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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/09/26 has been entered.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Table 1 is objected to due to the formatting of the table. Columns lack the proper thickness allowing for one to clearly read the information presented within the graph (such as, words and numerical values spanning multiple lines. Table 1 should be reformatted to landscape mode.
Table 2 is objected to due to the table not clearly indicating that the average ID’/IG’ value occurs in the fully charged state. As argued in the applicant’s remarks (filed 03/09/2026) the ID’/IG’ value in Table 2 is alleged to be at a fully charged state. However, in the paragraph discussing Table 2 [00126] and/or within Table 2 itself this feature of a fully charged state is not clearly noted.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The language of claim 1 recites particles possessing a Dv50; the instant specification sets forth a definition [0029]. For examination purposes, the examiner will be reviewing claims with the definition provided in the instant specification.
PNG
media_image1.png
177
685
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regards to the applicant’s response filed 03/09/2026. The BRI of standard deviation is to be interpreted such that it reflects the applicant’s argument in which standard deviation is considered to be a measurement of how “concentrated” or “disperse” the value is.
PNG
media_image2.png
205
707
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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.
claim(s) 1-2, and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Munaoka (US 20190348670 A1) and in view of Kim’150 (US 20190044150 A1), Kim’354 (US 20180331354 A1), Uono (US20110262802A1).
Regarding claim 1, Munaoka discloses An anode active material [0006, Munaoka], comprising graphite [0044, Munaoka], the anode active material comprises smaller particles and larger particles [0009, Munaoka]; a Dv50 of the smaller particles is in a range of 5-14.5 µm and a Dv50 of the larger particles is in a range of 15-25 µm [0009, Munaoka’s disclosed ranges overlap with the applicant’s claimed ranges of 7.1-15.1 µm and 23.5 um to 39.9 um]; wherein according to Raman spectroscopy of the anode active material [0012, Munaoka], for the smaller particles having a Dv50 of 5-14.5 µm of the anode active material [0045, Munaoka’s disclosed range overlaps with the applicants claimed range of 7.1-15.1 µm], a ratio ID1/IG1 of a peak intensity ID1 at 1350 cm 1 to a peak intensity IG1 at 1580 cm 1 ranges from 0.35 to 0.45 [0045, Munaoka’s disclosed range overlaps with the applicants claimed range of an ID/IG of 0.41-0.63], and for the larger particles having Dv50 of 15-25 µm of the anode active material [0051, Munaoka’s disclosed range overlaps with the applicants claimed range of 23.5-39.9 µm], a ratio ID2/1G2 of a peak intensity ID2 at 1350 cm 1 to a peak intensity IG2 at 1580 cm 1 ranges from 0.1 to 0.25 [0051, Munaoka’s disclosed range overlaps with the applicants claimed range of an ID/IG of 0.18-0.39].
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim (see MPEP 2144.05).
In an explicit example (example 10) Munaoka discloses a mixture of an anode active material with a larger particle with a Dv50 of 25µm and a ID2/IG2 value of 0.1
Munaoka is silent1) to a Dv99 of the anode active material ranges from 29.9 µm to 50.2 µm. 2) the thickness of the amorphous carbon layer being between 1-50 nm. 3) an Lc in the range of 20-30 nm and an La in the range of 70-90 nm. 4) the ID’/IG’ ratio of the anode active material layer in a fully charged state.
In regards to 1), Kim’150 discloses a conductive slurry comprised of carbon nanotubes [abstract, Kim’150], a type of graphite sheet [0037, Kim’150], being used to prepare an electrode for a lithium secondary battery [0012-0016, Kim’150]. Wherein the conductive material has a particle size D99 (“Dv99”) of 20-50 µm [0109, Kim’150].
The range disclosed by Kim’150 overlaps with the applicant’s claimed range of 29.9-50.2 µm. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim (see MPEP 2144.05).
Prior to the effective filing date, one of ordinary skill within the arts would find it obvious to modify Munaoka such that the Dv99 of the anode active material was between 20-50 µm. Doing so can allow for one to create an electrode slurry with excellent dispersibility resulting in good electrical, thermal, and mechanical properties [0111-0112, Kim’150].
In regards to 2) Kim’354 discloses a graphite coated in an amorphous carbon layer where the thickness of the amorphous carbon layer are between 5-100 nm [0063-0067, Kim’354].
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim (see MPEP 2144.05).
The range disclosed by Kim overlaps with the applicants claimed range of 1-50 nm.
Prior to the effective filing date one of ordinary skill within the arts would find it obvious to modify Munaoka such that the thickness of the amorphous carbon layer was between 5-100 nm. The thickness of the amorphous carbon layer influences the ID/IG ratio and may be used to improve the life-span and power output of the battery [0035, 0046, Kim’354].
In regards to 3) Uono discloses a graphite based carbon material with a particle size of 1-50 um [0018-0019, 0078]. The carbon material has an Lc (c-axis) of 50 nm or less and an La of 100 nm or less [0065, 0067 Uono].
The ranges disclosed by Uono (i.e. Lc ≤ 50 nm and La ≤ 100 nm) overlap with the applicants claimed ranges of 20 nm ≤Lc≤30 nm and 70 nm≤La≤90 nm.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim (see MPEP 2144.05).
Prior to the effective filing date, one of ordinary skill within the art would find it obvious to modify Munaoka such that the Lc and La was within the ranges disclosed by Uono. Doing so would provide a graphite with lower irreversible capacity and better charge acceptance [0067, Uono].
In regards to 4), the examiner notes that the claimed product is for an anode active material but the claimed limitation in lines 16-19, reproduced below, is for the intended use of the anode active material.
PNG
media_image3.png
149
702
media_image3.png
Greyscale
A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. The above limitation claims properties of an anode active material layer based off of the intended use of the claimed product, an anode active material. The intended use of a product does not impart a structure into the final product. As such a material that meets the claimed limitations of the anode active material product has the potential to be used to achieve the intended use cited above.
Regarding claim 2, modified Munaoka discloses the anode active material, wherein according to Raman spectroscopy [0012, Munaoka], the anode active material has an average value of a ratio ID/IG of a peak intensity ID at 1360 cm1 to a peak intensity IG at 1580 cm-1 ranging from 0.1-0.25 and 0.35-0.45 [0009, 0045, Munaoka disclosed range overlaps with the applicant’s range of 0.15-0.50].
Modified Munaoka is silent to the standard deviation of the reported values.
However Kim discloses using a standard deviation of less than 0.22 for their ID/IG value [0010, Kim’s disclosed range reads on the applicants range of 0.02-0.23].
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim (see MPEP 2144.05).
Prior to the effective filing date, one of ordinary skill within the arts would find it obvious to have a standard deviation of less than 0.22 for the measured ID/IG value. Doing so would allow for a uniform thickness of the coated graphite core [0027, Kim]. See MPEP 2112.
Regarding claim 5, Modified Munaoka is silent to the density of the anode active material.
However, Uono discloses that the graphite anode active material has a density of more preferably 1.70-1.90 g/cm3 [0099, 106, Uono]. But is silent to the pressures used to densify the electrode.
The range disclosed by Uono overlaps with the applicants claimed range of 1.80-2.00 g/cm3.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim (see MPEP 2144.05).
Prior to the effective filing date, one of ordinary skill within the art would find it obvious to modify Munaoka such that the density of the active material was between 1.70-1.90 g/cm3. If the density is too low, the battery capacity per unit volume is insufficient, whereas if the density is excessively high, the charge/discharge characteristics are deteriorated [0106, Uono]. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill within the arts prior to the effective filing date would appreciate that one would use a suitable pressure, such as 5t, to reach the target density. One of ordinary skill would appreciate that if too little pressure is used then the electrode material will be thicker and take up more space. If too much pressure is used then the electrode material will be too compressed and solvent penetration will be inhibited.
claim(s) 6, 8, 14 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Munaoka (US 20190348670 A1) and in view of Kim’150 (US 20190044150 A1), Kim’354 (US 20180331354 A1), Uono (US20110262802A1), Shi (US20190103633A1).
Regarding claim 6 and 17, Munaoka discloses An anode active material [0006, Munaoka], comprising graphite [0044, Munaoka], the anode active material comprises smaller particles and larger particles [0009, Munaoka]; a Dv50 of the smaller particles is in a range of 5-14.5 µm and a Dv50 of the larger particles is in a range of 15-25 µm [0009, Munaoka’s disclosed ranges overlap with the applicant’s claimed ranges of 7.1-15.1 µm and 23.5 um to 39.9 um]; wherein according to Raman spectroscopy of the anode active material [0012, Munaoka], for the smaller particles having a Dv50 of 5-14.5 µm of the anode active material [0045, Munaoka’s disclosed range overlaps with the applicants claimed range of 7.1-15.1 µm], a ratio ID1/IG1 of a peak intensity ID1 at 1350 cm 1 to a peak intensity IG1 at 1580 cm 1 ranges from 0.35 to 0.45 [0045, Munaoka’s disclosed range overlaps with the applicants claimed range of an ID/IG of 0.41-0.63], and for the larger particles having Dv50 of 15-25 µm of the anode active material [0051, Munaoka’s disclosed range overlaps with the applicants claimed range of 23.5-39.9 µm], a ratio ID2/1G2 of a peak intensity ID2 at 1350 cm 1 to a peak intensity IG2 at 1580 cm 1 ranges from 0.1 to 0.25 [0051, Munaoka’s disclosed range overlaps with the applicants claimed range of an ID/IG of 0.18-0.39].
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim (see MPEP 2144.05).
In an explicit example (example 10) Munaoka discloses a mixture of an anode active material with a larger particle with a Dv50 of 25µm and a ID2/IG2 value of 0.1
In regards to claim 6, Munaoka discloses an electrochemical device [0109, Munaoka], comprising a cathode [0109, fig. 2, Munaoka], a separator [0109, fig. 2, Munaoka], an electrolyte [0109, fig. 2, Munaoka], and an anode [0109, fig. 2, Munaoka], wherein the anode comprises an anode current collector and an anode active material layer [0132, fig. 3, Munaoka].
In regards to claim 17, Munaoka discloses an electronic device comprising the electrochemical device as outlined in claim 6 [0011, Munaoka].
Munaoka is silent1) to a Dv99 of the anode active material ranges from 29.9 µm to 50.2 µm. 2) the thickness of the amorphous carbon layer being between 1-50 nm. 3) an Lc in the range of 20-30 nm and an La in the range of 70-90 nm. 4) the ID’/IG’ ratio and its standard deviation of the anode active material layer in a fully charged state.
In regards to 1), Kim’150 discloses a conductive slurry comprised of carbon nanotubes [abstract, Kim’150], a type of graphite sheet [0037, Kim’150], being used to prepare an electrode for a lithium secondary battery [0012-0016, Kim’150]. Wherein the conductive material has a particle size D99 (“Dv99”) of 20-50 µm [0109, Kim’150].
The range disclosed by Kim’150 overlaps with the applicant’s claimed range of 29.9-50.2 µm. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim (see MPEP 2144.05).
Prior to the effective filing date, one of ordinary skill within the arts would find it obvious to modify Munaoka such that the Dv99 of the anode active material was between 20-50 µm. Doing so can allow for one to create an electrode slurry with excellent dispersibility resulting in good electrical, thermal, and mechanical properties [0111-0112, Kim’150].
In regards to 2) Kim’354 discloses a graphite coated in an amorphous carbon layer where the thickness of the amorphous carbon layer are between 5-100 nm [0063-0067, Kim’354].
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim (see MPEP 2144.05).
The range disclosed by Kim overlaps with the applicants claimed range of 1-50 nm.
Prior to the effective filing date one of ordinary skill within the arts would find it obvious to modify Munaoka such that the thickness of the amorphous carbon layer was between 5-100 nm. The thickness of the amorphous carbon layer influences the ID/IG ratio and may be used to improve the life-span and power output of the battery [0035, 0046, Kim’354].
In regards to 3) Uono discloses a graphite based carbon material with a particle size of 1-50 um [0018-0019, 0078]. The carbon material has an Lc (c-axis) of 50 nm or less and an La of 100 nm or less [0065, 0067 Uono].
The ranges disclosed by Uono (i.e. Lc ≤ 50 nm and La ≤ 100 nm) overlap with the applicants claimed ranges of 20 nm ≤Lc≤30 nm and 70 nm≤La≤90 nm.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim (see MPEP 2144.05).
Prior to the effective filing date, one of ordinary skill within the art would find it obvious to modify Munaoka such that the Lc and La was within the ranges disclosed by Uono. Doing so would provide a graphite with lower irreversible capacity and better charge acceptance [0067, Uono].
In regards to 4), in the instant specification the applicant notes that the values in table 2 are a result of the impact on thickness of the anode active material layer [0126]. As such, a product possessing the same structural properties as that of the prior art would inherently possess the same properties. In this instance, a product with the same anode active material and anode active material layer thickness would produce the same average ID’/IG’ value at full charge.
For clarity of the record, the examiner notes that an anode active material layer possessing an anode active material (as described above) and a thickness ranging from ≥90 µm to <165 µm would produce an average ID’/IG’ value of >0.18 to ≤0.50.
Munaoka is silent to the thickness of the anode active material layer.
However, Shi discloses a graphite anode where the thickness of the electrode plate of 120-150 µm [0042, Shi].
Prior to the effective filing date, one of ordinary skill within the arts would find it obvious to modify Munaoka such that the thickness of the negative electrode plate was between 120-150 µm. As this is a known thickness for manufacturing an anode electrode plate [0042, Shi].
In Munaoka as presently modified the electrode plate is 120-150 µm with a current collector that is 15 µm [0245, Munaoka], thus the anode active material layer would be 105-135 µm. Therefore, the anode active material layer would possess an active layer thickness inside the 90-165 µm range known to produce an ID’/IG’ ratio of >0.18 to ≤0.50 for the anode active material outlined in the instant specification and claim set.
"[T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer." Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999), see MPEP 2112.I.
There is no requirement that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the inherent disclosure at the relevant time, but only that the subject matter is in fact inherent in the prior art reference. Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharm. Inc., 339 F.3d 1373, 1377, 67 USPQ2d 1664, 1668 (Fed. Cir. 2003), see MPEP 2112.II.
In regards to the final claimed limitation of “a standard deviation of 0.01 to 0.2”. Kim’354 teaches that the standard deviation of should be less than 0.22 [0027, Kim’354 teaches a value that overlaps with the applicant’s claimed range].
Prior to the effective filing date, one or ordinary skill within the arts would find it obvious for the ID’/IG’ ratio to have a standard deviation of less than 0.22. Doing so insures the materials have a uniformity [0027, Kim’354].
Regarding 8, the instant specification describes the preparation of the anode active material as a mixture of graphite particle and heavy oil or liquid asphalt [0093]. The mixture is then heat treated to obtain the liquid phase coated graphite active material [0093]. Also referred to as an amorphous carbon layer on a surface of graphite [0009].
Kim’354 discloses graphite coated in amorphous carbon layer (“shell”) that may be derived from tar [0013, 0065, Kim’354]. The shell is formed upon heat treatment [0135, Kim’354]. The result is a graphite particle coated in an amorphous carbon layer.
The examiner notes that tar is a “heavy oil”, as such, Kim discloses an anode active material comprised of graphite, having been coated in a heavy oil/tar, and subjected to heat treatment to create a liquid phase coated graphite active material or amorphous carbon layer on a surface of graphite.
Modified Munaoka is silent to differential scanning calorimetry measurements at full charge.
However, the anode active material disclosed by modified Munaoka is the same as that disclosed by the applicant for the above listed reasons. As such, modified Munaoka would have: according to differential scanning calorimetry, an exothermic area of the anode active material layer ranges from 500 J/g to 2000 J/g at 50°C to 450°C. See MPEP 2112.
Regarding claim 14, modified Munaoka discloses the anode active material, wherein according to Raman spectroscopy [0012, Munaoka], the anode active material has an average value of a ratio ID/IG of a peak intensity ID at 1360 cm1 to a peak intensity IG at 1580 cm-1 ranging from 0.1-0.25 and 0.35-0.45 [0009, 0045, Munaoka disclosed range overlaps with the applicant’s range of 0.15-0.50].
Modified Munaoka is silent to the standard deviation of the reported values.
However Kim discloses using a standard deviation of less than 0.22 for their ID/IG value [0010, Kim’s disclosed range reads on the applicants range of 0.02-0.23].
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim (see MPEP 2144.05).
Prior to the effective filing date, one of ordinary skill within the arts would find it obvious to have a standard deviation of less than 0.22 for the measured ID/IG value. Doing so would allow for a uniform thickness of the coated graphite core [0027, Kim]. See MPEP 2112.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Munaoka as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Yamada (KR 20140128307 A).
Regarding claim 9, Modified Munaoka is silent to the thickness of the anode active material layer.
However, Yamada discloses anode active material layer that has a thickness that ranges from 15 µm to 150 µm [0288, Yamada].
Yamada discloses thickness range overlaps with the applicants claimed range of 90-160 µm
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim (see MPEP 2144.05).
Prior to the effective filing date, one of ordinary skill within the arts would find it obvious to modify Munaoka such that the thickness of the active material layer was between 15-150 µm. Doing so provides an electrode layer with high current density charge/discharge characteristics and battery capacity [0289, Yamada].
Claim(s) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Munaoka as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Shindo (US 20170237116 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Modified Munaoka is silent to a conductive layer disposed between the current collector and active material layer.
However, Shindo discloses a lithium ion battery [0012, Shindo], with a negative electrode current collector [0187, fig. 7C (15, 18, 19), Shindo], and active material layer [0187, fig. 7C (6), Shindo], in which a conductive layer which may be comprised of conductive carbon such as graphite, carbon black, and carbon nanotubes and located between the current collector and active material layer [0104, 0187, 0191, 0193, fig. 7C (17), Shindo].
Prior to the effective filing date, one of ordinary skill within the art would find it obvious to further modify Munaoka such that there was a conductive layer comprised of conductive carbon materials between the current collector and active material layer. Doing so would provide improved contact resistance between the active material and current collector [0190, Shindo].
Regarding claim 11, Modified Munaoka discloses the electrochemical device, wherein a thickness of the conductive layer (17) ranges from 0.1-30 µm [0205, Shindo]. This overlaps with the applicant’s claimed range of 0.3 µm to 3 µm.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim (see MPEP 2144.05).
Claim(s) 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Munaoka as applied to claim 1 and 6 above, and further in view of Macklin (WO2016027081A1).
Regarding claims 12 and 13, modified Munaoka discloses the Dv50 of the small and large particles but is silent to the Dv50 of the anode active material.
However, Macklin discloses anodes comprising graphite [page 4 line 18-30, page 23 line 17-23, Macklin], whose particle size has a Dv50 range of 15-25 µm [page 23 line 33-35, Macklin].
Prior to the effective filing date, one of ordinary skill within the arts would find it obvious to modify Yanagida such that the particle size of the anode active material was between 15-25 µm. Doing so would provide active material that is advantageously adapted to occupy void space [page 24 line 1-3, Macklin].
This range overlaps with the applicant’s claimed range of 10.0 µm to 23.0 µm.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim (see MPEP 2144.05).
Claim(s) 16 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Munaoka as applied to claim 6 and 17 above, and further in view of Feng (CN109841831A; English equivalent US20210351405A1).
In regards to claims 16 and 18, modified Munaoka is silent to when the electrochemical device is in a fully charged state, according to an X-ray diffraction method, a ratio C004/C110 of a peak area C004 of a (004) plane to a peak area C110 of a (110) plane of the anode active material layer ranges from 6 to 15.
However, Feng discloses an anode for a lithium ion battery [0004, Feng], wherein the anode active material is comprised of graphite [0032, 0038, Feng]. When fully charged the anode active material layer had a C0004/C110 ratio of 7.45-9.57 [0071, Feng].
This range lies within the applicant’s claimed range of 6-15.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim (see MPEP 2144.05).
Prior to the effective filing date, one of ordinary skill within the arts would find it obvious to modify Munaoka such that when fully charged the anode active material had a C0004/C110 ratio of 7-10. Doing so can provide an anode with improved rate and dynamic performance [0071, Feng].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/09/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. See below for details.
Applicant’s arguments center around the examiner’s inherency rejections. The examiner has outlined a basis in fact and/or technical reasoning to reasonably support the determination that the allegedly inherent characteristics necessarily flow from the teachings in the prior art. The applicant however, merely alleges that the examiner has not met this requirement without distinctly and specifically pointing out the examiner’s errors or short comings, see MPEP 714.02.
The examiner notes, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Applicant argues that the modified version of claim 7 now introduced into the independent claims are reason for allowability. To this the examiner respectfully disagrees for the reasons outlined in the rejection of the independent claims 1, 6, and 17.
Finally, in response to the applicant’s arguments that Table 2 depicts the average ID’/IG’ value in the fully charged state. The examiner thanks the applicant for the clarification, as presented in the specification it is not clear that these values represent the data in “a fully charged state”. This is because in the paragraph discussing table 2 [00126-00127] and within Table 2 itself, this feature is not discussed. While applicant points to paragraph [00015] as evidence that this would be obvious. The examiner notes that variables and numerical data collected from embodiments and presented in tables and graphs may differ from features presented in the specification.
No other arguments are presented. The examiner maintains their rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QUINTIN DALE ELLIOTT whose telephone number is (703)756-5423. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-6pm (MST).
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, Miriam Stagg can be reached at 5712705256. 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.
/QUINTIN D. ELLIOTT/Examiner, Art Unit 1724
/STEWART A FRASER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1724
Prosecution Insights