DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is responsive to the April 28th, 2026 arguments and remarks (“Remarks”). The
text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior
Office 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 April 28th, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendments received on April 28th, 2026:
Claims 1-4, 6-12, and 14-16 are pending in the current application. Claims 1-4, 6-12, and 14-15 are amended. Claims 5 and 13 are cancelled. Claim 16 is newly added.
Claim 1 is amended to include limitations from previously presented Claim 13; and to specify that the sulfur content in the negative electrode active material functions to form a randomized crystal structure of the artificial graphite particles.
Claims 2-4, 6-12, and 15 are amended to specify the negative electrode of the dependent claim, rather than the negative electrode active material in view of the amendment to Claim 1.
Claims 14 and 15 are amended to adjust dependency from Claim 13 to Claim 1.
Claim 16 is newly added as dependent on Claim 1 and further limits the sulfur content in the negative electrode active material.
Applicant’s amendment finds support in the disclosure including original Claim 13 and the originally filed specification ([0045]-[0046], Table 1). No new matter has been added.
The new grounds of rejection are necessitated by amendment.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-4 and 6-15 are pending stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as described below:
Claims 1, 6-9, 13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Azami et al. (E.P. Pat. No. 2945209 A1) in view of Won et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20150349335 A1). The rejections are withdrawn in view of the amendment.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Azami et al. (E.P. Pat. No. 2945209 A1) in view of Won et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20150349335 A1), and further in view of Choi et al. (U.S. Pat. No 20180190985 A1). The rejections are withdrawn in view of the amendment.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Azami et al. (E.P. Pat. No. 2945209 A1) in view of and further evidenced by Won et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20150349335 A1). The rejection is withdrawn in view of the amendment.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Azami et al. (E.P. Pat. No. 2945209 A1) in view of Won et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20150349335 A1), and further in view of Sakamoto et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20100215567 A1). The rejection is withdrawn in view of the amendment.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Azami et al. (E.P. Pat. No. 2945209 A1) in view of Won et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20150349335 A1), and further in view of Sotowa et al. (E.P. Pat. No. 2602851 B1). The rejection is withdrawn in view of the amendment.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Azami et al. (E.P. Pat. No. 2945209 A1) in view of Won et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20150349335 A1), and further in view of Wakizaka et al. (U.S. Pat. No 20190237763 A1) as further evidenced by Kajiyama et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 10193141 B2). The rejection is withdrawn in view of the amendment.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Azami et al. (E.P. Pat. No. 2945209 A1) in view of Won et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20150349335 A1), and further in view of Sotowa et al. (E.P. Pat. No. 2602851 B1) as further evident by Lee et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20160181612 A1). The rejection is withdrawn in view of the amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed April 28th, 2026 have been fully considered as further described below:
Applicant presents arguments based on Claim 1 as amended. Applicant argues that Azami and Won do not disclose that the sulfur content in the negative electrode active material functions to form a randomized crystal structure of the artificial graphite particles (see pg. 6 of the “Remarks”). Applicant cites [0049] of the specification to show a process of controlling the sulfur content to form a randomized crystal structure and suggests that said process is not disclosed by the applied prior art. However, there is no indication in the specification including [0049] that indicates that the process described is required to form the randomized crystal structure; [0049] does not mention or support the randomized crystal structure. However, the amended claim language describing the randomized crystal structure does find support in [0046] and [00204] of the specification in which are recited below for clarity:
[0046] “If, in a case in which the sulfur is included in the negative electrode active material in an amount of less than 15 ppm, since the crystal structure of the artificial graphite particle may not be randomized, diffusivity of lithium ions may be reduced and the output characteristics may be degraded. . .”
[00204] “With respect to the negative electrode active materials of Comparative Examples 1 to 3, since the amount of the sulfur included therein was excessively small, the crystal structure of the artificial graphite particle may not be randomized, and, accordingly, output characteristics were very poor.”
Therefore, applicant’s specification supports that the randomized crystal structure is achieved by including a specific amount of sulfur in the negative electrode active material (artificial graphite) particles, and does not require the amount of sulfur to be controlled by the specific process disclosed in [0049]. Applicant’s arguments are incommensurate with the scope of the claims and disclosed invention; and are deemed unpersuasive.
As cited in the rejection below, the negative electrode active material of the claimed invention is substantially identical to the prior art products (both comprising artificial graphite particles as the negative electrode active material with a sulfur content within the limits of the claimed invention), the function and properties of forming a randomized crystal structure of the artificial graphite particles are presumed to be inherent:
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. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Therefore, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product. In re Best, 562 F.2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433. See also Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP 2112.01.I).
Further, applicant presents arguments as similarly presented in the “Remarks” filed on 12/10/2025. Applicant has not addressed the examiner’s previous response to said arguments; therefore, the response below may be similar to the response provided in the previous office action. Applicant argues that a negative electrode active material consisting of (as amended) artificial graphite particles is not disclosed by Azami et al. (see pgs. 7-9 of the “Remarks”). Applicant cites Claim 1, [0034], [0046], [0048], [0129], and [0142] of Azami et al. to suggest that Azami et al. teaches a combination of natural graphite particles as a first carbon and artificial graphite particles as a second carbon, rather than only artificial graphite particles.
“’A known or obvious composition does not become patentable simply because it has been described as somewhat inferior to some other product for the same use.’ In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553, 31 USPQ2d 1130, 1132 (Fed. Cir. 1994)” …
"(‘A reference does not teach away if it merely expresses a general preference for an alternative invention but does not criticize, discredit or otherwise discourage investigation into the invention claimed.’) (internal quotations omitted) (quoting DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 567 F.3d 1314, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2009)” (emphasis in original) (see MPEP 2145.X.D.1).
In this case, upon further consideration, Azami et al. specifies that the first carbon can be natural graphite or artificial graphite to the extent that it is spherical graphite that can absorb and desorb cations (para. 37). Azami et al. further recognizes that natural graphite is a softer material resulting in degradation of the absorption and desorption characteristics, but is preferably used in combination with the second carbon (harder material such as artificial graphite) to reduce manufacturing costs (para. 37) (emphasis added). Azami et al. recognizes the superiority of artificial graphite by noting that artificial graphite is harder than natural graphite and can prevent the deformation of the first carbon during electrode pressing when used in combination with natural graphite (para. 44). Azami et al. recognizes that artificial graphite is typically used to obtain a high performance negative electrode (para. 37).
Further, there are additional advantages and disadvantages of natural graphite and artificial graphite that are recognized in the field of endeavor as further evident by Xu et al. Xu et al. teaches that natural graphite has high energy density, wide source, and low cost, but the use of natural graphite in power batteries is limited due to poor cycle life and rate charge-discharge capacity. While, artificial graphite is widely studied and applied in power batteries due to its stable structure, but can realize large current discharge and long cycle life (Xu et al., [0005]).
"Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971)" (see MPEP 2123.II). Azami et al. does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage investigation into the invention claimed, but rather provides a preference for the use of natural graphite in consideration of the advantages and disadvantages of both artificial graphite and natural graphite; it is reasonable for one of ordinary skill in the art to select artificial graphite as the first and second carbon, as Azami et al. explicitly states that the first carbon can be either natural graphite or artificial graphite, while the second carbon is artificial graphite (para. 24, 37 of Azami et al.). Therefore, applicant’s arguments are deemed unpersuasive.
As previously presented, applicant argues that the negative electrode active material produces unexpected results when it comprises a carbon coating layer and sulfur content as claimed, referencing Tables 1-2, Examples 1-4, and Comparative Examples 1-5 of the specification (see pg. 9 of the “Remarks”).
“Objective evidence which must be factually supported by an appropriate affidavit or declaration to be of probative value includes evidence of unexpected results … See, for example, In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705, 222 USPQ 191, 196 (Fed. Cir. 1984)” (see MPEP 716.01(c)).
“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. In re Hill, 284 F.2d 955, 128 USPQ 197 (CCPA 1960)” (see MPEP 716.02(d)(II)).
“An affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 must compare the claimed subject matter with the closest prior art to be effective to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Burckel, 592 F.2d 1175, 201 USPQ 67 (CCPA 1979)” (see MPEP 716.02(e)).
Applicant has not filed an affidavit or declaration to provide objective evidence of unexpected results. Referencing Table 1 of applicant’s specification, Examples 1-4 show test results for a sulfur content of 23.1, 26.2, 22.2, and 29.4 ppm, respectively. As a sufficient number of tests inside and outside the claimed range of 15-40 ppm (nor a narrower range encompassing the sulfur content of the examples such as 22.2-29.4 ppm) are not compared, unexpected results cannot be established. Specifically, applicant does not provide tests for a sulfur content within the range of 15-21 ppm, 24-25 ppm, 27-28 ppm, and 30-40 ppm. There is also no obvious trend that can be observed from Table 2 nor recognized in applicant’s disclosure. Further, Comparative Examples 1-4 only provide tests for a sulfur content of 8.3, 10.2, 74.0, and 52.0 ppm, in which is not a sufficient number of tests outside the claimed range. Therefore, applicant’s arguments are deemed unpersuasive.
The new grounds of rejection are necessitated by amendment.
Cited Prior Art
Previously Cited Azami et al. (E.P. Pat. No. 2945209 A1) (“Azami et al.”)
Previously Cited Choi et al. (U.S. Pat. No 20180190985 A1) (“Choi et al.”)
Previously Cited Won et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20150349335 A1) (“Won et al.”)
Previously Cited Sakamoto et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20100215567 A1) (“Sakamoto et al.”)
Previously Cited Sotowa et al. (E.P. Pat. No. 2602851 B1) (“Sotowa et al.”)
Previously Cited Wakizaka et al. (U.S. Pat. No 20190237763 A1) (“Wakizaka et al.”)
Previously Cited Kajiyama et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 10193141 B2) (“Kajiyama et al.”)
Previously Cited Lee et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20160181612 A1) (“Lee et al.”)
Previously Cited Xu et al. (U.S. Pat No. 20190288279 A1) (“Xu et al.”)
Yanai et al. (JP. Pat. No. 2004296181 A) (“Yanai et al.”)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1, 6-9, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Azami et al. (E.P. Pat. No. 2945209 A1) in view of Won et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20150349335 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Azami et al. teaches a negative electrode comprising:
a negative electrode current collector, a negative electrode active material layer disposed on at least one surface of the negative electrode current collector, wherein the negative electrode active material comprises a negative electrode active material (para. 22), wherein
the negative electrode active material can consist of artificial graphite particles and sulfur distributed in the artificial graphite particles ([0066]-[0069] teaches a sulfur concentration (Sx) of a first carbon (such as artificial graphite, para. 37) and a sulfur concentration (Sy) of a second carbon (such as artificial graphite, para. 24) individually ranging from 0 ppm to 100 ppm satisfying Sx/Sy < 3). Further, Azami et al. teaches a total sulfur concentration within the negative electrode active material of 30 ppm (Table 5, Example 6 teaches sulfur concentrations Sx, Sy, and Sz in which can be added to obtain a total sulfur concentration), within the claimed range of 15 ppm to 40 ppm. It is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select a sulfur concentration within the range disclosed by Azami et al. of 0 ppm to 100 ppm satisfying Sx/Sy < 3 such as an Sx of 15 ppm and an Sy of 15 ppm; said concentrations are within the conditions of Azami’s disclosure and one of ordinary skill in the art would expect to obtain similar results such as charge/discharge without severe capacity degradation (para. 141).
Applicant’s disclosure specifies that the disclosed sulfur content in the negative electrode active material provides the randomized crystal structure of the active material particles ([0045]-[0046] of the spec., Claim 1). As the negative electrode active material of the claimed invention is substantially identical to the prior art products (both comprising artificial graphite particles as the negative electrode active material with a sulfur content within the limits of the claimed invention), the function and properties of forming a randomized crystal structure of the artificial graphite particles are presumed to be inherent:
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. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Therefore, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product. In re Best, 562 F.2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433. See also Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP 2112.01.I).
Azami et al. does not teach the artificial graphite particles comprising a carbon coating layer disposed thereon.
Won et al. teaches a negative electrode active material comprising a composite carbon particle including a core particle made of a crystalline-based carbon such as artificial graphite (forming an artificial graphite particle) consisting of an amorphous carbon coating layer disposed on the surface (para. 6, 16).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the negative electrode active material of Azami et al. to consist of an amorphous carbon coating layer disposed on the artificial graphite particles as described by Won et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the described modification to provide a coating layer in which improves initial efficiency characteristics, high-rate charge/discharge characteristics and cycle-life characteristics of a battery (Won et al., para. 41).
Regarding Claim 6, Azami et al. is modified by Won et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above.
Azami et al. does not teach the carbon coating layer included in an amount of 0.1 wt.% to 5 wt.% in the negative electrode active material.
Won et al. teaches a negative active material (composite carbon particle) with the carbon coating layer included in an amount of 5 wt. % (para. 17, 83), meeting the limitations of the claimed range of 0.1 wt.% to 5 wt.%.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the negative electrode active material of Azami et al. by Won et al. to include the carbon coating layer included in an amount of 5 wt.%, included in the claimed range of 0.1 wt.% to 5 wt.%. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the described modification to secure high-power characteristics of a rechargeable lithium battery (Won et al., para. 36).
Regarding Claim 7, Azami et al. is modified by Won et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. As applied to Claim 1, the negative electrode active material of Azami et al. is modified by Won et al. to include a carbon coating layer comprising amorphous carbon. Therefore, all claim limitations are met.
Regarding Claim 8, Azami et al. is modified by Won et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. Further, Azami et al. teaches the negative electrode active material comprising a specific surface area observed using the BET (well known as the Brunauer-Emmett-Teller) method in a range of 0.5 m2/g to 8 m2/g (para. 62), within and overlapping the claimed range of 0.3 m2/g to 2.5 m2/g (see MPEP 2144.05.I). Therefore, all claim limitations are met.
Regarding Claim 9, Azami et al. is modified by Won et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above.
Azami et al. does not teach an average particle diameter (D50) of the negative electrode active material in a range of 10 µm to 25 µm.
Won et al. teaches the average particle diameter of the composite carbon particle (negative electrode active material) of about 10 to 13 µm, lying inside the claimed range of 10 µm to 25 µm (para. 94).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the negative electrode active material of Azami et al. by Won et al. to include an average particle diameter of the negative electrode active material of about 10 to 13 µm, lying inside the claimed range of 10 µm to 25 µm (para. 94) (see MPEP § 2144.05, I). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the described modification to provide a suitable average particle diameter for a negative electrode active material to provide improved high-power characteristics for a rechargeable lithium battery (Won et al., para. 105).
Regarding Claim 15, Azami et al. is modified by Won et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. Azami teaches a secondary battery comprising a positive electrode facing the negative electrode, a separator disposed between the negative electrode and the positive electrode, and an electrolytic solution (electrolyte) (para. 22). Therefore, all claim limitations are met.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Azami et al. (E.P. Pat. No. 2945209 A1) in view of Won et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20150349335 A1), and further in view of Choi et al. (U.S. Pat. No 20180190985 A1).
Regarding Claim 2, Azami et al. is modified by Won et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above.
Azami et al. does not explicitly teach the artificial graphite particles comprising secondary particles in which a plurality of primary artificial graphite particles are bonded.
Choi et al. teaches a negative electrode active material comprising an artificial graphite particle in which is a secondary particle formed of at least one (analogous to 1 or more encompassing a plurality under BRI) primary artificial graphite particles that are agglomerated (bonded) (para. 17).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the artificial graphite particles of Azami et al. where the artificial graphite particle is a secondary particle in which at least one (encompassing a plurality) of primary artificial graphite particles are agglomerated as taught by Choi et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would find the teachings of Choi et al. useful in providing an alternative structure of the artificial graphite particles and further motivated to perform the described modification to form a carbon-base active material capable of reversible intercalation and deintercalation of lithium ions as well as maintaining structural and electrical properties (Choi et al., para. 5).
Regarding Claim 3, Azami et al. is modified by Won et al. and Choi et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 2 above.
Azami et al. does not explicitly teach primary artificial graphite particles in which have an average particle diameter (D50) of 5 µm to 15 µm.
Choi et al. teaches an average particle diameter D50 of primary artificial graphite particles of 8 µm (para. 147), within the claimed ranged of 5 µm to 15 µm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the negative electrode active material of Azami et al. to include an average particle diameter (D50) of 8 µm of the primary artificial graphite particles, within the claimed ranged of 5 µm to 15 µm. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the described modification to provide an average particle diameter in which reduces a decrease in the orientation index, discharge capacity, and rapid charging performance (Choi et al., para. 48).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Azami et al. (E.P. Pat. No. 2945209 A1) in view of and further evidenced by Won et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20150349335 A1).
Regarding Claim 4, Azami et al. is modified by Won et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above Azami et al. teaches the sulfur distributed inside the second carbon in which can be artificial graphite comprising particles (para. 24, 45). Further, it is well known in the field of endeavor for artificial graphite particles to comprise a crystal structure as further evident by Won et al. (para. 43). Therefore, the sulfur can be distributed in a crystal structure of the artificial graphite particles.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Azami et al. (E.P. Pat. No. 2945209 A1) in view of Won et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20150349335 A1), and further in view of Sakamoto et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20100215567 A1).
Regarding Claim 10, Azami et al. is modified by Won et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above.
Azami et al. does not teach a true density of the negative electrode active material in a range of 2.2 g/cc to 2.3 g/cc.
Sakamoto et al. teaches a negative electrode active material with a true density of 2.255 g/cm3 (g/cc), within the claimed range of 2.2 g/cc to 2.3 g/cc.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the negative electrode active material of Amazi et al. to include a true density of 2.255 g/cc as taught by Sakamoto et al., within the claimed range of 2.2 g/cc to 2.3 g/cc. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the described modification to provide a true density of the electrode active materials in which provide a high service capacity and excellent input/output characteristics (Sakamoto et al., para. 8).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Azami et al. (E.P. Pat. No. 2945209 A1) in view of Won et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20150349335 A1), and further in view of Sotowa et al. (E.P. Pat. No. 2602851 B1).
Regarding Claim 11, Azami et al. is modified by Won et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above.
Azami et al. does not teach a spacing d002 of a crystal plane, which is measured by X-ray diffraction analysis (XRD) of the artificial graphite particles, is in a range of 0.3354 nm to 0.3370 nm.
Sotowa et al. teaches a negative electrode active material wherein d002 (well known to be a spacing of a crystal plane) measured by X-ray diffraction [analysis] of artificial graphite in a range of 0.3359 nm to 0.3368 nm (para. 39-42), lying inside the claimed range of 0.3354 nm to 0.3370 nm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the negative electrode active material of Azami et al. by Sotowa et al. to include d002 (well known as a spacing of a crystal plane) measured by X-ray diffraction [analysis] of artificial graphite in a range of 0.3359 nm to 0.3368 nm (para. 39-42), lying inside the claimed range of 0.3354 nm to 0.3370 nm (see MPEP § 2144.05, I). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the described modification to provide a lithium secondary battery with improved capacitance and charge-discharge cycle characteristics (Sotowa et al., para. 1).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Azami et al. (E.P. Pat. No. 2945209 A1) in view of Won et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20150349335 A1), and further in view of Wakizaka et al. (U.S. Pat. No 20190237763 A1) as further evidenced by Kajiyama et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 10193141 B2).
Regarding Claim 12, Azami et al. is modified by Won et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above.
Azami et al. does not teach a crystallite size, which is determined by a full width at half maximum of a peak of a (002) plane in an X-ray diffraction spectrum of the artificial graphite particles, in a range of 60 nm to 200 nm.
Wakizaka et al. teaches a negative electrode active material such as artificial graphite (para. 4-5) wherein a crystallize size in a (002) plane (well known to include observation of a FWHM peak as further evident by Kajiyama et al., para. 2 of “Description”) of 90 nm or more measured using an X-ray diffraction method (spectrum) (para. 21), within and overlapping the claimed range of 60 nm to 200 nm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the negative electrode active material of Azami et al. to include a crystallize size measured using an X-ray diffraction method in a (002) plane of 90 nm or more (spectrum) (para. 21) as taught by Wakizaka et al., within and overlapping the claimed range of 60 nm to 200 nm (see MPEP § 2144.05, I). Further, it is evident that the crystallite size can be determined by a full width at half maximum peak in said (002) plane as further evidenced by Kajiyama et al. (para. 2 of “Description”). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the described modification to provide a lithium-ion secondary battery with an increased electrode density and reduced battery size (Wakizaka et al., para. 40).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Azami et al. (E.P. Pat. No. 2945209 A1) in view of Won et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20150349335 A1), and further in view of Sotowa et al. (E.P. Pat. No. 2602851 B1) as further evident by Lee et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20160181612 A1).
Regarding Claim 14, Azami et al. is modified by Won et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above.
Azami et al. does not teach an area ratio I(004)/I(110) during X-ray diffraction analysis of the negative electrode in a range of 8 to 14.
Sotowa et al. teaches a peak intensity ratio indicating orientation I(110)/I(004) of 0.1 to 0.9 (equivalent to an I(004)/I(110) of ~1.1 to 10) (para. 19), overlapping the claimed range of 8 to 14.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the negative electrode active material of Azami et al. to include a peak intensity ratio indicating orientation equivalent to ratio I(004)/I(110) of ~1.1 to 10 as taught by Sotowa et al., overlapping the claimed range of 8 to 14 (see MPEP § 2144.05, I). As further evident by Lee et al., orientation ratio I(110)/I(004) is analogous to an area ratio in which I(004) and I(110) can be determined by the peak area of the (004) peak and (110) peak, respectively (para. 95). As Azami et al. is silent to an area ratio, one of ordinary skill in the art would look to existing art for a suitable area ratio, a common measurement observed in the field of endeavor. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the described modification to provide a lithium secondary battery with improved capacitance and charge-discharge cycle characteristics (Sotowa et al., para. 1).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Azami et al. (E.P. Pat. No. 2945209 A1) in view of Won et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20150349335 A1) as applied to Claim 1 above, or in the alternative, further in view of Yanai et al. (JP. Pat. No. 2004296181 A).
Regarding Claim 16, Azami et al. is modified by Won et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. As applied to Claim 1, Azami et al. teaches sulfur present in the negative electrode active material comprising artificial graphite particles ([0066]-[0069] teaches a sulfur concentration (Sx) of a first carbon (such as artificial graphite, para. 37) and a sulfur concentration (Sy) of a second carbon (such as artificial graphite, para. 24) individually ranging from 0 ppm to 100 ppm satisfying Sx/Sy < 3). Therefore, the scope of Azami et al.’s invention and the disclosed limits of the sulfur content encompass a case in which Sx is 15 and Sy is 10, providing a total sulfur concentration (Sx + Sy) of 25 ppm, within the limits of 15 ppm to 29.4 ppm.
Alternatively, Yanai et al. specifically teaches sulfur in a negative electrode active material present in an amount of 15 ppm or more and preferably 50 ppm or less (Claim 1, [0009], [0015]). Yanai et al. teaches that when the sulfur content is within said range, a compound of lithium and sulfur is generated on the surface of the carbon active material in a suitable amount which provides suitable charge/discharge characteristics such as improved charge/discharge efficiency ([0010]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the negative electrode active material of Azami et al. to include sulfur present in an amount of 15 ppm or more and 50 ppm or less as taught by Yanai et al., within and overlapping the claimed range of 15 ppm to 29.4 ppm (see MPEP 2144.05.I). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the described modification to provide suitable charge/discharge characteristics such as improved charge/discharge efficiency as described above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINA RENEE DAULTON whose telephone number is (703)756-5413. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, ULA RUDDOCK can be reached at (571) 272-1481. 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.
/C.R.D./Examiner, Art Unit 1729
/ULA C RUDDOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights