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 amendment to the claims filed on October 30, 2025, has been entered. Claim 10 is new. Claims 8 – 9 are withdrawn. Claims 1 – 7, and 10 are pending and under examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks pages 5 – 9, filed October 30, 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 – 7 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of NAKAZAWA et al. (US 2017/0200976 A1; “Nakazawa”, of record), in view of WU et al. (CN 1851963 A), and TSUCHIYA et al. (US 2017/0110729 A1). Nakazawa discloses the claimed method of manufacturing an anode material for a lithium-ion secondary battery, wherein a molded product with a density of 1.3 g/cm3 or less if obtained by molding, except for disclosing said density of the molded product is obtained prior to the step of graphitizing the molded product. WU et al. (lines 275-284), as well as TSUCHIYA et al. [0119], are presented to teach that rearranging the process steps, such that the step of molding to obtain a molded product with a desired density prior to graphitizing the molded product is known and within the skill of a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed. See the discussion of the references below.
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, and 10 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 WU et al. (CN 1851963 A), and TSUCHIYA et al. (US 2017/0110729 A1).
6. 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) 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) obtaining a molded product by molding the mixture (e.g., see [0482] “With respect to the electrode structure obtained after forming the electrode from the negative electrode active material, there is no particular limitation, but the density of the negative electrode active material present on the current collector is preferably 1 g/cm3 or more, further preferably 1.2 g/cm3 or more, especially preferably 1.3 g/cm3 or more, and is preferably 2.2 g/cm3 or less, more preferably 2.1 g/cm3 or less, further preferably 2.0 g/cm3 or less, especially preferably 1.9 g/cm3 or less”);
(c) obtaining a graphitized product by graphitizing the molded product obtained in step (b) [0385, 0388]; and
(d) obtaining a ground product by grinding the graphitized 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 obtaining the density of the molded product to be 1.3 g/cm3 or less, prior to graphitizing the molded product.
Nakazawa, however, discloses that a tap density of a graphitizable mixture overlapping with the claimed range. For example, the Examiner notes that under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), Nakasawa’s tap density of the carbonaceous material (Nakazawa [0004], [0380], [0386], [0392]-[0393] discloses that the carbonaceous material is a graphitizable carbonaceous material powder, such as amorphous carbon, mesocarbon microbeads or coke – hence, materials not yet graphitized) obtained by filling a tapping cell (analogous to a mold) with the carbonaceous material mixture and subjected to 1,000-time tapping with a stroke of 10 mm (analogous to a molding step since the mixture is expected to acquire the shape of the tapping cell), reads over the limitation of a density of a molded product (see Nakazawa [0427]), and since Nakazawa discloses said tap density is between 0.1 g/cm3 or more, to 1.6 g/cm3 or less (Nakazawa [0425]-[0426]), overlapping the claimed range of 1.3 g/cm3 or less, 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 density range of the molded product obtained in the step (b) that corresponds to the claimed range. In re Malagari, 184 USPQ 549 (CCPA 1974). See MPEP § 2144.05 (I).
WU et al. teaches a method of manufacturing an anode material (lines 66-84) for a lithium-ion secondary battery (lines 114-123), comprising, inter alia, a step of obtaining a mixture containing a graphitizable mixture (lines 143-146, 160-162, 275-278), a step of obtaining a molded product with a tap density of 0.7 to 1.5 g/cm3 (lines 82-84, 140), a density of 1.3 g/cm3 (lines 86-90, WU et al. lines 143-148) discloses that after molding the density is 1.3 to 1.9 g/cm3) by molding the mixture (e.g., “mixing and pelleting, mixing and extruding” lines 104-107, 143-147), followed by a step of graphitizing the molded product (lines 148-152). WU et al. discloses that “when necessary, the mixed material is pressed into the desired shape before carbonization or graphitization process, press forming method is not particularly limited, any pressure processing method for manufacturing graphite electrode can be used, such as compression molding, vibration molding and so on.” (lines 280-284).
TSUCHIYA et al. teaches a method of manufacturing an anode material for a lithium-ion secondary battery (Abstract), and discloses at [0119] that “The negative electrode for a lithium-ion secondary battery may be pressed (pressing treatment) before the heat treatment. By the pressing treatment, the electrode density can be controlled.”
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 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 suggested by the prior art of WU et al. and TSUCHIYA et al., resulting in a step of obtaining a molded product with a density of 1.3 g/cm3 or less by molding the mixture, as suggested by NAKAZAWA and WU et al., since WU et al. (lines 280-284) teaches that when necessary, the mixed material is pressed into the desired shape before carbonization or graphitization process, and TSUCHIYA et al. [0019] teaches that negative electrode for a lithium-ion secondary battery may be pressed (pressing treatment) before the heat treatment, and that by the pressing treatment, the electrode density can be controlled. See MPEP 2143
(I)(G). See also MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(C):
In general, the transposition of process steps or the splitting of one step into two, where the processes are substantially identical or equivalent in terms of function, manner and result, was held to be not patentably distinguish the processes (e.g., Ex parte Rubin, 128 USPQ 440 (Bd. Pat. App. 1959); In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946); In re Gibson, 39 F.2d 975, 5 USPQ 230 (CCPA 1930)).
Regarding claim 2, Nakazawa/WU/TSUCHIYA 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/WU/TSUCHIYA 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/WU/TSUCHIYA 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/WU/TSUCHIYA 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/WU/TSUCHIYA 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/WU/TSUCHIYA 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/WU/TSUCHIYA 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/WU/TSUCHIYA 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/WU/TSUCHIYA 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/WU/TSUCHIYA 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/WU/TSUCHIYA 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).
Regarding claim 10, Nakazawa/WU/TSUCHIYA teaches the method of manufacturing an anode material for a lithium-ion secondary battery according to claim 1, wherein the density of the molded product obtained in the step (b) is 0.97 g/cm3 or less – For example, the Examiner notes that under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), Nakasawa’s tap density of the carbonaceous material (Nakazawa [0004], [0380], [0386], [0392]-[0393] discloses that the carbonaceous material is a graphitizable carbonaceous material powder, such as amorphous carbon, mesocarbon microbeads or coke – hence, materials not yet graphitized) obtained by filling a tapping cell (analogous to a mold) with the carbonaceous material mixture and subjected to 1,000-time tapping with a stroke of 10 mm (analogous to a molding step since the mixture is expected to acquire the shape of the tapping cell), reads over the limitation of a density of a molded product (see Nakazawa [0427]), and since Nakazawa discloses said tap density is between 0.1 g/cm3 or more, to 1.6 g/cm3 or less (Nakazawa [0425]-[0426]), overlapping the claimed range of 0.97 g/cm3 or less, 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 density range of the molded product obtained in the step (b) that corresponds to the claimed range. In re Malagari, 184 USPQ 549 (CCPA 1974). See MPEP § 2144.05 (I).
Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was effectively filed would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the density of the molded product obtained in the step (b) in the method of Nakazawa/WU/TSUCHIYA, e.g., by routine experimentation of the molding step (press treatment step), to obtain the desired balance between the resultant negative electrode strength and the battery capacity or conductivity, as taught by Nakazawa [0425]-[0427], since TSUCHIYA et al. [0119] teaches that “by the pressing treatment, the electrode density can be controlled.” (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).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
Conclusion
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 on 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