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 . The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. The RCE is accepted.
Claims 1-3, 5-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei et al. 20150232339.
Wei teaches, especially on pg. 2 and ex. 1, heating lignin at 150 degrees followed by carbonization in nitrogen. Initial heating in air is obvious to let the solvent evaporate. The size of para 28 overlaps the claimed range, rendering it obvious.
For claims 2 and 15, the embedded process steps do not limit the claims. The steps should be clearly recited in the order performed. See also paras 28 and 32.
For claim 13, Kraft is taught in para 23.
For claim 14, see para 31.
For claims 5-9, paras 34 and 35 teach two stage heating in an inert gas.
For claims 3 and 10-12, no difference Is seen due to the similarity of the process.
Applicant's arguments filed 12/22/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Wei para 52 teaches an aspect ratio of as small as 2 when using the smallest values. The claims are not limited to the specification, and applicant could have easily claimed an ‘essentially spherical’ product to avoid any question. It is not clear why spherical particles are bad for batteries- see Lim ‘618 para 20; better inter-particle contact is possible. While Wei does not call the initial heating a stabilization, no difference is seen and the temperatures can be the same. Perhaps applicant can distinguish by reciting that step b) is performed on a substantially dry or pure material, in contrast to Wei’s heating of a suspension. Applicant should verify that trademarks are not used in claims 10 and 11.
/STUART L HENDRICKSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1736