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 .
Summary
Applicant’s arguments and claim amendments submitted December 3, 2025 have been entered into the file. Currently, claims 1 and 3 are amended, resulting in claims 1-11 pending for examination.
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.
Claims 1, 2, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 2021/0214234 A1), as evidenced by Sing (Sing, K.S.W. Adsorption methods for characterization of porous materials. Advances in Colloid and Interface Science. 76-77, 3-11 (1998), cited in Non-Final Office Action).
Regarding claims 1 and 2, Lee teaches an anode material (carbonaceous material, Lee abstract) for a lithium-ion secondary battery (Lee abstract), the anode material comprising a carbon material (carbonaceous material, Lee Example 2 Table 1) , wherein a ratio D90/D10 of a particle size on a volume basis is 3.52 (7.22/2.05, Lee Example 2 Table 1) and a content of the carbon material in the anode material is 80% by mass or more (the carbonaceous material is itself the anode material, therefore the content is 100%).
Lee is silent to the total number of particles measured for the number based size measurements. However, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose a number of particles suitable to obtain the measurement, including 10,000 particles. Lee teaches the D90 based on a number standard being 2.92 µm (Lee Example 2 Table 1), which falls within the claimed range of 5 µm or less, thus resulting in approximately 9,000 particles being within this range when there is a total of 10,000 measured particles (0.9 * 10,000 particles = 9,000 particles). Lee further teaches the specific surface area being 5.5 m2/g (Lee Example 2). Therefore, Lee teaches N/S being 1636 particles • g/m2 (9,000/5.5 = 1636) and a ratio of particles with an equivalent circle diameter of 5 µm or less based on a number standard being 45% or more (Lee Example 2, D90).
Lee is silent regarding the measurement temperature for the nitrogen adsorption measurements. Sing teaches that nitrogen at 77 K is “the most widely used adsorptive for the characterization of porous materials”. Therefore, the ordinary artisan would recognize that the nitrogen adsorption measurements of Lee were performed at 77 K.
Regarding claim 8, Lee teaches all features of claim 1, as described above. Lee further teaches a specific surface area determined by nitrogen adsorption (Lee [100]) being 5.50 m2/g (Lee Example 2, Table 1).
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee as evidenced by Sing, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Dasgupta (US 5464706 A).
Regarding claims 10 and 11, Lee as evidenced by Sing teaches all features of claim 1, as described above. Lee further teaches a lithium secondary battery (2016 type coin cell, Lee [102]) comprising an electrolyte solution and an anode material layer including the anode material according to claim 1 (Lee [102]). Lee teaches that the anode material can be used in lithium secondary batteries (Lee title, abstract). Lee does not explicitly teach the anode including a current collector and a lithium ion secondary battery comprising a cathode, the anode, and an electrolytic solution.
Dasgupta teaches that lithium ion batteries comprise an anode including an anode material layer and a current collector, a cathode, an electrolytic solution (Dasgupta claim 1). Since Lee teaches that the anode material of their invention is used in lithium secondary batteries, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to fabricate an anode comprising an anode material layer including the anode material of claim 1 and a current collector and a lithium ion secondary battery comprising the anode, a cathode, and an electrolytic solution, as taught by Dasgupta, in order to obtain the predictable result of a lithium ion secondary battery and obtain a battery is suitable for use in a desired application.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kameda (US 2012/0052393 A1) in view of Park (Park, Y.S. and Lee, S. M. Effects of particle size on the thermal stability of lithiated graphite anode. Electrochimica Acta. 54, 3339-3343 (2009)) and Yamada (US 2017/0187041 A1), as evidenced by Sing.
Regarding claims 1-3 and 8-9, Kameda teaches an anode material (Kameda, Example 1 Table 1 Carbon Material B) for a lithium-ion secondary battery (Kameda [135-138]), the anode material comprising a carbon material (Kameda Example 1 Table 1 Carbon Material B) wherein D90/D10 of a particle size on a volume basis is 2.1 (19.7 µm / 9.3 µm = 2.1, Kameda Example 1 Table 1 Carbon Material B) and the specific surface area is 7.8 m2/g (Example 1 Table 1 Carbon Material B). Kameda teaches that it is suitable for the specific surface area to be 12 m2/g or less (Kameda [78], carbon material B).
Kameda further teaches a content of the carbon material in the anode material being 80% by mass or more (the carbon material (Carbon Material B) is the anode material, thus resulting in 100% content).
Kameda is silent regarding the measurement temperature for the nitrogen adsorption measurements. Sing teaches that nitrogen at 77 K is “the most widely used adsorptive for the characterization of porous materials”. Therefore, the ordinary artisan would recognize that the nitrogen adsorption measurements of Kameda were performed at 77 K.
Kameda does not expressly teach the D90/D10 value being larger than 2.5 and less than 4.3.
It is noted that the D90/D10 value of Kameda (2.1, as shown above) is significantly close to the range presented in instant claim 1 (larger than 2.5 and less than 4.3).
Additionally, Yamada teaches a carbon material for use in secondary batteries (Yamada title) containing spheroidized graphite formed by spheroidizing flake graphite using a hybridization system from Nara Machinery Co (Yamada Example B8, spheroidizing conditions [853]), as taught by Kameda (Kameda Example 1, Carbon Material B), wherein the D90/D10 value is 3.4 (13.3/3.9 = 3.4, Table 1B Example B8). Since Yamada teaches a carbon material for use in secondary batteries that is formed using the same method and starting material as those used in Kameda and that a carbon material having a D90/D10 value of 3.4 is suitable for use in secondary batteries, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the carbon material of Kameda having a D90/D10 value of 3.4, which is within the claimed range of larger than 2.5 and less than 4.3, in order to obtain the predictable result of a carbon material suitable for use in secondary batteries.
Kameda does is silent regarding values for N/S, the ratio of (3) in instant claim 2, values of X and Y in Formula (a) of instant claim 3, and the number of exothermic peaks in the temperature range of 300°C to 1000°C.
Kameda recognizes that the specific surface area is tuned to achieve prevention of capacity reduction and promotion of lithium ion transport during charging/discharging (Kameda [79]). Additionally, Park teaches that graphite particle size and specific surface area are known to impact lithium ion battery performance (Park abstract). Park teaches that smaller particle sizes result in reduced diffusion path for Li ions and a higher surface area (abstract), thus resulting in more lithium being available at lower temperatures (Park pg. 3342 right column paragraph 1-2). Due to this phenomenon, “smaller graphite have a greater heat generation at lower temperature compared with larger ones” (Park pg. 3342 right column paragraph 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to simultaneously tune the particle size and specific surface area of the carbon material of Kameda, thus a carbon material satisfying N/S being 750 particles•g/m2 or more resulting obviously therefrom, in order to balance the desired effect of reduced diffusion path with the undesired effects of greater heat generation and reduced capacity.
Carbon Material B of Kameda Example 1 has an average circularity, an interplanar spacing d002, a R value, and a specific surface area within the disclosed ranges of the instant application (instant application claims 5-8 and Table 1) and the modified carbon material of Kameda has N/S and D90/D10 values within the ranges of claim 1, as described above. Additionally, both Kameda and the instant specification disclose spheroidization of graphite particles using a Nara Machinery Co., Ltd hybridization system (instant specification Example 1 [101]; Kameda [132]) and the tap density of Kameda is significantly close to the disclosed range of 0.8 to 0.95 g/cm3 (0.96 g/cm3 Kameda Example 1 Table 1 Carbon Material B). Therefore, there is a reasonable basis to conclude that the following limitations would obviously flow from the carbon material of Kameda:
A ratio being 45% or more (limitation (3) of instant claim 2)
X and Y satisfying Formula (a) (limitation (4) of instant claim 3)
The carbon material not having two or more exothermic peaks in a temperature range of 300°C to 1000°C in a differential thermal analysis in an air stream (instant claim 9).
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. See MPEP 2112.01
Regarding claim 4, Kameda in view of Park and Yamada, as evidenced by Sing, teaches all features of claim 1. Kameda further teaches the tap density being 0.96 g/cm3 (Kameda Example 1 Table 1 Carbon Material B), which is significantly close to the claimed range of 0.8 to 0.95 g/cm3.
Kameda teaches the tap density is preferably 0.8 g/cm3 or more in order to ensure sufficient communicating voids in the electrode and prevent reduction in rapid charge-discharge characteristics (Kameda [70-71]). Since Kameda teaches a carbon material having a tap density significantly close to the claimed range and that the tap density must be high enough to ensure adequate performance, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the tap density of the carbon material of Kameda, including values within the claimed range of 0.8 to 0.95 g/cm3, in order to obtain a material that will provide sufficient communicating voids in the electrode and rapid charge-discharge characteristics.
Alternatively, the tap density range of Kameda (0.8 g/cm3 or more, Kameda [70-71]) substantially overlaps the claimed range in the instant claim 4. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by Kameda, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness.
Regarding claim 5, Kameda in view of Park and Yamada, as evidenced by Sing, teaches all features of claim 1. Kameda further teaches an average circularity of 0.908 (Kameda Example 1 Table 1 Carbon Material B).
Regarding claim 6, Kameda in view of Park and Yamada, as evidenced by Sing, teaches all features of claim 1. Kameda further teaches an average interplanar spacing d002 determined by an X-ray diffraction method (Kameda [120-121]) being 3.36 Å (Kameda Example 1 Table 1 Carbon Material B).
Regarding claim 7, Kameda in view of Park and Yamada, as evidenced by Sing, teaches all features of claim 1. Kameda further teaches an R value from Raman spectrometry (Kameda [123]) being 0.22 (Kameda Example 1 Table 1 Carbon Material B).
Regarding claim 10, Kameda in view of Park and Yamada, as evidenced by Sing, teaches all features of claim 1. Kameda further teaches an anode for a lithium-ion secondary battery (negative electrode, Kameda [135-138]) comprising an anode material layer including the anode material of claim 1 (slurry contains the mixed carbon material which contains carbon material B, Kameda [135]) and a current collector (copper foil, Kameda [135]).
Regarding claim 11, Kameda in view of Park and Yamada, as evidenced by Sing, teaches all features of claims 1 and 11. Kameda further teaches a lithium-ion battery (Kameda [135-138]) comprising the anode of claim 10 (negative electrode, Kameda [135]), a cathode (positive electrode, Kameda [136]), and an electrolytic solution (electrolytic solution, Kameda [137]).
Response to Arguments
Response – Claim Objections
The objection to claim 1 due to informalities is overcome by applicant’s amendments to claim 1 in the response received on December 3, 2025. The objection to claim 1 is withdrawn.
Response – Claim Rejections 35 USC § 112
The rejection of claim 3 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention is overcome by Applicant’s amendments to claim 3 in the response received December 3, 2025. This rejection to claim 3 is withdrawn.
Response – Claim Rejections 35 USC § 103
On page 7 of the response received December 3, 2025, Applicant appears to allege that Kameda does not disclose the carbon material being 80% by mass or more in the anode material.
This argument is not persuasive. The carbon material of Kameda is an anode material. In the rejections presented above, the “anode material” of claim 1 is the carbon material (carbon material is 100% of the anode material). It is noted that the recitation of “an anode material” in line 1 of claim 1 does not require “the anode material” be inclusive of all materials included in the anode or be the “mixed carbon material” of Kameda that includes both carbon material A and carbon material B.
Applicant’s additional arguments with respect to claim 1 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.
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.
Yamada-1 (US 2018/0013146 A1): appears to disclose a carbon material for secondary batteries formed using a spheroidization process having D90/10, tap density, and specific surface area values within the claimed ranges (Table C1, Example C1).
Yamada-2 (US 2019/0273248 A1): appears to disclose a carbon material for secondary batteries (abstract, Table 1), a discussion of interplanar spacing values ([86]), and a discussion of R values ([90]).
Yamada-3 (US 2021/0184217 A1): appears to disclose a carbon material for secondary batteries (abstract, Table 1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JULIA S CASERTO whose telephone number is (571)272-5114. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 am - 5 pm 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, Marla McConnell can be reached at 571-270-7692. 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.
/J.S.C./Examiner, Art Unit 1789
/MARLA D MCCONNELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1789