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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2/17/2026 has been entered.
Remakes
Claim 1 has been amended. Claims 4 and 8-11 are as previously presented. Claims 2-3, 5-7 have been canceled. Claims 1, 4 and 8-11 are currently examined.
Status of Objections and Rejections
The rejection as set forth within the previous rejection has been modified as necessitated by applicants amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 4, 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwon (US 2015/0155557), and further in view of Okamura (US 2022/0069303).
As to claims 1 and 8, Kwon discloses a negative electrode ([0051], discussed throughout) comprising: a negative electrode current collector ([0051], discussed throughout), and a negative electrode active material layer on at least one surface of the negative electrode current collector ([0051], discussed throughout), wherein the negative electrode active material layer comprises a negative electrode active material ([0051], discussed throughout); wherein the negative electrode active material layer comprises natural graphite particles ([0009]-[0025], discussed throughout), the negative electrode active material has an average particle diameter (D50) of 10 microns to 25 microns ([0015], discussed throughout).
Kwon is silent to wherein the negative electrode active material further comprises a carbon coating on the surface of the natural graphite particles, the carbon coating layer is present in an amount of 2 wt% to 5 wt% the negative electrode active material and the carbon coating layer comprises amorphous carbon. Okamura discloses a negative electrode material for a battery ([0010], discussed throughout) wherein the negative electrode material is natural graphite and is coated within amorphous carbon and the carbon coating layer is present in an amount of 2 wt% to 5 wt% the negative electrode active material ([0066]-[0067], discussed throughout) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill within the art at the time of the effective filling date of the invention to use the carbon coating from Okamura within Kwon because the input output characteristics tend to be improved while the initial charge and discharge efficiencies are favorably maintained ([0066]-[0067], discussed throughout).
Kwon does not specifically state wherein the negative electrode active material particle strength of 40 MPa to 200 MPa when plastically deformed (claim 1), wherein the negative electrode active material has a compressive fracture strength of 350 MPa to 1,000 MPa (claim 1), and wherein the negative electrode has a pore resistance of 15 ohms or less (claim 8).
However, Kwon discloses the use of natural graphite ([0009]-[0025], discussed throughout) which is the same as the instant claimed invention (instant claim 1). Kwon discloses wherein the natural graphite is spherical ([0009], discussed throughout) which is the same as the instant claimed invention (instant claim 4). Kwon discloses wherein the natural graphite has an average particle diameter of 5 microns to 30 microns ([0015], discussed throughout) which significantly overlaps the instant claimed invention (instant claim 3). Kwon discloses when preparing the graphite molded body the Cold Isostatic Press was used and that the pressure is about 50 MPa to 200 MPa ([0038], discussed throughout). The instant claimed Examples 1-4 used Cold Isostatic Press at a pressure of 50 MPa to 200 MPa. Comparative Example 1 did not use Cold Isostatic Press, while Comparative Example 2 used Cold Isostatic Press at a pressure of 375 MPa. Examples 1-4 exhibit the instant claimed properties while comparative examples do not exhibit the instant claimed properties. Give that Kwon discloses the same material i.e. spherical natural graphite, with substantially the same size and uses the same process at substantially the same pressure the material of Kwon would exhibit the same properties (see MPEP 2112). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05).
As to claim 4, Kwon discloses wherein, the negative electrode active material is spherical ([0009], discussed throughout).
As to claim 10, Kwon discloses a secondary battery (figure 1 #100, [0050], discussed throughout) comprising: a negative electrode according to claim 1 (figure 1 #112, [0050], discussed throughout); a positive electrode facing the negative electrode (figure 1 #114, [0050], discussed throughout); a separator between the negative electrode and the positive electrode (figure 1 #113, [0050], discussed throughout); and an electrolyte ([0050]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Kwon (US 2015/0155557) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Du (EP4131498A1).
As to claim 9, Kwon is silent to wherein, the negative electrode active material layer has a porosity of 20% to 45%. Du discloses a negative electrode active material layer ([0004], [0013]) for use in electrochemical apparatus (abstract and [0004]) wherein the negative electrode active material layer has a porosity of 15% to 45% ([0013], discussed throughout). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill within the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to use the claimed porosity range from Du within Kwon as a mere combing prior art elements according to known methods to obtain predictable results (see MPEP 2143 I). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
The applicants arguments are directed to criticality and unexpected results. The examiner does not find this persuasive.
The applicant argues the examiner does not meet the burden of inherency. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The applicant has shown the same materials within the same location and applied through the same method as seen above. Thus the examiner maintains the rejection.
The applicant argues the criticality of the coating layer pointing to Example 4 which uses 10%. However, Per MPEP 716.02 (d) II states: To establish unexpected results over a claimed range, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range. The applicant has not done this as the applicant only has Example 4.
The applicant points to the instant specification paragraph [0036] discusses the criticality of the coating layer and the percent. However, per MPEP 71602(b) I states: The evidence relied upon should establish "that the differences in results are in fact unexpected and unobvious and of both statistical and practical significance… Mere conclusions in appellants’ brief that the claimed polymer had an unexpectedly increased impact strength "are not entitled to the weight of conclusions accompanying the evidence. Thus, the statement is mere conclusion and the applicant has not provided the statistical data to be provided the criticality and unexpected results.
The applicant argues that the prior art discloses a range of 0.1 to 30%. The examiner agrees. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05).
Therefore the examiner maintains the rejection.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11 is allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: Kwon (US 2015/0155557) is the closest prior art of record. However, the instant claim 11, is being awarded criticality and unexpected results as the data within instant specification of examples 1-4 and comparative examples 1 and 2 demonstrate a criticality over the claimed range and are commensurate in scope with the instant claimed invention along with meeting the other requirements within MPEP 716.02.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN R OHARA whose telephone number is (571)272-0728. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 AM-3:30 PM EST M-F.
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, Miriam Stagg can be reached at 571-270-5256. 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.
/BRIAN R OHARA/Examiner, Art Unit 1724