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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment to the claims filed March 25, 2026, has been entered. Claim 1 is amended. Claims 8 and 9 are withdrawn. Claims 1 – 7 and 10 are pending and under examination. The amendment necessitated the new grounds of rejection.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
New Grounds of Rejection
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 – 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NAKAZAWA et al. (US 2017/0200976 A1; “Nakazawa”, of record), in view of Yamamoto et al. (US 2015/0251911 A1).
Regarding claim 1. Nakazawa teaches a method of manufacturing an anode material for a lithium-ion secondary battery [0032 – 0034, 0374 – 0377], the method comprising:
(a) a step of obtaining a mixture containing a graphitizable aggregate [0380 – 0381], a graphitizable binder [0386, 0389], and an aromatic compound (i.e., [0061] “At least one specific additive selected from the group consisting of… an aromatic compound”; see Nakazawa at [0061 – 0062, 0180 – 0219, 0385, 0467 – 0469, 0520];
(b) a step of molding the mixture to obtain a molded product (e.g., Nakazawa discloses that the graphite particles are present for unifying the solid components together “through physical bonding” [0458]);
(c) a step of graphitizing the molded product obtained in step (b) to obtain a graphitized product [0385, 0388, 0647]; and
(d) a step of grinding the graphitized product to obtain a ground product (e.g., see [0385] “…if necessary, subjecting the resultant material to pulverization [analogous to the claimed “obtaining a ground product”] and/or classification,” and [0647] “The resultant calcined material was further pulverized using a hammer mill [analogous to the claimed “obtaining a ground product”], and then subjected to sieving (45 μm) to prepare negative electrode active material 1”).
Nakazawa does not explicitly disclose the specific order of the steps, and that a molded product with a density of 1.3 g/cm3 or less is obtained in the step of molding the mixture.
Yamamoto et al. teaches a method for producing a graphite powder for use as a lithium secondary battery negative electrode material [0001, 0009]¸ that can produce a graphite powder for use as a lithium secondary battery negative electrode material that has a small specific surface area while reducing the energy consumption, and achieving a high graphitization efficiency [0013], comprising, inter alia, a mixture containing a graphitizable aggregate (green coke [0015 – 0034]), a graphitizable binder [0036 0037]), and an aromatic compound (e.g., FCCDO “Fluid Catalytic Cracking Decant Oil” [0037]), and a step of molding the mixture by pressing the molten mixture to prepare a compact [0054 – 0057].
Yamamoto discloses that “When the pressing pressure and the pressure time are within the above ranges, it is possible to effectively reduce energy loss during grinding, and obtain a graphite powder having a small surface area.” [0058];
[0059] “the apparent density (bulk density) of the compact obtained by pressing is preferably 1.0 to 1.8 g/cm3, more preferably 1.1 to 1.7 g/cm3, and still more preferably 1.2 to 1.6 g/cm3.” – overlapping with the claimed range in the limitation “a step of molding the mixture to obtain a molded product with a density of 1.3 g/cm3 or less.”
Yamamoto [0060] further discloses that “When the bulk density of the compact is within the above range, it is possible to efficiently implement the graphitization treatment, and easily produce the graphite powder for use as a lithium secondary battery negative electrode material.”, and at [0062] that by implementing graphitization and carbonization after pressing the molten mixture into a compact instead of directly graphitizing the molten mixture, “it is possible to easily introduce and remove the material into and from a furnace (i.e., reduce work burden) during graphitization and carbonization, and easily produce the desired graphite powder.”
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of manufacturing an anode material for a lithium-ion secondary battery of NAKAZAWA by rearranging the molding step of the graphitizable mixture so that the molding step happens before the graphitizing step, as taught and suggested by the prior art of Yamamoto et al., for the purpose of e.g., reduce work burden, since Yamamoto et al. teaches that by implementing graphitization and carbonization after pressing the molten mixture into a compact instead of directly graphitizing the molten mixture, “it is possible to easily introduce and remove the material into and from a furnace (i.e., reduce work burden) during graphitization and carbonization, and easily produce the desired graphite powder,” [0062]. See MPEP § 2143 (I) (Rationale G).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modify the step of molding the mixture in the method of Nakazawa/Yamamoto to obtain a molded product with a density of 1.3 g/cm3 or less, by selecting the portion of Yamamoto's molded product density range that corresponds to the claimed range, since Yamamoto [0060] teaches that when the density of the molded product is within the 1.0 to 1.8 g/cm3 range, “it is possible to efficiently implement the graphitization treatment, and easily produce the graphite powder for use as a lithium secondary battery negative electrode material.” In re Malagari, 184 USPQ 549 (CCPA 1974). See MPEP § 2144.05 (I).
Regarding claim 2, Nakazawa/Yamamoto teaches the method of manufacturing an anode material for a lithium-ion secondary battery according to claim 1, wherein the aromatic compound includes one compound selected by the group consisting of methylnaphthalene (Nakazawa [0219]), and quinoline (Nakazawa [0520]).
Regarding claim 3, Nakazawa/Yamamoto teaches the method of manufacturing an anode material for a lithium-ion secondary battery according to claim 1, wherein a content of the aromatic compound in the mixture “is generally 0.001% by mass or more, preferably 0.01% by mass or more, more preferably 0.1% by mass or more, further preferably 0.5% by mass or more, and is generally 10% by mass or less, preferably 8% by mass or less, more preferably 5% by mass or less, further preferably 4% by mass or less, especially preferably 3% by mass or less” (Nakazawa [0219] – overlapping with the claimed range of from 1 % by mass to 20 % by mass with respect to a total of 100 % by mass of the aggregate and the binder. Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the portion of Nakazawa/Yamamoto aromatic compound range that corresponds to the claimed range. In re Malagari, 184 USPQ 549 (CCPA 1974). See MPEP § 2144.05 (I).
Regarding claim 4, Nakazawa/Yamamoto teaches the method of manufacturing an anode material for a lithium-ion secondary battery according to claim 1, except for specifically disclosing, wherein a content of the binder in the mixture is 25 % by mass or less with respect to a total of 100 % by mass of the aggregate and the binder.
Nakazawa, however, discloses at [0477], “The amount of the binder contained is, relative to 100 parts by mass of the negative electrode material… is generally 10 parts by mass or less [100 % by mass or less] – overlapping the claimed range of from 25 % by mass or less with respect to a total of 100 % by mass of the aggregate and the binder. Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness.
Nakazawa further discloses, “When the amount of the binder contained is too small, the resultant negative electrode is likely to be unsatisfactory in strength. When the amount of the binder contained is too large, the amount of, for example, the negative electrode active material contained is likely to be relatively unsatisfactory, so that the battery capacity or conductivity is unsatisfactory. When two or more binders are used in combination, the amounts of the binders may be selected so that the total of the binders satisfies the above-mentioned range.” [0477].
As the resultant negative electrode strength and the battery capacity or conductivity are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting said amount of binder material within the mixture, with said strength of the resultant negative electrode being unsatisfactory when the amount of the binder contained is too small, and said battery capacity or conductivity being unsatisfactory when the amount of the binder contained is too large, the precise amount of binder would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed content of the binder in the mixture cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was effectively filed would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the content of the binder in the mixture in the method of Nakazawa/Yamamoto to obtain the desired balance between the resultant negative electrode strength and the battery capacity or conductivity (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223). See MPEP § 2144.05 (II).
Regarding claim 5, Nakazawa/Yamamoto teaches the method of manufacturing an anode material for a lithium- ion secondary battery according to claim 1, except for specifically disclosing, wherein a content of the binder in the mixture is 15 % by mass or less with respect to a total of 100 % by mass of the aggregate and the binder.
As previously indicated in claim 4 above, Nakazawa discloses at [0477], “The amount of the binder contained is, relative to 100 parts by mass of the negative electrode material… is generally 10 parts by mass or less [100 % by mass or less] – overlapping the claimed range of from 25 % by mass or less with respect to a total of 100 % by mass of the aggregate and the binder. Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness.
Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at time the invention was effectively filed would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the content of the binder in the mixture in the method of Nakazawa/Yamamoto to obtain the desired balance between the resultant negative electrode strength and the battery capacity or conductivity (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223). See MPEP § 2144.05 (II) (B).
Regarding claim 6, Nakazawa/Yamamoto teaches the method of manufacturing an anode material for a lithium-ion secondary battery according to claim 1, wherein a content of the aromatic compound in the mixture is from 1.5 % by mass to 20 % by mass with respect to a total of 100 % by mass of the aggregate and the binder (see claim 3 above, Nakazawa [0219] “is generally 0.001% by mass or more, preferably 0.01% by mass or more, more preferably 0.1% by mass or more, further preferably 0.5% by mass or more, and is generally 10% by mass or less, preferably 8% by mass or less, more preferably 5% by mass or less, further preferably 4% by mass or less, especially preferably 3% by mass or less” – overlapping with the claimed range of from 1.5 % by mass to 20 % by mass with respect to a total of 100 % by mass of the aggregate and the binder. Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the portion of Nakazawa/Yamamoto aromatic compound range that corresponds to the claimed range. In re Malagari, 184 USPQ 549 (CCPA 1974). See MPEP § 2144.05 (I).
Regarding claim 7, Nakazawa/Yamamoto teaches the method of manufacturing an anode material for a lithium-ion secondary battery according to claim1, wherein a specific surface area of the ground product that is an anode material for a lithium-ion secondary battery is 2.8 m2/g or less (e.g., Nakazawa at [0417] discloses a range for the specific surface area of the anode material of from 0.1 m2/g or more, and/or 10 m2/g or less – overlapping with the claimed range of from 2.8 m2/g or less). Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness.
Nakazawa at [0418 – 0419] further discloses that when the value of the BET specific surface area of the carbonaceous material is smaller than the above range, lithium is unlikely to be accepted during charging of the non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery using such a carbonaceous material as a negative electrode material, so that lithium is likely to be deposited on the surface of the electrode, causing the stability of the battery to be poor, and that when the BET specific surface area of the carbonaceous material is larger than the above range, the reactivity with the non-aqueous electrolytic solution in the non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery using such a carbonaceous material as a negative electrode material is likely to be enhanced to increase gas generation, making it difficult to obtain a preferred battery.
As the stability of the battery and the gas generation due to reactivity with the non-aqueous electrolytic solution in the non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery using such a carbonaceous material as a negative electrode are variables that can be modified, among others, by changing the specific surface area of the anode material used for the secondary battery, with said stability of the battery decreasing as a result of the specific surface area being smaller than the range taught by Nakazawa [0418], and said gas generation increasing when the specific surface area of the anode material is larger than the above range taught by Nakazawa [0418], the optimal range for specific surface area of the ground product that is an anode material for a lithium-ion secondary battery would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed specific surface area of the ground product that is an anode material for a lithium-ion secondary battery cannot be considered critical.
Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was effectively filed would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the specific surface area of the ground product that is an anode material for a lithium-ion secondary battery in the method of Nakazawa/Yamamoto to obtain the desired balance between the battery stability during charging and gas generation (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).See MPEP § 2144.05 (II) (B).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 – 7 and 10 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.
Applicant’s arguments are based on newly amended limitations which have been addressed by the new grounds of rejection above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. 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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
SATOH et al. (US 2019/0097218 A1): Discloses – inter alia – methods for producing anode material for a lithium ion secondary battery (Abstract); [0062] The anode material preferably has a specific surface area, as measured by nitrogen adsorption at 77 K (hereinafter, also referred to as “N2 specific surface area”), of from 0.5 m2/g to 10 m2/g, and more preferably from 1 m2/g to 8 m2/g, and still more preferably from 2 m2/g to 6 m2/g. When the anode material has an N2 specific surface area within the above described range, the resulting lithium ion secondary battery tends to have a favorable balance between input/output characteristics and initial charge-discharge efficiency.
Hosotsubo et al. (JP 10-112319 A): Discloses a carbon material for a lithium secondary battery and a method for producing the same (lines 107 – 127, lines 296 – 308); the mixture comprising graphitizable aggregates (lines 128 – 136), graphitizable binder (lines 204 – 208), and aromatic compounds (lines 137 – 139); and discloses examples of the anode material ground product having specific surfaces areas of from 1.4 m2/g (Example 3, lines 354 – 359), 1.5 m2/g (Example 1, lines 325 – 333), 1.6 m2/g (Example 2, lines 346 – 351).
TSUCHIYA et al. (US 2017/0110729 A1): Discloses method of obtaining the negative electrode material for a lithium-ion secondary battery; [0074] The specific surface area of the negative electrode material for a lithium-ion secondary battery, as measured by a BET method, may be from 1.5 m2/g to 6.0 m2/g, or may be from 2.5 m2/g to 5.0 m2/g.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDGAREDMANUEL TROCHE whose telephone number is (571)272-9766. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:30.
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, Sam Zhao can be reached at 571-270-5343. 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.
/EDGAREDMANUEL TROCHE/Examiner, Art Unit 1744
/JEFFREY M WOLLSCHLAGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Prosecution Insights