DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is responsive to the August 6th, 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 .
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendments received on August 6th, 2026:
Claims 1-4, 6-12, 14-15, and 17 are pending in the current application. Claims 1 and 4 are amended. Claims 5, 13, and 16 are cancelled. Claim 17 is newly added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed August 6th, 2026 have been fully considered as further described below:
Regarding Claim 1, applicant argues that Azami teaches natural graphite as the preferred negative electrode active material (pg. 6, para. 2 of the “Remarks”).
As previously cited, "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).
Examiner acknowledges that Azami discloses a preference for natural graphite; however, the entirety of the reference must be considered for what it would reasonably disclose to a person having ordinary skill in the art. Further, the scope of Azami’s invention is not limited to only preferred embodiments. Azami 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; and further recognizes advantages of natural graphite and artificial graphite (natural graphite: lower manufacturing costs, artificial graphite: harder than natural graphite, typically used to obtain a high-performance negative electrode, para. 37). Azami 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 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). Therefore, applicant’s arguments are deemed unpersuasive.
Further, applicant argues that there would be no reason to modify the negative electrode active material of Azami by Won wherein the artificial graphite particles consist of a carbon coating layer as Azami does not disclose a carbon coating layer (pg. 6, para. 3 of the “Remarks”).
“Obviousness can be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so. In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 986, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2006)” (see MPEP 2143.01).
The negative electrode active material of Azami et al. is modified to consist of an amorphous carbon coating layer disposed on the artificial graphite particles as taught by Won et al. (para. 6, 16). 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). Therefore, a reasonable motivation is provided to perform the described modification and arrive at the claimed invention; applicant’s arguments are deemed unpersuasive.
Further, applicant argues that Azami does not disclose a substantially similar product nor process to sufficiently establish inherency (pg. 6, para. 4 of the “Remarks”). Examiner’s position on said arguments is maintained and is recited below for clarity:
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).
Applicant also has the opportunity to provide evidence in the form of an affidavit/declaration to prove that said property is not inherent.
Applicant argues that the negative electrode active material produces unexpected results based on the claimed sulfur content and the disclosed examples of the specification should be sufficient to establish unexpected results (see pg. 7 of the “Remarks”).
“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)” (emphasis added, see MPEP 716.02(d)(II)).
The evidence in the specification (i.e., Table 1) has been fully considered and is deemed insufficient to establish unexpected results based on large gaps in data. Examiner acknowledges that the amended sulfur concentration of 22.2 to 29.4 ppm is supported by the specification (Examples 1-4, Table 1); and the disclosed examples provide a sufficient number of tests inside the claimed range. Applicant suggests that Comparative Examples (CE) 1-5 should provide a sufficient number of tests outside the claimed range; Examiner disagrees upon further consideration. CE 1-5 provide sulfur concentrations above and below the claimed range of 22.2 to 29.4 ppm. Specifically, CE 1-3 provide sulfur concentrations of 9.4, 8.3, and 10.2 ppm, respectively (below the lower limit of 22.2 ppm); however, a large gap in results exists from 10.2 - 22.2 ppm. CE 4-5 provide sulfur concentrations of 74 and 52 ppm, respectively (above the claimed upper limit of 29.4 ppm); however, a large gap exists from 29.4 – 52 ppm. As Azami teaches a sulfur concentration of 30 ppm, very close to the upper limit of 29.4 ppm, the proposed advantages would be expected. Additional evidence would be required to prove criticality of said upper and lower limits of the claimed range; and to prove that the concentration of 30 ppm of Azami would not exhibit the superior properties of the present invention:
“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)).
“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)).
Further, many of the advantages of the claimed invention are disclosed by the prior art; 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]). Therefore, applicant’s arguments are deemed unpersuasive.
Examiner recommends filing an affidavit/declaration with evidence proving unexpected results/criticality to advance prosecution.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, overlapping the claimed range of 22.2 ppm to 29.4 ppm. "In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976)" (see MPEP 2144.05.I). As additional support, 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), in which is close to the upper limit 29.4 ppm of the claimed range; a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed amounts do not overlap but are merely close. (Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985), see MPEP 2144.05.I). 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.
In the same field of endeavor, Won et al. teaches analogous art of 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).
Therefore, 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.%.
Therefore, 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).
Therefore, 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 and 17 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.
In the same field of endeavor, Choi et al. teaches analogous art of 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).
Therefore, 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.
Therefore, 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 as taught by Choi et al., 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).
Regarding Claim 17, Azami et al. does not explicitly teach that the artificial graphite particles consist of secondary particles in which a plurality of primary artificial graphite particles are bonded.
Choi et al. teaches a negative electrode active material comprising artificial graphite particles consisting of secondary particles 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, para. 69).
Therefore, 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 particles consist of secondary particles in which at least one (encompassing a plurality) of primary artificial graphite particles are agglomerated/bonded 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).
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). As applied to Claim 1, the prior art teaches the same negative electrode active material of the claimed invention and the randomized crystal structure, a property thereof, is deemed inherent. Therefore, the sulfur can be distributed in the randomized 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.
In the same field of endeavor, Sakamoto et al. teaches analogous art of 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.
Therefore, 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.
In the same field of endeavor, Sotowa et al. teaches analogous art of 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.
Therefore, 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.
In the same field of endeavor, Wakizaka et al. teaches analogous art of 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.
Therefore, 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.
Therefore, 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).
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.
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