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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/05/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim(s) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harada et al. (Pub. No. WO 2020110942 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Harada teaches a negative electrode material (negative electrode active material, see [24]), comprising: natural graphite particles (natural graphite, see [24]) having a BET specific surface area ranging from 1.0 m.sup.2/g to 2.4 m.sup.2/g (1.5 m2/g or more and 3.0 m2/g or less, see [37] which overlaps the claimed range, and see Annotated Table 1, Example 1 teaches a specific example of Natural Graphite with a BET Specific Surface area of 2.4 m2/g which falls within the range); and artificial graphite particles (artificial graphite, see [24]), but fails to explicitly teach the artificial graphite particles having a BET specific surface area ranging from 0.5 m.sup.2/g to 2.0 m.sup.2/g, and wherein an average particle diameter (D.sub.50) of the natural graphite particles is larger than an average particle diameter (D.sub.50) of the artificial graphite particles.
However, Harada does teach the artificial graphite particles (artificial graphite, see [24]) having a BET specific surface area ranging from 0.5 m.sup.2/g to 3.0 m.sup.2/g (0.5 m2/g or more and 3.0 m2/g or less, see [36]) which encompasses the claimed range, and wherein an average particle diameter (D.sub.50) of the natural graphite particles (natural graphite, see [24]) has a larger range of diameter (see [34], 12 μm or more, and 20 μm or less) than an average particle diameter (D.sub.50) of the artificial graphite particles (artificial graphite, see [24], see [33], 10 μm or more, 15 μm or less).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Harada such that the range of artificial graphite particles BET specific surface area stays within the claimed range of 0.5 m2/g to 2.0 m2/g as a prima facie case of obviousness exists “in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” (MPEP 2144.05.I) and the BET specific surface area is a result effective variable for contact with the electrolytic solution, and suppression of surface activity of the particles (see [36]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Harada such that the average particle diameter (D.sub.50) of the natural graphite particles is larger than the average particle diameter (D.sub.50) of the artificial graphite particles as Harada teaches it is known in the art to do so, and average particle diameter is a result effective variable for number of active sites on the particle surface (see [33] and [34]) and electric resistance of the electrode (see [33] and [34]).
PNG
media_image1.png
742
1113
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(The examiner would like to note regarding Annotated Table 1 below, the column labels were translated with a combination of context clues and information given in written examples (see [80-92]), and translation software.)
Regarding claim 2, Harada fails to teach wherein the natural graphite particles have an average particle diameter (D.sub.50) of 14 μm to 21 μm.
However, Harada teaches wherein the natural graphite particles (natural graphite, see [24]) have an average particle diameter (D.sub.50) of 12 μm to 20 μm (12 μm or more, 20 μm or less, see [34]) which overlaps the claimed range in at least the range of 14 μm to 20 μm.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Harada such that the average particle diameter (D.sub.50) stays between 14 μm and 20 μm as a prima facie case of obviousness exists “in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” (MPEP 2144.05.I) and the average particle diameter (D.sub.50) is a result effective variable for number of active sites on particle surface and electric resistance of the electrode (see [34]).
Regarding claim 3, Harada fails to teach wherein the natural graphite particles comprise a natural graphite core and a carbon coating layer on the natural graphite core.
However, Harada further teaches wherein the natural graphite particles (natural graphite, see [24]) comprise a natural graphite core (see [26], no explicit mention of core, however the carbon coating is on the surface of the natural graphite particle surface, which implies the natural graphite particle is the core) and a carbon coating layer (carbon coating layer, see [26]) on the natural graphite core (see [26], carbon coating is on the surface of the natural graphite particle surface, which implies the natural graphite particle is the core). (The examiner would like to note although Harada makes no specific mention as to the BET specific surface area and average particle diameter (D.sub.50) changing with a carbon coating layer, as seen in Example 1-3, see [80], and Annotated Table 1, the natural graphite particles are particles with a carbon coating layer and have (D.sub.50) and BET specific surface area in line with the ranges taught by Harada, therefore it is the examiners position the ranges of BET specific surface area and average particle diameter (D.sub.50) as applied in claim 1 would be maintained even in a natural graphite particle comprising a carbon coating layer.)
Regarding claim 3, Harada teaches wherein the natural graphite particles (natural graphite, see [24]) comprise 1 wt % to 7 wt % (1.96%, see [80] where the natural graphite particles are made by mixing 100 parts natural graphite with 2 parts by mass of petroleum pitch, (2/102)*100 = 1.96%) of the carbon coating layer (carbon coating layer, see [26]).
Regarding claim 5, Harada teaches wherein the artificial graphite particles (artificial graphite, see [24]) have an average particle diameter (D.sub.50) of 6 μm to 13 μm (10 μm or more, 15 μm or less, see [34] which overlaps the claimed range, and Harada teaches a specific example where the average particle diameter (D.sub.50) is 12 μm in Example 1 (see [80]) and Annotated Table 1, which falls within the claimed range).
Regarding claim 6, Harada teaches wherein the artificial graphite (artificial graphite, see [24]) is in a form of a primary particle (non-aggregated structure, see [45] where non-aggregated type are primary particles).
Regarding claim 7, Harada fails to teach wherein a ratio of the average particle diameter (D.sub.50) of the natural graphite particles to the average particle diameter (D.sub.50) of the artificial graphite particles is greater than 1 to 3 or less.
However, Harada does teach wherein a ratio of the average particle diameter (D.sub.50) of the natural graphite particles to the average particle diameter (D.sub.50) of the artificial graphite particles is 0.8 to 2 (natural graphite (D.sub.50) range: 12 μm to 20 μm, see [34], and artificial graphite (D.sub.50) range: 10 μm to 15 μm, see [33], 12/15 = 0.8, 20/10 = 2) which overlaps the claimed range in at least the range of greater than 1 to 2.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Harada such that the ratio of average particle diameter (D.sub.50) of natural graphite particles to the average particle diameter (D.sub.50) of the artificial graphite particles is within the overlapping claimed range of greater than 1 to 2 a prima facie case of obviousness exists “in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” (MPEP 2144.05.I) and the average particle diameter (D.sub.50) is a result effective variable for number of active sites on the particle surface (see [33] and [34]) and electric resistance of the electrode (see [33] and [34]).
Regarding claim 8, Harada teaches wherein the natural graphite particles (natural graphite, [24]) and the artificial graphite particles (artificial graphite, [24]) are present in a weight ratio of 35:65 to 95:5 (30:70 to 80:20, see [25] where proportion of artificial graphite to total artificial graphite and natural graphite is 20% by mass or more and 70% by mass or less, this overlaps the claimed range, Harada further gives a specific example within the claimed range of 50:50, see Example 2 in Annotated Table 1).
Regarding claim 9, Harada teaches a negative electrode (negative electrode, see [49]), comprising: a negative electrode current collector (current collector, see [49]); and a negative electrode active material layer (mixture layer, see [49]) on the negative electrode current collector (current collector, see [49] where the mixture layer is formed on the current collector), wherein the negative electrode active material layer (mixture layer, see [49]) comprises a negative electrode material (negative electrode active material, see [50] where the mixture layer is the negative electrode paste pressure molded on the current collector, and the negative electrode paste comprises the negative electrode active material) but fails to disclose in this embodiment where the negative electrode material is the negative electrode material according to claim 1.
However, Harada in a different embodiment teaches the negative electrode material according to claim 1 (negative electrode active material, see [24], see modification to claim 1 above).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the embodiment of the negative electrode such that the negative electrode material is the negative electrode material according to claim 1 as taught by the embodiment of the negative electrode material of Harada. Further, it has been held that combining two embodiments disclosed adjacent to each other in a prior art patent does not require a leap of inventiveness and involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 10, Harada teaches a secondary battery (lithium-ion secondary battery, see [55]), comprising: the negative electrode according to claim 9 (negative electrode, see [49], see modifications above, see [55] where the lithium-ion secondary battery uses the above mentioned negative electrode); a positive electrode (positive electrode, see [55]) facing the negative electrode (negative electrode, see [49], see modifications above, although Harada does not specifically detail the positive electrode facing the negative electrode, Harada discloses a separator placed between the electrodes, see [62], therefore it is the examiners position that at least one face of the positive electrode faces the negative electrode); a separator (separator, see [62]) interposed between the negative electrode (negative electrode, see [49], see modifications above) and the positive electrode (positive electrode, see [55], see [62] is provided between the positive electrode and negative electrode); and an electrolyte (electrolytic solution, see [55]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/12/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicants’ argument that Harada does not disclose the natural graphite BET specific area, the artificial graphite BET specific surface area, and wherein the D50 particle diameter of natural graphite particles is larger than an average particle diameter of the artificial graphite. The Examiner respectfully disagrees as Harada teaches in [36] and [37] that the BET specific surface area of the natural and artificial graphite particles is a result effective variable for contact with the electrolytic solution and suppression of surface activity of the particles. Further, as pointed out by applicant Harada discloses average particle diameter ranges for natural and artificial graphite which would result in the claimed D50 relationship, and Harada further teaches in [33-34] that the D50 for both the natural graphite and the artificial graphite is a result effective variable of reducing electric resistance and improving large current discharge characteristics. Further, Harada provides examples in Table 1 where the average particle size of the natural and artificial graphite are equal, which is infinitely close to the average particle size of natural graphite being broadly described as larger than the average particle size of artificial graphite.
Regarding applicants’ argument that the examples provided by Harada do not disclose a specific example which falls within the claimed ranges. This argument is moot as the examples provided by Harada are not solely relied upon for determining obviousness. The ranges taught by Harada overlap and are obvious to modify as discussed in the paragraph above.
In response to applicant's argument that the combination of claimed features of BET specific surface area and average particle diameter of natural graphite and artificial graphite leverages the superior capacity and energy-density advantages of the natural graphite while suppressing cycle-expansion behavior and side reactions with the electrolyte can be effectively suppressed and improvements in efficiency in cycle characteristics can be achieved, 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).
Regarding applicants’ argument that the examples provided in the instant specification show unexpected results and advantageous effects of superior suppression of swelling while maintaining a high initial discharge capacity only when all of the claimed features of BET specific surface area and average particle diameter of natural graphite and artificial graphite are satisfied. The Examiner finds this argument unpersuasive as the evidence is not commensurate in scope with the claim, as the examples provide a narrower embodiment than the claimed invention.
Regarding applicants’ argument that Harada regards having equal average particle diameters of the natural graphite and artificial graphite as a more preferable feature, and therefore there is not motivation to modify. The Examiner respectfully disagrees, as Harada does not disclose wherein it is more preferable for the average particle diameters of the natural graphite and artificial graphite to be equal, therefore this conclusion cannot be drawn merely from examples provided. Further, Harada teaches in [33] the most preferable range of average particle size for artificial graphite is 15 microns or lower, and in [34] discloses the most preferable range of average particle size of natural graphite is 20 microns or lower showing the median or average of the average particle diameter of natural graphite is higher than that of artificial graphite.
Regarding applicants’ argument that it is common general knowledge in the art that decreasing the average particle diameter of a particle generally increases its BET specific surface area, therefore to ensure the BET specific surface area of the artificial graphite falls within the claimed range other parameters must be controlled, and Harada provides no specific example of wherein the natural graphite has a larger average particle diameter than the artificial graphite and the BET specific surface areas fall within the claimed ranges. The Examiner respectfully disagrees, as the applicant cannot state what is and is not known for a person of ordinary skill in the art, and further as discussed previously the specific examples of Harada are not solely relied upon for determining obviousness, and both the BET specific surface area and average particle diameter of both natural and artificial graphite are result effective variables making them obvious to modify.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOUGLAS CALEB MARROQUIN whose telephone number is (571)272-0166. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30-5:00 EST.
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, Tiffany Legette can be reached at 571-270-7078. 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.
/DOUGLAS C MARROQUIN/Examiner, Art Unit 1723 /TIFFANY LEGETTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1723