 – 3 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Li et al. (U.S. Patent App. No. 2022/0123307 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Li et al. disclose a method of manufacturing a negative electrode active material for lithium secondary battery (Title; Abstract; and Paragraphs 0117 – 0143): preparing a primary particle (Paragraphs 0123 – 0131) by grinding (ibid; taking the explicit disclosure of using a mill as ‘by grinding’) a carbon source containing 10 to 5 25 wt% volatile matter (Paragraph 0125); heating and kneading (Paragraph 0138, noting teaching of controlling the heating rate and stirring speed; i.e. ‘kneading’) the primary particle to assemble them into a secondary particle (ibid and see also Paragraph 0136); and graphitizing the secondary particle (Paragraph 0122 and 0141 – 0143); wherein, the step of assembling the secondary particle is the step of heating and kneading only the primary particle without adding a binder (explicitly taught in Paragraphs 0136 – 0137 and see example, which also explicitly calls out using no binder during this step).
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Li et al. disclose carbon sources meeting the claimed limitations (Paragraphs 0123 – 0124). While Li et al. prefers non-needle coke, a preference is not an absolute nor a requirement; ergo, Li et al. clearly recognizes that needle coke /can/ be used if necessary, it is just not as preferable as non-needle coke.
Regarding claim 14, Li et al. disclose the claimed temperatures for graphitizing the particles (at least Paragraph 0141 and examples).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
Regarding numbers (1), (2) and (4), see the rejection(s) provided below. Regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art, the general level of skill is taken as a highly skilled technician having at least a BS, MS, or PhD in the relevant field and 3-5 years experience.
Claims 1 - 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Li et al. as applied above, as evidenced by the general state of the art, exemplified by the Admitted Prior Art (APA) and at least Ohta et al. (U.S. Patent No. 7,816,037 B2).
Li et al. is relied upon as described above.
Regarding claims 1 and 2, while the Examiner maintains that Li et al. anticipates the claimed limitations for the reasons set forth above, the Examiner acknowledges that Li et al. fails to explicitly disclose “grinding” the carbon source, but instead recites using a mill to form the primary particles, followed by ‘shaping’ steps (see Paragraphs 0130 – 0133). The Examiner notes that a skilled artisan would appreciate that a ‘jet mill’, etc. are types of grinding equipment; e.g. see various web sources:
PNG
media_image1.png
668
1344
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.
Li et al. also fails to explicitly disclose ‘heating and kneading’ as the assembly portion, though the explicit recitation of ‘adjusting the stirring speed, heating rate, granulation temperature, cooling rate, etc.’ would clearly be recognized by a skilled artisan that ‘heating and kneading’ are done in the granulator device called forth in the disclosure (see Paragraphs 0136 and 0138).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the Applicants’ invention to modify the device of Li et al. (should it be shown that Li et al. fails to anticipate the claimed limitations as set forth previously) to never-the-less still render them as obvious as mills are known to form ‘by grinding’ and Li et al. provides explicit guidance that stirring (i.e. ‘kneading’) and heating are conventional process conditions that are controlled during a granulation process as claimed.
Regarding claim 3, should it be shown that Li et al. fails to anticipate the claimed ‘isostatic’ (i.e. non-needle) coke or a needle coke, the Examiner notes that these are all recognized as known, suitable starting materials, as Admitted by the APA (see page 5, lines 6 – 12 of the present Background section). Substitution of functional equivalents requires no express motivation as long as the prior art recognizes the functional equivalency. In the instant case, the various types of coke (isostatic, non-needle, needle, etc.) are functional equivalents in the field of known, suitable coke types for forming carbon/graphite electrodes for secondary batteries. In re Fount 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982); In re Siebentritt 152 USPQ 618 (CCPA 1967); Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. Inc. v. Linde Air Products Co. 85 USPQ 328 (USSC 1950).
Regarding claim 4, the Examiner deems that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum value of a results effective variable such as the heating rate and starting/end temperatures through routine experimentation, especially given the teaching in Li et al. regarding the fact that these are known parameters to control (Paragraph 0138). In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980); In re Geisler, 116 F. 3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Aller, 220 F.2d, 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 5, the Examiner deems that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum value of a results effective variable such as the stirring/kneading time through routine experimentation, especially given the teaching in Li et al. regarding the fact that these are known parameters to control (Paragraph 0138). In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980); In re Geisler, 116 F. 3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Aller, 220 F.2d, 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 6, adding an additional step meeting the claimed limitations is rendered obvious by the teachings in Li et al. (Paragraphs 0130 – 0135) as part of the process to reach particle uniformity prior to the ‘kneading and heating’ agglomeration step. A skilled artisan would readily appreciate that kneading/grinding/processing the particles for a set period of time would achieve a more uniform particle size distribution by breaking down the larger particles more.
Regarding claims 7 and 8, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to tailor the cooling process as needed, including ‘cooling naturally’ as this is within the scope of the Li et al. disclosure. This would be especially relevant if performing batch processing versus automated processing moving the secondary particles to the graphitization step. The exact means of how this cooling is done is clearly within the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill as the various cooling means are functionally equivalent absent any specific showing of unexpected results from a specific cooling regiment.
Regarding claim 9, the Examiner deems that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum value of a results effective variable such as the D50 size of the grinded primary particles through routine experimentation, especially given the teaching in Li et al. regarding the fact that these are known parameters to control (Paragraph 0134, with a lower D10 value, but see Paragraph 0057 and 0139 – 0140 noting a similar D50 range). In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980); In re Geisler, 116 F. 3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Aller, 220 F.2d, 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claims 10 and 11, the Examiner takes Official Notice that coating these types of particles with a thermoplastic resin in the claimed amount is known in the art for improving the pore volume and properties of the particles. As evidence supporting this position of Official Notice, see Ohta et al. (Title; Abstract; and at least col. 4, line 58 bridging col. 6, line 60).
Regarding claims 12 and 13, the Examiner takes Official Notice that carbonizing the secondary particles, particularly if coated with a thermoplastic resin, within the claimed temperature range is known in the art for improving the pore volume and properties of the particles. As evidence supporting this position of Official Notice, see Ohta et al. (Title; Abstract; and at least col. 4, line 58 bridging col. 6, line 60).
Regarding claim 14, while explicitly taught by Li et al. (see prior citations), the Examiner also deems that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum value of a results effective variable such as the graphitizing temperature through routine experimentation, especially given the teaching in Li et al. regarding the fact that these are known parameters to control. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980); In re Geisler, 116 F. 3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Aller, 220 F.2d, 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 15, the exact choice of mixing/”heating and kneading” machine used is clearly within the knowledge base of a person of ordinary skill in the arts based on loading volume needed, cost, what good ‘deals’ the sales rep offers, etc.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN M BERNATZ whose telephone number is (571)272-1505. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri (variable: ~0600 - 1500 ET).
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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at 571-272-1291. 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.
/KEVIN M BERNATZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1785
February 19, 2026